ROBERT S. ARRIGHI

1941

Written by

BRINGING THE FUTURE WITHIN REACH

2016 Years of

the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center

Celebrating

NASA/SP—2016-627

Bringing the Future Within Reach—

Celebrating 75 Years of the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center

By: Robert S. Arrighi

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

February 2016
Available from

NASA STI Program National Technical Information Service

Mail Stop 148 5285 Port Royal Road

NASA Langley Research Center Springfield, VA 22161

Hampton, VA 23681-2199 703-605-6000

 This report is available in electronic form at http://www.sti.nasa.gov/and http://ntrs.nasa.gov/
Table of Contents

Foreword...................................................................................................................................................... vii

Preface........................................................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Overview................................................................................................................................................ 4 

History Lessons.................................................................................................................................... 5 

Endnotes for Introduction................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 1: Rising From the Mud ............................................................................................................... 9

Groundwork for an Engine Laboratory ..........................................................................................12

Building the Laboratory.....................................................................................................................14

Completing the Job.............................................................................................................................23

Endnotes for Chapter 1 .....................................................................................................................28

Chapter 2: Keeping Them Flying .............................................................................................................31

Running the Lab.................................................................................................................................34

Wartime in Ohio ................................................................................................................................36

Wartime Investigations......................................................................................................................42

Emergence of the Turbojet................................................................................................................51

Endnotes for Chapter 2 .....................................................................................................................55

Chapter 3: Setting Forth............................................................................................................................59

Postwar Adjustments.........................................................................................................................62

Jet Propulsion......................................................................................................................................66

Backbone of the Laboratory ..............................................................................................................69

Chasing the Icing Clouds...................................................................................................................71 

Supersonic Missile Research.............................................................................................................78

Rocket Combustion ...........................................................................................................................82 

Endnotes for Chapter 3 .....................................................................................................................85

Chapter 4: Breakthrough...........................................................................................................................89

New Directions...................................................................................................................................91

Nuclear Aircraft .................................................................................................................................94

Flight Safety ........................................................................................................................................97

Jet Propulsion....................................................................................................................................102

Large Supersonic Wind Tunnels....................................................................................................106

High-Energy Propellants.................................................................................................................110

Endnotes for Chapter 4 ...................................................................................................................116

Chapter 5: Challenges of Space ..............................................................................................................121

Kickstarting the Space Program .....................................................................................................124

Project Mercury ................................................................................................................................128

Reaching Forth..................................................................................................................................133

Table of Contents iii
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Chapter 5 Continued

Expansion..........................................................................................................................................134

Electric Propulsion...........................................................................................................................142

Nuclear Propulsion ..........................................................................................................................145

Taming Liquid Hydrogen................................................................................................................147

The Development Side.....................................................................................................................150 

Endnotes for Chapter 5 ...................................................................................................................156

Chapter 6: Limitless Opportunities.......................................................................................................161

Zero Gravity Demonstration..........................................................................................................163

Reappearance of Aeronautics..........................................................................................................164

New Materials...................................................................................................................................168

Interactive Computing .....................................................................................................................169

Lewis Reaches Out...........................................................................................................................170

A New Generation of Space Missions...........................................................................................173

Emergence of Space Power..............................................................................................................177

Aerospace Safety...............................................................................................................................180

Giants at Plum Brook Station.........................................................................................................182

Departures.........................................................................................................................................185

Endnotes for Chapter 6 ...................................................................................................................186

Chapter 7: Crisis.......................................................................................................................................191

Turbulent Skies ................................................................................................................................194

Pollution Monitoring .......................................................................................................................194

AWARENESS.................................................................................................................................198

Energy Systems for Earth................................................................................................................200

Space Technology Hits the Road....................................................................................................206

Aeronautics Expanding....................................................................................................................207

Titan-Centaur...................................................................................................................................214

Communications ..............................................................................................................................217

Research Analysis Center................................................................................................................219

New Perspective................................................................................................................................220

Endnotes for Chapter 7 ...................................................................................................................223

Chapter 8: Bootstrapping the Center ....................................................................................................229

Recreating Lewis...............................................................................................................................231

Aeronautic Achievements................................................................................................................233

New Endeavors in Space..................................................................................................................240

NASA’s New Mission......................................................................................................................245

Space Exploration Initiatives...........................................................................................................248

Lewis’s First 50 Years........................................................................................................................253

Endnotes for Chapter 8 ...................................................................................................................254

iv
John H. Glenn Research Center

Chapter 9: Reformation ..........................................................................................................................259

Zero Base Review.............................................................................................................................261

Space Station Transformation ........................................................................................................264

Launch Vehicles Travails .................................................................................................................267

Electric Propulsion in Space............................................................................................................270

Aeronautics .......................................................................................................................................271

Microgravity Research Blossoms....................................................................................................279

Physical Downsizing Begins............................................................................................................285

New Name........................................................................................................................................286

Endnotes for Chapter 9 ...................................................................................................................289

Chapter 10: Changing Missions.............................................................................................................295

Return to Flight................................................................................................................................297

Vision Takes Shape..........................................................................................................................301

Propelling NASA Across Space.....................................................................................................304

Institutional Impacts........................................................................................................................308

Refocusing the Vision ......................................................................................................................309

Glenn Orion Module Work.............................................................................................................313

Resetting the Space Program ..........................................................................................................316

Aviation Safety..................................................................................................................................319

The Changing Face of Glenn...........................................................................................................322 

Space Research and Technology .....................................................................................................325

New Day............................................................................................................................................330

Casting a Keen Eye Back .................................................................................................................332

Endnotes for Chapter 10 .................................................................................................................334

The Future.................................................................................................................................................341

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................343

Bibliographic Essay...................................................................................................................................345

Glenn History Resources.........................................................................................................................347

List of Images............................................................................................................................................349

Acronym List.............................................................................................................................................365

Index...........................................................................................................................................................369

Table of Contents v

Foreword

As the ground was broken in 1941 for the Aircraft 

Engine Research Laboratory (which would come to 

be known as the NASA Glenn Research Center), our 

predecessors had a solitary goal—to improve the state 

of aircraft engines. In the 75 years that followed, our 

goals evolved and multiplied as generations of researchers pushed the state of the art. Today we are experts in 

fields of research that had not even been dreamed of in 

1941. We have done much more than just “improve the 

state of aircraft engines.” 

The engine components, fuels, and materials that we 

tested to make aircraft fly faster, higher, and more

efficiently paved the way for the success of jet engines. 

Our fuels research was the proving ground for liquid 

hydrogen, which we managed through the Centaur 

program for journeys to the Moon and beyond. Our 

expertise in how fluids and combustion work in space 

became the foundation for our leading work in microgravity science. We find similar connections from the 

past to the present in all the work that we do. 

We continue to lead NASA in propulsion, energy

storage and conversion, materials research, and communications technology. For our work in these

areas and others, we have been awarded with well 

over one hundred R&D 100 Awards (the “Oscars of

Innovation” from R&D Magazine), two Robert J.

Collier Trophies, an Emmy for technical achievement, 

and numerous other recognitions. As our namesake 

John Glenn stated, “Research and development has 

been mankind’s most fundamental tool for meeting and shaping the challenges of the future.” Today 

we provide key support to NASA’s missions, and the

impact of our research is felt the world over. 

As our areas of research have evolved, one thing has

remained constant—the spirit of service and humility 

that characterizes Glenn. For that spirit and for hard

work, dedication, and innovation, I thank our past

employees who have brought us here, our current 

employees who bring pride to Glenn through their 

work today, and employees yet to come, who will

guide us through the next 75 years. 

Jim Free

Director, Glenn Research Center

Image 1: Glenn Center Director Jim Free (GRC–2013–C–00197).

Foreword vii
Image 2: Two women prepare instruments for data recording. The Aircraft Engine Research 

Laboratory (AERL) significantly increased the number of female employees during World War II 

(GRC–1944–C–05395). 
This book seeks to spotlight the NASA Glenn

Research Center’s accomplishments, people, and

research tools. It also aspires to elucidate the esoteric 

world of research laboratories, exhibit a large number 

of photographs and historical documents, and complement previous efforts to document the center’s history.

The history of science and technology is a wellestablished area in the overall field of history, and 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) has carved out a significant place in that 

realm. This book unavoidably discusses technological 

topics, but it also seeks to present Glenn’s role in the 

larger national advancement of technology, the effects 

of outside influences on research, and the evolution of 

technology over the years. 

The advancement of research and technology is

extremely difficult. For every success, there are failed 

concepts or successfully developed technologies that 

are shelved because of political, social, or budgetary reasons. Glenn’s history includes examples of all

of these categories. The advancement of the early turbojet engines, the demonstration of liquid hydrogen as 

a rocket propellant, the introduction of modern wind 

energy concepts, and the development of noise- and 

emission-reducing technologies for aircraft are just 

a few of Glenn’s noteworthy achievements that have 

benefited the nation.

Preface ix

Image 3: Test engineers in the Prop House control room in 1942 (GRC–1942–C–01072).

Preface
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

v v v v v v

Photographs play an essential role in this publication. 

There was a conscious effort to mix seminal images that 

have appeared in other center publications with newly 

discovered and lesser known examples. Photography

has had a vital function at the center since its beginning, 

with photographers documenting the construction of

facilities, capturing test footage for research, creating

well-composed images for publicity and recruiting,

and capturing visitors and staff. This book contains a 

mixture of these photographs, as well as the occasional 

candid photograph.

It also was important to include some of the actual

documents from the Glenn History Collection that 

were used to trace the center’s history. In 1999 Glenn 

established a History Office to collect and preserve 

historical materials and promote the center’s history 

through publications, websites, and other media. (A 

list of these publications can be found in the appendixes.) Materials in the History Collection include 

copies of official records sent to the National Archives, 

personal papers donated by some of the center’s luminaries, the complete run of the center’s newspaper, and 

various program and facility files.

Despite the demonstrated appreciation for history at 

the center and NASA’s larger responsibility to share 

its history and research with the public, the effort 

to document Glenn’s history was sporadic until the 

1990s. Early efforts include Helen Ford’s notes and 

timelines that document the construction and staffing during World War II (Helen Ford, “From a Historical Viewpoint,” c1944, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH); 

Associate Director Eugene Manganiello’s lists highlighting the technical accomplishments during the 

1940s and 1950s (Eugene Manganiello to Eugene 

Emme, 18 October 1960, “Additional Information for 

Draft Chronology” NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH); and Ronald 

Blaha’s compilation of almost all the test schedules

x

Image 4: Frontiers of Flight documented Lewis’s achievements 

during the 1940s. 

Image 5: Engines and Innovation provided the first in-depth history of 

the center (NASA SP–4306). 
John H. Glenn Research Center John H. Glenn Research Center

Preface xi

for the major facilities through the 1980s (Ronald 

Blaha, “Completed Schedules of NASA Lewis Wind 

Tunnels, Facilities and Aircraft 1944–1986,” February 

1987, NASA Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities 

Collection, Cleveland, OH).

Although the center newspaper has regularly written 

small pieces on different aspects of the center’s history, 

there have been relatively few publications specifically 

about Glenn. The short list includes GeorgeW. Gray’s

Frontiers of Flight: The Story of NACA Research (New 

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948), which describes the 

early technical accomplishments at the center and 

its sister National Advisory Commitee for Aeronautics (NACA) laboratories; John Holmfeld’s thesis

“The Site Selection for the NACA Engine Research 

Laboratory: A Meeting of Science and Politics”

(Master’s Essay, Case Institute of Technology, 1967) 

on the selection of Cleveland as the site for the NACA

engine laboratory; and James Hawker and Richard

Dali’s documentation of the center’s rebirth in 

1980—”Anatomy of an Organizational Change Effort

at the Lewis Research Center” (NASA–CR–4146). 

The most notable effort, by far, is Virginia Dawson’s

Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and

American Propulsion Technology (NASA SP–4306). 

This scholarly history, published in 1991, provides 

remarkable in-depth analysis of the center’s first

50 years. Twenty-five years later, I hope that this publication will complement the previous efforts, provide 

new stories and perspectives, and share unique photographs and documents spanning Glenn’s first 75 years.

Image 6: Zella Morowitz views an NACA model (GRC–1942–C–01013).
Image 7: Lockheed F–94B Starfire on the tarmac at the center for a 

noise-reduction study in December 1959 (GRC–1959–C–52343).
Introduction

“If you want to see the new world, come to Cleveland, 

come to Brook Park, come to this NASA facility.”

—Marcy Kaptur
Image 8: Test engineers prepare an Atlas-Centaur model for separation tests in the Space Power Chambers (GRC–1963–C–66358). 
Introduction 3

Introduction

Image 9: View of Glenn Research Center from the west in 1956 (GRC–1956–C–43664).

 “You make the future. It’s not predicting the future. 

That’s what I have told people many times,” former 

Center Director Abe Silverstein explained to historian Virginia Dawson in 1984. “People who say, 

how did you figure out what to do?’ Well, you are

making the future because the only thing that you 

have to go on when the future arrives is what you have 

stored up from the past.”1

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, 

has been making the future for 75 years. The center’s 

work with aircraft engines, high-energy fuels, communications technology, electric propulsion, energy conversion and storage, and materials and structures has

been, and continues to be, crucial to both the Agency 

and the region. Glenn has partnered with industry, 

universities, and other agencies to continually advance 

technologies that are propelling the nation’s aerospace 

community into the future. Nonetheless these continued accomplishments would not be possible without

the legacy of our first three decades of research, which 

led to over one hundred R&D 100 Awards, three

Robert J. Collier Trophies, and an Emmy. 

Glenn, which is located in Cleveland, Ohio, is 1 of 

10 NASA field centers, and 1 of only 3 that stem 

from an earlier research organization—the National

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). Glenn 

began operation in 1942 as the NACA Aircraft Engine 

Research Laboratory (AERL). In 1947 the NACA 

renamed the lab the Flight Propulsion Laboratory to 

reflect the expansion of the research. In September 

1948, following the death of the NACA’s Director of 

Aeronautics, George Lewis, the NACA rededicated 

the lab as the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory. 

On 1 October 1958, the lab was incorporated into the 

new NASA space agency and was renamed the NASA 

Lewis Research Center. Following John Glenn’s return 

to space on the space shuttle, on 1 March 1999 the

center name was changed once again, becoming the 

NASA John H. Glenn Research Center.a

 

a

For simplicity in this book, during the early years Glenn is referred 

to as the “AERL,” the “lab”, or the “laboratory”; during the rest of 

the NACA years (before October 1958), Glenn is referred to as 

the “lab,” the “laboratory,” or “Lewis”; and during the early NASA 

years (between Oct. 1958 and Mar. 1999), Glenn is referred to as 

the “center” or “Lewis.” After Mar. 1999, Glenn is referred to as 

the “center” or “Glenn.” Whenever a name change is described, the

actual names are used.
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

4

Overview

Although Congress established the NACA in 1915

as an advisory committee to coordinate U.S. aviation

research, the NACA began to operate its own research 

laboratory at Langley Field, Virginia, in 1920. In the 

late 1930s, when the United States became aware 

that Germany was producing aircraft with speeds and

altitudes superior to those of U.S. models, the NACA 

decided to establish two new research sites: Ames 

Aeronautic Laboratory in Sunnyvale, California, and 

the AERL in Cleveland, Ohio, alongside the Cleveland 

Municipal Airport. The AERL was unique in that it 

was dedicated entirely to issues concerning aircraft

engines.

The NACA broke ground for the AERL on

23 January 1941 and initiated research activities

16 months later. The laboratory strove to improve the

piston engines used to power Allied military aircraft

during World War II, and researchers studied superchargers, compressors, turbines, fuels, lubrication,

and entire engine systems in the AERL’s new facilities. 

The lab also began to address the new issues associated 

with the introduction of the first jet engines.

The AERL reorganized after the war and added new, 

more powerful test facilities, concentrating nearly all 

of its resources on the emerging jet engine technology. 

Renamed the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in 

1948, the lab began investigating rocket and ramjet 

engines for missile applications. Ramjets combust selfsustaining, high-velocity air intake to generate thrust. 

Researchers also began addressing flight safety issues 

such as crash survivability and ice formation, and analyzing high-energy propellants for rocket engines. 

Lewis expanded its field of research even further in 

the 1950s. Advanced rocket propellant studies led to 

the determination that the lightweight, highly reactive

liquid hydrogen could be safely used as a fuel.

Image 10: A mechanic prepares a General Electric I–40 turbojet for testing (GRC–1946–C–15677).
Introduction 5

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 11: Associate Director Abe Silverstein converses with General 

Curtis LeMay in 1957 (GRC–1957–C–45199).

Researchers continued to investigate flight safety issues 

and improve turbojet and ramjet engines. In the mid1950s Lewis researchers also began to study nuclear 

propulsion for both aircraft and rockets. 

The Soviet Union’s launch of the Sputnik satellite in 

October 1957 spurred the nation to pursue rockets 

and space missions more actively. The following year, 

Congress established the new NASA space agency 

with the three NACA laboratories serving as its 

foundation. For nearly 10 years, the center, renamed 

the NASA Lewis Research Center, concentrated all 

of its resources on the space program. Lewis’s work 

on liquid-hydrogen systems and chemical rockets 

was critical to the success of the Saturn and Centaur 

upper-stage rockets. Lewis managed the Centaur

Program and made significant advances in nuclear

and electric propulsion, space power generation, and 

space communications during this period.

While the Apollo Program completed a series of Moon 

landings in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Lewis

refocused its efforts to address a new set of largely

civilian aeronautical problems including noise abatement, emissions reduction, and supersonic transport. 

Lewis continued to manage Centaur (which was now 

launching both satellites and interplanetary spacecraft) 

and to work on nuclear propulsion and power.

The continual reduction of NASA’s budget in the early 

1970s and the development of the space shuttle, which 

Lewis did not play a primary role in, led to significant 

layoffs and program cancellations. In search of alternative research areas, Lewis introduced a series of new 

programs to remedy problems on Earth: pollution, 

renewable energy, energy-efficient engines, and communications. Lewis successfully applied its engine and 

space technology expertise to these new fields while 

maintaining its leadership in aeronautical research. 

Pulling itself up by the bootstraps in the early 1980s, 

Lewis acquired a diverse array of new programs involving Centaur, the new space station, communications 

satellites, and new efficient aircraft designs. 

Lewis made significant contributions to the space

station power system and the shuttle’s microgravity

experimental program in the 1990s, but federal budget deficits required serious cutbacks and restructuring across the Agency. Although the effects on the 

center were traumatic, Lewis remained resilient. In 

March 1999 the center was renamed the NASA John

H. Glenn Research Center. Glenn was realigned 

in 2004 to contribute to the new Vision for Space

Exploration and was active in the subsequent

development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle for

the Constellation Program. When Constellation was

replaced in 2010, the center began contributing to

the development of the new Crew Exploration

Vehicle as the Agency prepared to take humans to 

Mars, asteroids, and beyond.

History Lessons

The three pillars of the center’s success have been its 

robust physical assets, its astute leadership, and the 

accomplished staff. NASA is known for its test facilities, and Glenn is chocked full. Not only is nearly every 

square inch of Glenn’s main Lewis Field campus near 

Cleveland, Ohio, occupied, but Plum Brook Station, its 

6,000-acre remote testing facility in Sandusky, Ohio, 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

6

contains several world-class testing facilities. The wind 

tunnels and engine test chambers on the Lewis Field 

campus were unparalleled in the 1940s and 1950s.

In the 1960s, rocket stands, vacuum chambers, and 

microgravity facilities were introduced to address new 

requirements. Although the facilities added in recent 

decades have often been physically smaller, they are 

just as vital to emerging fields like computational studies and space communications. Glenn’s achievements 

would not have been possible without its impressive 

array of facilities and accompanying infrastructure.

The center’s leadership has frequently had the foresight to steer research into new areas of study just as 

aerospace technology and national needs were evolving. These changes have been abrupt and not always 

easy—completely refocusing on the turbojet in 1945, 

switching to space in 1958, returning to aeronautics 

in 1966, and emphasizing energy conversion in the 

1970s. Since that time, the center’s leadership has 

striven to provide a more diversified portfolio, balancing large space programs with continued aeronautics 

and communications work. 

“Lewis Means Teamwork” was not just a slogan, it 

was a way of life. Research was a collaborative effort 

that ultimately started and ended with the researchers and scientists, but it required the assistance of 

many others. Engineers from the Test Installations

Division integrated into the test facilities the experimental equipment that best suited the research goals. 

The mechanics and technicians installed the test hardware and made necessary adjustments. The analysts 

computed the test data. Many others made vital contributions, including the photographers who filmed 

the tests, the editors and graphic artists who prepared the reports, and the librarians who archived the

research. The complementary efforts of a wide swath 

of Glenn employees has produced a legacy of 75 years 

of accomplishments.

Nearly all of Glenn’s current core competencies can 

find their roots in the center’s NACA period and the 

early 1960s. In some cases the lineage is easy to trace. 

For example, NASA’s current ion engine is based 

on the engine that evolved from Harold Kaufman’s 

early 1960s thruster design and eventually powered 

Deep Space 1 and Dawn. Others, such as Brayton and

Image 12: Lewis employees gather at the original picnic grounds in summer 1969 (GRC–2015–C-06537).
Introduction 7

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 13: A Hall thruster is fired in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory 

(GRC–2000–C–01122).

Image 14: A technician prepares a test article in the Icing Research 

Tunnel (GRC–1985–C–09350).

Stirling power-conversion devices, had

their roots in the lab’s aircraft compressor

and turbine research during the 1940s and 

1950s. The 1990s shuttle and space station 

microgravity experiments stemmed from

early 1960s efforts to study liquid hydrogen

in microgravity, which in turn, required

the fluid dynamics experience from icing 

studies in the 1940s. Knowledge of these 

historical efforts can provide insights for 

current research and guide future progress.

Glenn’s history not only reminds us of past 

accomplishments but of the people and

efforts that led up to those feats. In particular, Glenn’s history acknowledges those who 

came before us and affirms our membership 

in a community that extends well beyond 

the 3,000 colleagues currently at the center. 

Our history binds us to our predecessors. Many of us 

work in the offices where some of the center’s greatest 

achievements were conceived, conduct research in the 

test cells where some of the early-generation jet engines 

were tested, walk by the hangar from which early pilots 

Howard Lilly and Joe Walker taxied their aircraft out 

onto the runway, or park next to a supersonic wind tunnel that analyzed early Saturn rocket designs. It is easy 

to get swept up with our daily responsibilities, but it is

important to take time to recognize the exceptional

accomplishments made by those who preceded us. 

Our history is all around us.

In 2004, former Center Director Julian Earls recalled 

the words of his father, “ ‘You can’t come back from 

some place you’ve never been.’ ” He joked, “I’m not 

quite sure I understand what he meant by that even to 

this day, but what it does emphasize is the importance 

of taking a look backward, appreciating those who 

have paved the way for us to be here, for the accomplishments we make, and the accomplishments we will

continue to make.”2

Endnotes for Introduction

1. Abe Silverstein interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 5 October 1984, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH, p. 14.

2. Julian Earls, “Introductory comments at the Realizing the Dream of Flight Symposium,” 5 November 

2003, Cleveland, OH. 
Image 15: Construction of the Flight Research Building in summer 1941. The hangar was 

the first structure at the new Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (GRC–2001–C–00334).
1. Rising from the Mud

“What only a few months ago was a mass of steel structures, concrete 

forms, and deep holes in the ground ... rapidly is becoming the world’s 

largest aircraft engine research laboratory.”

—Ray Sharp
Bringing The Future Within Reach: Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 16: Visitors view the hangar construction in 1941 (GRC–2011–C–00331).
Rising from the Mud 11

On Sunday, 3 September 1939, Britain and France 

declared war on Germany as Clevelanders gathered 

to watch the National Air Races at the future site of 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) Glenn Research Center. Over 70,000 people 

witnessed Art Chester’s record-breaking win in the

200-mile Greve Trophy Competition. The following 

day a significantly larger crowd watched the intrepid 

Roscoe Turner capture his third and final Thompson 

Trophy.3 The races, a Cleveland Labor Day tradition 

since 1929, provided an outlet for a public trying to 

grasp the ramifications of Germany’s invasion of

Poland that Friday. The United States would not enter 

the war for two more years but soon undertook preparations for that possibility. These measures led to the 

creation of what would become Glenn and its remote 

test site, Plum Brook Station.

Congress established the National Advisory

Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1915 to

coordinate the nation’s aeronautical research, which at 

the onset of World War I, seriously lagged behind its 

European counterparts.4

 The 12-member committee, 

composed of representatives from the military, industry, and other institutions, initially supported the military and aircraft industry in a purely advisory capacity. 

In 1917 the committee began constructing the Langley 

Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in Virginia in order 

to conduct research of its own. Langley built a series

of increasingly advanced wind tunnels during the

ensuing years to support the research activities.

George W. Lewis, the NACA’s Director of Aeronautical Research, served as a liaison between the committee

and the lab. By the mid-1930s NACA advances such 

as its eponymous engine cowling and collection of 

Rising from the Mud

Image 17: Crowds swarm to the edge of present-day NASA Glenn to view the 1932 National Air Races. The intensely popular event was the most 

evident sign of Cleveland’s ties to aviation, but the city also possessed a strong aircraft manufacturing industry and the nation’s largest and most 

innovative airport (The Cleveland Press Collection, Michael Schwartz Library, Cleveland State University). 
12

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

wing shapes helped establish the preeminence of the 

U.S. airline industry.5

Spurred by the realization that German aviation technology was ahead of the United States, the NACA 

hurriedly expanded its research capabilities in the 

early 1940s. This resulted in the Ames Aeronautical

Laboratory in Moffett Field, California, and the

Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) in 

Cleveland, Ohio, which is now known as Glenn.

Wartime shortages and contractual concerns initially 

hindered the construction of the AERL. The AERL’s 

first test facility began operation in May 1942, but 

construction of the lab continued for nearly two more 

years. The research staff began arriving from Langley 

in 1943, and the largest facility, the Altitude Wind 

Tunnel (AWT), was completed in January 1944. By 

that time the NACA’s new engine laboratory was

already contributing to the war effort.

Groundwork for an Engine Laboratory 

Famed aviator Charles Lindbergh was also a longstanding member of the NACA’s Executive

Committee. He and George Lewis made several trips

to Europe in the mid-1930s to review foreign aeronautical research capabilities. They discovered that the 

German aircraft industry had not only restored itself 

after being decimated during World War I but had 

surpassed the United States in several areas.6

 Germany 

was developing aircraft that could fly higher and faster 

than U.S. aircraft and had a large, robust aeronautical

research establishment. German engineers paid

particular attention to engine research, an area that the

NACA had largely ignored. Lewis and Lindbergh’s 

findings, coupled with the increased belligerence of the 

Nazi regime, left many in the NACA and Congress 

anxious.7

The NACA formed a Future Research Facilities

Special Committee in late 1938 to identify the 

types of facilities needed to expand its research. The

Langley campus was too congested to accommodate these new facilities, so the NACA decided to 

build its new high-speed flight laboratory elsewhere.

Lindbergh led a team that analyzed different locations 

vying for the site, including Cleveland.8

 The Cleveland

Chamber of Commerce’s bid emphasized the city’s

proximity to universities and natural resources, the

eminence of the Cleveland Municipal Airport, and the 

city’s continued support for aviation.9

 In the end, the

NACA decided to build its new Ames Aeronautical 

Laboratory in Sunnyvale, California, but newspapers 

reported that Cleveland had been the second choice.10

The Lindbergh committee also reported on the

nation’s dearth of aircraft engine research. In 1938 only 

12 or so of Langley’s more than 160 researchers were 

working on engines.11,12 In October 1939 the NACA 

began studying what types of facilities would be 

needed for an engine research laboratory. The report,

issued on 23 January 1940, called for a new $10 million

laboratory that would include an engine test stand, 

a fuels and lubrication facility, and—after some

debate—a wind tunnel for engines.13 Congress

approved funds for the new laboratory in June 1940, 

just as the war in Europe escalated.14

Image 18: Cleveland Chamber of Commerce invitation to the NACA 

for what would become the Ames lab.
Rising from the Mud 13

John H. Glenn Research Center

After six months of comparatively modest levels of 

fighting, Germany had quickly conquered Denmark

and Norway in April 1940, Belgium and the

Netherlands in May, and France in June. Soon after, 

Italy declared war on France and Britain, and German

U-boats began targeting ships ferrying supplies from 

the United States to Britain. The Battle of Britain, 

which commenced in July, turned into the aerial Blitz 

of London in early September.15

It was in this atmosphere that the NACA decided 

where to place its new engine laboratory. When 62 

sites submitted bids in July 1940, the NACA quickly 

dismissed 16 for not meeting the prerequisite criteria. 

In August, a review team visited the top 20 potential sites, including 5 in Ohio. The group visited with

local officials, inspected the locations, and discussed 

infrastructure and utilities.16 They visited Cleveland 

on August 22.17

The NACA brought Rudolph Gagg in from Wright 

Aeronautical to supervise the design of the laboratory. 

During an 8 October 1940 meeting, Gagg strongly recommended the selection of Cleveland. At that point, 

Glenview, Illinois, had a slight lead in the NACA’s

intricate site-ranking scheme. The committee reconvened the following week in Cleveland, ostensibly to 

gather additional data, but in reality to secure commitments from city officials. The scientific ranking process 

had whittled the site list down to the point where politics could take over. Frederick Crawford and Clifford

Gildersleeve, of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, 

led a negotiating group that consisted of officials from

the Cleveland Municipal Airport, the Air Race

Association, and the power company.18

There were several issues standing between Cleveland 

and the new lab, including the location, utility rates, and 

the grandstands for the air races. The airport agreed to 

relocate the proposed site from Brookpark Road to a 

more secluded plot between its northern fenceline and 

the Rocky River valley. This site served as a parking 

lot for the air races.19 Crawford assured the NACA

representatives that the air races, which were not run

in 1940, were permanently over, and the stands along 

the edge of the property would be removed. Crawford 

also brokered a deal in which the electric company 

would provide discounted rates if the lab agreed to

operate its large facilities overnight when demand 

for electricity was low.20 On 24 October 1940, the 

Image 19: Aerial view of the National Air Races and parking lot in September 1938 (GRC–1991–C–01875).
14

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

NACA formally selected Cleveland as the site 

for the new aircraft engine research lab. The press

announced the selection four weeks later.21

Building the Laboratory

On the blustery afternoon of 23 January 1941, 

several prominent Ohio politicians joined NACA 

officials and a handful of local reporters for the 

AERL groundbreaking ceremony. After a lunch 

downtown at the prestigious Hotel Cleveland, 

the group rode out to the airfield for a few brief

remarks and a photo opportunity with the decorative pick and shovel. Despite the smiles, the 

war in Europe loomed in everyone’s mind. When 

asked why the new lab was needed, NACA committee member Edward Warner replied, “The

difference between winning a war and losing it may

be the difference between [a] 1000 and 2000-horsepower motor, or the difference between [the] ability 

to fly at 20,000 feet or 30,000 feet.” He darkly added,

Image 20: Groundbreaking ceremony for the AERL in January 1941. Left to right: William Hopkins, John Berry, Ray Sharp, 

Frederick Crawford, S. Paul Johnston, George Brett, Edward Warner, Sidney Kraus, Edward Blythin, and George Lewis 

(GRC–1982–C–06410).

Image 21: Surveyors taking measurements for the NACA’s engine lab in 

August 1941 (GRC–2011–C–00347).22
Rising from the Mud 15

John H. Glenn Research Center

“The consequences of the work done here may mean 

the continuance of our ability to exist.”23

Charles Herrmann, a construction engineer from 

Langley, set up an office in a small radio shack on 

the edge of a frozen airfield. He was joined in the 

coming weeks by Helen Ford, an assistant administrator from NACA Headquarters, and inspector 

William Waite. The group considered themselves as 

pioneers establishing an outpost in the north. The 

once-teeming grandstands now appeared hazy in the 

wintery distance.24

Herrmann and Ford hired local construction crews 

to build the buildings and facilities, supervised the 

work of the inspectors, and interviewed potential 

employees. In addition to these tasks, Ford managed 

to keep the fire in the two-room radio house burning 

and supply coffee for the growing number of construction engineers. Herrmann and Ford regularly 

worked into the night to ensure that the projects 

continued on schedule.25

Image 22: Helen Ford (center) and Charles Herrmann (right) in front of the lab’s first administrative building, the Farm House, in October 1941 

(GRC–2006–C–01209).

Image 23: The radio shack office was located along Brookpark Road just 

east of the lab’s entrance, in 1942 (GRC–2011–C–00346).
16

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Meanwhile at Langley, the AERL design team was 

at work in an office above the Structural Research

Laboratory designing the test facilities, laboratories, and offices that would soon populate the AERL 

site.26 The six principal structures were the Engine

Research Building, the hangar, the Fuels and

Lubrication Building, the Administration Building, the 

Engine Propeller Research Building, and the AWT, 

with the Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) added in 1943.

James Braig arrived from Langley in the spring to

supervise the storage of the incoming equipment and 

supplies underneath the only available structure, the 

grandstands. On 30 July 1941, the slowly growing staff 

of construction engineers and inspectors relocated to 

an empty residence, “the Farm House,” along the main 

road entering the site.27 

v v v v v v

Concurrently, another major construction effort was 

underway 60 miles to the west in Sandusky, Ohio. In 

late 1940 the U.S. War Department had begun making plans to build several dozen munitions manufacturing facilities. It would be another year before the 

nation entered World War II, but the government 

did not wish to repeat the mistakes that it had made

before World War I. The nation’s failure to coordinate 

its ordnance manufacturing capabilities in advance of

that conflict had hampered the military’s effectiveness.

Image 24: The AERL design team works in an office above Langley’s Structural Research Laboratory during April 1941 (GRC 2007–C–02563).

Image 25: View northward toward the lab’s entrance at Brookpark 

Road in August 1941. The Farm House is on the left (GRC–

2011–C–00350).
Rising from the Mud 17

John H. Glenn Research Center

The government had taken steps to address these 

problems, but it had been difficult to fund the projects 

because of the public’s isolationist tendencies during 

the interwar period.28

Image 26: A barn along the perimeter of the Plum Brook Ordnance Works (PBOW) in 1941. The area had been home to some of the most fertile 

land in the state (GRC–2015–C–06562).

Image 27: Crews remove a farmhouse from the PBOW site in 

summer 1941 (GRC–2015–C–06561).

After watching Germany’s rapid advance across

Europe in spring 1940, Congress approved a program 

in July 1940 to supply the army with munitions.29 The 

government began to convince private industries to 

transition into war material suppliers and to establish 

munitions and ordnance facilities on wide tracts of 

private property. For defensive purposes, they selected

sites between the Appalachian and Sierra Nevada 

mountains and at least 200 miles from any border. 

The government preferred undeveloped areas close 

to a city with rail access and a good water supply. The 

War Department built 77 munitions plants and ordnance works between 1940 and 1942. These sprawling

complexes required the seizure of 44 million acres of 

private property.30

The War Department selected a 9,000-acre swath of 

farmland in northwest Ohio for one such ordnance 

manufacturing facility—the Plum Brook Ordnance 

Works (PBOW). The location was relatively close 

to Lake Erie ports, railway lines, and highways.31
18

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 28: PBOW staff raise the flag in front of the PBOW Administration Building in 1941 (GRC–2015–C–06812).

Image 29: Construction of one of the 99 concrete bunkers used to store explosives, c1941 (GRC–2015–C–06817).
Rising from the Mud 19

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 30: Workers erect an elevated guard tower around the 

perimeter of the PBOW in 1941 (GRC–2015–C–06816).
20

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

hangar and the Engine Propeller Research Building.37

The company’s poor performance and the wartime

shortages of building materials delayed work at both

facilities.38 Matters were compounded by Langley’s lack 

of experience designing complex engine test facilities 

such as the AWT. The NACA brought in experts from 

Wright Field, engine manufacturing companies, and

Carrier Corporation to assist. 

In August 1941 Edward Raymond Sharp arrived from 

Langley to oversee the construction. He would spend 

nearly 20 years managing the lab. Sharp was a former World War I seaman who joined the NACA as 

an airship rigger at Langley in 1922. After earning his 

law degree in 1925, Sharp spent the next 15 years as

Langley’s administrative officer.39 In 1940 the NACA 

detailed Sharp to Ames for five months to oversee that 

construction work. Afterward he accompanied Ernest 

Whitney on the scouting mission of potential sites for 

the engine laboratory. Sharp then spent nearly a year

as Chief of Langley’s Construction Division before

being assigned to Cleveland.40

Sharp would later emerge as a fatherly figure who

preferred to advise rather than order, but he worked 

relentlessly in the early 1940s to increase the pace of 

construction. The 12- to 16-hour days and sevenday workweeks kept his mind from his wife Vera and

their children left behind in Virginia. He wrote to her 

shortly after Christmas 1941, “Honey, I haven’t had 

Image 31: Westward view of the Steam Plant and general AERL construction area in 1942 (GRC–2007–C–02309).

Officials informed the community of the decision 

during a meeting at a local hall on 7 January 1941. The 

War Department repeatedly emphasized that time was 

of the essence. The 150 farmers who owned the land 

had until March to agree to the sale and to mid-April 

to move both their families and equipment. Over 100 

homes, several small businesses, the local town hall, 

and a cemetery had to be relocated for the plant.32-34 

The community and public officials pushed back, particularly regarding the low offers that were proffered 

by the land agents, but the War Department remained 

adamant. The government acquired all but 10 of the 

150 properties by the March deadline. The holdouts 

vacated the land while the courts reviewed their compensation offers. In the end all the farmers vacated 

their properties and only one plaintiff received a significant increase in payment.35,36 The arguments caused

delays, but the construction proceeded. Over the 

course of six months, construction crews transformed 

the patchwork farmland into a small industrial city. 

The first trinitrotoluene (TNT) line began operating 

in December 1941. 

v v v v v v

Construction at the new NACA laboratory in

Cleveland was proceeding slowly. It was imperative to

complete the hangar in order to store equipment, house

the shops, and shelter the staff that would be arriving

from Langley. The NACA selected the local

R.P. Carbone Construction Company to build the
Rising from the Mud 21

John H. Glenn Research Center

much time to think, for it is a case of drive myself and 

drive others, but I missed my Sunday at home. Did 

Ray go to Sunday school? How is Brother’s cold? Is 

Brother Edward getting lined up to leave? How long 

will it take you to leave? God, I get lonely up here without my wife and my family.”41

In fall 1941 the AERL installed temporary offices 

inside the recently completed hangar to house the

incoming personnel from Langley. The design team 

from Langley arrived in Cleveland on a snowy

Monday, 15 December 1941.42 The world had changed 

dramatically over the past week as they were making

final arrangements for the transfer. Japan had attacked 

Pearl Harbor the previous Sunday and immediately invaded the Philippines. The United States and 

Great Britain declared war on Japan, which spurred

Germany to declare war on the United States. After 

watching the violence from afar for over two years, the 

United States now had two wars to fight. It was clear 

that the NACA had to step up its efforts to complete 

the AERL construction and begin resolving problems 

facing military aircraft.

On New Year’s Eve, three days after penning the letter to his wife, Sharp traveled to NACA Headquarters 

in Washington, DC, to hammer out the final details 

Image 33: NACA contract with the Emerson Company.

Image 32: Ray Sharp at his desk in 1942 (GRC–2015–C–06568).

of the contract with the prime construction firm for 

the remainder of the AERL structures, the Sam W.

Emerson Company. In the early evening NACA

Secretary John Victory and Sharp shuttled the contract to the White House where President Franklin 

Roosevelt approved it.43 The pace of the construction 

accelerated almost immediately afterward. 

By early February 1942 approximately 270 people

occupied the offices on the hangar floor. In addition 

to the administrative staff, the hangar housed the

mechanical and structural engineers, draftsmen,

inspectors, mechanics, and technical service personnel.44 The veterans from Langley were joined by

journeyman laborers and untrained youth from the

economically depressed Cleveland area. People were

anxious for employment, even if they were not sure

what work was to be done or even the location of the

new laboratory. Ford recalled that some applicants 

showed up to apply at her and Herrmann’s homes

because they did not know where the lab was located.45
22

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 34. In May 1942 the Prop House became the first operating facility at the AERL. It contained four test cells designed to study large 

reciprocating engines. Researchers tested the performance of fuels, turbochargers, water-injection, and cooling systems here during World War II. 

The facility was also used to investigate a captured German V–I buzz bomb during the war (GRC–1942–C–01134).

Image 35. The laboratory established its own fire department while the lab was being constructed in the early 1940s. The group, which was based 

at the Utilities Building, not only responded to emergencies but conducted safety inspections, checked fuel storage areas, and supervised evacuation 

drills and training. In addition, they frequently assisted local fire departments and responded to accidents at the adjacent Cleveland Municipal 

Airport (GRC–1943–C–04291).
Rising from the Mud 23

John H. Glenn Research Center

Images 36: Drafting staff members at work in the temporary hangar offices during 1942 (GRC–2015–C–06545).

Completing the Job

In early 1942 the Japanese captured large

regions of the Pacific, including the Philippines, 

where 15,000 U.S. troops were taken prisoner 

in April. The pressure to expedite the construction of the lab increased. Military aircraft

required improvements in fuels, lubrication, and 

engine cooling. In addition, the Air Corps was 

about to introduce its new superweapon—the 

Boeing B–29 Superfortress—and needed to test 

its engines in the AERL’s unique facilities. 

The Engine Propeller Research Building,

better known as the Prop House, was the

first test facility to be completed. The Prop

House, which contained four atmospheric 

test stands to study full-scale piston engines,

was set back near the woods on the far side

of the lab to muffle the engine noise.46

Images 37: Temporary offices constructed inside the hangar to house the architectural and drafting personnel as well the machine shops (GRC–2015–C–06557). 
24

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 38 (above): Program for the initiation of research of the AERL. Image 39: AERL mechanics work on an engine installation on one of the 

Prop House’s test stands in 1943 (GRC–1943–C–3349). 

On 8 May 1942, NACA management and local

officials crowded in the control room to watch

George Lewis activate a Wright Aeronautical R–2600

Cyclone engine and officially initiate research at the 

new laboratory.47AERL researchers used the R–2600 

to develop a procedure for standardizing the evaluation of lubricating oils. 

The ceremony, however, was largely symbolic because 

most of the lab was still under construction. The

government immediately implemented a series of

drastic measures to accelerate the work. General

Henry “Hap” Arnold, Commander of the U.S. Army

Air Forces, requested that the NACA’s priority rating

be elevated.48 The military provided special supplies, 

the NACA signed new agreements with contractors

and pressured them to meet deadlines, and Congress

approved additional funds. George Lewis made weekly

trips from Washington, DC, to examine the progress.49,50

Although a few researchers from Langley arrived in 

May 1942 for the Prop House opening, the engine 

research group did not begin migrating to Cleveland 

en masse until the fall. The Fuels and Lubrication staff 

arrived in mid-November, followed two weeks later 

by the Engine Analysis Section.51 In summer 1942, 

the shops were moved from the hangar to the new

Technical Services Building, and the Fuels and

Lubrication Building and Engine Research Building 

opened. In late December the Administration Building was completed, and the personnel housed in the 

hangar transferred into new offices across the street.52

Now that most of the facilities were up and running, 

the NACA invited local officials and members of the 

nation’s aeronautical upper crust to review the AERL 

on 20 May 1943. Attendees included Orville Wright, 

General Oliver Echols, Henry Reid, William Durand, 

Sam Emerson, and others. In addition, the NACA’s 
Rising from the Mud 25

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 40: Receptionist Mary Louise Gosney enjoys the new 

Administration Building in July 1943. She started at the lab in 

November 1941 and spent an entire year in the hangar. She also 

served as the lab’s clearance officer and would later head the 

Administrative Services Division (GRC–1943–C–01842).

Image 41: Wing Tips kept the staff updated on the progress of the 

construction.

The AERL staff was small and close-knit. They 

celebrated the completion of each building with a 

party. In October 1942, the AERL began issuing 

a weekly newsletter, Wing Tips, whose “aim will 

be to broadcast those events which are important 

to the greatest number rather than strive merely 

to entertain.”53 Wing Tips disseminated essential 

information regarding administrative activities, 

construction programs, and educational opportunities, but its tone and content reflected the lab’s familial atmosphere. Popular features included “Lobby 

Lines,” which shared the comings and goings of

visitors and staff members, the classified ads, and 

updates on intramural sports. 
26

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

executive committee made their first group visit to 

the AERL. The NACA officially dedicated the AERL 

with a flag-raising ceremony at noon. The visitors were 

served lunch in the cafeteria and toured the new test 

facilities in the afternoon. Afterward, Sharp and a few 

others drove the group downtown for dinner at the 

Hotel Cleveland.54,55

By this point the tide of the war had shifted to favor 

the Allied forces. Soviet troops beat back the German 

siege of Stalingrad in February 1943 and began the 

slow, determined push to Berlin; and U.S. forces were 

able to halt Japan’s seizure of islands in the Pacific.56 

Nonetheless, there was much fighting to be done, and 

aircraft were an essential element. The lab’s two wind 

tunnels were not yet in operation. The military was 

counting on the AWT to resolve serious engine cooling problems for the new Boeing B–29 bomber, and 

on the IRT to improve deicing techniques for military 

transport planes crossing the Himalaya mountains.

The AWT was the AERL’s largest and most sophisticated test facility, and not surprisingly, the most difficult to design and build.57 It was the first wind tunnel 

capable of operating full-scale engines under realistic 

altitude flight conditions, which were achieved by 

lowering the temperature and air pressure within the 

tunnel.58 The tunnel shell consisted of two steel layers 

with a blanket of insulation between. The 1-inch-thick 

inner steel layer could withstand external atmospheric pressure when the tunnel interior was evacuated to high-altitude pressure levels. Massive exhauster equipment reduced the internal pressure levels, and 

a unique air scoop placed just beyond the test section 

prevented the engine exhaust from contaminating the

airstream.59

The most difficult design aspect, however, was reducing the temperature of such a large volume of air to 

the specified –47 degrees Fahrenheit. After a great 

deal of struggle, the NACA contracted the renowned 

refrigeration experts at Carrier Corporation to design

Image 42: Construction of the AWT in April 1943. The facility would be up and running in eight months (GRC–2008–C–00817).
Rising from the Mud 27

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 43 (above): Cartoon showing AWT’s ability to simulate altitude conditions (Wing Tips). Image 44: Aerial view of the AERL in June 

1945 (GRC–1945–C–10493).

the refrigeration system. Carrier engineers 

developed a unique accordionlike shape for 

the cooling coils, which greatly increased 

their surface area. The result was the largest

refrigeration system in the world and the pinnacle of renowned company owner Willis

Carrier’s personal career.60 The system was

robust enough to service both the AWT and the 

smaller IRT, which began operating in 1944. 

After a sluggish start, construction of the AWT 

ramped up sharply in 1943. By the time that the 

massive project was completed in January 1944, 

researchers at other AERL facilities were well 

into their wartime investigations. The NACA 

had successfully accelerated the construction

of the lab to meet the intended deadlines, but

the cost had nearly doubled the original estimates.61 The three-year struggle resulted in the 

most sophisticated engine research laboratory 

in the nation.
28

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Endnotes for Chapter 1

3. “Fliers Race for Coveted Trophy,” The Zanesville

Signal (4 September 1939).

4. Jerome Hunsaker, “Forty Years of Aeronautical 

Research” Smithsonian Report for Aeronautics

(Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1956).

5. Richard P. Hallion, “America and the Air and Space 

Revolution: Past Perspectives and Present Challenges,” 

National Aeronautical Systems and Technology 

Conference (13–15 May 2003), pp. 12–16 and 21.

6. George W. Lewis, “Report on Trip to Germany and

Russia: September–October 1936,” File 11059, 1936, 

NASA Headquarters Historical Collection,

Washington, DC.

7. Alex Roland, Model Research (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP–4103, 1985), chap. 7.

8. John F. Victory, “Remarks at Cleveland Chamber of

Commerce Luncheon Commemorating the Tenth 

Anniversary of Foundation of the Lewis Flight 

Propulsion Laboratory,” 23 January 1951, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

9. Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, “An Invitation to 

the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,” 

29 August 1939, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors’ Collection, Cleveland, OH.

10. John D. Holmfeld, “The Site Selection for the NACA 

Engine Research Laboratory: A Meeting of Science

and Politics” (Bachelor’s thesis, Case Institute of

Technology, 1967).

11. Benjamin Pinkel interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 4 August 1985, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

12. James Hansen, A History of the Langley 

Aeronautical Laboratory, 1917–1958 (Washington, 

DC: NASA SP–4305, 1985).

13. “Report of the Special Committee on New Engine

Research Facilities” File 11059, 24 January 1940, 

NASA Headquarters Historical Collection,

Washington, DC.

14. Holmfeld, Bachelor’s thesis.

15. Reg Grant, World War II: Europe (Milwaukee, WI: 

World Almanac Library, 2004).

16. Holmfeld, Bachelor’s thesis. 

17. “Cleveland Bids,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(22 August 1940).

18. Holmfeld, Bachelor’s thesis. 

19. Holmfeld, Bachelor’s thesis.

20. Holmfeld, Bachelor’s thesis. 

21. “City Gets $8,400,000 Plane Lab,” Cleveland Plain 

Dealer (25 November 1940).

22. Lawrence Hawkins, “More Power to Us,” Cleveland 

Plain Dealer (23 February 1941).

23. Hawkins, “More Power to Us.”

24. Helen Ford, “From a Historical Viewpoint,” c1944,

NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

25. Ford, “From a Historical Viewpoint.”

26. Ernest G. Whitney, “Lecture 22—Altitude Wind

Tunnel at AERL,” 23 June 1943, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

27. Helen Ford to Miss Scott, 23 December 1942, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors’ Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

28. Steve Gaither and Kimberly Kane, “The World War II

Ordnance Department’s Government-Owned 

Contractor-Operated (GOCO) Industrial Facilities: 

Indiana Army Ammunition Plant Historic

Investigation,” December 1995, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Plum Brook Ordnance Works 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

29. Frank N. Shubert, “Mobilization: The U.S. Army in 

World War II, The 50th Anniversary,” www.army. 

mil/cmh-pg/documents/mobpam.htm (accessed

11 June 2015).

30. Gaither, “The World War II Ordnance.”

31. “Five Railroads Located in Plant Area,” Sandusky Star 

Journal (6 January 1941).

32. “Purchasing Agent Tells Perkins Township Families 

of Acquiring of Properties,” Sandusky Star Journal

(8 January 1941). 

33. “New Site for Perkins Cemetery,” Sandusky Star

Journal (17 January 1941). 

34. “Production to Begin Soon at Plum Brook Powder 

Plant,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (26 October 1941).

35. “Farmers Leave New TNT Area and County Roads 

Will Be Closed to Public October 12,” Sandusky Star 

Journal (22 September 1941). 

36. Mark Bowles, Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear 

Program at Plum Brook Station 1955–2005

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2006–4317, 2006).

37. “Local Concerns Get Big Contracts,” Cleveland Plain 

Dealer (19 January 1941).

38. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).

39. Michael Vaccaro to Allen Gamble, “Nomination of 

Dr. Edward R. Sharp for the First Annual Presentaton 

of the Career Service Award,” 26 August 1955, NASA 

Glenn Collection, Sharp Collection, Cleveland, OH.

40. Henry Reid to Staff, “Reorganization of the 

Construction Division,” 20 September 1940, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.
Rising from the Mud 29

John H. Glenn Research Center

41. Raymond Sharp to Vera Sharp, 28 December 1941, 

NASA Glenn Collection, Sharp Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

42. Mary Louise Gosney, “Lobby Lines,” Wing Tips

(5 December 1956).

43. Edward R. Sharp, “Excerpt From Chronological 

Record of Events Relative to Cost-Plus-a-Fixed-Fee

Contract Naw-1425,” NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

44. “Construction Program—Cleveland, Ohio,”

10 February 1942, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Dawson Collection, Cleveland, OH.

45. Ford, “From a Historical Viewpoint.”

46. “Initiation of Research at the NACA Laboratory,” 

press release, 8 May 1942, NASA Glenn Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

47. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

48. Henry H. Arnold and J. H. Towers to Director, Bureau 

of the Budget, 11 May 1942, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

49. Jesse Hall interview, Cleveland, OH, by Bonnie Smith, 

28 August 2002, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

50. Henry H. Arnold and J. H. Towers to Director.

51. “More LMAL Employees to Report Here,” Wing Tips 

(24 November 1942).

52. “Offices Are Moved to New Administration Building,” 

Wing Tips (15 December 1942).

53. “Folks, Meet Wing Tips,” Wing Tips (27 October 

1942).

54. Donald Schneider, “Orville Wright Hails Plane Lab,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer (21 May 1943).

55. “Flag Presented to Staff as Aviation Leaders Dedicate 

AERL to Research,” Wing Tips (21 May 1943).

56. Grant, World War II: Europe.

57. Robert Arrighi, Revolutionary Atmosphere: The Story 

of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and Space Power Chambers

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2010–4319, 2010).

58. Whitney, “Lecture 22.”

59. Whitney, “Lecture 22.”

60. Margaret Ingels, Willis Haviland Carrier: Father of 

Air Conditioning (Garden City, NY: Country Life 

Press, 1952), pp. 97–101.

61. Roland, Model Research, chap. 8.
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 
John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 45: General Henry Arnold addressing Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory personnel in the hangar on 

9 November 1944. Arnold was only at the lab for a few hours, but he managed to take a comprehensive tour 

that included the Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory, a turbojet engine run in the Altitude Wind Tunnel, and the 

testing of a carburetor for the B–29 Superfortress in the Engine Research Building (GRC–1944–C–07493).

2. Keeping Them Flying

“The service that you essential employees are rendering... 

is of more value ... in the winning and shortening of the war 

than it would be were you in active military services.” 

—John Victory 
Image 46: A Fuels and Lubrication Division researcher at work in August 1943 (GRC–1943–C–02124).
 Keeping Them Flying 33

The poor performance of U.S. aircraft during 

World War I had impressed upon the military the 

need to prioritize aerial bombing in World War II.

The Army Air Corps relied on just 19 different 

aircraft models for all of its combat and transportation requirements during World War II,

and there were only a handful of engine models 

available to power these aircraft. It was vital to 

improve the performance of these aircraft without massive redesigns. The NACA suspended its

basic aeronautical research activities almost immediately after Pearl Harbor to address this issue. The 

Langley and Ames laboratories concentrated their

efforts on reducing drag, dive control, ditching, and 

deicing. The Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory 

(AERL) was responsible for combatting problems 

with the piston engines that drove the aircraft, 

such as cooling, improved fuels, and combustion.62

The emergence of the turbojet engine midway

through the war, however, significantly altered the

AERL’s focus. The jet engine had the potential

to dramatically improve the performance of

military aircraft but required improvements

before it would be viable.63 The AERL promptly 

made the leap to jet propulsion while continuing 

its wartime piston engine assignments. “You’ve 

got a dual task,” General Henry Arnold, 

Chief of the U.S. Army Air Corps, told 

AERL staff in December 1944. “You’ve 

got a job ahead of you to keep the army 

and the navy air forces equipped with 

the finest equipment that you can for 

this war. You also have the job of looking 

forward into the future and starting now 

those developments, those experiments, 

that are going to keep us in our present

situation—ahead of the world in the air. 

And that is quite a large order, and I leave 

it right in your laps.”64

The AERL, with its stable of new facilities and research staff, was ready to tackle

specific engine problems and improve 

Keeping Them Flying

Image 48: AERL staff members wish Ray Sharp happy holidays in December 1945 

(GRC–1945–C–13948).

Image 47: AERL recruiting pamphlet.
34

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

overall engine performance. The researchers could 

analyze superchargers, turbines, and compressors in 

the Engine Research Building test cells, study new fuel 

blends in the Fuels and Lubrication Building’s laboratories, test complete engine systems in the Prop House 

or the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT), and study ice 

accumulation in the Icing Research Tunnel (IRT).

After the dedication of the lab in May 1943, the AERL 

had roughly two and a half years to contribute to the 

war. The timing coincided with the completion of 

hundreds of new aircraft and engine manufacturing

facilities across the nation and key Allied victories 

overseas.

65 The tide of the war was turning. 

Running the Lab

As the AERL facilities were beginning to come

online in December 1942, the NACA Director of 

Aeronautical Research, George Lewis, asked construction manager Ray Sharp to stay on and administer the 

new lab.66 Sharp was a natural leader who would serve 

as the public face of the lab for the next 20 years. Sharp 

was frequently out of his office visiting the test cells and 

offices. As a result he was familiar with nearly every

employee and, despite his lack of a technical background, understood the work being done. He and his 

wife Vera were parental figures for the staff, skilled

hosts of visitors and local officials, and fierce advocates

for the researchers.67 The staff expressed their affection 

for Sharp in December 1942 by presenting him with a

linen scroll signed by every employee. It stated that

they had “received word of [Sharp’s] appointment as

Manager with rejoicing and with reassurance.”68

Headquarters also named Carlton Kemper the AERL’s 

Executive Engineer. He was responsible for managing the lab’s research. Kemper joined Langley in 1925 

and was named Chief of the Powerplants (engines)

Division four years later. The division performed

fundamental research on engine efficiency, power, and 

fuel consumption. The Langley propulsion researchers 

had limited test facilities and generally conducted their

investigations using just a single cylinder.69,70 The 

Powerplants Division, which expanded dramatically in 

the late 1930s, provided the bulk of the initial research 

staff for the AERL. Addison Rothrock, who spent

16 years at Langley before transferring to Cleveland in 

November 1942, served as Acting Executive Engineer 

until Kemper’s arrival in January 1943.71

In that time, Rothrock initiated a program of night 

classes for the employees to learn about other areas of 

research at the lab and how each group contributed to 

the broader goals of the AERL. A researcher or guest 

speaker would describe his work, followed by a general 

discussion afterward. At the initial meeting Rothrock 

described the history of the NACA, the importance 

of quality aircraft to the war effort, and the group’s

expectations of the staff members.72 George Lewis,

who was struck by the comprehensiveness of

Rothrock’s address, took steps to distribute copies to 

all new employees at each of the NACA laboratories.73

In early 1944, the AERL introduced a series of

“smoker talks.” Lab managers, headquarters staff, or 

visiting military officials discussed the broader role 

of NACA research. Guest speakers discussed topics 

related to the NACA or the war. The talks were followed by refreshments and informal group discussions 

on the topic. NACA Secretary John Victory spoke 

at the initial event in March 1944 and lab managers,

military officials, and visiting researchers were featured 

in future events.74

Image 49: Addison Rothrock’s speech to AERL staff in December 1942.
 Keeping Them Flying 35

John H. Glenn Research Center

The AERL originally included five hastily organized

research divisions—the Fuels and Lubrication Division (Rothrock), Thermodynamics Division (Benjamin

Pinkel), Engine Installation Division (Ernest Whitney),

Engine Research Division (Charles Moore), Flight 

Research Division ( Joseph Vensel), and Supercharger 

Division (Oscar Schey). The division chiefs, all Langley veterans, worked independently when organizing 

their personnel. As such, some divisions contained 

only a couple of heavily staffed sections, whereas 

other divisions had many sparsely populated sections. The lack of communication resulted in both 

inconsistency and duplication of effort.75 The AERL 

would rectify the situation after the war, but it was

crucial to get up and running as quickly as possible. 

The military sponsored nearly all NACA research 

during the war. They submitted requests for different studies to NACA Headquarters. George Lewis 

then worked with officials at the NACA laboratories 

to develop methods of performing the work. In order 

to get large numbers of aircraft into the air as quickly 

as possible, the Army Air Corps insisted that the air 

war would be fought with proven technology—namely

the piston engine and combat aircraft already in

production. There was no time to develop new technologies as the nation rushed to mobilize and establish 

new production plants.76

This policy limited the military’s options, particularly 

regarding engines. All U.S. military aircraft were powered by just seven different types of piston engines 

during World War II. The three most powerful were 

Pratt & Whitney’s R–2800 and Wright Aeronautical’s 

R–2600 and R–3350. Only the R–2600 had been in 

production prior to 1940.77 The rush to transfer the 

new engines from the drawing board to the production 

line resulted in a multitude of difficulties that required 

remediation. 

The military’s policy of using existing aircraft models 

for the war made it necessary to improve aircraft and 

engine performance without any lengthy redesigns. 

The use of superchargers and turbosuperchargers, 

which pumped additional airflow into the combustion chamber, significantly improved engine operation particularly in the thinner air at higher altitudes.

The devices, however, also included tradeoffs such as 

increased engine temperatures, which caused several ill 

effects, including engine knock.78

Image 50: P–39 Mustang fuselage being tested in the IRT in October 1944 (GRC–1944–C–7062).
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

36

The AERL was structured to address the primary

concerns. The Supercharger Division sought to develop

ways to drive more and more air into the engine’s

supercharger, the Fuels and Lubrication Division tried 

to reduce premature combustion of new fuel blends, 

and the Engine Research and Thermodynamics divisions worked to reduce the overheating caused by the 

resulting increased engine performance. These areas 

formed the basis for most of the AERL’s research

during the war.79

Wartime in Ohio

In Sandusky, the Plum Brook Ordnance Works 

(PBOW) began operating on 16 December 1941, 

one week after Pearl Harbor.80 The 9,000-acre facility

was one of the largest ordnance plants in the

nation. The Trojan Powder Company operated the two 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) 

plants and a pentolite production facility for the War

Image 51: View from the control room during a June 1944 engine cooling investigation in an Engine Research Building test cell 

(GRC–1944–C–05498). 

Department. PBOW contained scores of buildings, 

a maze of roads and railroad tracks, and extensive 

infrastructure. There were also 99 Quonset-hut-like

concrete bunkers placed in several neat rows with sod 

and vegetation over the top. The site was protected by 

high fences and elevated guard houses.

PBOW operated around the clock for the duration 

of the war, churning out record amounts of powder 

to meet the military’s continual requests for more 

and more explosives. The staff packed the powder 

into wooden crates that were stored in the concrete 

bunkers. The crates were then trucked approximately

80 miles to the Ravenna Arsenal, where others packed 

the powder into shells and bombs. The PBOW produced nearly one billion tons of explosives during its 

four years of operation—with the staff doubling and 

then tripling the anticipated output levels while maintaining a remarkable safety record.81
John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 52: PBOW staff gather for an October 1941 ceremony in front of the PBOW Administration Building (GRC–2015–C–06563). 
38

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 53: One of three acid-producing facilities at the PBOW. The acid was used to manufacture TNT and DNT, c1941 

(GRC–2015–C–06540). 

Image 54: PBOW fire station located near Taylor and Columbus avenues, c1941 (GRC–2015–C–06564). 
 Keeping Them Flying 39

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 55: PBOW News feature showing safety ceremony on a stage constructed with empty powder crates in May 1943.
40

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

With wartime labor shortages Trojan struggled 

to maintain the required 4,000-person workforce.

Recruitment teams scoured Ohio and Kentucky towns 

with radio cars broadcasting the “highest paid jobs for 

men and women.” PBOW employees ranged in age 

from 16 to nearly 80 and came from every U.S. state. 

Women made up greater percentages of the staff as the 

war progressed. Trojan tried to ease the harshness of 

life at the plant by providing dormitories, issuing an 

internal newspaper, and encouraging intramural sports 

teams, holiday functions, and other social activities.82

The NACA was employing the same types of moraleboosting activities 50 miles to the east at the AERL.

v v v v v v

World War II permeated nearly every aspect of life at 

the AERL, not just the research. The greatest hardship 

was borne by the family, friends, and colleagues that 

were sacrificing a great deal more overseas. In 1943 

the NACA mandated six-day workweeks without any 

overtime compensation and, in 1944, implemented a 

third shift.83,84 There were also continual shortages of 

fuel, supplies, and equipment; elevated security levels; 

continual war bond drives; and a government-imposed 

5-percent Victory Tax on wages. The AERL’s 1,100-

person staff was continually drained by the draft and

enlistment.85 To fill the openings, management urged 

its staff to recruit neighbors and relatives. NACA 

agents frequented campuses and industry sites, and 

they offered to train unskilled workers as mechanics, 

toolmakers, machinists, and others.86

As a result, women were given a rare opportunity to 

contribute in a variety of roles—from physicists to

analysts to machinists. The AERL implemented a 

training program to quickly prepare inexperienced 

women for a variety of nonprofessional positions. 

There was debate at the lab regarding the effectiveness 

of women. Some protested that the great number of 

available jobs made it too easy for women to give up 

one job for another, thus wasting the organization’s 

investment in their training.87 Others were concerned 

that women would not give up their positions to

returning veterans after the war.88

Nonetheless, the number of women employed at 

the AERL nearly doubled to 412 between 1943 and 

1944.89 The majority of these were clerks, but there 

were sizable numbers of laboratory aides and data 

processors. Professional positions such as engineers or 

Image 56: “Service Stars” was a regular wartime column in 

the Wing Tips newsletter.
 Keeping Them Flying 41

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 58: Zella Morowitz worked in the AERL design office at Langley 

prior to her transfer to Cleveland in 1941, where she served as Ray 

Sharp’s secretary for six years, c1943 (GRC–2015–C–06555).

scientists were available, but few women were graduating with these degrees at that time. Nonetheless, 

one report describes the roles that women played in 

the research process. Women in the Drafting Section 

converted researchers’ sketches into formal technical 

drawings and generated blueprints prior to the tests. 

Women in the Instrument Shop assisted mechanics with the installation of instruments for the tests.

Afterward, women in the Publishing Section typed, 

edited, and printed research reports.90

Perhaps, the most significant female contributions 

were made in the Computing Section. The NACA 

introduced the concept of “computers” during World 

War II to relieve short-handed research engineers of 

some of the tedious data-taking work. The reliable 

gathering and processing of pressure, speed, temperature, and other data from test runs in the facilities was 

critical to the research method. The computers were 

young women who recorded test measurements and 

converted them into data that researchers could use to 

write their reports or modify the test program.91

Image 57: Women working alongside male colleagues in the AERL’s Fabrication Shop (GRC–1944–C–05380).
42

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 59: Memphis Belle crew Robert Hanson, Vincent Evans, and Charles 

Leighton; AERL Manager Raymond Sharp; Robert Morgan; William Holliday of 

the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce; Army Liaison Officer Colonel Edwin Page; 

Airport Commissioner John Berry; Cecil Scott; John Quinlan; and James Verinis. 

Kneeling are Harold Loch, Casimer Nastal, and Charles Winchell 

(GRC–1943–C–01870).

The NACA always maintained a close relationship with the military, 

and the AERL’s contributions to the war effort were well-noted. As 

a result, some of the biggest names to emerge from the war visited the 

lab. These included Hap Arnold (November 1944), James Doolittle 

(October 1945 and 1946), Ike Eisenhower (April 1946), Curtis 

LeMay (August 1944), Chief of Air Materiel Command Edward 

Powers, Frank Whittle ( July 1946), and new President Harry

Truman ( June 1944).96 The crew of the Memphis Belle B–17 Flying Fortress were, perhaps, the most remembered guests of the era.

The Memphis Belle was the first U.S. bomber to complete 25 

missions over Germany and France. Afterward the Air Corps

assigned the bomber and crew to a three-month tour across the 

United States to sell war bonds. Captain Robert Morgan and the 

rest of the Memphis Belle aircrew arrived in Cleveland on a rainy 

7 July 1943 for a three-day visit. The crew displayed the bomber 

for the public near the airport’s fenceline and stored it in the

NACA’s hangar overnight.97 A local company brought Morgan’s 

family and his fiancé—the Memphis Belle’s inspiration—to Cleveland to participate in the activities. The visit was a success with 

the public, but it strained Morgan’s personal relationship with the 

“Belle.” The couple ended their relationship days later.98,99

The Computing Section contained roughly

100 women who were assigned to one of the 

five research divisions. The NACA insisted 

that the women have four years of high school 

math because it was necessary to understand 

the relationships of the information.92 

The researchers relied on manometers to 

measure pressure levels inside a test facility. 

Manometers were mercury-filled glass tubes 

that looked and functioned like barometers. 

For each test, technicians installed dozens 

of pressure-sensing instruments that were 

connected to a unique manometer tube

located inside the control room. Since readings were dynamic, researchers relied on 

cameras to capture the mercury levels at 

given points during the test. The computers 

examined the film and noted the pressure 

levels. The supervisors, women with math 

degrees, worked with the researchers to

determine what output was desired and 

broke the mathematics down into steps that 

the computers could easily follow.93 The 

computers, sitting in rows at long tables, 

then made their calculations with the adding machines. Each test had a multitude of 

parameters and readings to be noted and 

processed. The researchers often had to wait 

several weeks for the results, but the wait 

would have been exponentially longer without the Computing Section.94

In early 1944 the NACA was able to obtain

deferments for its staff because of the criticality of their work. The military would

induct the drafted employees as reserves,

then immediately assign them to the NACA 

laboratory.95 This new policy stabilized the 

staff for the duration of the war, but it did 

not diminish the contributions of the female

employees.

Wartime Investigations

As construction tapered off in 1943 the 

AERL found itself well positioned to tackle 

the military’s engine difficulties. The areas 

of fuels and lubrication were of particular interest at the lab during the war. The 
 Keeping Them Flying 43

John H. Glenn Research Center

quality of aviation fuel is critical to the operation of 

piston engines. Lower octane fuels result in engine 

knock, which can damage engine components and 

lower performance. Although this lowered performance is not readily apparent in automobiles, it poses

significant problems in aircraft engines, which operate

at full throttle most of the time. The fuel quality

problem was not evident before the war when 

the nation had only a modest number of aircraft.

The exponential growth in the number of military

aircraft, however, taxed supplies of highoctane aviation fuel. The petroleum industry began 

creating synthetic fuels that could be mixed with

traditional fuel, but these new fuels were difficult to 

produce and could only be made in limited quantities. The military had to find a middle ground between 

quality and quantity.100

The AERL had the most extensive fuel and lubrication research capabilities in the country. An entire

division of researchers was dedicated to finding a way 

to produce larger quantities of high-octane fuel. In

addition, researchers analyzed fuel composition in the 

lab’s chemistry laboratories, studied the performance 

of different fuels in subscale and full-scale piston cylinders in the lab’s test cells, and performed final analyses 

with actual flights in the lab’s research aircraft.101

The Fuels and Lubrication Division conducted a variety of studies during the war to understand and eradicate engine knock, analyze new synthetic fuels, and 

resolve lubrication issues such as the foaming of oil. 

The group’s most extensive effort was the evaluation 

of several new types of synthetic fuel. In the years leading up to World War II, the petroleum industry had 

developed methods of creating synthetic gasoline—

including high-performance and antiknock fuels. To 

meet the intense wartime demand for these fuels, the 

military blended them with more available fuels.102

At the request of the Air Materiel Command, AERL 

researchers evaluated the characteristics of 16 different types of fuel blends during the war, including those 

incorporating the antiknock xylidine additive and 

Image 60: Researchers work with test setups in a Fuels and Lubrication Building lab room during March 1943 (GRC–1943–C–01370).
44

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

v v v v v v

Tribology is an interdisciplinary field that encompasses the study of friction, lubrication, bearings,

gears, and wear. This somewhat esoteric subject is

essential to the reliability and assurance of long lifetimes of engines, pumps, and other turbomachinery.

Edmund Bisson initiated the NACA tribology studies

in 1939 at Langley. He and his colleagues transferred 

to the AERL in Cleveland in January 1943 as a section 

in the new Engine Components Research Division. 

The group performed most of its investigations on

single-cylinder test rigs in the Engine Research Building, then passed its findings along to engine manufacturers who verified the data with full-scale engine tests.

Bisson’s group became the lab’s most prolific report

issuer during this period.107

During the war the section concentrated their efforts 

on the lubrication and wear of metal piston rings and 

cylinders. Piston rings fit around the piston to seal 

Image 61: Bisson with physicist and mathematician Lucien C. Malavard (GRC–1949–C–24300).

Image 62: Reprint of “Fuels Talk” by Bisson.

the high-performance triptane fuel. It was necessary 

to determine if the synthetic fuels increased engine

temperatures.103 Young researcher Walter T. Olson 

led the efforts to rate the antiknock and performance 

characteristics of the 50 different compounds in the 

xylidine additive. Industry later used this information 

to create fuels for domestic U.S. aircraft.104

AERL researchers also tested triptane blends in smallscale engines. Once the optimal mixes were identified 

using single-cylinders, the researchers tested them on 

a full-scale engine and eventually ran them on the lab’s 

Consolidated B–24D. The researchers found that the 

triptane mix performed 25 percent better than traditional fuel.105 In 1944 a national fuel study group, 

the Coordinating Research Council, used the AERL

studies to create a new antiknock rating scale that

replaced octane with triptane. The council’s awardwinning research in the 1940s was heavily based on 

the efforts of the Fuels and Lubrication Division.106
 Keeping Them Flying 45

John H. Glenn Research Center

the combustion chamber and transfer heat from the

piston to the cylinder wall. The military was struggling 

to keep its engines clean when its aircraft used unpaved 

runways in North Africa. The sand and grit quickly 

wore down the rings and cylinders, necessitating 

lengthy engine overhauls. The military combatted the 

situation by making the cylinders larger in anticipation 

of degradation, but this was an inefficient response.108

Bisson and Bob Johnson investigated the possibility of restoring the damaged rings to the original specifications through chromium plating and 

refinement. After finding that the plating inhibited proper lubrication, they determined that a new

process—interrupted-chromium plating—provided 

durability and reduced friction.109 Bisson and Johnson 

also demonstrated that piston ring performance could 

be increased by infusing nitrogen into the metal to

create a hardened surface over the softer steel.110

After the war, the lab’s fundamental research on friction,

lubrication, and wear helped establish tribology as a 

scientific discipline.111

Image 63: A representative from the Allison Engine Company instructs AERL mechanics on the operation of a basic Allison powerplant. The 

staff was taught how to completely disassemble and reassemble the engine components and systems (GRC–1943–C–03045).

v v v v v v

Engine cooling was, perhaps, the most pressing aircraft 

problem during World War II. Piston engines generate high levels of heat, of which only about a third is 

used for propulsion. The excess heat, if not dissipated, 

causes unnecessary fuel consumption, aerodynamic 

drag, and ultimately cylinder failures.112 The widespread introduction of superchargers during the war 

only exacerbated the problem. The AERL conducted 

comprehensive cooling investigations on a number 

of engines during the war—most notably the Allison 

V–1710 and the Wright R–3350.

The Allison V–1710 was the only liquid-cooled engine

used during World War II. Its liquid-cooled engines 

relied on a working fluid, not the airflow, to dissipate the engine heat. As such, they were more compact than large radial air-cooled engines.113 In 1940,

before Allison even completed development work on 

the V–1710, the military placed large orders for the

engine. The Army Air Corps was relying on the V–1710, 
46

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 64: An AERL researcher demonstrates the improved fuel injection system for the R–3350 engine at a tour stop in the Engine Research 

Building in June 1945 (GRC–1945–C–10678).

the cooling system, and the Engine Installation

Division analyzed the drag penalties associated with 

the modifications.118 Much of the initial research was 

conducted on dynamotor test stands in the Engine 

Research Building. Once the researchers were satisfied 

with their improvements, the new supercharger and 

cooling components were test flown on the P–63A 

aircraft.119 The AERL efforts improved the V–1710’s 

performance, but they could not overcome the supercharger’s design limitations. The military used the

supercharger in the P–63s, but those aircraft had poor 

altitude performance and did not see combat.120

The AERL also analyzed engine cooling for aircooled piston engines. The investigation of the Wright 

R–3350 radial engine was second only to the Allison 

study in terms of the number of groups and facilities 

participating. Four of the unproven R–3350s powered Boeing’s state-of-the-art B–29 Superfortress. 

The B–29’s ability to fly faster and higher than previous bombers despite being substantially larger made 

it the most significant Allied air weapon in the latter 

part of the war. The B–29 was intended to soar above 

antiaircraft fire and make pinpoint drops onto strategic

which outperformed similar air-cooled engines in the 

early 1940s, to power the Lockheed P–38 Lightning, 

Bell P–39 Airacobra, Curtiss P–40 Warhawk, and

Bell P–63 King Cobra fighter aircraft.114 

The military instructed Allison to incorporate a supercharger into the V–1710 to increase its performance. 

In fall 1942 General Oliver Echols asked the AERL to 

improve the performance of the V–1710’s new twostage supercharger at altitudes up to 20,000 feet. It was 

the AERL’s first new research assignment.115,116

The V–1710 effort required the services of nearly

every research group and test facility at the AERL. The 

military supplied the lab with a P–63A King Cobra 

and three of the Allison engines to facilitate the work, 

and Allison sent representatives to teach the NACA

mechanics how to completely disassemble and reassemble the engine components and systems.117

The Supercharger Division enhanced the supercharger performance, the Fuels and Lubrication Division analyzed the effect of the increased heat on knock 

in the fuel, the Thermodynamics Division improved
 Keeping Them Flying 47

John H. Glenn Research Center

closed the engine flaps that, when opened, allowed an

influx of external air to cool the engine. The R–3350’s 

piston valves were also failing because they could not 

dissipate heat quickly enough. In addition, there was 

uneven fuel distribution to the various valves.127 The 

military had been waiting for the AERL to begin operating so that it could address these issues.

As with the Allison studies the previous year, multiple 

divisions and test facilities contributed to the R–3350 

effort. In fall 1943 researchers in the Engine Research 

Building, test cells modified the fuel-injection system 

so that it provided a uniform amount of fuel to all 18 

of the engine’s cylinders. This lowered the amount 

of fuel required. The researchers demonstrated the 

new fuel spray system on full-scale engine tests in the 

Prop House. The Engine Research Division staff also

determined that a slight extension of the cylinder head 

provided sufficient additional surface area to expel heat 

and thus prevent cylinder failures.128

targets.121 The 2,000-horsepower R–3350 was the 

only engine suitable for such an aircraft, but it frequently overheated.122

The B–29 was an extremely complicated aircraft that 

normally would have taken many years to develop. The 

military had ordered large quantities of the bomber 

before the first Superfortress took flight in September 

1942. It was just two years after Boeing began design 

work and one year after the R–3350’s initial flight 

test. The B–29 still had many problems that needed 

to be remedied, and Wright had not fully resolved a 

number of design issues that caused engines to operate at high temperatures.123 As the bombers began 

rolling off the assembly line, the military added additional weight requirements that exceeded the aircraft’s

design. The issue was exacerbated by the military’s

rush to get the bombers into the air. The high altitudes 

and excess payloads strained the R–3350s and led to 

a rash of engine fires and crashes both in the United 

States and abroad, including one accident that resulted 

in 28 deaths in Seattle.124,125 General Arnold, who 

was relying on the B–29s to carry out long-distance 

strikes on Japan from bases in China, was irate at the 

delays and the low number of available aircraft.126

The B–29 had many problems initially, but the overheating of the engines was the most significant. There 

were several factors contributing to the overheating. In an attempt to reduce aerodynamic drag, pilots 

Image 65: Wright R–3350 installed in the AWT test section on 

4 July 1944 (GRC–1944–C–05554).

Image 66: NACA Wartime Reports were classified until after the war.
48

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

baffles, and cowling on the bomber’s two left-wing 

engines. AERL researchers accompanied the military 

pilots as they conducted 11 test flights throughout July 

with various combinations of the modifications. The 

flight program verified the ground-based findings, and 

researchers concluded that the modifications could 

yield a 10,000-foot increase in altitude or comparable payload increases.133,134 The testing in the AWT

continued through mid-September.

The modifications arrived too late, though. In summer 

1944, as the AERL staff was studying the R–3350 in 

the AWT, the Allies made two critical advances. Over 

150,000 troops invaded the northern shores of France 

during D-Day, and U.S. Marines seized Guam and the 

Mariana Islands in the Pacific. The European invasion 

initiated a year-long push that would ultimately end

in Berlin. The Mariana Islands provided the Allies 

with territory to build airfields from which to launch 

shorter B–29 sorties over the Japanese interior.

The B–29 pilots had difficulty hitting the desired 

targets during the early raids. That fall, the military 

decided to change the B–29’s flight plans from highaltitude target bombing to low-altitude fire-bombing. 

This strategy reduced engine strain, permitted larger 

Image 67: A B–29 bomber on display in the hangar during June 1945 (GRC–1944–C–10587).

General Arnold was particularly anxious for the AWT 

to come online.129 The AWT, which was the nation’s 

only wind tunnel capable of running engines in realistic simulated flight conditions, began operation in 

early February 1944. A few months earlier (fall 1943), 

the NACA transferred Abe Silverstein from Langley 

to manage the tunnel activities. Silverstein, who had 

begun his NACA career in 1929, had helped to design 

and then run Langley’s massive Full Scale Tunnel. His 

specialty was improving airflow through engines—the 

very task that the military was now asking the AERL 

to address with the R–3350.130

In May 1944 AERL mechanics installed a full-scale 

R–3350 on a section of wing in the AWT test section. Silverstein and his colleagues quickly determined 

that the hottest portion of the engine, the exhaust area,

was not receiving the cooling air. They were able to 

quickly add baffles inside the engine to duct the airflow to this area.131 The AWT tests also led to

reshaping the engine flaps, so that airflow increased 

without causing additional drag.132

The military brought a B–29 aircraft to the AERL 

in June 1944 to flight-test the modifications. Technicians installed the new fuel-injection system, cylinders, 
 Keeping Them Flying 49

John H. Glenn Research Center

payloads, and resulted in much wider destruction.135

The new policy first manifested itself with the 9 March 

1945 firebombing of Tokyo that left approximately 

80,000 dead. Incendiary attacks were then launched 

against other Japanese cities.136 The AERL improvements were implemented after the war, and the Superfortress went on to a long and successful postwar career.

v v v v v v

The buildup of ice during flight has been a serious 

concern for pilots for as long as aircraft have been able 

to attain weather-producing altitudes. Under certain 

weather conditions, the water droplets in clouds freeze 

upon contacting the solid surfaces of aircraft. The 

resulting ice accretion can add extra weight, disrupt 

aerodynamics, and block air intake into the engines. 

Consequently, Langley established a program in the 

1930s to study ice buildup and prevention. In 1941 

the NACA expanded its icing research and transferred 

the program to the new Ames laboratory. There Lewis 

Rodert perfected his award-winning ice-prevention 

system that used hot air from the engines to warm the 

wings and other vulnerable surfaces.137

Image 68: P–38 Lightning fuselage in the IRT during March 1945 (GRC–1945–C–8832).

The AERL initiated its own icing studies during the 

war using research aircraft and the new IRT, which 

took advantage of the AWT’s massive refrigeration 

system to produce temperatures as cold as –47 degrees 

Fahrenheit. The IRT was an unpressurized tunnel 

with a spray bar system that released water droplets 

into the freezing airstream before it passed through its 

6- by 9-foot test section. Researchers used the tunnel 

to study the buildup of ice and test different deicing 

systems. The lab’s engineers struggled for many years 

to perfect the water droplet system.138

Icing tunnel testing began in August 1944 despite

continuing problems with the spray system.

Researchers initially studied ice buildup on propeller 

blades and antennas. The military also requested that 

the AERL investigate a new thermal pneumatic boot 

ice-prevention system and heated propeller blades. 

The researchers installed hollow gas-heated and 

solid electric-heated blades on a wingless Bell P–39

Airacobra in the IRT. The AERL tests demonstrated that both the heated boot and the heated

propeller systems successfully prevented ice.139,140
50

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 69: On 13 September 1944 an AERL technician prepares 

for the initial test run in the IRT (GRC–1944–C–06552).

Image 70: A P–38J Lightning in front of the blower on the hangar apron that was utilized as a crude rain-simulating device. The blower was used 

extensively during the 1940s to supplement wind tunnel and flight research data (GRC–1945–C–09650).

February 1945 marked the beginning of the AERL’s 

most significant icing investigation of the war—the air 

scoop from the Curtiss C–46 Commando. The military was flying the C–46s regularly over the Himalaya

mountains. At the high altitudes, the aircraft engines

could not generate enough heat to prevent ice

buildup on the engine intakes. This had resulted 

in stalled engines and hundreds of crashes.141,142

Throughout spring 1945, AERL researchers analyzed 

models of a standard C–46 air scoop and three variations in the IRT. They determined that the primary 

problem was the intake of freezing water—not icing. 

The NACA redesigned the scoop to limit the ingestion 

of freezing droplets without causing any performance 

losses. The modifications were later incorporated into 

the C–46 and Convair C–40.143,144

The AERL also acquired two Lockheed P–38J

Lightnings and the North American XB–25E Mitchell 

to augment the work in the IRT. Researchers utilized 

one P–38 for ground tests on the hangar apron. They 

set up a blower in front of the aircraft to drive air and 

simulated rain into the engine. The studies revealed that 

ice accumulated on the carburetor and supercharger in 

a variety of meteorological conditions.145 Flight tests 

with the other P–38 confirmed the researchers’ theory 

that ice buildup could be reduced by closing the engine

flap to block water ingestion and increase engine 

heat.146 Researchers used the XB–25E Mitchell during the war to study ice buildup on components such 

as windshields, antennas, propellers, and engines.

They measured the ice accretion then analyzed different anti-icing and deicing strategies. The lab would 

dramatically expand its icing research program after 

the war—both in the tunnel and in the skies. 
 Keeping Them Flying 51

John H. Glenn Research Center

Emergence of the Turbojet

World War II spurred technological development in 

almost every field. Advances in propulsion, such as the 

turbojet, ramjet, and rocket, were the most significant 

for the AERL. Engineers in Germany and Britain

developed the jet engine simultaneously in the 1930s, 

but the engines were not integrated into aircraft

until the start of World War II. The British government invited Hap Arnold to witness the nation’s first 

jet-powered flight in April 1941. Intrigued by the 

possibilities, Arnold made arrangements to secretly 

ship plans for the engine to the United States. Then 

the military tasked General Electric—which was not 

a major engine manufacturer at the time—with the 

job of creating a jet engine from these blueprints. The

result was the I–A centrifugal-compressor engine. 

Bell Aircraft incorporated two of the I–As into the

XP–59A aircraft, which secretly made its first test 

flight on 2 October 1942. The initial engines, however, 

including an upgraded I–16 version, did not perform 

as well as anticipated during that first year.147

In summer 1943, the military briefed a small group of 

NACA leaders on the U.S. jet engine work that had 

been carried out covertly during the past two years. 

They also unveiled General Electric drawings for a 

new facility—the Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory—

to be constructed at the AERL. The NACA hurriedly 

built the new test stand along the airport fenceline to 

support General Electric’s turbojet work. Disguised as 

the “Supercharger Facility,” the Jet Propulsion Static 

Laboratory included two engine stands and two spin 

pits in which the General Electric turbojets could be 

operated.148,149 In fall 1943, AERL researchers began 

clandestine tests of the I–A.150

Around this time military officials summoned

Abe Silverstein to the General Electric plant in

Massachusetts to make arrangements to install an

I–16-powered Airacomet in the new AWT. General

Electric was hoping to improve the engine’s cooling 

airflow, an area of expertise for Silverstein.151 In early 

1944, mechanics installed a Bell XP–59A Airacomet

in the AWT test section. Merritt Preston and his

AERL colleagues exhaustively studied the aircraft and

its I–16 engines from 4 February to 13 May 1944.

They were able to modify the engine and its nacelle

enclosure to improve the airflow distribution,

which increased the I–16’s performance by 25 percent.152 The Air Corps used some Airacomets for pilot 

training.

In 1944, however, the German Messerschmitt 262 and 

British Gloster Meteor jet aircraft were beginning to 

participate in the war. Although these aircraft could 

fly significantly faster than piston engine aircraft, their 

impact on the war was muted. The first Messerschmitt 

test flight took place in August 1939, but the Germans 

did not mass-produce the fighter until mid-1944. By 

Image 71: The Jet Static Propulsion Laboratory as it nears completion in August 1943. The secret facility was officially called the Supercharger 

Laboratory to disguise its true nature (GRC–2015–C–06544).
52

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 73: Abe Silverstein, Head of the AWT, discusses the tunnel’s research during the war, 

concentrating on the several General Electric and Westinghouse jet engines that were studied 

(GRC–1945–C–10661).

this time, aircraft fuel was in short supply and Allied 

bombing was decimating production facilities and

airfields. The British only operated its Meteors over

its own territory to prevent the capture

of the new jet engine technology.153

Meanwhile, General Electric created the 

more powerful I–40 turbojet engine,

which Lockheed integrated into the 

XP–80A Shooting Star. The Shooting Star was the first entirely U.S.-

designed jet aircraft and the first U.S. 

aircraft to exceed 500 mph. It made 

its initial flights in January 1944.154 

The military asked the NACA to

install a Shooting Star in the AWT and

improve the engine performance. 

In spring 1945 AERL researchers 

tested the aircraft at simulated altitudes up to 50,000 feet. The AWT 

investigations allowed researchers to

verify NACA formulas that predicted

thrust level at altitudes based on sea-level

measurements.155 The P–80 fighter and the I–40

engine became great engineering successes, just not in 

time to contribute to World War II. 

Image 72: The secret test of the Bell YP–59A Airacomet in the spring of 1944 was the first investigation in the new AWT. The Airacomet, which 

was powered by two General Electric I–A centrifugal turbojets, was the first U.S. jet aircraft (GRC–1944–C–04830).
 Keeping Them Flying 53

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 74: Lockheed’s YP–80A, powered by two General Electric I–40 turbojets, in the AWT test section in March 1945. The P–80 was the 

first U.S. aircraft to fly faster than 500 mph (GRC–1945–C–09576).

Image 75: AWT wartime test schedule.

General Electric’s I–16 and I–40 had centrifugal 

compressors. These compressors consisted of a single 

large rotor that powerfully pushed the airflow outward 

past the rotor and into the engine. Engineers had also

developed jet engines that employed 

axial-flow compressors. These consisted of a series of fans lined up on 

a shaft. Because this configuration

allowed designers to increase the 

power by adding more stages without

increasing the diameter of the

engine, it quickly became the choice 

of engine designers.

Westinghouse employed an axialflow compressor to create the first 

U.S.-designed turbojet. In March 

1943 the 19A became the first

operational turbojet designed in the 

United States. In January 1944 a 

Chance Vought FG–1 Corsair used 

the 19A to complement its piston 

engines, making the 19A the only U.S. jet engine to 

be used in the war.156 The Navy asked the NACA to 

test the engine’s successor, the 19B, in the AWT. After 

the tests, run in September 1944, demonstrated good
54

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

performance of the 10-stage engine at simulated altitudes, the Navy soon incorporated it into their first jet 

fighter, the McDonnell XFD–1 Phantom.157

v v v v v v

At 7 p.m. on 14 August 1945, President Harry

Truman announced that Japan had accepted terms for 

surrender, and World War II came to a conclusion. 

The AERL staff had investigated nearly every existing

engine model used in the war. The lab’s work during 

this time included studies of new types of engines—

the ramjet and turbojet, but the lab’s greatest contribution to the war was improvement of turbosupercharged 

piston engines. The AERL utilized its new engine test 

facilities and flight research group to mitigate the overheating and engine knock frequently associated with 

the turbosupercharger. This groundbreaking work 

paved the way for the peacetime contributions that 

came next. The AERL staff would now turn their

attention to improving the turbojet engine.

Image 76: On 8 May 1945 the staff awoke to news that Germany had 

surrendered. A mid-morning ceremony was held at the Administration 

Building, but work at the lab continued on (GRC–1945–C–09905).

Image 77: Final issue of the Plum Brook News from August 1945.
 Keeping Them Flying 55

John H. Glenn Research Center

Endnotes for Chapter 2

62. “Aviation Writers Association Inspection June 11, 

1945 of the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory,” 

1945, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

63. Edward Constant, The Origins of the Turbojet 

Revolution (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 

University Press, 1980).

64. Henry H. Arnold, “Transcript of General H. H. 

Arnold’s Speech to AERL,” File 4849, 9 November 

1944, Historical Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

65. Tom Lilley, et al., Problems of Accelerating Aircraft 

Production During World War II (Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University, 1970).

66. “Sharp Made Laboratory Head,” Wing Tips

(8 December 1942). 

67. Billy Harrison interview, Cleveland, OH, 14 October 

2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

68. “Sharp Made Laboratory Head.”

69. Benjamin Pinkel interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Virginia Dawson, 4 August 1985, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

70. Abe Silverstein interview, Cleveland, OH, by Walter 

T. Bonney, 21 October 1972 and 20 September 1973, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

71. Dana Lee, “Research Chief Is Welcomed,” Wing Tips

(8 January 1943). 

72. Addison Rothrock, “Address Made to Research Staff 

at AERL,” 30 December 1942, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

73. “A. M. Rothrock Is Congratulated,” Wing Tips

(19 February 1943). 

74. “Smoker,” Wing Tips (19 February 1944). 

75. Thomas Neill to George Lewis, “Personnel and 

Projects at AERL,” 5 July 1943, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

76. Frank N. Shubert, “Mobilization: The U.S. Army in 

World War II, The 50th Anniversary,” www.army. 

mil/cmh-pg/documents/mobpam.htm (accessed

11 June 2015).

77. Lilley, Problems of Accelerating Aircraft Production.

78. R. K. Rajput, Internal Combustion Engines (New 

Delhi, India: Laxmi Publications, 2005).

Image 78: An AERL metallurgist examines a supercharger in January 1944 (GRC–1944–C–03814).
56

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

79. Walter Olson interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 16 July 1984, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

80. Plum Brook Ordnance Works Restoration Advisory 

Board, “Quarterly Fact Sheet,” January through 

March 2007, NASA Glenn History Collection, Plum 

Brook Ordnance Collection, Cleveland, OH.

81. “The Saga of Plum Brook Ordnance Works As a Two 

High-Explosives, Major Facility Comes to a Close,” 

The Plum Brook News (18 August 1945).

82. “The Saga of Plum Brook Ordnance.”

83. “It’s Now Six-Day, 48-Hour Week,” Wing Tips

(22 January 1943). 

84. “Women Offered Training at Vital Air-Lab,” NASA 

press release, 17 May 1944, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

85. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis 

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).

86. NACA, “NACA Looks to the Future” Pamphlet, 

c1943, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

87. Daniel Williams, “Women Inclined to Change Jobs,” 

Wing Tips (12 February 1943). 

88. Pearl Young, “AERL Family Forum,” Wing Tips

(12 February 1943). 

89. “Utilization of Women at the Aircraft Engine 

Research Laboratory,” June 1944, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

90. “Utilization of Women.”

91. Sylvia Stone memorandum for Staff, “Organization 

of the Computing Section, Administrative

Services Division, Administrative Department,”

16 November 1945, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

92. Peggy Yohner interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 21 May 1985, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

93. Yohner interview by Dawson.

94. Yohner interview by Dawson.

95. M. G. White memorandum for the Adjutant General, 

“Voluntary Induction in the ACER of Essential 

Personnel of the National Advisory Committee for 

Aeronautics,” 18 February 1944, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

96. “Whittle, Jet Inventor Here,” Wing Tips (19 July 

1946).

97. “Memphis Belle, Vet Bomber, and Crew Pay ThreeDay Visit to Lab,” Wing Tips (9 July 1943).

98. Elaine de Man, “The Two Memphis Belles,” Air and 

Space (1 May 1990). 

99. “Memphis Belle’s Pilot Has Surprise Reunion Here,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer (8 July 1943).

100. Addison Rothrock, “Address to AERL Smoker,” 

12 April 1944, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors’ Collection, Cleveland, OH.

101. Rothrock, “Address to AERL Smoker.”

102. George Gray, Frontiers of Flight: The Story of 

NACA Research (New York, NY: Alfred Knopf, 

1948).

103. H. Jack White, Calvin Blackman, and Milton 

Werner, Flight and Test Stand Investigation of HighPerformance Fuels in Double-Row Air-Cooled

Engines, II—Flight Knock Data and Comparison of 

Fuel Knock Limits With Engine Cooling Limits in 

Flight (Cleveland, OH: NACA MR–E4L30, 1944).

104. Gray, Frontiers of Flight.

105. H. Jack White, Philip C. Pragliola, and Calvin C. 

Blackman, Flight and Test Stand Investigation of 

High-Performance Fuels in Modified Double-Row 

Radial Air Cooled Engines, II—Flight Knock Data 

and Comparison of Fuel Knock Limits With Engine 

Cooling Limits in Flight (Washington, DC: NACA 

MR–E5H04, 1945).

106. “Fuels Work Done Here Commended,” Wing Tips 

(16 August 1946).

107. Edmond Bisson interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Virginia Dawson, 22 March 1985, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

108. Bisson interview by Dawson.

109. E. V. Zaretsky, editor, Tribology for Aerospace

Applications (Park Ridge, IL: Society of Tribologists 

and Lubrication Engineers SP–37, 1997).

110. “Bisson Tells Research Staff of Urgent Need for 

Piston-Ring Research,” Wing Tips (9 April 1943).

111. Bisson interview by Dawson.

112. Benjamin Pinkel, “Thermodynamics Division,” 

24 May 1944, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors’ Collection, Cleveland, OH.

113. Robert Schlaifer, Development of Aircraft Engines: 

Two Studies of Relations Between Government and 

Business (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 

1950).

114. “Allison Engine,” Life Magazine (13 January 1941).

115. Gray, Frontiers of Flight. 

116. Richard Downing and Harold Finger, Effect of Three 

Modifications on Performance of Auxiliary Stage 

Supercharger for V-1710-93 Engine (Washington, 

DC: NACA RM–E6J18, 1946).

117. Bruce Lundin, John Povolny, and Louis Chelko, 

Correlation of Cylinder-Head Temperatures and 

Coolant Heat Rejection of a Multi-cylinder LiquidCooled Engine of 1710-Cubic Inch Displacement 

(Washington, DC: NACA Report 931, 1949).
 Keeping Them Flying 57

John H. Glenn Research Center

118. Pinkel, “Thermodynamics Division.”

119. Pinkel, “Thermodynamics Division.”

120. Schlaifer, Development of Aircraft Engines.

121. Robert F. Dorr, Superfortress Units of World War 2 

(Osceola, WI: Osprey Publishing, 2002).

122. Walter Boyne, “The B-29’s Battle of Kansas,” Air 

Force Magazine (February 2012).

123. Boyne, “The B-29’s Battle.”

124. Gray, Frontiers of Flight.

125. Dorr, Superfortress Units.

126. Boyne, “The B-29’s Battle.”

127. Gray, Frontiers of Flight.

128. Gray, Frontiers of Flight.

129. Robert Arrighi, Revolutionary Atmosphere: The

Story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and Space Power 

Chambers (Washington, DC: NASA SP–2010– 

4319, 2010).

130. Silverstein interview by Bonney.

131. Abe Silverstein interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 5 October 1984, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

132. DeMarquis Wyatt and William Conrad, An

Investigation of Cowl-Flap and Cowl-Outlet Designs 

for the B–29 Power Plant Installation (Washington, 

DC: NACA Wartime Report E–205, 1946).

133. Frank Marble, Mahlon Miller, and E. Barton Bell, 

Analysis of Cooling Limitations and Effect of 

Engine-Cooling Improvements on Level Flight

Cruising Performance of Four-Engine Heavy Bomber 

(Washington, DC: NACA No. 860, 1948). 

134. Frank Marble, Mahlon Miller, and Joseph Vensel, 

Effect of NACA Injection Impeller and Ducted Head 

Baffles on Flight Cooling Performance of DoubleRow Radial Engine of Four Engine Heavy Bomber 

(Washington, DC: NACA MR–E5D13, 1945).

135. Dorr, Superfortress Units.

136. Clayton Chun, Japan 1945: From Operation Downfall to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Osceola, WI:

Osprey Publishing, 2008).

137. Michael Gorn, Expanding the Envelope: Flight

Research at NACA and NASA (Lexington, KY: 

University Press of Kentucky, 2001).

138. An International Historic Mechanical Engineering 

Landmark: Icing Research Tunnel (Washington, DC: 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 20 May 

1987).

139. Mark G. Potapczuk, “Aircraft Icing Research at 

NASA Glenn Research Center,” Journal of Aerospace 

Engineering 26 (2013): 260–276.

140. William Leary, We Freeze to Please: A History of 

NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for 

Flight Safety (Washington, DC: NASA SP–2002– 

4226, 2002).

141. Leary, We Freeze to Please. 

142. Gray, Frontiers of Flight.

143. An International Historic Mechanical Engineering 

Landmark. 

144. Uwe von Glahn and Clark Renner, Development

of a Protected Air Scoop for the Reduction of 

Induction-System Icing (Washington, DC: NACA 

TN–1134, 1946).

145. Henry Essex, Edward Zlotowski, and Carl Ellisman, 

Investigation of Ice Formation in the Induction 

System of an Aircraft Engine, I—Ground Tests 

(Washington, DC: NACA MR–E6B28, 1946).

146. Henry Essex, Edward Zlotowski, and Carl Ellisman, 

Investigation of Ice Formation in the Induction 

System of an Aircraft Engine, II—Flight Tests 

(Washington, DC: NACA MR– E6E16, 1946).

147. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of

Progress: A Heritage of Aircraft Turbine Technology 

(Fallbrook, CA: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1979), p. 48.

148. Virginia Dawson, “The Turbojet Revolution at Lewis 

Research Center,” Annual Meeting of the Society for 

the History of Technology (4 November 1984). 

149. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, chap. 3.

150. Pinkel interview, by Dawson, 4 August 1985.

151. Abe Silverstein interview, Cleveland, OH, by John 

Sloop, 29 May 1974, Glenn History Collection, Oral 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

152. Merritt Preston, Fred O. Black, and James M. Jagger, 

Altitude-Wind-Tunnel Tests of Power-Plant 

Installation in Jet-Propelled Fighter (Washington, 

DC: NACA MR–E5L17, 1946).

153. Laurence K. Loftkin, Jr., Quest for Performance: The 

Evolution of Modern Aircraft (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP–468, 1985), chap. 11, http://www. 

hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-2.htm

(accessed 30 July 2009).

154. Loftkin, Quest for Performance.

155. Abe Silverstein, “Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigations 

of Jet-Propulsion Engines,” General Electric Gas 

Turbine Conference (31 May 1945), pp. 7–10.

156. Richard Leyes II and William A. Fleming, The 

History of North American Small Gas Turbine 

Aircraft Engines (Reston, VA: AIAA and

Smithsonian Institution, 1999).

157. Leyes, The History of North American Small Gas 

Turbine Aircraft Engines. 
Image 79: Mechanics lower an inlet duct for a Westinghouse J40 engine into the 

Altitude Wind Tunnel’s 20-foot-diameter test section (GRC–1951–C–28463).
3. Setting Forth

“When you’re in the middle of a maelstrom, 

I don’t think you feel it the same way as when you’re 

on the outside looking in, because you’re moving 

with the stream, and that’s about the way it was.”

—Abe Silverstein 
Image 80: A mechanic inspects a General Electric I–40 turbotjet engine. The lab had begun investigating jet engines 

during the war, but the “big switch” to jet propulsion began in October 1945 (GRC–1946–C–15674).
 Setting Forth 61

“Parking lots were unoccupied and offices were 

deserted. One stack of the Heating Plant was smoking, and the flag flew in a fresh breeze. In the Center 

Section of the Engine Research Building a large black 

and white cat strolled slowly down the deserted center 

aisle.”158 That is how Wing Tips described the scene 

at the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) 

during the two-day federal shutdown following Japan’s 

surrender on 15 August 1945. The pacific atmosphere 

at the lab was countered by the euphoria in the streets 

and homes in Cleveland and across the nation. Loved 

ones and colleagues would be returning home, and

everyday amenities like full tanks of gasoline, nylons, 

and cartons of cigarettes would be plentiful again. 

The U.S. military emerged from World War II with 

new interest in jet aircraft, missiles, and nuclear propulsion. Great leaps in high-speed flight were within 

sight. The military would begin launching rockets 

at White Sands, New Mexico, in 1946; and the Bell 

XS–1 would break the sound barrier in 1947. The 

end of the war also signaled the NACA’s return to its

Setting Forth

traditional research mission. The NACA stopped 

troubleshooting military aircraft and returned to

research, focusing on the new technologies that had 

emerged during the war. The technologies came with

a host of issues that had to be addressed, and they

ushered in a time of growth and breakthroughs.

The arrival of the jet engine affected the technical

direction of the AERL—the NACA’s propulsion

center—more dramatically than it did Ames and Langley, and the postwar period brought significant changes 

to the lab. The AERL’s transition from wartime efforts 

to research began in 1944, but the transformation

became more apparent with a major reorganization in 

October 1945. It was the first of several major shifts 

that the lab would go through over the years.

In 1946 the AERL increased the number of its

employees to 2,600, where it would remain throughout the NACA period.159 Three new large test facilities and several small supersonic wind tunnels would

become operational within the next three years, and 

Image 81: Kathryn “Nicki” Crawford demonstrates that there are sufficient coins in the bucket to match her 

weight in 1946. The group of mechanics contributed the money to celebrate Crawford’s upcoming marriage 

to their colleague Bill Harrison, who had recently returned from the Army Air Corps. The Harrisons spent 

the next 66 years together (GRC–2015–C–06814).
62

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

the researchers quickly plunged into the new fields of

supersonics, jet propulsion, and missiles. Peacetime

also provided an opportunity to make aesthetic

improvements at the AERL that had not been possible

during the war, such as planting grass and almost 4,000 

trees and shrubs.160

Postwar Adjustments

The Plum Brook Ordnance Works ceased operations 

immediately after Japan’s surrender in August 1945, 

and the Trojan Powder Company dismissed most

of its 4,000 employees—retaining only a group to

decontaminate and process the facilities. The 9,000-

acre Plum Brook soon became a ghost town with only 

light security and maintenance contingents remaining. The War Assets Administration (WAA) assumed 

control in 1946 and used the Plum Brook Depot, as 

it was then referred to, to store ammunition.161 The 

government continued to decontaminate the site in the

postwar years. For the most part, however, Plum Brook 

was desolate.162

Only three years after the massive industrial site shut 

down, wildlife began reclaiming the enclosed area. 

Birds, deer, foxes, and other animals were soon present 

in large quantities. During winter 1947, groundhogs 

caused a potential hazard by burrowing into the sod 

Image 82 (inset): 1949 advertisement seeking to sell the Plum Brook Ordnance Works. Image 83: Interior of 1 of the 99 Plum Brook bunkers 

that were used to store crates of trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) during the war, c1941 (GRC–2015–C–06565).

that covered the 99 bunkers that were still being used 

to store explosives. The countless burrows exposed the 

concrete roofs and increased the threat of explosion. 

The Ohio Conservation Division eventually began 

trapping and relocating the groundhogs.163

During the mid-1940s the WAA attempted to sell 

the Plum Brook site for either industrial or agricultural use.164 It also sold roughly 3,000 acres of
 Setting Forth 63

John H. Glenn Research Center

Images 84 (left): The lab’s new management team—Addison Rothrock (left) and Raymond Sharp 

(center)—with NACA Director of Research George Lewis (GRC–1945–C–12029). Image 85: Wing 

Tips article about AERL’s reorganization.

perimeter area to the public with a clause that gave 

the government the right to purchase the land back in

20 years. The General Services Administration took

over Plum Brook in 1949 and began taking steps to

prevent further deterioration of the remaining

buildings and infrastructure.165 In 1954 the Ravenna

Arsenal assumed control as the NACA began expressing interest in using portions of the property.166

v v v v v v

The AERL’s September 1945 reorganization virtually eliminated piston engine work and redirected 

researchers to address the technical challenges of turbojet, ramjet, and rocket engines. The division chiefs—

Oscar Schey, Benjamin Pinkel, John Collins, Addison 

Rothrock, and Abe Silverstein—spearheaded the new 

plan without the input of manager Ray Sharp and

Executive Engineer Carlton Kemper.167 Sharp trusted

his managers and usually did not interfere with

technical decisions. Kemper had been on special

assignment in Europe since April 1945 as part of

the United States’s effort to review and secure

German technology following the fall of Berlin. The

team interrogated researchers, inspected facilities,

and captured documents.168,169 During Kemper’s

absence, Addison Rothrock assumed control of the

lab’s research activities. When Kemper returned

to Cleveland in October, 

the reorganization was 

complete and his role

as Executive Engineer 

became that of a consultant. As the new 

Chief of Research, 

Rothrock made most

of the technical decisions.170

The new alignment included just four research divisions: Fuels and Thermodynamics, Compressor and 

Turbine, Engine Performance and Materials, and Wind 

Tunnels and Flight. The improvement of fuels was 

not as important for jet engines, so those researchers 

were placed in Ben Pinkel’s Fuels and Thermodynamics Division to study heat transfer issues, combustion, and high-energy liquid propellants for rocket

applications. This research was the germ of critical 

propellant advances in the ensuing decades. Jet engines 

did not employ superchargers, so the supercharger

researchers were assigned to Oscar Schey’s new

Compressor and Turbine Division. John Collins’s 

Engine Performance and Materials Division studied 

engine controls, performance, and new high-strength 

materials. Abe Silverstein’s Wind Tunnels and Flight 

Division was responsible for engine testing in the
64

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

new engines. In response, the NACA leaders

decided to segregate the research by components, rather than by engine type. Therefore 

work was focused on subjects like turbines 

instead of turbojets.173,174

v v v v v v

During the final six months of the war, the 

once-secret laboratory began opening its 

doors to the press, aeronautic societies,

servicemen, and industry leaders. The lab 

erected grandstands beside the AWT to 

provide a location to take photographs of 

the groups of visitors, and Ray Sharp made 

a point to have a photograph taken of individual visitors and their hosts outside of the 

Administration Building entrance. 

In 1947 the NACA renamed the AERL the

Flight Propulsion Research Laboratory to

reflect the expansion of its research activities beyond

engine research. That same year, the lab hosted its first

Inspection. The NACA had held annual conferences,

or Inspections, at Langley from 1926 to 1939. The

NACA would invite hundreds of esteemed individuals from the manufacturing industry, military, and universities to visit the Langley laboratory on a specific

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT), the expanded icing

research program, flight testing, and the new supersonic research. 

The military remained the NACA’s primary sponsor 

after the war. Representatives worked closely with 

both NACA Headquarters and researchers at the lab to 

plan research projects. The military 

then made official research requests 

through headquarters. Nonetheless, 

AERL management, particularly

Abe Silverstein, encouraged the

researchers to steer the military into 

the most beneficial areas.171 In addition, most of the basic research was 

internally driven. The resulting technical reports were made available 

to industry and military planners 

who did not have the time or facilities to undertake such fundamental

efforts.172 The AERL submitted a list of fundamental problems

requiring research to headquarters

in December 1945, including a

variety of new engine types. There 

was pushback, however, from

industry. The engine companies did 

not want to compete with the federally funded NACA in developing 

Image 86: NACA Secretary John Victory (left) and Ray Sharp (right) lead General 

Dwight Eisenhower on a tour of the Cleveland lab on 11 April 1946. The former 

supreme commander of Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe was visiting several 

U.S. cities at the time (GRC–1946–C–14688).

Image 87: Page from a photo album of visitors to the Administration Building in the postwar 

years (GRC–1951–C–27147). 
 Setting Forth 65

John H. Glenn Research Center

Images 88: Tour stop schedule for the 1947 Inspection.

Image 89: George W. Lewis (GRC–2015–C–06556). Image 90: Myrtle Lewis with her sons George, Jr., and Harvey during an October 1951 

visit to the laboratory (GRC–1951–C–28570).

date. Then the guests would be segregated into 

groups that would tour a series of stops, mostly at test

facilities, where researchers would brief them on the 

latest efforts in their particular field. The events not 

only allowed the NACA to show off its activities, 

but also provided an opportunity for the NACA to

receive feedback on what issues required research.175,176 

The Inspections resumed in 1946 as multiday events 

at all three NACA laboratories. The Inspections were 

very important to the NACA, and great efforts were 

expended to ensure that they were carried out flawlessly. Everything—from the technical talks and tour 

schedule to the coffee service and transportation—

was meticulously planned and rehearsed. The NACA

Inspections always received rave reviews.

The Cleveland laboratory’s 8–10 October 1947

Inspection featured the AWT and showcased the lab’s 

compressor, turbine, fuels, high-altitude combustion, 

and materials research. The lab’s P–61 Black Widow

aircraft made a flyby with a ramjet engine running

underneath its wing for the visitors at the Administration Building, and the 1,000 guests viewed the firing of 

small rocket engines in the new Rocket Lab test cells. 

In 1947 the lab also began the tradition of holding an 

open house for employees and their families on the 

Sunday following the event.177
66

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

The 1947 Inspection in Cleveland included a conspicuous absence—George Lewis. He had joined 

the NACA Headquarters in 1919 and was named

Director of Aeronautical Research five years later, 

serving as the liaison between the Executive Committee and the research laboratories. Lewis, who did 

not take a day of leave between the Pearl Harbor

attack and the Armistice, began suffering health

problems in 1945. These concerns forced him to miss 

the 1947 Inspection and to retire shortly thereafter. 

Lewis died in July 1948.178 During the lab’s second 

Inspection in September 1948, the NACA commemorated Lewis by changing the laboratory’s name 

to the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory.179 Prior to 

his passing, Lewis was able to see his sons George, Jr., 

and Harvey begin 30-year careers as compressor and 

instrument researchers at the lab. 

Jet Propulsion

Lewis’s primary emphasis in the postwar era was turbojet engines. The switch from piston to jet engines

required the modification of test facilities and the 

training of personnel. The NACA researchers

tackled all related issues—combustion at high altitudes,

compressor and turbine design, controls, thrust 

augmentation, and new stronger materials. The

component work was done in the Engine Research

Building test cells, while the laboratory’s unique

altitude test facilities tested the entire engine system in 

realistic flight conditions. 

Oscar Schey’s Compressor and Turbine Division was 

the largest at the laboratory, and it issued the most 

technical reports during this period. The researchers were able to apply the experience they had gained

previously in the Supercharger Division to the compressor and turbine work. Improvements in this area 

were a key aspect of the continual drive to advance

engine performance while reducing weight and fuel 

consumption. In 1946 the laboratory added an entire 

new wing to the Engine Research Building for compressor and turbine testing.

Schey’s group was primarily involved with axial-flow 

engines. Although axial-flow engines were more aerodynamic and lighter than centrifugal engines, they were 

much more complex. There were multiple stages and 

hundreds of specially shaped blades and stators to take 

into account, resulting in tens of thousands of measurements for each test run. Therefore the researchers 

Image 91: A mechanic examines compressor blades on a General Electric J47 engine (GRC–1949–C–22850).
 Setting Forth 67

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 92: A failure of a Westinghouse J34 engine in the AWT test section (GRC–1950–C–26294).

performed as much theoretical work as possible before 

studying single blades in small wind tunnels. Once that 

process was completed, they moved on to single-stage 

compressors, and then verified the findings with multistage compressors.180

The two main thrusts of the axial-flow research were 

the improvement of airflow through the compressor 

and turbine blades and the cooling of the turbine. The 

NACA also conducted basic research aimed toward 

the creation of new analytical design methods that 

would shorten the development schedule.181

Designers required a much better understanding of 

the interaction of the compressor blades, fan stages, 

and turbine. The complex stages also required new 

lightweight, high-strength materials that could endure 

the engine’s stresses and high temperatures. These 

must be inexpensive, easily obtained materials.182 At 

the time, Lewis was unique in its ability to study fullscale multistage compressors. The Compressor and 

Turbine Division made key advances in understanding how the compressor stages performed in relation 

to one another.183

The AWT was the laboratory’s engine research workhorse in the 1940s and 1950s. Despite being designed 

for piston engines, the facility was robust enough that 

only slight modifications were required to test the 

more powerful turbojets. One of the most significant 

problems with the early turbojets was maintaining 

combustion at high altitudes, and the AWT was the 

nation’s only facility in which the combustion and 

performance characteristics of a turbojet could be 

studied under altitude conditions.184 Lewis researchers used the AWT to analyze almost every model of

U.S. jet engine that emerged in the 1940s, including 

extensive studies of the Westinghouse J34 and General 

Electric J47, the nation’s first commercially successful 

jet engines. The researchers investigated overall engine 

performance, operating range, acceleration, flameouts, 

fuel consumption, and amplification of thrust over a 

variety of altitudes and speeds.185

Another issue was the need for short bursts of power,

particularly for takeoffs. Early jet engine nozzles were 

typically designed to operate at maximum speed,

so their efficiency decreased at slower speeds.

Consequently, early jet aircraft required longer
68

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

runways and burned more fuel during takeoff than 

piston engines did. Lewis engineers developed several tools to address this, including the variable-area 

nozzle. The variable-area nozzle is an exhaust pipe 

that can expand or contract its diameter to quickly

increase or decrease thrust levels. The nozzle

improved control and fuel efficiency at lower speeds.186

Researchers also found that the injection of water or 

water-alcohol mixture into the compressor reduced the 

engine temperature, allowing the compressor to pump 

additional air into the combustion chamber. Lewis 

studies indicated that this method increased thrust

by 35 percent at takeoff speeds and by 50 percent in

cruising conditions.187

A third method of thrust augmentation was the afterburner. Afterburners spray fuel into the nozzle where 

it combusts with the hot exhaust to produce additional 

thrust. They burn large quantities of fuel, however, so 

afterburners can only be operated for brief periods.

Although the concept was developed in the 1930s,

AERL researchers were the first to successfully operate

an afterburner.188 The initial demonstration took 

place in 1945 when the researchers successfully ran a

General Electric J47 engine with a low-velocity afterburner in the AWT.189 They examined various 

different afterburner configurations during the 1940s,

investigating each variable independently and over a

variety of altitudes and speeds. As a result, J47 thrust 

increased by 37 percent at standstill and by 75 percent

in normal flight.190 By the mid 1950s, engine designers were including variable-area nozzle afterburners in 

nearly all jet engines. The use of afterburners evolved 

from merely assisting takeoff to being an integral part of

supersonic flight.191

The AWT was such a success in the mid-1940s that 

there was a bottleneck of engines waiting to be tested.

In 1946, the lab added a new Compressor and

Turbine Wing to the Engine Research Building, 

including two 10-foot-diameter test chambers, known 

as the Four Burner Area, that could test full-scale

engines in simulated altitudes up to 50,000 feet. In 

1947 the Rolls Royce Nene became the first engine 

Image 93: A mechanic with a fire extinguisher watches the firing of twin afterburners (GRC–1949–C–23744). 
 Setting Forth 69

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 94: Mechanics install a turbojet engine in a Four Burner Area test cell (GRC–1950–C–25120).

Image 95: Aircraft mechanics work on an early jet aircraft in the 

hangar (GRC–1946–C–14739).

tested in the two new test cells.192 Over the next

10 years Lewis researchers conducted a variety of

studies in the Four Burner Area with particular focus 

on the J47 and Pratt & Whitney’s J65 turbojets.193

Backbone of the Laboratory

The laboratory’s attention to its technical force yielded 

significant dividends over the years. The technicians 

and mechanics in the Test Installations Division were 

a critical component of the research process. They 

were often as important to the achievement of the 

test’s goals as the researchers or test engineers were. 

In general the researchers decided what they wanted 

tested—usually basing this on military or industry

requests. They then obtained test equipment from

engine companies or Lewis’s Fabrication Shop. The

researchers informed the Test Installation Division

of the test program’s objectives and parameters. Then 

the test engineers worked with the mechanics and

technicians to install the test article, modify the

facility’s systems to achieve the desired test conditions,

and install the extensive instrumentation and datarecording equipment. Although their names usually 

do not appear on the research reports, the insights

and modifications developed by the mechanics and 

technicians were critical to the ultimate success of a 

test. Engineers frequently incorporated the mechanics’ 

ideas into the engineering drawings.194,195
70

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

a series of grades until they reached journeyman status.

Those who excelled in the Apprentice Program would 

be considered for a separate five-year engineering 

draftsman program. 

In December 1949 Lewis recognized 15 members of 

the World War II program with honorary degrees.

The 1952 class contained the first official 46 graduates.

This increased to 110 in 1957 and to over 600 by

1969.199 The program remained strong for decades,

and many of the laboratory’s future managers began

their careers as apprentices.200

In 1942 the laboratory established a four-year 

Apprentice Program to train new employees to 

be highly skilled tradesmen and to facilitate the 

close interaction of the laboratory’s engineers 

and scientists with the mechanics and technicians. The apprentice school covered a variety of 

trades including aircraft mechanic, electronics, 

instrumentation, machinist, and altitude systems mechanic.196 The school quickly faltered

when nearly all 70 of the original students

entered the military. For several years the

NACA hired many journeymen to fill these

vacancies. In August 1947 the laboratory began

taking steps to resurrect the Apprentice

Program and inducted 47 apprentices into the 

program in January 1948.197,198

The three-year program, which was certified by both 

the Department of Labor and the State of Ohio,

included classroom lectures, the study of models, and 

hands-on work. The apprentices rotated through the 

various shops and facilities to obtain a well-rounded 

understanding of all of the work at the lab. The NACA 

held the apprentices to a higher standard than industry did. Participants had to pass written civil service 

exams before entering the program and possess some 

form of previous experience—either with mechanical model airplanes, radio transmission, or one year of 

trade school. The apprentices were promoted through 

Image 97: Some apprentices take a break from their studies to pose for a photograph. Only 150 of the 2,000 hours of annual training were spent 

in the classroom (GRC–1956–C–43227).

Image 96: Page from a compiled apprentice roster. 
 Setting Forth 71

John H. Glenn Research Center

Chasing the Icing Clouds

Flight research has been a critical component of a vast 

array of the laboratory’s research since the program’s 

initiation in March 1943. During the war, the military 

provided the laboratory with the same types of aircraft 

that the research was intended to benefit. For example, 

new methods of cooling the Pratt & Whitney R–2800 

engines were verified with test flights on the R–2800-

powered Martin B–26. After the war, the research

aircraft served as testbeds to investigate engines or 

systems that often had little to do with that particular 

aircraft. For instance, a B–29 was modified so that a 

ramjet could be lowered from its bomb bay and fired 

during flight. A near-endless procession of aircraft, 

mostly military, passed through Lewis’s hangar during 

the 1940s.

In addition to the aircraft, Lewis had an elite corps 

of pilots: Howard Lilly, Bill Swann, Joe Walker, and

William “Eb” Gough. Lilly, a young pilot with recent

Navy experience, flew in the National Air Races when

they were reinstituted in 1946. In July 1947 he

transferred to the NACA’s new flight research lab at 

Muroc Lake, where he became the first NACA pilot 

Image 98: A Consolidated B–24D Liberator (left), Boeing B–29 Superfortress (background), and Lockheed RA–29 Hudson (foreground) 

parked inside the hangar. A P–47G Thunderbolt and P–63A King Cobra are visible in the background (GRC–1944–C–05416).

Image 99: Lewis pilot Howard Lilly poses with his P–63 King Cobra, 

which he flew in the 1946 National Air Races (GRC–2015–C–06813).
72

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 100: AERL pilots during the final days of World War II: 

from left to right, Joseph Vensel, Howard Lilly, William Swann, and 

Joseph Walker. William “Eb” Gough joined the group months after 

this photograph. Vensel, a veteran pilot from Langley, was the Chief 

of Flight Operations and a voice of reason at the laboratory. In April 

1947 Vensel was transferred to lead the new Muroc Flight Tests Unit 

in California until 1966 (GRC–1945–C–11397).

Image 101: A flight research member examines instrumentation in the B–24D during a 1945 icing flight (GRC–1945–C–10377).

to penetrate the sound barrier. On 3 May 1948, Lilly 

became the first NACA pilot to die in the line of duty. 

Swann was a young civilian pilot when he joined the 

NACA. He spent his entire career at the Cleveland 

laboratory and led the flight operations group from the 

early 1960s until 1979.

The AERL hired Walker, a former military pilot, as a 

physicist in early 1945, but he soon joined the pilot 

corps. Gough joined the AERL in December 1945 

and was appointed head of the Flight Operations

Section. In the Navy, he became the nation’s fourth 

person to qualify on helicopters and the 35th on 

jets. Gough was stationed in the Pacific and tasked

with the job of flying the reliable, but ungainly,

Consolidated PBY Catalina flying boat. He survived 

being shot down and taken in by indigenous natives, 

and later rescued 10 nurses from Corregidor just

before the island was captured by the Japanese.201,202

v v v v v v

The Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) functioned

during World War II, but it was not the sophisticated research tool that its designers had intended. 
 Setting Forth 73

John H. Glenn Research Center

Hampered by the lack of data on the actual size of

naturally occurring water droplets, engineers struggled for six years to develop a realistic water spray

system. The spray bars had to generate small 

droplets and distribute them uniformly throughout the airstream while resisting freezing and

blockage. NACA engineers meticulously developed

and tested a variety of different designs before

the system was perfected in 1950.203

Meanwhile, the Flight Research Branch performed 

most of the lab’s icing research. The laboratory

increased its activities and introduced two new areas of 

research after the war—turbojet icing and cloud physics studies. The lab performed a limited amount of

icing research during World War II, but the effort was 

expanded significantly when the NACA transferred its 

official icing program from Ames to Lewis. Although 

the Lewis icing researchers utilized numerous aircraft 

during this period, the Consolidated B–24M Liberator and the North American XB–25E Mitchell were 

the primary tools. Both were heavily modified to permit flights through the worst icing conditions.

In January 1947, Wilson Hunter, head of the icing 

program, announced that research on piston engines, 

particularly propellers, was complete. Going forward, 

the branch would concentrate on studying the effects 

of ice buildup on jet engines. Although jet engines 

allowed aircraft to pass through inclement weather 

at high rates of speed, little was known about their 

susceptibility to ice. Lewis researchers made plans to 

study a General Electric I–16 centrifugal engine and a 

Westinghouse J34 axial-flow engine.204

The NACA researchers decided to mount the I–16 

inside the rear area of their Consolidated B–24M 

bomber. Mechanics installed an air scoop on top of the 

aircraft to guide airflow to the engine inside. Then they 

placed spray nozzles in front of the scoop to simulate 

icing at the engine’s inlet. Although ice blocked up to 

70 percent of the inlet during the late 1946 research 

flights, the centrifugal engine exhibited no combustion 

problems.205

Axial-flow turbojets were another matter. The inlet 

and engine cover were particularly vulnerable, and 

any ice reaching the internal components could damage the compressor blades.206 In April 1947 the icing

researchers tested the J34 engine, which used a deicing 

Image 102: NACA memo authorizing icing flight tests of jet engines.

Image 103: Abe Silverstein measures ice buildup on the Westinghouse 

J34 engine (GRC–1948–C–20836).
74

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

icing group created an engineering field that thrives 

to this day, seeking to perfect weather-sensing 

equipment and systematically measure and categorize water droplets and clouds. At the time, it was 

hoped that aircraft designers would use the information to determine precisely what level of anti-icing

protection would be best for a particular aircraft and to 

identify its performance and drag tradeoffs.212

Lewis pilots flew missions throughout the country to 

better understand the cloud conditions that cause ice 

formation. During the peak of these studies from 1946 

to 1950, Lewis icing flight researchers documented 

and analyzed ice-producing clouds and developed

numerous icing instruments, including Porter Perkins’s 

icing rate meter. This lightweight device continuously 

recorded the frequency and intensity of icing conditions and warned the pilots when icing conditions 

were present.213 The NACA was able to convince the 

military and several airlines to install icing rate meters 

on their normal flights and to send the data back to 

Cleveland for analysis.214

The NACA researchers and analysts studied natural 

icing cloud conditions for several years, making extensive measurements and conducting statistical analyses. 

The researchers were able to determine the general 

shape and extent of supercooled stratiform (thin,

Image 104: The XB–25E Mitchell searches for icing clouds in January 1947. The aircraft, dubbed “Flamin Mamie,” includes nose artwork 

depicting a fiery woman chasing off icing researchers (GRC–1947–C–17763). 

system to flow hot engine gases into the engine inlet. 

The test—the only icing research ever conducted in the 

AWT—demonstrated that, although the system could 

prevent ice buildup, it caused a decrease in thrust.207 

The researchers then examined several different iceprevention techniques in the IRT. They concluded 

that the hot gas deicing system could in fact perform 

its task without degrading engine performance.208

With the numbers of jet aircraft growing, the military pressed for flight tests to determine the overall 

icing threat to axial-flow engines.209 Lewis mechanics

attached the J34 axial-flow engine to the wing of the 

B–24M aircraft and flew several hour-long missions 

through mild icing conditions in spring 1948. The

engine did not stall, but the icing decreased thrust

and increased nozzle temperatures.210 When Lewis 

researchers redesigned the inlet area, they were able 

to successfully test three different heating systems that 

did not limit engine performance.211

v v v v v v

The NACA’s icing research program seemed to be 

winding down in 1947 as the turbojet studies were 

carried out. Lewis’s researchers, however, convinced 

management to undertake an even larger icing effort—

the study of icing cloud physics. Rather than merely

testing different anti-icing and deicing tools, the
 Setting Forth 75

John H. Glenn Research Center

horizontal) clouds and their relation to general weather conditions.215 They found that stratiform clouds

produced 95 percent of the icing encounters that

pilots experienced during normal flights.216

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) used the

NACA research to create mandatory ice protection 

criteria for aircraft manufacturers. These requirements 

were a balancing act between safety precautions and 

Image 105: The wooded picnic grounds as it appeared in August 1945. The area was improved in the ensuing years (GRC–1945–C–12065).

overburdening the manufacturers. It was assumed 

that some aircraft components could withstand brief 

periods of ice accretion. Those aircraft with less than 

maximum protection would have to rely on meteorological forecasting to navigate around severe icing

conditions.217 The Lewis icing program tapered off in 

the mid-1950s as these studies came to a conclusion, 

but it has reemerged as a robust element of today’s 

aeronautical research program.

v v v v v v

Researchers needed to convert the data collected 

from the icing program, as well as other research, into 

meaningful information. The female computing staff 

performed that function during the war, but by the 

late 1940s Lewis had begun to acquire computational

technology. One of the first notable examples

was Lewis researcher Harold Mergler’s differential

analyzer. Mergler joined the Instrument Research

Section in 1948, where he focused on the synthesis

of analog computers with the machine tools used to 

create compressor and turbine blades for jet engines.

In the early 1940s the NACA constructed a

recreational area in a wooded area along the

edge of the lab. The area included handball

courts, horseshoe pits, grills, tables, and a

pavilion. The staff used the site for a variety of

events, including the Lewis employee picnic 

held every July. The original recreational area 

was torn down in the late 1970s to make way 

for the Research Analysis Center. Since then, 

the picnic grounds have been located at different locations in the center’s West Area.
76

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Researchers had used differential analyzers since the 1930s to resolve computations up to the sixth order. Those 

devices, however, had to be rewired 

before each new computation.218 In 

the late 1940’s Mergler modified the

differential analyzer, eliminating the

need for rewiring. In four days

Mergler’s machine could calculate

what previously had taken the computing staff weeks to accomplish,

and some of the computer staff

members transitioned to the new

device. Icing researchers used the

device extensively in the 1950s to

calculate water droplet trajectories.219

Lewis’s first electronic computer was

the IBM 604 Electronic Calculating

Punch. The 604, introduced in 1948,

was IBM’s first mass-produced

electronic computer.220,221 The programmable computer performed

basic mathematical calculations at

comparatively high speeds. This 

was supplanted by IBM’s Card

Programmed Electronic Calculator, which could be programmed 

by punch cards to allow programs 

of unlimited length.222 The system

recorded the manometer pressure

readings from the test facilities

directly into punch cards that were fed 

into the calculator. 

Staffing requirements decreased as 

electronic data processing capabilities 

improved. The “computers” primarily 

female, quickly adapted and learned 

how to encode the punch cards.

Computing remained one of the 

few technical professional areas at 

the NACA open to women at the 

time.223 At the same time, many left 

to start families, while others earned 

mathematical degrees and moved into

advanced positions.

Image 106: Harold Mergler with his differential analyzer (GRC–1951–C–27875).

Image 107: A computer at work in one of the three offices on the second story of the 8- by 

6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (8×6) office building. The largest room housed approximately 

35 women with advanced mathematical skills (GRC–1954–C–35057). 
 Setting Forth 77

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 108 (top): The Farm House as it appeared shortly after the NACA took over in 1941 (GRC –2011–C–00345). Images 109 and 110 

(center and bottom): The Administrative Services Building after the modifications (GRC–1946–C–15355) and after it was moved behind the 

Adminstration Building (GRC–1967–C–01234).

After the war ended, the NACA removed

or repurposed several of the AERL’s temporary 

buildings. The Farm House, which had initially served as the main office, was dramatically modified in 1946 to increase its size, give 

it a more formal appearance, and add modern 

conveniences.224 The new structure was built 

around the original. The building, renamed 

the Administrative Services Building, housed

members of the Administrative Services 

Branch. These included the AERL’s telephone 

operators, motor pool, travel agents, forms and 

records management staff, and mail service.

The AERL was then able to demolish the 

group’s former location at the Tempo A 

Building. As the adjacent airport expanded 

in the early 1950s, the laboratory relocated 

the entire Administrative Services Building

from its position near the main gate to the lot 

directly behind the Administration Building.

The staff used the Administrative Services

Building for 20 years before deterioration

forced the center to demolish it in 1973.225
78

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 111: Harold Friedman with an 8-inch-diameter ramjet model 

(GRC–1949–C–23083).

Image 112: Construction of the lab’s first supersonic tunnel. Eventually 

the building would house three small supersonic tunnels 

(GRC–1945–C–10764).

Supersonic Missile Research 

Of all the new technologies to emerge from World 

War II, perhaps none offered as much military

potential as guided missiles. The missiles’ speed and

ability to breach defense systems made them

exceptionally useful for striking distant enemies.

During World War II, the Germans demonstrated

that missiles could be powered by airbreathing (V–1) 

or rocket-powered (V–2) engines. After the war, the 

U.S. Army famously brought the captured German 

rocket team to its research base at White Sands, New 

Mexico. In the early 1940s, Caltech researchers created 

a small rocket test site, known as the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory ( JPL), near Pasadena. A new U.S. rocket 

and missile industry took hold in Southern California.226 The military was interested in developing 

rocket and ramjet engines and in using traditional propellants and experimental high-energy fuels. 

The NACA founded a Special Committee on SelfPropelled Guided Missiles, which included Abe

Silverstein, to track these developments. The NACA 

also established the Pilotless Aircraft Research

Station at Wallops Island in 1945, and the High Speed 

Research Facility at Muroc Lake in 1946. The former 

provided Langley with a remote location from which 

to fire small missiles over the Atlantic, and the latter 

provided a large dry lake bed for testing experimental 

aircraft.227,228

The NACA also began constructing supersonic wind 

tunnels at its research laboratories. In 1942 Langley 

commenced work on a small supersonic tunnel with a 

9-inch-diameter test section for studying swept-wing 

designs. The tunnel engineers, however, were not able 

to get the facility operating correctly until 1946.229 The 

real supersonic wind tunnel push began in 1945 when 

the NACA approved the construction of a large supersonic wind tunnel at each of its three research laboratories. Almost immediately, Lewis began design work 

on the largest of these, the 8×6. These large facilities 

took several years to construct. In the meantime, the 

laboratories set out to rapidly build smaller supersonic 

facilities to study small-scale models.

As design work commenced on the 8×6, Lewis

engineers quickly constructed several small supersonic tunnels that took advantage of the massive

air-handling equipment at the AWT. The first
 Setting Forth 79

John H. Glenn Research Center

of these, wedged between the AWT and the

IRT, began operation in August 1945 after

just 90 days of construction. Lewis added

two other small tunnels to the facility in 1949

and 1951.230 The three tunnels, with test

sections ranging from 1.5 to 2 feet in diameter,

were built vertically on top of each other and

thus were referred to as the Stack Tunnels. 

Researchers used the Stack Tunnels to study 

inlet configurations and boundary layer

effects for jet engines.231 The Duct Lab, a 

fourth AWT-based supersonic tunnel, was 

put into operation by November 1945, and 

the 1- by 1-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel

in the Engine Research Building began running

in 1951. Lewis used these small tunnels to study 

a variety of inlets, nozzles, and cones for missiles 

and scramjets. v v v v v v

The ramjet’s potential missile and aircraft

applications spurred the Lewis Wind Tunnels and Flight Division to pursue an extensive

research program in the 1940s and 1950s. 

Ramjets provide a very simple source of

propulsion for missiles or aircraft. They are basically a tube in which high-velocity air is ingested

and ignited. The heated air expands and is

expelled at a significantly higher velocity for 

thrust. There are no moving components.

Ramjets rely on the engine’s forward motion to 

push the air through. This simplifies the design 

because no compressor or turbine is needed, but 

a booster stage of some sort is required to get 

the ramjet up to speed before it can be ignited.

Ramjets perform better as the vehicle’s speed

increases. The concept was not new, but because 

manufacturers did not have facilities powerful enough to test the engines, development 

stalled.232

Lewis’s missile work was initially segregated 

into three groups—inlet and nozzle studies

in the small supersonic tunnels, full-scale

engine tests in the AWT and launched from

research aircraft, and theoretical aerodynamic research by John Evvard’s Special

Research Panel.233,234 The Special Projects Panel

initially designed a 20-inch-diameter ramjet

Image 114: John Evvard with a missile model in the 8×6 in February 1957 

(GRC–1957–C–44223).

Image 113: A technician operates a Schlieren camera to view the airflow 

dynamics inside the 24- by 24-inch test section of one of the Stack Tunnels 

(GRC–1949–C–24977).
80

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 115: A B–29 bomber that was modified to serve as a ramjet testbed for Lewis researchers. The experimental ramjet was lowered from the 

bomb bay and fired (GRC–1948–C–21990).

Image 116: A North American XF–82 Twin Mustang prepares for flight with a ramjet missile under its right wing (GRC–1949–C–23330).

In March 1947 the army asked the NACA to increase

its ramjet efforts, which now revolved around a 

16-inch-diameter engine.239,240 The researchers were 

able to augment their subsonic engine studies in the 

AWT with a series of supersonic missile drops from 

the B–29 and their F–82 Twin Mustang aircraft.

Lewis pilots flew to Wallops Island where they

released the ramjet missile from a high altitude.

Initially, the missiles were boosted by a small rocket.

The experimental ramjet took over as the missile

began its downward trajectory and reached supersonic speeds. These missiles contained telemetry units

engine and analyzed the thrust levels and performance 

of each of the engine’s components in the AWT during May 1945.235,236 In 1946 and 1947 John Disher 

and his colleagues subjected the engine to a series of 

flight tests on the lab’s Boeing B–29 aircraft. Flight

mechanics mounted the ramjet on a retractable spar

in the aircraft’s bomb bay. Once the aircraft’s proper

altitude and speeds were achieved, they lowered the

engine into the atmosphere and ignited it. The

researchers were able to study changes in fuel

flow, combustion efficiency, and fuel-air ratios.237,238
 Setting Forth 81

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 117: The seven-stage axial compressor that powers the 8×6. The compressor was driven by three electric motors with a total output of 

87,000 horsepower, resulting in airspeeds from Mach 0.36 to 2.0 (GRC–1949–C–23277).

which recorded flight data that was relayed to

tracking stations. The researchers analyzed modifications to different engine components and studied the 

effect of altitude and speed on performance, allowing them to determine the ramjet’s performance and

operational characteristics in the transonic range.241

The 8×6, which became operational in April 1949, 

was the most powerful of the NACA’s three new large 

supersonic tunnels and was the only facility capable 

of running an engine at supersonic speeds.242 Flexible 

sidewalls altered the tunnel’s nozzle shape to vary the 

Mach number. A massive seven-stage axial compressor 

blew the airflow through the tubular facility at speeds 

from Mach 0.36 to 2.1 and loudly expelled it out the 

other end into the atmosphere.243

The tunnel’s muffler successfully reduced the noise 

levels as static models were tested during the first few 

months of operation, but it proved inadequate when 

Lewis first ran an engine in the test section in January 1950. The sound roused residents from their sleep 

and spurred a rash of complaints from the community. The researchers, however, were thrilled with that

Image 118: A researcher inspects a 16-inch-diameter ramjet engine 

in the 8×6 test section. Researchers studied the ramjet’s performance 

at different speeds and varying angles of attack. The engine performed 

well, and the findings correlated with nonfueled studies in the smaller 

wind tunnels (GRC–1950–C–25776).
82

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

combustion. This rocket group, ambiguously named 

the High Pressure Combustion Section, was located 

in the undeveloped area at the far west end of the laboratory. At the time NACA Headquarters was wary of 

sponsoring any research on weapons, which is what 

they considered missiles to be.248 Lewis management, 

however, gave the group a wide latitude to pursue its 

studies on its own. The new rocket section initially 

studied issues such as combustion and cooling in

solid propellant rockets. During a 1945 visit to the

Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, researchers

Image 119: A researcher prepares a jet-assisted take off ( JATO) 

rocket for a combustion study at the Rocket Lab (GRC–1945–C–10724).

Image 120: Firing of a nitric acid aniline JATO rocket at the Rocket Lab in March 1946. The Rocket Lab was expanded over the next 10 years 

and eventually included its own hydrogen liquefier (GRC–1946–C–14478).

initial run. It demonstrated, for the first time, that a

jet engine could operate in an airflow faster than

Mach 2.244 The laboratory suspended operation of the 

tunnel and hired a local firm to design a new muffler

system. The company conducted audio tests in the

community and devised a large concrete resonator to

enclose the end of the tunnel. The 8×6 was up and

running again in less than a year.245

Rocket Combustion

The fuels and lubrication researchers were incorporated into the new Fuels and Thermodynamics

Division as part of the 1945 reorganization. Louis

Gibbon’s Fuels Branch compared the performance

characteristics of different fuels in jet and ramjet

engines. The studies during this period indicated

that fuels with lower boiling points had superior

combustion but did not operate as well at high

altitudes.246 Walter Olson’s Combustion Branch

sought to study the underlying physics of burning

and to analyze the performance of different combustion chamber designs. The researchers investigated 

how combustors operate and identified key design

criteria.247

Olson’s branch included a small group of researchers 

led by John Dietrich that studied basic rocket engine 
 Setting Forth 83

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 121: John Sloop demonstrates a small rocket setup in Cell 4 of the 

Rocket Lab (GRC–1947–C–19769). Image 122: Proceedings from the NACA Conference on Fuels.

briefed Olson on their extensive solid rocket efforts. 

To create their own niche, Olson and his new rocket 

group decided to concentrate on high-energy liquid 

propellants.249

v v v v v v

High-energy liquid propellants have been critical to the 

development of lightweight, high-thrust upper-stage 

rockets. Originally, rockets combusted gun powder 

or other solid propellant mixtures to create thrust. In 

1926 Robert Goddard was the first to launch a liquidfueled rocket. The next advance came with Wernher 

von Braun’s V–2 missiles during World War II, which 

used turbopumps to pump liquid alcohol into the 

combustion chamber. After the war, Lewis researchers 

began exploring the use of liquids with lighter weight 

and more energy.

Paul Ordin led a Lewis team that explored the

performance of virtually all available high-energy 

propellants, concentrating on the ones with the greatest combustion performance. Many of these were

considered to be more exotic laboratory chemicals 

than actual propellants. As such, they were difficult to 

procure. There are stories of Lewis researchers personally transporting dangerous liquids on public trains 

or snarling local traffic with police-escorted caravans 

through the streets of Cleveland.250

The Lewis Fabrication Shop created almost all of 

the small rocket engines used in the program. The

researchers operated the rockets in four cinder-block 

test cells in the High Pressure Combustion Laboratory 

better known as the Rocket Lab. The test cells were 

surrounded by earthen barriers to contain any blasts. 

Rockets were fired through the open doors of the cells 

into the atmosphere. Cell 22, which consisted of two 

test stands that could fire 5000-pound-thrust engines, 

was Lewis’s premier rocket tool until late 1957. Lewis 

researchers studied combustion performance, injectors, nozzles, and cooling systems for different rocket 

configurations.

In May 1948 Lewis hosted a special conference to 

share its findings with military and industry representatives.251,252 The conference led to the lab’s first 

official rocket project. In 1949 the Navy asked Lewis 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 123: A ramjet installation in the 8×6 in May 1949 (GRC–1949–C–23522).
John H. Glenn Research Center

 Setting Forth 85

to test a small rocket under consideration for the Lark 

missile. Although the test program did not prove to be 

consequential, the Navy project added legitimacy to 

the fledgling rocket group.253

v v v v v v

The Lewis laboratory boomed, both literally and figuratively, during the postwar years. It had shrugged 

the wartime chains of quick fixes for the military and 

quickly hit its research stride. Backed by a battery of 

facilities to test the engines and their components, 

Lewis immersed itself in the study of turbojet and 

ramjet engines while getting a foothold in the incipient field of high-energy rocket propellants. The steady

improvements of axial-flow turbojet engines from 

1945 to 1949 remains one of the laboratory’s most

enduring aeronautical contributions. The 1940s

engine developments would become apparent on the

dramatically more powerful turbojets of the 1950s.

Lewis researchers converted data from their altitude 

testing to create basic design principles that engine

manufacturers used in developing successive generations of jet engines. The increased performance,

safety, and efficiency led to applications on civilian

aircraft and intercontinental flights.254

Endnotes for Chapter 3

158. “War Is Over,” Wing Tips (25 August 1945).

159. “A Brief Picture of the Flight Propulsion Research 

Laboratory,” 24 September 1947, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

160. “Planting Improves Grounds,” Wing Tips

(29 November 1946).

161. Roelif Loveland, “Plum Brook Ordnance Works Is 

Now Silent and Desolate,” Cleveland Plain Dealer 

(13 March 1946).

162. Tetra Tech, Inc., “Final Environmental Baseline 

Survey Report for the Plum Brook Reactor 

Facility Decommissioning Project,” 28 February 

2001, NASA Glenn History Collection, PBOW 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

163. V. B. Gray, “Wildlife Rules Area Where Tons of 

Powder are Stored,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(14 April 1948).

164. “War Plants for Sale,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(19 December 1947).

165. David Vormelker, “Plum Brook Being Polished to 

Join Mothball Reserve,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(11 June 1949).

166. Anonymous to John Weeks, “Plum Brook 

Historical Items,” 10 March 1965, NASA Glenn 

History Office, Plum Brook Ordnance Works 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

167. Virginia Dawson, “The Turbojet Revolution at Lewis 

Research Center,” Annual Meeting of the Society for 

the History of Technology (4 November 1984). 

168. “Kemper Reports on Foreign Labs,” Wing Tips

(2 November 1945). 

169. Operation LUSTY (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: 

National Museum of the United States Air Force), 

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/ 

MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/ 

Article/196144/operation-lusty.aspx (accessed

5 August 2015).

170. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).

171. Abe Silverstein interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 5 October 1984, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

172. Cindy Forman, “Term Project Case Study: Lewis 

Research Center,” 16 October 1989, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

173. Irving Pinkel interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 30 January 1985, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

174. Dhanireddy R. Reddy, “Seventy Years of 

Aeropropulsion Research at NASA Glenn Research 

Center,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering (April 2013). 

175. James Hansen, A History of the Langley Aeronautical 

Laboratory, 1917–1958 (Washington, DC:

NASA SP–4305, 1985).

176. Alex Roland, Model Research (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP–4103, 1985).

177. “NACA Inspection Book October 8–10, 1947,” 

1947, NASA Glenn History Office, Inspections 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

178. William Durand, Biographical Memoir of George 

William Lewis (Washington, DC: National Academy 

of Sciences, 1949).

179. “George William Lewis Commemoration Ceremony,” 

28 September 1948, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

180. Robert English, “Compressor and Turbine Research: 

Scope and Methods,” Inspection at NACA Lewis

Flight Propulsion Laboratory, 20-22 September 

 1949, 1949, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

181. English, “Compressor and Turbine Research.” 

182. Robert Bullock, “Mixed Flow Compressor Research,” 

1947 Inspection, 1947, NASA Glenn History Office, 

Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.
86

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

204. William Leary, We Freeze to Please: A History of 

NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for 

Flight Safety (Washington, DC: NASA SP–2002– 

4226, 2002).

205. Philip Pragiola and Milton Werner, Flight

Investigation of the Effects of Ice on an I-16 Jet 

Propulsion Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM– 

E7A20a, 1947).

206. Loren Acker and Kenneth Kleinknecht, Effects of 

Inlet Icing on Performance of Axial-Flow Turbojet 

Engines in Natural Icing Conditions (Washington, 

DC: NACA RM–E50C15, 1950).

207. William Fleming, “Hot-Gas Bleedback for Jet Engine 

Ice Protection,” NACA Conference on Aircraft Ice 

Protection (1947), pp. 86–92.

208. Uwe von Glahn, Edmund Callaghan, and Vernon 

Gray, NACA Investigations of Icing-Protection 

Systems for Turbojet Engine Installations

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E51B12, 1951).

209. Colonel R. J. Minty to the NACA, “Flight Tests in 

Natural Icing Conditions of an Axial Flow Turbojet 

Engine,” 6 January 1948, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Flight Research Collection, Cleveland, OH.

210. Vernon Gray, “The Vulnerability of Turbojet Engines 

to Icing Conditions,” NACA Inspection Book 

September 28–30, 1948, 1948, NASA Glenn 

History Office, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

211. Leary, We Freeze to Please.

212. Pinkel interview by Dawson, 30 January 1985.

213. Porter Perkins, Stuart McCullough, and Ralph Lewis, 

A Simplified Instrument for Recording and

Indicating Frequency and Intensity of Icing 

Conditions Encountered in Flight (Washington, DC: 

NACA RM–E51E16, 1951).

214. William Lewis, Porter Perkins, and Rinaldo Brun,

Procedure for Measuring Liquid Water Content and 

Droplet Sizes in Supercooled Clouds by Rotating 

Multicylinder Method (Washington, DC: NACA 

RM–E53D23, 1949).

215. Dwight Kline and Joseph Walker, Meteorological 

Analysis of Icing Conditions Encountered in LowAltitude Stratiform Clouds (Washington, DC: 

NACA TN–2306, 1951).

216. Paul Hacker and Robert Dorsch, Summary of

Meteorological Conditions Associated With Aircraft 

Icing and a Proposed Method for Selecting Design 

Criterions for Ice-Protection Equipment 

(Washington, DC: NACA TN–2569, 1951).

217. Hacker, Summary of Meteorological Conditions.

218. Boaz Tamir, “The Differential Analyzer,” The Future 

of Things (2014), http://thefutureofthings 

com/3710-the-differential-analyzer/ (accessed

17 March 2015).

219. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

183. Walter Olson interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 16 July 1984, NASA Glenn History

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

184. Carlton Kemper, “Dr. Kemper’s Talk at Morning 

Session of First Annual Inspection,” Annual

Inspection at NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion 

Laboratory, 8–10 October 1947, 1947, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Inspections Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

185. W. Kent Hawkins and Carl L. Meyer, Altitude Wind 

Tunnel Investigation of Operational Characteristics of 

Westinghouse X24C–4B Axial-Flow Turbojet 

Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E8J25, 1948).

186. George Gray, Frontiers of Flight: The Story of NACA 

Research (New York, NY: Alfred Knopf, 1948).

187. Gray, Frontiers of Flight.

188. “The Afterburner Story,” Ryan Reporter 15, no. 2

(1 April 1954).

189. “The Afterburner Story.”

190. Gray, Frontiers of Flight.

191. Bruce Lundin, David Gabriel, and William Fleming, 

Summary of NACA Research on Afterburners for 

Turbojet Engines (Washington, DC: NACA

RM–E55L12, 1956).

192. Kemper, “Dr. Kemper’s Talk.”

193. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

194. Howard Wine interview, Cleveland, OH, 

4 September 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

195. Larry Ross interview, Cleveland, OH, 1 March 2007, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

196. Mark Wright, “We Take Pleasure in Introducing the 

Apprentice School,” Wing Tips (2 April 1943).

197. Billy Harrison and Nicki Harrison interview, 

Cleveland, OH, 14 October 2005, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

198. “47 Apprentices Enter Training,” Wing Tips

(6 February 1948).

199. “Apprentice Distribution Summary, December 1949–

September 30, 1975,” 1975, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Apprentice Collection, Cleveland, OH.

200. Harrison interview.

201. Judith Bellafaire, “The Army Nurse Corps: A Commemoration of World War II Service,” US Army 

Center of Military History, CMH Pub 72-14, c1993

http://www.history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/72/ 

72-14.html (accessed 14 August 2015). 

202. Helen Larson, “Gough Heads Pilots,” Wing Tips

(15 January 1946).

203. “Icing Research Tunnel History: 50 Years of Icing, 

1944–1994,” 9 September 1994, NASA Glenn 

History Office, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.
 Setting Forth 87

John H. Glenn Research Center

220. IBM, “Workhorse of Modern Industry: The IBM 

650,” IBM 650 (2015), http://www-03.ibm.com/ 

ibm/history/exhibits/650/650_intro.html (accessed 

17 March 2015). 

221. Frank da Cruz, “The IBM 604 Electronic Calculating 

Punch” (2009), http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ 

computinghistory/604.html (accessed 17 March 2015).

222. Frank da Cruz, “The IBM Card Programmed 

Calculator” (12 January 2009), http://www.columbia.

edu/cu/computinghistory/cpc.html (accessed

17 March 2015).

223. Peggy Yohner interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 21 May 1985, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

224. “Research Reveals Farm House History,” Wing Tips 

(16 August 1946).

225. “Early Farm House Served Lewis Well,” Lewis News

(1 March 1991).

226. Robert Kraemer, Rocketdyne: Powering Humans 

Into Space (Reston, VA: AIAA, 2006).

227. Harold D. Wallace, Jr., Wallops Station and the

Creation of an American Space Program

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4311, 1997). 

228. Richard P. Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research 

at Dryden, 1946-1981 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–4303, 1984).

229. Hansen, A History of the Langley Aeronautical 

Laboratory, pp. 250 and 467.

230. “NACA Announces New Supersonic Wind Tunnel

for Jet Propulsion Research,” Wing Tips (11 August 

1945).

231. Major Research Facilities of the Lewis Flight 

Propulsion Laboratory. Wind Tunnels—Small

Supersonic Wind Tunnels (Cleveland, OH: NACA 

Lewis, 24 July 1956): 1.

232. “Ram-Jet Research,” NACA Inspection Book 

September 20–22, 1949, 1949. NASA Glenn 

History Office, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

233. DeMarquis Wyatt and Irving Pinkel, “Talks on 

Supersonic Propulsion,” NACA Inspection Book 

September 28–30, 1948, 1948, NASA Glenn 

History Office, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

234. Jesse Hall to Carlton Kemper, “Cleveland Laboratory 

Test Program for Investigating Ramjet Engines in 

Free Flight,” 18 August 1947, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

235. NACA, Thirty-second Annual Report of the National

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office, 1946). 

236. Abe Silverstein, “Ramjet Propulsion,” c late 1940s, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

237. H. Z. Bogert to Commanding General, Air Materiel 

Command, Wright Field, “Activities of AERL for 

the Week of 30 September to 4 October 1946,” 

7 October 1946, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

238. John Disher, Flight Investigation of a 20-Inch 

Diameter Steady-Flow Ramjet (Washington, DC: 

NACA RM E7I05a, 14 January 1948).

239. S. R. Brentall to George Lewis, 13 March 1947, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

240. T. J. Nussdorfer, D. C. Sederstrom, and

E. Perchonok, Investigation of Combustion in 16-Inch 

Ram Jet Under Simulated Conditions of High Altitude 

and High Mach Number (Washington, DC: NACA 

RM–E50D04, 1948), p. 1.

241. Warren North, Summary of Free-Flight Performance

of a Series of Ramjet Engines at Mach Numbers 

From 0.80 to 2.2 (Washington, DC: NACA

RM–E53K17, 1954).

242. “First SWT Run is Successful,” Wing Tips

(15 April 1949). 

243. Lewis Research Center, “8- by 6-Foot Supersonic 

Wind Tunnel,” February 1959, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

244. James Hartshorne, “Tests Show Noise at Air Lab 

Hurts,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (1949).

245. Dennis Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to 

Aircraft Engine Noise Research,” Journal of 

Aerospace Engineering (April 2013).

246. Louis Gibbons, “Outline of Proposed Talk on Fuels 

to be Presented at Manufacturers’ Conference,” 

NACA Inspection Book, October 8–9, 1947, 1947, 

NASA Glenn History Office, Inspections Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

247. Walter Olson, “Combustion Research (For First 

Annual Inspection),” NACA Inspection Book, 

October 8–9, 1947, 1947, NASA Glenn History 

Office, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

248. John Sloop, “High-Energy Rocket Propellant 

Research at the NACA/NASA Lewis Research 

Center, 1945–60,” Seventh International History of 

Astronautics Symposium Proceedings, 8 October 

1973, NASA Glenn History Collection, Sloop 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

249. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

250. John Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 

1945–1959 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4404, 

1977).

251. “Fuels Conference,” Wing Tips (4 June 1948). 

252. “NACA Conference on Fuels: A Compilation of 

the Papers Presented by NACA Staff Members,” 

26 May 1948, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Sloop Collection, Cleveland, OH.

253. Sloop, “High-Energy Rocket Propellant Research.” 

254. Walter Olson, “Lewis at Forty: A Reminiscence,” 

11 September 1981. 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 124: A 5,000-pound-thrust rocket engine is fired from the Rocket Lab’s Cell 22 in January 1955. The series of tests 

proved to be Lewis’s first successful liquid-hydrogen/liquid-oxygen runs (GRC–1955–C–37428).
John H. Glenn Research Center

4. Breakthrough

“It was just a brilliant group of people, terrific problems,

a great deal of freedom, and terrific facilities and 

computer capabilities.”

—Simon Ostrach
Bringing The Future Within Reach: Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 125: Technicians install an experimental hypersonic test missile on the NACA’s McDonnell F2H–2B Banshee in 

August 1957. Lewis pilots launched the missiles over the Atlantic Ocean at Wallops Island (GRC–2015–C–06812).
Two events took place on Monday, 29 August 1949, 

that significantly altered the future of the Lewis laboratory: Director Ray Sharp appointed Abe Silverstein

as Chief of Research, and the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic weapon. Over the next eight 

years Silverstein would push the laboratory into new

experimental research areas and become a prominent advocate of one of the cornerstones of the space

program—liquid hydrogen. 

The Soviet weapons test spurred President Harry 

Truman to initiate the development of a thermonuclear weapon—commonly referred to as the hydrogen bomb—in March 1950. Three months later, the 

Cold War reached new heights with the onset of the 

Korean War. As a result the military became keenly 

interested in new technologies that could rapidly

improve their capabilities. The two that would affect 

the Lewis laboratory most were nuclear propulsion and 

liquid hydrogen. These fields, which would dominate 

Lewis’s activities in the 1960s, had their genesis in the 

early 1950s. The military also called upon Lewis for a

variety of missile work, including a long-term investigation of the ramjet engines for the Navaho missile, 

sophisticated tests of missile designs in the supersonic 

tunnels, and the continued launching of research missiles near Wallops Island. 

 Breakthrough 91

In addition, Lewis’s traditional aeronautical programs 

matured in the 1950s. The Icing Research Tunnel 

(IRT) yielded some of its best data to date, researchers designed the groundbreaking transonic compressor, and new generations of full-scale turbojet and 

ramjet engines were tested in Lewis’s altitude facilities. 

The 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (8×6)

began operation, and the lab added two new unique

facilities—the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) 

and the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 

(10×10). There were new endeavors, as well, such as 

the unique Crash Fire Test Program that sought to

reduce fatalities in low-impact aircraft crashes.

New Directions

In late 1947 when Lewis Chief of Research

Addison Rothrock accepted a position at NACA 

Headquarters, Executive Engineer Carlton Kemper

assumed responsibility for managing the laboratory’s research efforts for nearly two years. In August 

1949, to fill the vacant Chief of Research position,

Director Ray Sharp appointed Abe Silverstein the 

head of the Wind Tunnels and Flight Division.

Kemper, who had once been expected to serve as

director of the entire laboratory, now served as a

consultant within Silverstein’s office.255,256

Just over two years later, Sharp expanded Silverstein’s 

role by giving him the additional responsibility for 

managing and planning the test facilities. As such, 

Sharp replaced the Chief of Research position with 

the new title of Associate Director. Ray Sharp came 

from a managerial background and did not have any 

aeronautical training, so he handled the administrative aspects of running the laboratory, while Silverstein 

managed the research and test facilities. It was a winning partnership.257

Silverstein was supported by Oscar Schey (Chief of 

the Compressor and Turbine Division), and Benjamin

Pinkel (Chief of Fuels and Thermodynamics

Division). Sharp used his own skills to make sure that 

the researchers had the support and tools that they 

needed, such as a continuum of new test facilities.258

Breakthrough

Image 126: Sharp and Silverstein share a moment in 1958 

(GRC–2015–C–06570).
 92

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Heat transfer is an aspect of the larger physics field 

of thermodynamics that deals with the transference 

of heat from one object to another. It has important 

applications to aeronautics, including engine cooling, lubricants, and aerodynamic heating. To address 

issues related to heat transfer, the laboratory established its Thermodynamics Division under Ben Pinkel

during World War II.264 Pinkel had begun his

career in 1941 at Langley, where he headed the Engine

Analysis Section. He transferred to Cleveland the following year to lead the Thermodynamics Division, 

where he and his colleagues studied the transfer of

engine heat to cooling systems. Abe Silverstein merged 

the group with the materials researchers during his 

December 1949 reorganization. The new division continued to study heat-transfer issues, but it also began 

investigations into high-strength, high-temperature

materials and propulsion systems for nuclear-powered 

aircraft.265

Image 127: Memo announcing Silverstein’s promotion.

Silverstein initiated a series of organizational changes

to address the expanding field of supersonic missiles and alternative methods of propulsion. The 

Compressor and Turbine and Engine Research divisions were slightly modified to take into account the

new PSL and transonic compressor research, respectively.259,260 In fall 1949 Silverstein created the new 

Supersonic Propulsion and Physics divisions out of

his own former Wind Tunnels and Flight Division. 

The Supersonic Propulsion group managed research 

at the newly completed 8×6, and the Physics Division conducted icing, flight research, and flow physics

activities. 

Silverstein’s most important move was dividing the 

Fuels and Thermodynamics Division into the Fuels

and Combustion Division and the Materials and 

Thermodynamics Division. The latter studied heat

transfer and materials for both traditional jet

engines and the emerging nuclear aircraft concept.

Silverstein increased the former’s rocket fuels research.

The division’s once-hidden High Pressure Combustion Section was expanded and properly renamed 

the Rocket Branch.261 The move coincided with the

NACA’s first real interest in rocket propulsion. Over 

the next few years, the group’s work with hydrogen,

oxygen, and fluorine provided the impetus for the eventual use of cryogenic propellants in the space program.

v v v v v v

In Room 213 of the 8×6 office building, Abe

Silverstein assembled his basic research “brain trust,” 

formally known as the Applied Mechanics Group. This 

independent group consisted of Simon Ostrach, Steve 

Maslen, Frank Moore, and Harold Mirels. Though 

the men had distinct personalities and approaches to

research, they became fast friends and were informally 

known as the “Four Ms”—Mirels, Moore, Maslen, 

and [M]ostrach.262 They each had recently returned 

to the lab after earning advanced degrees from prestigious universities and brought with them a theoretical

approach to research that left them outside of the

lab’s predominant experimentally based research 

methodology. Silverstein called upon the men to work 

on special applied research problems but provided 

them the freedom to pursue their own individual basic

research projects. Mirels, Moore, and Maslen performed research on boundary layers and flow issues 

related to high-speed flight. Ostrach concentrated on 

buoyancy-driven heat transfer.263
 Breakthrough 93

John H. Glenn Research Center

many of the early heat-transfer and fluid-flow issues 

related to nuclear propulsion.270 Deissler’s group was 

bolstered by the addition of Emphraim Sparrow and 

Robert Siegel in 1953 and 1955, respectively. In a 1957 

reorganization, the group became the Heat Transfer 

Branch in the new Nuclear Reactor Division, with 

Deissler as branch chief. This core group along with 

Ostrach made Lewis the world’s premier heat-transfer 

center for a number of years. 

Image 128: Lewis researchers Harold Mirels, Franklin Moore, Stephen 

Maslen, and Simon Ostrach in September 1987 celebrating Maslen’s induction into the National Academy of Engineering (GRC–2015–C–06552).

Image 129: Robert Deissler receives an NACA Exceptional Service 

Award from NACA Director Hugh Dryden in October 1957. 

Deissler was cited for “achieving significant scientific results in the solution of fluid flow and heat-transfer problems associated with aircraft 

nuclear propulsion” (GRC–1957–C–46286). 

It was at this point that Silverstein brought heattransfer expert Ernst Eckert to Lewis. Eckert was 

among the German scientists who came to the 

United States in the final days of World War II as 

part of Operation Paperclip. In 1946 Eckert agreed 

to a five-year contract with the Air Force and 

continued his research at Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. In 1949, Silverstein 

convinced the Air Force to allow Eckert to serve 

as an advisor for Lewis’s heat-transfer personnel.

Eckert traveled to Cleveland, where once a week 

he not only developed new theories for turbine 

cooling, but encouraged the staff to increase their 

fundamental research and strive to create solutions 

with long-term significance that were not tied to a 

specific application. Seeking more freedom, Eckert 

left the NACA in 1952 and created a new heattransfer center at the University of Minnesota.266

Eckert influenced several key staff members, particularly Simon Ostrach and Robert Deissler. When

Ostrach returned from Brown University in 1949 

with new heat-transfer credentials, he fully expected 

to be assigned to Pinkel’s Thermodynamics Division. 

Instead, Silverstein placed him in John Evvard’s new 

Supersonic Propulsion Division, which supervised 

turbojet and supersonic aerodynamics research.267 

There Ostrach began studying buoyancy-driven 

convection on a vertical plate using a unique deductive process that he had developed at Brown.268 For

buoyancy-driven flows also known as natural convection, density differences (owed usually to temperature 

differences) drive fluid motion. Ostrach found that

other mechanisms could also yield density differences 

and therefore drive fluid motion. He found that forces 

other than gravity could create buoyancy. Silverstein 

was initially dismissive of the subject, so Ostrach 

couched his research in terms of turbine-blade cooling 

for aircraft engines. Ostrach also was given an opportunity to demonstrate that natural convection was causing

excessive heat transfer in the reactor control rods of the 

early nuclear submarines.269

Deissler started at the lab in 1947 in the Fuels and 

Thermodynamics Division, studying turbulent fluid

flow and heat transfer in tubes. He was able to 

streamline calculations so that complex heat-transfer

concepts could be verified through experiments and 

computational programs. His work helped to resolve 
 94

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Nuclear Aircraft 

Engineers had considered utilizing the heat from

nuclear decay for propulsion in the past, but it was not 

technically feasible until the Manhattan Project produced the first chain reactions in the early 1940s.273

Following World War II, the military, the Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC), and the NACA became 

interested in the use of atomic energy for propulsion 

and power. In theory, the performance and endurance 

of nuclear-powered aircraft would be limited only by 

the stamina of the crew. Long-duration missions were 

a military necessity before the advent of cruise missiles. 

Lewis’s involvement in nuclear propulsion began in the 

final months of World War II when researchers unsuccessfully lobbied NACA management for permission 

to investigate the use of nuclear fission to heat aircraft 

fuels.274 NACA Headquarters granted Lewis consent

shortly after the end of the war to study conceptual

nuclear aircraft issues, but the staff did not have

access to the top-secret information needed to design

a nuclear engine system. Instead, a small group in

Pinkel’s division focused their efforts on high-energy 

heat transfer, shielding, and the effect of radiation on 

different materials.275 

The Air Force sponsored a series of studies on the

feasibility of using nuclear fission to power an aircraft. The Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of

Aircraft (NEPA) program at the Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory was the largest effort.276 In 1948 the Air 

Force asked the NACA to participate in the struggling NEPA effort. Lewis assigned several engineers

to a training program at the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory to obtain expertise in high-temperature 

heat transfer and advanced materials technology.277

In 1949 Lewis contracted with General Electric to 

build a cyclotron behind the Materials and Structures 

Laboratory. Cyclotrons have two large electromagnets 

that cause the radioactive materials placed between 

them to emit charged particles. The charged particles, 

or ions, rotate around two semicircular cavities—one 

positively charged and one negatively charged.278

Lewis researchers removed the high-energy particles 

and used them to irradiate sample materials. They then 

analyzed the effect of the radiation on the materials to 

determine which types would work best in a nuclear

engine or airframe. In the mid-1950s Lewis modified

the cyclotron to conduct nuclear physics studies.279

Image 130: Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer. Bob Siegel and John 

Howell started putting together notes for in-house classes to teach 

fellow employees about heat transfer in the early 1960s. The researchers fleshed out the information and published it in 1968 as NASA 

SP–164. Siegel and Howell updated the Special Publication (SP) 

three times, then published it as a textbook in the mid-1970s. The 

textbook has become the standard heat transfer textbook. It has been 

translated into numerous languages and was recently issued in its sixth 

edition.

The Four Ms broke up in the early 1960s as Lewis’s 

basic research efforts declined. Frank Moore left

for Cornell, Harold Mirels for Aerospace Corporation, Steve Maslen for Martin Marietta, and Simon

Ostrach for Case Western Reserve University, 

where he eventually became renowned in the field of

microgravity. All four were later inducted into the 

National Academy of Engineering.271 Sparrow left 

in 1960 to join Eckert at the University of Minnesota and has since published hundreds of research 

papers. Deissler and Siegel continued their careers at 

Lewis until the 1990s. Deissler’s high-temperature

research became a standard reference. In 1968 

Siegel and colleague John Howell published the

nation’s first and most-enduring textbook on radiation heat transfer, which today is in its sixth edition.272

Individually, these men received many awards over 

the years and have been internationally recognized for 

their research.
 Breakthrough 95

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 131: Frank Rom was one of Lewis’s chief nuclear propulsion 

researchers. He designed nuclear aircraft, pursued tungsten-based reactors for the nuclear rocket program, and helped design the Plum Brook 

Reactor Facility (GRC–1957–C–43739).

Image 132: A c1956 roster of participants in Lewis’s in-house 

“nuclear school” and the branches from which they came.

Image 133: The General Electric-designed cyclotron in the extended basement of the Materials and 

Stresses Building (GRC–1957–C–45988).

The NEPA program concluded that a nuclear aircraft was feasible, but it did not create the technological breakthroughs necessary to overcome the expense 

and difficult design issues. The Air Force canceled the

effort in 1950.280 The AEC

began its own Aircraft Nuclear 

Propulsion (ANP) program in 

1949 with contributions from 

the Lewis laboratory. The Air 

Force began partnering on the 

program in December 1951.281

In 1950 Abe Silverstein created 

a new 80-person Nuclear Reactor Division and established an 

in-house nuclear school where a 

handful of physicists trained the 

aeronautics researchers in the 

basics of atomic physics.282,283

Lewis researchers worked on

aircraft and engine designs,

studied heat transfer issues,

and tested materials with

the cyclotron. In 1952 Lewis

sought to expand its nuclear
 96

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

research capabilities by building a large test

reactor. The reactor would help determine 

the best materials with which to build 

the nuclear aircraft engine and methods to reduce the heavy weight of the 

crew’s protective shield. In October 1954 

the AEC approved the NACA’s request

for a reactor license.284 The new 

60-megawatt facility was too large to

build at the Lewis campus, so the NACA

examined a number of remote sites.

In March 1955 Lewis management

decided to lease 500 acres of the

unused Plum Brook Ordnance Works in

Sandusky.285 Construction of the Plum

Brook Reactor Facility began in September

1956.286 This was the beginning of

Lewis’s decades-long use of Plum Brook

as a remote testing station. 

Image 134: Ray Sharp and Congressman Albert Baumhart break ground for the Plum 

Brook Reactor Facility in September 1956. The pick and shovel were the same as those 

used for the AERL groundbreaking in January 1941 (GRC–1956–C–43033).

Image 135: The Plum Brook Ordnance Works site as it appeared in April 1956 (GRC–1956–C–41679).
 Breakthrough 97

John H. Glenn Research Center

Flight Safety

As the laboratory expanded its scope in the postwar 

years, it branched out into new fields not directly 

tied to engines, including flight safety. Irving Pinkel,

Associate Chief of the Physics Division, led the

division’s efforts in the 1950s to study lightning strikes, 

hydroplaning on wet runways, reverse thrusters,

the jettisoning of fuel, and low-altitude crash survivability. Pinkel began his NACA career in 1940 at 

Langley, where his older brother Benjamin was an

engine researcher. The brothers transferred to

Cleveland when the new lab opened in 1942. He

initially investigated lubrication systems, then moved 

on to jet engine combustors and supersonic nozzles. 

Abe Silverstein assigned Pinkel to the icing research 

program in the mid-1940s before promoting him to

Associate Chief of the Physics Division in 1949.292

The laboratory’s initial flight safety effort, the icing

research program, was in full force in the early 1950s. 

The Icing Branch continued to use the Consolidated 

B–24M and the North American Aviation XB–25E 

aircraft to study the properties of icing clouds for several years. Silverstein finally canceled the effort after

Image 136: Tornado damage included a collapsed roof on the Trunnion Building (GRC–1953–C–32966).

At approximately 9:45 p.m. Monday, 8 June 

1953, a tornado swept through the southwestern section of the Lewis laboratory. In nearby 

neighborhoods, eight people were killed and over 

200 injured before the tornado made its way to 

Downtown Cleveland and finally out over Lake 

Erie. The storm destroyed 50 homes and damaged nearly 2,000. Large areas of the city lost 

electrical power, and the roads were littered with 

debris for weeks.287 The Cleveland tornado was 

one of dozens of deadly tornados spawned over a 

three-day period by the historic Flint-Worcester 

outbreak.288,289

At Lewis, there were no injuries among the

approximately 100 people on duty at the time, but 

the storm caused $100,000 in damage. The wind 

ripped the roofs off of the Barrel Storage Building and Trunnion Building, and it blew out the 

windows and doors of the Fabrication Shop. The 

Research Equipment Building and 10×10 drive 

motor building were also damaged. As a precaution, facility engineers sealed the fuel lines leading 

to several of the large test facilities.290,291
 98

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

survivable. A rash of high-publicity passenger aircraft 

crashes during 1946 and 1947 threatened to discourage 

the expanding civil airline business. President Harry

Truman called for an investigatory board that

included the Civil Aeronautics Board, the military,

and the NACA.295 

Abe Silverstein created a panel at Lewis in October 

1947 to assess the pertinent crash issues and outline 

a plan to address them. The group divided the fire

research into three elements—segregation, extinguishment, and prevention.296 In March 1948 NACA 

Headquarters approved Lewis’s proposed program 

to investigate the characteristics of flammable materials, create fire detection and extinguishing systems, 

and identify fire prevention methods.297 Silverstein

assigned Irving Pinkel the responsibility for carrying 

out a crash program.298

Pinkel and his team developed a program that would 

use surplus military aircraft to conduct their research. 

At the nearby Ravenna Arsenal, Lewis engineers

created a 1,700-foot test runway that included

poles, embankments, and other obstacles to simulate 

Image 137: After years of experimentation, Lewis engineers finally perfected the IRT’s spray bar system in 1949 (GRC–1949–C–24017).

the researchers thoroughly identified the characteristics of these clouds and projected the chances of aircraft 

encountering those conditions.293 In addition, Lewis 

engineers had finally resolved the spray bar dilemma

in the IRT. The tunnel was used to study ice

buildup on a variety of aircraft components, jet engine

icing, and new deicing techniques. Researchers

had demonstrated in the 1940s that the continual 

heating of leading edges was effective at removing ice 

from aircraft; but in the 1950s they made significant 

advances with a new system that employed cyclical 

heating. The intermittent heating reduced the amount 

of energy required to prevent ice accumulation. Lewis

researchers also worked to combat ice buildup on

radome antennae and jet engines in the 1950s.294

v v v v v v

One of the laboratory’s most well-known flight

safety endeavors is the Crash Fire Program. The nearly 

10-year-long effort examined a variety of issues that 

contributed to the high casualty rates during runway 

or low-altitude aircraft crashes. In these incidents, 

an aircraft generally suffered damage to its fuel system and other components, but it was structurally
 Breakthrough 99

John H. Glenn Research Center

situations in which an aircraft would fail to become 

airborne during takeoff. The researchers initially used 

Curtiss C–46 and Fairchild C–82 military transport aircraft, but later broadened the program’s scope 

to include smaller aircraft and fighter jets. They

mounted the aircraft to a rail 

that ran down the length of the 

runway. Then the test engineers 

started the engines and released 

the anchor pin. The highly

instrumented aircraft would 

race down the runway at takeoff speed before crashing into 

or through the various barriers. 

Photographers set up a series of 

high-speed cameras along the 

track to capture every aspect of 

the aircraft’s demise.299

The program’s preliminary 

phase, which began in 1949, 

sought to identify potential

ignition sources and analyze 

the spread of fuel and oil. The 

team dyed the fuel red so that it 

was visible as it poured out of the damaged aircraft.

Sometimes the fuel would run down the wings until it 

contacted the hot engine. Other times a cloud of fuel

vapor released along the track would slowly continue

moving forward until it caught up with the motionless 

aircraft. In these situations, ignition might not occur 

for several minutes after the vehicle had come to rest. 

In others, the aircraft burst into a ball of flame before 

it even reached the end of the track. The researchers 

determined that the best solution was the prevention 

of ignition altogether. Lewis provided a local company with the information needed to design an inerting system that automatically blocked fuel flow to the

engine, sprayed cooling water on ignition sources, and 

disconnected the electrical system.300 

The use of high-speed photography and motion picture film was essential to the Crash Fire Program.

One of the reasons that the causes of crash fires were 

so difficult to determine was the inability of the human 

eye to view the ignition. A cadre of Lewis photographers painstakingly set up high-speed cameras and a 

variety of instrumentation in the aircraft and synchronized them with the seven camera stations along the 

track. Lewis photographer Bill Wynne developed a 

method for inserting images of timekeeping devices 

that were able to show time to a 1000th of a second on 

the film. The photographers installed clocks in front of 

the cameras and used mirrors to project the time onto 

the lens.301

Image 138: Irving Pinkel examines a crash from a camera tower along 

the track (GRC–2015–C–06548).

Image 139: Lewis researchers crash a transport aircraft through barriers at the Ravenna Arsenal. 

Incandescent particles are visible from the explosion (GRC–1957–C–43929).
 100

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

directly into a dirt mound.304 The team was able to 

identify which components were most important to the

aircraft’s structural integrity and to provide that

information to airframe designers.305

The Lewis team then turned their attention to the

effect of seats and restraints. The procedure was similar

to the one used for the structural-integrity tests.

Image 141: Members of the Flight Research Section investigate the crash wreckage of an aircraft in the late 1940s (GRC–2015–C–06542). 

Image 140: A 1955 example of Bill Wynne’s innovative visual 

timekeeping method for the Crash Fire Program (GRC–

C–1955–38196).

As the program stretched into the 1950s, Lewis

researchers began investigating fires associated with 

jet aircraft. They focused on aspects that were unique 

to jet engines, including the characteristics of jet fuel, 

the fuel tank location, and the larger quantities of 

fuel used.302 Lewis performed studies using both a

Republic F–84 Thunderjet and a Fairchild C–82 

transport with jet engines strapped to its wings. The 

researchers discovered that the fuel flowed through the 

engine too quickly to ignite, but that fuel on the turbojet’s hot metal surfaces did ignite. They used these data 

to modify their piston engine inerting system so that it 

could be used in jet aircraft. The Lewis team then verified the performance of the fire prevention system with 

a series of additional crashes.303

As the Crash Fire Program proceeded over the years, 

Lewis researchers expanded their investigations into 

new areas. The two most prominent were structural 

damage from impact and the design of safer passenger 

seats. Previous research indicated that humans could 

withstand greater stress levels than those associated 

with low-altitude crashes. Despite the studies, impact 

loads were causing deaths in many instances. Lewis 

conducted a series of crash tests with instrumented 

dummies in the pilot and passenger areas. Engineers 

would set up cameras and instrumentation inside 

the cabin to record the data as the aircraft crashed
 Breakthrough 101

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 142: Bill Wynne filming the flame speed in a combustion experiment at the Fuels and Lubrication Building in May 1949. Photo cells 

above the tube measure the rate of the flame travel (GRC–1949–C–23407).

After determining the different loads and their effects

on the passengers, the NACA researchers began

designing new types of seats and restraints. They found 

that the passengers who were in the commonly used 

rigid seats received two-thirds higher g-forces than 

those in flexible NACA-designed seats.306,307 One 

of the more controversial findings was that rearwardfacing seats increased crash survivability. Some people 

in the aviation industry argued that the opposite was 

true, but both sides agreed that stronger, better secured 

seats were the most important concern.308,309

The Crash Fire Program concluded in 1957. The airline 

industry, however, did not adopt many of Lewis’s findings. They contended that conspicuous modifications, 

such as the rearward-facing seats, might give passengers the impression that the company was not confident in its aircraft. The less obvious tools, such as the 

fire prevention system and stronger seats, required an 

investment to install and added extra weight that could 

be used for payload or additional passengers.310-312

There were three runway crashes in early 1960 with 

large numbers of deaths that officials claimed could 

have been prevented by the NACA inerting system.313

The Lewis Photo Lab, established in 1942, has 

been essential to much of the lab’s research over the 

years. The photographers and specialized equipment accompany pilots on test flights. They use 

high-speed cameras to capture fleeting processes

like combustion, and work with technology, such 

as the Schlieren camera, which captures supersonic flow. In addition, the group documents 

construction projects, performs publicity work, 

creates images for reports, and photographs

data-recording equipment.

Arthur Laufman joined the Photo Lab staff in

1948 and began producing full-length technical films as a tool to educate those outside of the 

Agency on the research being conducted at Lewis. 

He worked with engineers to determine proper 

subjects for these films and develop a script. In 

addition to filming tests, Laufman shot footage 

of facilities, models, and staff members. He then 

edited the footage and added audio, visuals, and 

narration.314
 102

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

test chambers that provided simulated altitude conditions and high-speed airflow. Lewis researchers utilized

one PSL test cell and the Altitude Wind Tunnel 

(AWT), which underwent a major upgrade in 1952, 

to test a new generation of engines such as General

Electric’s J79, the Rolls Royce’s Nene, and Pratt & 

Whitney’s J57.317 By the end of the decade, these

engines would power the first U.S. jet airliners. 

Engine noise was a serious concern as the airline

industry prepared to introduce jet aircraft to its fleet. 

Jet engines produce a loud high-pitched sound in

comparison to the low rumble of piston engines.

Preliminary tests showed that the source of the loudest 

noise was not the engine itself, but the interaction of 

the engine’s high-velocity exhaust with the surrounding atmosphere. The pressures resulting from this 

turbulence produced sound waves. Lewis researchers 

undertook a variety of noise-reduction studies involving engine design, throttling procedures, and noise 

Image 143: A group of visitors views an Engine Research Building shop area crowded with jet engines that have been tested in the Four Burner 

Area (GRC–1957–C–45046).

Jet Propulsion

The size and performance of jet engines improved

dramatically over the course of just a few years. Thrust 

had increased from 1,600 pounds in the early 1940s 

to over 10,000 pounds by the end of the decade.315 

The Lewis laboratory required new and improved 

test facilities to study these emerging engines. Almost

immediately after the Four Burner Area began operation in 1947, Lewis management began designing 

a similar, but more powerful, facility known as the

PSL. In addition to its own test capabilities, the

PSL served as an essential component of a comprehensive plan to improve the lab’s overall altitude

testing capabilities by linking the exhaust, refrigeration, and combustion air systems from all the major 

test facilities.316

The PSL, which came online in October 1952, was the 

most powerful engine test facility in the nation and was 

designed to test more powerful engines than those in 

existence. The facility contained two 14-foot-diameter
 Breakthrough 103

John H. Glenn Research Center

suppressors.318 Then researchers subjected a Pratt &

Whitney J57 to an array of tests in the AWT to

analyze the effect of different nozzle designs on the 

engine’s noise levels. They found that the nozzles

reduced the noise but also impeded engine performance. Further testing revealed that the addition of 

an NACA-developed ejector successfully mixed the

exhaust and air, which reduced the noise levels without 

diminishing thrust.319

Lewis researchers also used the other PSL test cell 

to test a variety of ramjet and small rocket engines. 

In 1952 they began a multiyear study of the Wright

Aeronautical XRJ–47–W–5 ramjet propulsion system

for the North American Navaho missile. The Navaho

was a reusable winged missile that was intended 

to transport a nuclear warhead up to 3,000 miles. 

The Navaho relied on a rocket-propelled booster

vehicle to reach the high speeds required to ignite the 

two 48-inch-diameter ramjet engines. These very large 

engines were riddled with design problems.320

In 1951 the military asked Lewis to run a full

examination of the XRJ–47–W–5. PSL was the only 

facility large enough to test the engine in simulated

altitude conditions. Over the course of five years, Lewis

researchers investigated the engine’s ignition, the combustion chamber shell, fuel flow controls, different

igniter configurations, and overall engine performance. 

They even tested the engine with experimental pentaborane fuel.321 Concurrently, North American began 

a series of Navaho test flights, which yielded poor

results. The military canceled the program in 1957

Image 144: The overhead air-handling line between the PSL and the 

8×6 is installed in 1954 (GRC–2007–C–025662).

Image 145: A Wright Aeronautical XRJ–47–W–5 ramjet installed in a PSL test chamber for the Navaho program (GRC–1952–C–30961).
 104

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

the base of the blades was high subsonic and the air at 

the blade tips was low supersonic. Designers of early 

supersonic jet engines believed that there were limits 

to compressor inlet speeds and the amount of pressure 

that the compressor could efficiently generate.323

In early 1950 Lewis researchers Seymour Lieblein, 

Irv Johnsen, and Robert Bullock began experimenting 

with a compressor designed specifically for the transonic realm.324 They introduced new blade shapes, 

advanced flow schemes, and improved blade-loading 

principles that permitted higher pressure rises in each 

stage. This reduced the number of required stages 

and resulted in a smaller, lighter engine.325,326 The

researchers’ design handled 30 percent more airflow 

than existing compressors, which could increase the 

air intake of existing engines without increasing engine 

size. The engine manufacturing industry was immediately interested in the device.327

Image 146: A researcher measures the turbine blades on a 12-stage axial-flow compressor in February 1955 (GRC–1955–C–37659).

after another Navaho failure and the first successful 

launch of the Atlas missile—an alternative nuclear 

weapon delivery system.322

v v v v v v

Oscar Schey’s Compressor and Turbine Division was 

the bastion of the laboratory’s jet engine work in the 

1940s and 1950s. The improvement of compressors 

and turbines was critical to the continual drive to

design more efficient and powerful engines while

reducing their weight. The researchers investigated 

topics such as the required number of compressor 

stages; the shape, angle, and thickness of the stator 

blades; and cooling of the turbine. 

At the time, engines with compressors were operating successfully at subsonic and supersonic speeds.

However, designers were unsure about the performance

of compressors at transonic speeds—where the air at 
 Breakthrough 105

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 148: The high-speed, high-temperature test rig in the Fuels and Lubrication Building (GRC–1953–C–32722).

In the mid-1950s Lieblein and Johnsen designed

single-stage and multistage transonic compressors for 

advanced turbojet engines. They were able to demonstrate that there were no preexisting theoretical limitations to compressor design. Instead, performance could 

be continually increased with proper design methods. 

This breakthrough eventually led to the development 

of supersonic compressors.328 In 1955 the group

published a secret compressor design guide that

was referred to as the “Compressor Bible,” officially

titled the “Aerodynamic Design of Axial-Flow

Compressors.”329

During this period, Lieblein developed a more reliable 

method for calculating compressor blade loads, known 

as the Diffusion Factor, or “D Factor.”330 The use of the 

D Factor resulted in reductions in compressor weight 

and manufacturing costs. General Electric was the 

first to utilize the tool during the design of its successful General Electric J85 turbojet in the late 1950s.331

Lieblein, Bullock, and Johnsen received the prestigious 

Goddard Award in 1967—after their work had been 

declassified.

v v v v v v

Tribology is another field that is essential for jet

engine development. In the late 1940s and early 1950s 

Lewis researchers were able to understand the previously unknown fretting wear process and the difference between beneficial and harmful oxidation.332

Lewis researchers also made advances in the development of unproven solid lubricants such as graphite and

molybdenum disulfide. Solid lubricants are often

lighter, more heat resistant, and in need of fewer seals 

than their liquid counterparts.333 Lewis was able to

Image 147: Irv Johnsen, Seymour Lieblein, and Robert Bullock 

receive the 1967 AIAA Goddard Award for their compressor 

research at Lewis in the 1940s and 1950s (GRC–2015–C–06551). 
 106

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Lewis researchers conducted extensive research and 

testing on rolling element bearings in the 1950s and 

1960s. Anderson, Erwin Zaretsky, and Richard Parker 

developed a method for relating rolling-element lifespan to permanent stresses caused by compression. 

They also increased the life of rolling contact bearings by up to 500 percent and identified the optimal

hardness relationship between the bearing and the 

tracks. Then the researchers continued their efforts

to apply the hardness differential concept to other

bearing applications.342,343

Large Supersonic Wind Tunnels

After reviewing the German high-speed wind tunnels 

during the final months of World War II, members 

of the NACA began advocating for a new supersonic 

research center. In November 1945 Lewis Director 

Ray Sharp commented that water power was the only 

economical way to operate such a complex, and he 

proposed building a site near the Boulder Dam. The 

NACA Headquarters accepted Sharp’s suggestions 

and initiated planning. Meanwhile the Air Force was 

considering a similar center of its own. The nation 

could only afford one such facility. The NACA felt 

that it was capable of handling all supersonic research, 

while the military felt responsible for anything associated with national defense. Industry, which could not 

afford to construct these types of facilities, pressured the 

government to make them available for private use.344

Image 149: Erwin Zaretsky, Bill Anderson, and Richard Parker 

receive awards from the NASA Inventions and Contributions Board 

for developing a method to improve the life and reliability of contact 

bearings (GRC–1966–C–02713).

analyze the effect of atmosphere, load, and temperature on these materials and use them to create a 

dry film that could be reliably used as a lubricant in

engines. As engine capabilities increased, Lewis

researchers continued to develop other solid lubricants 

that could withstand the increased temperatures. As

a result, solid lubricants are now used widely in the

design of aircraft engines.334

Lewis tribologists also sought to improve the strength 

of rolling element bearings during this period. These 

devices consist of two oval bands—usually the larger 

one fixed to the engine housing and the smaller inner 

one attached to the drive shaft. Ball bearings placed 

in grooves between the two bands allow the smooth

rotation of the drive shaft.335 Rolling element bearings 

have been around for centuries, but it was not until the 

advent of modern metallurgy and the incorporation 

of bearings into bicycles in the late 1800s that efforts 

were made to improve the consistency of the bearings 

during the manufacturing process.336 Rolling element 

bearings became an essential element of the development of the jet engine in the 1940s. General Electric, 

which was a key manufacturer of jet engines, pioneered 

the development of high-performance bearings.337

As the nation sought more and more powerful jet

engines, designers required new materials to withstand 

the greater temperatures and new bearing designs to 

handle greater engine speeds.338 Although Lewis

researchers Robert Johnson and William Anderson 

were able to substantially increase the number of

rolling element bearing rotations during the 1940s,

the development of bearing materials progressed

somewhat slowly until the mid-1950s. Over the course 

of just a few years, most modern bearing materials 

were introduced and new manufacturing processes

were developed.339,340

Industry engineers during that period sought to

improve bearing hardness and durability by increasing 

the percentage of alloy in the steel. While conducting 

basic analyses in the late 1950s that included tension, 

compression, and rotating-beam tests, Lewis researchers found that the industry logic was incorrect. Further 

research at Lewis revealed that bearing life actually

decreased as the percentage of alloy was increased.341
 Breakthrough 107

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 150: Diagram of the 10×10.

Image 151: A 16-inch-diameter ramjet being installed in the 10×10 

test section during May 1956 (GRC–1956–C–42032).

up to Mach 2.5 through the test section, and when augmented by a secondary compressor, it could generate wind 

streams up to Mach 3.5. The 10-footsquare, 76-foot-long stainless steel nozzle section just upstream from the test 

section was designed to be adjusted to 

change the speed and composition of the 

airflow.347

In the late 1950s researchers used the 

10×10 to obtain performance characteristics from the Convair B–58 Hustler 

engine pods and General Electric’s J79 

turbojet, as well as a variety of ramjet

engines for missiles such as the Talos and

Typhoon.348 Lewis also completed a

major upgrade of its 8×6 in 1956 and eventually

incorporated a return leg. The configuration permitted 

operation as either an open system during propulsion 

system tests, with large doors venting directly to the 

atmosphere, or as a closed loop during aerodynamic 

In October 1949 Congress passed the Unitary Plan 

Wind Tunnel Act to satisfy all of these sectors of

society without spending taxpayer money on

redundant facilities. The act’s most enduring contribution was the establishment of the military’s

Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) in

Tennessee. Instead of a new NACA supersonic

laboratory, each of the three existing NACA laboratories would receive a new large wind tunnel and

upgrades to existing facilities. Private industry and 

universities could use the facilities if they covered the 

operation costs.345

In 1950 Lewis engineers began work on the 10×10

by analyzing up to 50 different designs for a new

supersonic propulsion wind tunnel that would surpass 

the brand new 8×6 (which Lewis used in the 1950s 

to test a variety of ramjet missiles and supersonic

inlets). The resulting $33 million 10×10 was largest 

of the three NACA tunnels built under the Unitary 

Plan and the most powerful propulsion wind tunnel in the nation. Construction began in July 1952, 

Lewis invited over 150 guests from industry, other

NACA laboratories, and the media to a special oneday Inspection and dedication of the tunnel on

22 May 1956.346

The 10×10 was designed to operate as a closed circuit for aerodynamic tests and as an open circuit for

propulsion investigations. The 20-foot-diameter eightstage axial-flow compressor initially generated airflows 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 152: An engineer examines the main compressor for the 10×10 tunnel. The stainless steel compressor 

had 584 blades ranging in length from 1.8 to 3.25 feet (GRC–1955–C–39724).
 Breakthrough 109

John H. Glenn Research Center

facilities directly into punch cards that were fed into 

the calculator. The CPC, however, was replaced the

next year by two workhorses—the Engineering

Research Associates UNIVAC 1103 and three

IBM 650 Magnetic Drum Calculators.

The 10×10 computer center also included the

Computer Automated Digital Encoder (CADDE). 

CADDE converted direct-current raw data from a 

test facility into digital format stored on magnetic tape.

The machine was connected to several large facilities, 

but it could only record data from one at a time.352,353

The data were sent to the 16- by 56-foot UNIVAC 

1103, which processed all of the lab’s experimental

data. The 1103 was the first computer to use random

access memory (RAM) storage and used magnetic 

tape storage. The scientific community embraced the

1103’s high-speed processing and made it the first 

commercially successful computer.354 The operators 

took the CADDE information and fed paper tape 

with the raw data into the 1103, which performed the 

needed calculations. Minutes later the results were 

sent back to the control room and were either printed 

or displayed on monitors. The 1103 also recorded the 

data on punch tape for later analysis.355,356 

Image 153: Lewis engineers operate the CADDE system in the 10×10 (GRC–1956–C–42021). 

tests. In 1956 Lewis engineers drilled 4,700 holes

into a portion of the test section walls to accommodate transonic research. The perforations allow 

the airflow to exit the tunnel and prevent airflow

blockages.349

v v v v v v

The Korean War spurred the development of large 

electronic computing systems in the United States, 

and the government sponsored an array of computational programs at universities and private industry.350 

This coincided with Lewis’s increasing need for computing systems for its administrative tasks, analytical 

work, and processing of test data. As the laboratory 

grew and more facilities began operation, less and less 

computing time was available for business and scientific applications. In the mid-1950s Lewis dramatically 

increased its computing capabilities. The new 10×10 

office building provided space for the laboratory’s new 

Central Computer Facility.

In 1954 Lewis’s initial electronic computing system, the IBM 604, was superseded by IBM’s Card

Programmed Electronic Calculator (CPC), which 

could be programmed by punch cards. This allowed 

programs of unlimited length.351 The system recorded

the manometer pressure readings from the test
 110

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 154: Abe Silverstein (GRC–1957–C–45195). 

Image 155: Silverstein memo announcing the reorganization of 

research divisions. 

Engineers at IBM responded to 1103’s popularity 

by developing its first electronic computing machine, 

the 701 in 1952. The following year IBM came out 

with the business version of the machine called the 

650 Magnetic Drum Calculator.357 It was the most

popular computer of the 1950s.358 Lewis used the

IBM 650s to perform analytical calculations and some 

data reduction. Demand for computation was such

that the staff operated the 650s around the clock. In

1959 Lewis acquired an IBM 704 that quadrupled

the power of the 650s; it was the center’s first

(FORTRAN) compiler.359

For jobs under 30 minutes, the Lewis researchers 

could insert the card decks on the 704 themselves 

and wait for results. Computer Services staff ran the

longer projects overnight. The staff found that

researchers often retrieved entire boxes of printouts

just to look at the last page and discard the rest. In order

to curtail the excesses and conservative time estimates, 

the staff began terminating operations as soon as

the estimated time expired.360

High-Energy Propellants

It is not surprising that one of Abe Silverstein’s first 

actions as Chief of Research was to expand Lewis’s 

small corps of rocket engineers and the Rocket Lab

facility. As a member of the NACA’s Special Committee on Self-Propelled Guided Missiles in the mid1940s, Silverstein had observed the early U.S. missile 

programs on the West Coast.361 During that period, 

the military had also sponsored small-scale research on 

the use of liquid hydrogen as a propellant for aircraft 

and rockets. Coincidentally, those efforts were canceled in the late 1940s just as Lewis increased its liquid 

propellant research.362 The military remained wary of 

hydrogen’s handling issues and could not identify an 

application that required its high power.363

Lewis’s new Rocket Research Branch, led by John 

Sloop, began studying the properties of several highenergy fuels, but soon focused its efforts on the

three with the most potential: hydrogen, boron, and

beryllium. Hydrogen, with its high specific impulse

and nontoxic exhaust, appeared to be the most 

promising, but Lewis researchers were also intrigued

by the possibilities of other high-energy, but toxic,

fuels. Lewis studied combustion, heat transfer, and 

mixtures for these fuels throughout the early 1950s.364
 Breakthrough 111

John H. Glenn Research Center

In May 1951 the NACA created a Special

Subcommittee on Rocket Engines. This was the

NACA’s first formal acknowledgment that rockets

were a significant technology. Lewis took advantage

of this new interest in rockets to successfully request

funding for the RETF and upgrade the Rocket Lab.

The Rocket Lab improvements allowed larger engines

to be tested, and added a hydrogen liquefier and an

exhaust scrubber that reduced emissions. The

liquefier was critical because the lab had previously

struggled to obtain enough hydrogen from commercial sources to conduct its research.365 The 

RETF consisted of a single engine test stand that

could fire 20,000-pound-thrust rocket engines

using a wide array of propellants for up to 3 minutes.

The facility also scrubbed pollutants from its

exhaust and muffled the rocket’s deafening noise. 

Lewis built the facility in a remote ravine to protect 

the staff from the explosive propellants being used. A

facility operator controlled the tests from a control 

room 1,600 feet away. Construction of the RETF

began in 1953.366 

Meanwhile the Rocket Branch continued experimenting at the Rocket Lab with different propellants in its 

homemade rocket engines. Lewis staff studied virtually all propellant options but became focused on the 

use of hydrogen with either oxygen or fluorine as an 

oxidizer. Liquid hydrogen was not as powerful as some 

of the more exotic fuels, but it was not toxic and had 

a safe combustion rate. Hydrogen, however, had to be 

stored at –423 degrees Fahrenheit and required large 

tanks because of its low density.367 

On 23 November 1954 Edward Rothenberg conducted Lewis’s first successful liquid-hydrogen–

liquid-oxygen run with a 5,000-pound-thrust rocket 

engine. The feat was repeated several more times over 

the next six weeks. The researchers then suspended 

their liquid-hydrogen testing for almost a year while 

they redesigned the injector and improved methods 

for starting and shutting down the engine.368 Also in 

late 1954, Ed Jonash and his colleagues successfully

experimented with the use of gaseous hydrogen in a 

turbojet engine.369

Image 156: A photographer films the operation of a liquid-hydrogen/liquid-oxygen rocket engine in Cell 22 of the Rocket Lab. Tests were run in 

the evening when most of the lab was relatively vacant (GRC–1955–C–37427).
 112

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

creation of the hydrogen bomb had

spurred the development of cryogenic storage equipment and largescale liquefaction facilities; and

proposed high-altitude long-distance

military aircraft could benefit from 

the use of liquid hydrogen as a 

fuel.371,372

In fall 1955 the Air Force requested 

that Lewis examine the feasibility

of converting a jet engine to run

on liquid hydrogen. The military 

provided a Martin B–57B Canberra 

for the effort, referred to as “Project Bee.” The aircraft was powered 

by two Wright J65 engines, one of 

which was modified so that it could 

be operated using either traditional 

jet fuel or liquid hydrogen.373 Lewis personnel worked 

on pumping systems, insulation, and other related

issues. They tested the system extensively in the AWT 

and the Four Burner Area test cells before installing it 

in the aircraft.374,375

The B–57B would take off using jet fuel, switch

to liquid hydrogen while over Lake Erie, then after 

Image 158: As a converted B–57B prepares for a liquid-hydrogen flight over Lake Erie, black smoke emanates from the jet-fuel-powered engine. 

The hydrogen engine left a pronounced white contrail (GRC–1993–C–05546).

Image 157: Scan of the Cell 22 logbook with Lewis’s first hydrogen-oxygen run highlighted.

 Almost immediately thereafter, Abe Silverstein became

focused on the possibilities of hydrogen, initially

for aircraft propulsion. In 1955 he and Eldon Hall 

coauthored a report which predicted that, for aircraft 

missions, liquid hydrogen would far exceed the performance of traditional hydrocarbon fuels.370

This coincided with the Air Force’s renewed interest 

in the use of alternative fuels like liquid hydrogen. The
John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 159: The new Rocket Engine Test Facility (RETF) is displayed at the 1957 Inspection (GRC–1957–C–45869).
 114

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 160: Harrison Allen explains the benefits of high-energy aircraft fuels at the 1957 Inspection (GRC–1957–C–46151).

v v v v v v

There were two key events planned for fall 1957 that 

would give the laboratory the opportunity to share 

its high-energy fuels work with a large number of

industry and military professionals. The first was the 

NACA’s Inspection in October.378 The other was a 

classified Flight Propulsion Conference in November 

that concentrated specifically on Lewis’s propulsion 

advances.379 As the staff began the extensive preparations for these events, Silverstein made two decisions that would shape the future of the laboratory.

In March he created an in-house advisory board, the 

Research Planning Council, to plan the future course 

of research and the necessary facilities for that research.

It was clear that the emphasis would be on spacerelated research, so Abe Silverstein disbanded the 

Compressor and Turbine Division in July 1957.380

The large group of researchers were shifted into the 

new Fluid Systems Combustion and Nuclear Reactor 

divisions. These two groups performed much of the

research at Plum Brook Station in the 1960s.381

burning the hydrogen supply, switch back to jet fuel for

the landing. Lewis pilots conducted several dry runs in 

fall 1956, but failed to make the switch to liquid hydrogen during the first two attempts in December 1956. 

The third attempt, in February 1957, was a success. 

The feat was repeated several times in spring 1957.376

Unbeknownst to the NACA, the military also asked 

Pratt & Whitney to design a new liquid-hydrogen 

aircraft engine for the secret Project Suntan program. 

Although the engine design proceeded well, there were 

disagreements about the aircraft’s proposed range and 

the required hydrogen infrastructure. The military lost 

interest in the hydrogen aircraft engine in 1957, but 

Pratt & Whitney would convert the technology into 

its seminal RL–10 rocket engine. The Suntan program also resulted in the construction of several new 

industrial-size liquid-hydrogen production facilities 

that would be used by the space program.377
 Breakthrough 115

John H. Glenn Research Center

specific impulses (the amount of thrust for a

given unit of propellant).387 Lewis researchers

had run hydrogen and fluorine together only once,

in March 1955. That firing had lasted a mere

4 seconds and had not included nozzle cooling.

Throughout 1957, Douglass, Glen Hennings, 

Edward Baehr, and Harold Price attempted to

repeat the run using a regeneratively cooled 

engine that used the cold liquid hydrogen to 

prevent the nozzle from burning up from the 

high-temperature combustion.388

On 5 November, the group aborted its first attempt 

when a leak in the fluorine tank set the Rocket Lab’s 

roof on fire. The test cell was quickly rebuilt, but time 

was running out. The team worked determinedly 

around the clock in the days leading up to the conference, but the difficulties persisted. Finally at 6 a.m. on 

Friday the 22d, they were able to get the hydrogenfluorine rocket to fire. Price hurriedly crunched the 

data and delivered the figures in dramatic fashion to 

Douglass who was in the midst of his presentation to 

the conference.389

Image 161: Brochure from the 1957 NACA Inspection.

Image 162: Proceedings from the NACA’s 1957 Flight Propulsion 

Conference held at Lewis.

Although headquarters insisted that Lewis’s rocket 

work was specifically for missiles, Lewis researchers

were well aware that the new missiles would soon 

be capable of reaching space. In 1955 Walter Olson,

head of the Fuels and Combustion Division, drafted 

a memo that advocated space exploration and encouraged the NACA to lead the effort.382 This did not 

gain any traction at headquarters, which felt that the 

NACA should merely support the military in its missile development and would not suggest new uses 

like space travel. Congress had critically audited the 

NACA and Lewis during the Korean War, so management was wary of appearing to overstep its mission.383

As the Lewis team rehearsed their presentations for 

the upcoming Inspection, NACA officials ordered 

the removal of any mention of space missions.384,385 

On 4 October 1957, just days before the Inspection, 

the Soviet Union launched the world’s first manmade 

satellite—Sputnik. Literally overnight, the NACA

reversed its policy, and the references to space were

reinserted into the talks. The 1,700 invited guests 

were very much interested in the application of Lewis’s

research to space as they toured the laboratory during 

the three-day Inspection. A highlight was the highenergy fuels talk at the recently completed RETF

facility.386

In the meantime, the Soviets launched the even more 

impressive Sputnik II satellite, and the Rocket Branch 

raced to complete a hydrogen-fluorine rocket test in 

time for the 21–22 November 1957 Flight Propulsion 

Conference. Howard Douglass needed the data for

a paper he would be presenting on fuels with high
 116

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

267. Public Information Office, “Biographical Sketch of 

John C. Evvard,” 1972, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Biographies Collection, Cleveland, OH.

268. Ostrach interview.

269. Simon Ostrach, “Heat in History Memoir on 

Buoyancy-Driven Convection” Heat Transfer

Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, 1990, pp. 19–26.

270. NACA Honors Two Lewis Scientists,” Wing Tips

(6 November 1957).

271. Ostrach interview. 

272. John R. Howell, M. Pinar Menguc, and Robert Siegel, 

Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer (Boca Raton, FL: 

CRC Press, 2015).

273. Roger Launius, To Reach the High Frontier: A 

History of U.S. Launch Vehicles (Lexington, KY: 

University of Kentucky, 2003).

274. George Lewis to Cleveland, “Cleveland Memorandum 

for Director of Aeronautical Research, June 22, 1945,” 

1 August 1945, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Nuclear Propulsion Collection, Cleveland, OH.

275. Pinkel interview, by Dawson, 4 August 1985.

276. John Kenton, “Who’s Who in the Aircraft Nuclear 

Program,” Nucleonics (August 1956).

277. “Simon—Dietrich at Oak Ridge,” Wing Tips

(18 October 1946).

278. Bonny McClain, “How Cyclotrons Work” 

(23 May 2007), http://www.madehow.com/ 

Volume-7/Cyclotron.html (accessed 3 April 2015).

279. “Cyclotron Data Tabulation,” 1961, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

280. Kenton, “Who’s Who.”

281. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program Chronology, 

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program Hearing

Before the Subcommittee on Research and 

Development of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 

Congress of the United States, Eighty-sixth Congress, 

First Session, 23 July 1959.

282. Frank Rom, Review of Nuclear Rocket Research 

at NASA’s Lewis Research Center From 1953 

Thru 1973 (Reston, VA: AIAA–91–3500,

4 September 1991). 

283. Jim Blue interview, Cleveland, OH, by Mark D. 

Bowles, 11 February 2002, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

284. Lewis Strauss to Jerome Hunsaker, 27 October 1954, 

NASA Glenn History Office, Nuclear Propulsion 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

285. Nuclear Development Corporation of America, “Site 

Survey for NACA Research Reactor,” 13 September 

1955, NASA Glenn History Office, Plum Brook 

Ordnance Works Collection, Cleveland, OH.

286. Mark Bowles, Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear

Program at Plum Brook Station 1955–2005

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2006–4317, 2006).

Other papers discussed ramjet-powered missiles such 

as the Snark and Navaho and the B–58 supersonic 

bomber, but the critical portions of the conference 

dealt with high-energy propellants and the application

of different propellants for a range of missions—

including missiles, satellites, and a lunar landing.

Lewis researchers discussed propellant options, turbopumps, and other propulsion issues.390 Within months, 

the NACA would be transformed into a new agency

dedicated to space, and Lewis would work to transform

liquid hydrogen into a practical propellant in operational rocket engine systems.

Endnotes for Chapter 4

255. Edward Sharp memorandum for Staff, “Designation 

of Laboratory Officials,” 29 August 1949, NASA

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH. 

256. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991). 

257. Abe Silverstein interview, Cleveland, OH, by John 

Mauer, 10 March 1989, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

258. Silverstein interview by Mauer.

259. Eugene Wasielewski memorandum for Staff, “Organizational Changes Within the Engine Research 

Division,” 26 July 1951, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

260. Oscar Schey memorandum for Staff, “Organization 

of the Compressor & Turbine Research Division,”

7 February 1952, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

261. Abe Silverstein memorandum for Staff, 

“Reorganization of Research Divisions,”

21 December 1949, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

262. Simon Ostrach interview, Cleveland, OH, 2013, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

263. Ostrach interview. 

264. “Research Divisions Organized,” Wing Tips

(5 February 1943).

265. Benjamin Pinkel interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Virginia Dawson, 4 August 1985, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

266. Virginia Dawson, “From Braunschweig to Ohio: 

Eckert and Government Heat Transfer Research,” 

History of Heat Transfer: Essays in Honor of the 

50th Anniversary of the ASME Heat Transfer 

Division, Edwin Layton and John Leinhard, editors 

(New York, NY: ASME, 1988).
 Breakthrough 117

John H. Glenn Research Center

287. “Tornado of 8 June 1953: The West Park Area,” 

History of the West Park Neighborhood 

(14 June 2014), http://westparkhistory.com/ 

tornado1953/tornado1953.htm (accessed

12 April 2015).

288. Joshua Lietz, “Tornadoes on June 8, 1953,” Tornado 

History Project, 2005−2015 (2015), http://www. 

tornadohistoryproject.com/tornado/1953/6/8/map 

(accessed 29 June 2015).

289. Lee Allyn Davis, Natural Disasters (New York, NY: 

Infobase Publishing, 2009).

290. “Twister Hits Lab Buildings,” Wing Tips

(12 June 1953). 

291. “Tornado of 1953 Whips Through Lewis,” Lewis 

News (12 April 1991).

292. Irving Pinkel, “Resume,” 1970, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Irving Pinkel Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

293. Irving Pinkel interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 30 January 1985, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

294. William Leary, We Freeze to Please: A History of 

NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for 

Flight Safety (Washington, DC: NASA SP–2002– 

4226, 2002).

295. Dwight Boyer and Max Gunther, “Taming the Killer 

Crash Fires.” True ( July 1960). 

296. Gerard Pesman, “Minutes of Meeting of Panel on 

Reduction of Hazards Due to Aircraft Fires,” 

31 October 1947, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Dawson Collection, Cleveland, OH.

297. William Littlewood to NACA Executive Committee,

“Report of Committee on Operating Problems,” 

27 May 1948, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Dawson Collection, Cleveland, OH.

298. Addison Rothrock to Cleveland, “Research on the 

Prevention of Fires in Aircraft Engine Nacelles,” 

12 August 1947, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

299. Dugald Black, Facilities and Methods Used in FullScale Airplane Crash Fire Investigation (Washington, 

DC: NACA RM–E51L06, 1952).

300. Dugald Black and Jacob Moser, Full-Scale

Performance Study of a Prototype Crash Fire 

Protection System for Reciprocating Engine Powered 

Airplane (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E55B11, 

1955).

301. Bill Wynne interview, Cleveland, OH, 14 May 2013, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

302. Irving Pinkel, et al., Origin and Prevention of Crash 

Fires in Turbojet Aircraft (Washington, DC: NACA 

Report 1363, 1958).

303. Pinkel, Origin and Prevention.

304. A. Martin Eiband, Scott Simpkinson, and Dugald 

Black, Accelerations and Passenger Harness Loads 

Measured in Full-Scale Light Airplane Crashes 

(Washington, DC: NACA RN–2991, 1953).

305. G. Merritt Preston and Gerard Pesman, Accelerations 

in Transport-Airplane Crashes (Washington, DC: 

NACA TN–4158, 1958).

306. “Knowledge of Jet Fire, Impact Hazards Advanced 

by Crash Research.” NASA press release, 

27 June 1955, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH. 

307. “Lewis Group Designs Forgiving Seat,” Wing Tips

(5 August 1955).

308. Irving Pinkel, A Proposed Criterion for the Selection 

of Forward and Rearward-Facing Seats (New York, 

NY: ASME 59–AV–28, 26 January 1959).

309. Wilson Hirschfeld, “Better Plane Seating Can 

Increase Safety,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(6 February 1961). 

310. Hirschfeld, “Better Plane Seating.”

311. Charles Tracy, “NASA’s Fire Douser Could’ve Saved 

37,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (22 January 1960). 

312. Gene Methvin, “There’s a Way to Prevent Fatal 

Plane Crash Fires,” Washington Daily News

(22 January 1960).

313. Hirschfeld, “Better Plane Seating.”

314. “Lewis’ Jack-of-All 4 Trades Filmmaker: Laufman 

Plays Key Role in 300-Tech Films,” Lewis News

(22 February 1985). 

315. NACA, “Thirty-Eighth Annual Report of the 

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics” 

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 

1954), p. 4.

316. Robert Arrighi, Revolutionary Atmosphere: The

Story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and Space Power 

Chambers (Washington, DC: NASA SP–2010– 

4319, 2010).

317. Robert Arrighi, Pursuit of Power NASA’s 

Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2012–4548, 2012).

318. “Jet Aircraft Noise Reduction,” Annual Inspection at 

NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, 

7–10 October 1957, 1957, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

319. J. S. Butz, Jr., “NACA Studies Ways to Soften Jet 

Noise,” Aviation Week (4 November 1957).

320. “History and Organization of Wright Aeronautical 

Division Curtiss-Wright Corporation” (17 February 

2009), http://www.scribd.com/doc/12467677/ 

History-of-Curtis-Wright-Aeronautical-Company 

(accessed 25 June 2015).

321. Warren Rayle, Dwight Reilly, and John Farley, 

Performance and Operational Characteristics of

Pentaborane Fuel in 48-Inch Diameter Ramjet 
 118

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

338. Zaretsky, Rolling Bearing Steels.

339. Zaretsky, Rolling Bearing Steels. 

340. Edmond Bisson interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Virginia Dawson, 22 March 1985, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

341. Zaretsky, Rolling Bearing Steels.

342. E. V. Zaretsky, et al., Effect of Component

Differential Hardnesses on Residual Stress and

Rolling Contact Fatigue (Washington, DC: NASA 

TN D–2664, 1965). 

343. “Bearings Researchers Report Major Advance,” Lewis 

News (6 August 1965).

344. Roger Launius, Thomas Irvine, and E. A. Arrington, 

NACA/NASA and the National Unitary Wind 

Tunnel Plan, 1945–1965 (Reston, VA: AIAA– 

2002–1142, 2002).

345. Donald Baals and William Corliss, Wind Tunnels of 

NASA (Washington, DC: NASA SP–440, 1981).

346. “Lewis Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel,” 22 May 1956, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Inspections

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

347. “New Wind Tunnel Tests Full-Scale Engines at 

Supersonic Speeds,” 22 May 1956, press release, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Test Facilities 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

348. Ronald Blaha, “Completed Schedules of NASA 

Lewis Wind Tunnels, Facilities and Aircraft 1944– 

1986,” February 1987, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

349. “Changes at the 8×6 Supersonic Wind Tunnel,” Wing 

Tips (15 August 1956).

350. IBM, “The IBM 700 Series Computing Comes to 

Business,” http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history 

ibm100/us/en/icons/ibm700series/ (accessed 17 

March 2015).

351. Frank da Cruz, “The IBM Card Programmed 

Calculator” (2009), http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ 

 computinghistory/cpc.html (accessed

17 March 2015).

352. “Lewis Unitary Plan Tunnel,” Wing Tips

(23 May 1956). 

353. Peggy Yohner interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 21 May 1985, Glenn History Collection, 

Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

354. George Dalakov, “The Cray Computers of Seymour 

Cray” (2015), http://history-computer.com/ 

ModernComputer/Electronic/Cray.html (accessed 

17 March 2015).

355. “Lewis Unitary Plan Tunnel,” Wing Tips

(23 May 1956).

356. Yohner interview by Dawson.

Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E55K28, 

1957).

322. Ed Kyle, “Pilotless Bomber: US Space Technology 

Incubator,” Space Launch Report (2005), http:// 

www.spacelaunchreport.com/navaho1.html (accessed 

10 April 2011).

323. “Compressors for Specific Tasks,” 1951 Inspection, 

Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, 1951, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Inspections Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

324. “Compressors for Specific Tasks.”

325. Jack Kerrebrock, “Flow in Transonic Compressors,” 

AIAA Journal 19, no. 1 (1981): 4–19.

326. “Supersonic Turbojet Performance,” Annual

Inspection at NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion 

Laboratory, 7–10 October 1957, 1957, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Inspections Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

327. “A Summary of NACA Leadership in Transonic 

Compressor Research,” 28 March 1952, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

328. Seymour Lieblein, “Acceptance Remarks for the 

Goddard Award,” 1967, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Seymour Lieblein Collection, Cleveland, OH.

329. Compressor and Turbine Research Division, 

Aerodynamic Design of Axial-Flow Compressors 

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E56BO3, 1958).

330. Seymour Lieblein, Francis C. Schwenk, and 

Robert L. Broderick, Diffusion Factor for Estimating 

Losses and Limiting Blade Loadings in Axial-Flow 

Compressor Blade Elements (Washington, DC: 

NACA RM–E53D01, 1953).

331. Leroy Smith, “Axial Compressor Aerodesign 

Evolution at General Electric,” Journal of 

Turbomachinery 124 ( July 2002).

332. “Lewis Contributions to Aeronautics in the Field of 

Tribology,” NASA Glenn History Collection,

Tribology Collection, Cleveland, OH.

333. Harold Sliney, High Temperature Solid Lubricants— 

When and Where to Use Them (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM X–68201, 1973).

334. “Lewis Contributions to Aeronautics.”

335. Edmond Bisson, et al., Lubricants, Bearings, and 

Seals (Washington, DC: NASA N66–33673, 

1966).

336. Bernard Hamrock and William Anderson, Rolling

Element Bearings (Washington, DC: NASA 

RP–1105, 1983).

337. Erwin Zaretsky, Rolling Bearing Steels—A 

Technical and Historical Perspective (Washington, 

DC: NASA/TM—2012-217445, 2012).
 Breakthrough 119

John H. Glenn Research Center

357. IBM, “The IBM 700 Series,” http://www03.ibm. 

com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/ibm700

series/

358. da Cruz, “The IBM 650,” http://www.columbia.edu/ 

cu/computinghistory/650.html

359. Mainframe Systems Branch, “History of 

Computing at Lewis Research Center,” NASA 

B-0300, September 1990, Glenn History Collection, 

Computing Collection, Cleveland, OH.

360. Betty Jo Armstead, “My Years at NASA,” Denver 

Museum of Nature and Science (27 January 2015). 

361. Abe Silverstein interview, Cleveland, OH, by John 

Sloop, 29 May 1974, Glenn History Collection, Oral 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

362. John Sloop, “High-Energy Rocket Propellant 

Research at the NACA/NASA Lewis Research 

Center, 1945–60,” Seventh International History 

of Astronautics Symposium Proceedings

(8 October 1973), NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Sloop Collection, Cleveland, OH.

363. John Sloop, “Problems Faced by Early Space 

Transportation Planners,” Fifteenth Space Congress, 

26−28 April 1978, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Sloop Collection, Cleveland, OH.

364. Walter Olson, ed, Current Trends in Research and 

Development for Aircraft Powerplants (Cleveland, 

OH: Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory,

4 September 1958).

365. John Sloop, “NACA High Energy Rocket Propellant 

Research in the Fifties” 28 October 1971, NASA

Glenn History Collection, Dawson Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

366. Virginia Dawson, Ideas Into Hardware: A History 

of the Rocket Engine Test Facility at the NASA 

Glenn Research Center (Washington, DC: NASA, 

2004).

367. Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Office 

of Science Education, “It’s Elemental: The Element 

Hydrogen” (2014), http://education.jlab.org/ 

itselemental/ele001.html (accessed

15 September 2014).

368. John Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 

1945–1959 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4404, 1977).

369. V. F. Hlavin, E. R. Jonash, and A. L. Smith, Low 

Pressure Performance of a Cylindrical Combustor 

With Gaseous Hydrogen (Washington, DC: NACA 

RM–E54L30A, 1955), pp. 9–10.

370. Abe Silverstein and Eldon Hall, Liquid Hydrogen as 

a Jet Fuel for High-Altitude Aircraft (Washington, 

DC: NACA RM–E55C28a, 1955).

371. Norman Appold, A statement by Colonel Norman 

C. Appold of the Sun Tan Project Office, December 

1958, NASA Glenn History Collection, John Sloop 

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

372. Robert Miedel, statements by Robert Miedel of 

Directorate of Procurement GQ ARDC, and 

William Miller and Lt. Richard Doll of the Sun Tan 

Procurement Office, December 1958, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, John Sloop Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

373. R. Mulholland, Joe Algranti, and Ed Gough, Jr., 

Hydrogen for Turbojet and Ramjet Powered Flight 

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E57D23, 1957).

374. Harold R. Kaufman, High-Altitude Performance 

Investigation of J65–13–3 Turbojet Engine With 

Both JP–4 and Gaseous-Hydrogen Fuels 

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E57A11, 1957), 

p. 2–3. 

375. William A. Fleming, et al., Turbojet Performance 

and Operation at High Altitudes With Hydrogen 

and JP–4 Fuels (Washington, DC: NACA

RM–E56E14, 1956), p. 18.

376. Paul Ordin, “Progress Report on Project Bee” 1957, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

377. Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel.

378. “NACA Triennial Inspection 1957, Lewis Flight 

Propulsion Laboratory,” 1957, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

379. NACA 1957 Flight Propulsion Conference 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM−X−67368, 1957).

380. “NASA Lewis Research Divisions and Branches,” 

1 September 1959, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors, Collection, Cleveland, OH.

381. “NASA Lewis Research Divisions and Branches.”

382. Walter T. Olson, “A Suggested Policy and Course of 

Action for NACA With Regard to Rocket Engine 

Propulsion,” 6 May 1955, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

383. Alex Roland, Model Research (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP–4103, 1985).

384. Robert Graham interview, Cleveland, OH, by Sandra 

Johnson, 30 September 2005, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

385. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, chap. 8.

386. “Triennial Inspection, Lewis Laboratory, High 

Energy Rocket Propellants,” October 1957, NASA 

Glenn History Office, Inspections Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

387. Tom Benson, “Specific Impulse” (5 April 2015), 

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/ 

specimp.html (accessed 5 April 2015).

388. Howard Douglass interview, Cleveland, OH, by John 

Sloop, 28 May 1975, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

389. Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel.

390. NACA 1957 Flight Propulsion Conference. 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 163: Future Center Director (1982–1986) Andy Stofan views a small-scale tank 

built to study the sloshing characteristics of liquid hydrogen (GRC–1961–C–58299).
John H. Glenn Research Center

5. Challenges of Space

“There was a growing feeling that the engine development had seen its day ... 

What came along and sort of saved the day was the space problem. 

That provided a completely new set of problems.”

—Ben Pinkel 

5. Challenges of Space

“There was a growing feeling that the engine development had seen its day ... 

What came along and sort of saved the day was the space problem. 

That provided a completely new set of problems.”

—Ben Pinkel 
Image 164: Nuclear propulsion display at the Parade of Progress Event at the Cleveland Public Auditorium in August 1964. There is a model of 

a nuclear spacecraft in the foreground and a Plum Brook Reactor Facility display behind (GRC–1964–C–71686).
 Challenges of Space 123

On 2 October 1958 a team of painters climbed onto 

the hangar roof and painted an “S” over the “C” in 

the large white “N–A–C–A” lettering. The National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

had officially come into being on October 1, and the 

NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory had

become the NASA Lewis Research Center. After 

nearly six months of negotiations, Congress decided 

to base the new civilian space agency on the existing 

NACA organization and resources. NASA raced to 

catch up with the Soviet Union’s succession of new 

achievements in space, and the United States’s initial 

human spaceflight effort, Project Mercury, was soon 

superseded by the Apollo Program’s attempt to send 

a man to the Moon. Congress supplied NASA with 

unprecedented resources to accomplish these tasks. 

The period of the late 1950s and early 1960s was one 

of the most dynamic periods in Lewis’s history. Just as 

Challenges of Space

management had restructured the lab to concentrate 

all efforts on the jet engine in the mid-1940s, Lewis 

now shifted to address the burgeoning space program. 

The center constructed new test facilities, doubled its 

staff, and suspended almost all aeronautical research. 

For the first time, the center had responsibility for 

managing several developmental programs, and steps 

were taken to philosophically and physically segregate 

the research and development staff. 

During this period, Lewis researched a myriad of

space-related topics, including electric propulsion,

space power systems, and perhaps most importantly,

the use of liquid hydrogen as a propellant. NASA 

assigned Lewis the management of the Centaur and 

Agena upper-stage rockets, the hydrogen system for 

the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application 

(NERVA) program, and the massive M–1 engine.

Image 165: Lewis technicians examine a Centaur rocket in the Space Power Chambers shop (GRC–1964–C–71100).
 124

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Kickstarting the Space Program

The Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in October 1957 

did not provoke President Dwight Eisenhower as 

much as it did Congress.391 The president addressed

the uproar a month later by creating the new

Special Assistant for Science and Technology position

in his executive office and publically broaching the

possibility of a new space agency in mid-November. 

Senator Lyndon Johnson led several weeks of heated 

Senate hearings on the state of U.S. missile and satellite development. It was in this environment that

Lewis held a Flight Propulsion Conference discussing 

new propulsion alternatives for an array of missions. As 

President Eisenhower considered the nature of a new 

U.S. space agency, the NACA leadership struggled to 

decide what its role should be in these efforts.392

In the week following the Flight Propulsion Conference, Walter Olson updated his 1955 paper that

suggested an NACA policy regarding spaceflight. The

new 20-page document, issued on 2 December,

emphasized the NACA’s qualifications for participating in the national space effort and suggested that

by fiscal year 1959 two-thirds of the NACA staff

should be performing space work. He outlined 15

broad space topics that the NACA could contribute

to and proposed a new laboratory dedicated to

launching an orbiting space station.393 Three days

later Lewis’s Research Planning Council modified

several of Olson’s specific suggestions but approved

the overall theme and scope.394 The next day, Friday

6 December, Vanguard, the first United States attempt 

to launch a satellite, failed miserably. 

Bruce Lundin, Chief of the Propulsion Systems

Division, sat at his kitchen table on that Sunday to put 

down on paper the thoughts that had been forming 

in his mind.395,396 There were many who agreed with 

Olson’s suggestion that the NACA should remain a

research group that would support whatever space 

agency finally emerged. Others proposed that the 

NACA focus its space efforts on a single large project, 

such as a space station. Lundin rejected both of these 

concepts.

In his resulting memo, “Some Remarks on a Future 

Policy and Course of Action for the NACA,” Lundin

not only recommended that the NACA lead the

nation’s space research, but called for the assimilation

of other space research groups into the NACA. He

stated, “[The NACA’s] approach must obviously be

bold, imaginative, aggressive, and visionary. The

Image 166: Bruce Lundin (left) and Walter Olson in May 1956 

(GRC–1956–C–42155).

Image 167: Lundin’s paper on the NACA’s role in space, as marked 

up by Silverstein.
 Challenges of Space 125

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 168: During the last few months of the NACA’s existence, its leadership made a final tour of its three research laboratories. The group 

arrived in Cleveland on 24 June 1958. At one of the stops Lewis mechanic Leonard Tesar demonstrated the machining of a 20,000-pound-thrust 

rocket engine for the group in the Fabrication Shop. From left to right, Associate Director Eugene Manganiello, researcher Edward Baehr, NACA 

Chairman James Doolittle, NACA Executive Secretary John Victory, NACA Committee member Frederick Crawford, Tesar, Lewis Director 

Ray Sharp, and mechanic Curtis Strawn (GRC–1958–C–48117).397

occasion demands nothing less. To repeat or try to 

give a new look to our action of the recent past won’t 

do.” The document advocated a broad range of space

research to be coordinated by the NACA, the continued pursuit of aeronautical research, and the establishment of a new laboratory dedicated to space.398 Lewis 

set up a Space Flight Laboratory Committee to establish the requirements for the NACA’s proposed new

space lab.399

Abe Silverstein updated Lundin’s document—

renamed the “Lewis Laboratory Opinion of a Future 

Policy and Course of Action for the NACA”—and 

presented the comments during a meeting of NACA 

leaders at headquarters on 18 December 1957.

Silverstein was able to persuade the reluctant leaders 

from the other laboratories that the NACA should 

lead the space efforts. That evening at an informal dinner, younger NACA personnel further urged Hugh 

Dryden to be less careful regarding space.400 Dryden 

took heed and adopted Lundin’s recommendation 

that the NACA push to lead the nation’s space effort.

The minutes of Lewis’s first Space Flight Laboratory

Committee meeting several days later indicate “we 

were asked to adopt the philosophy set forth in the 

‘Lewis Laboratory Opinion’ document which was

accepted with little modification as the official NACA 

opinion at a recent meeting at Headquarters.”401

Lundin’s argument for NACA leadership in space

ultimately served as the basic template for the NACA’s 

proposal in January 1958 to expand its space research 

and handle launching of all science missions. Dryden 

stated, “The NACA is capable, by rapid extension and 

expansion of its effort, of providing leadership in space 

technology.”402

The President and Congress considered several alternatives for the space agency—most prominently the 

Air Force, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 

and the NACA. Not wanting to expand the military 

industrial complex, President Eisenhower initiated 

legislation on 5 March 1958 to create a new civilian 

space agency firmly based on the NACA. That same 

day, the United States launched its first successful satellite, Explorer I. Congress modified the bill, replacing
 126

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

the NACA’s committee structure with a single

administrator. The new agency would also include 

nonmilitary rocket groups, National Science Foundation researchers, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.403 

Congress approved the bill known as the Space Act on 

29 July 1958,404 and NASA officially came into being 

on 1 October 1958. 

v v v v v v

The new space agency required an official seal. In

September 1958 NACA Headquarters solicited each 

of the laboratories for ideas. Jim Modarelli, head of 

Lewis’s Technical Reports Division, and his illustrators

began developing some concepts. Modarelli, who had 

been among a contingent of Lewis personnel who

attended the Ames Inspection that summer, was

intrigued by the display of an experimental high-speed 

aircraft design that included uniquely shaped wings. 

He later contacted the Ames researchers and their

colleagues at Langley for more information and

began sketching the twisted wing shapes. These red 

wings were the first element of the new seal. Modarelli

then collaborated with Harry DeVoto at Ames on 

the seal’s central blue oval, featuring the Earth and an

orbiting spacecraft, surrounded by lettering around the 

border.405

New NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan

reviewed six proposals and quickly selected the 

Modarelli design.406 The design passed through a

required military review with only minor modifications, 

which included correcting the upside-down wings.

President Eisenhower approved the new seal in

December 1958, and the insignia began appearing in fall 

1959.407

Image 169: The official NASA seal. Image 171: The NASA logo, often referred to as the “meatball.”

Image 170: Jim Modarelli (GRC–1956–C–43683).

The seal was intended strictly for formal NASA uses, 

so a second call went out for an informal version that 

could be used for everyday applications. Modarelli 

and Lewis artists Richard Schulke, Louise Fergus, 

and John Hopkins extracted the various components 

of the official seal and reapplied them in a simplified 

new logo, later informally dubbed “the meatball.”408

Headquarters not only approved the iconic design, 

but brought Modarelli onto their staff as Director of

Exhibits in November 1959. After establishing the 

new agency’s exhibits program, Modarelli returned to 

his former post at Lewis in April 1961.409
 Challenges of Space 127

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 173: Orbit announcement of Lewis transfers to NASA 

Headquarters. During the transition to NASA, Wing Tips was redesigned and renamed Orbit. The name was changed to Lewis News in 

February 1964.

Image 172: Silverstein represents the new space agency on CBS’s “Face the Nation” television program on 8 March 1959 (GRC–2015–C–06538).

v v v v v v

Abe Silverstein, who had been commuting between 

Cleveland and Washington, DC, for several months to 

assist with the agency planning, officially transferred 

to headquarters in May 1958. Silverstein served as 

a member of the small team that laid out the framework for NASA’s initial missions and devised NASA’s 

1960 budget. Over the next year, he brought a number 

of Lewis managers with him to headquarters. These

included DeMarquis Wyatt, Edgar Cortright,

Harold Finger, George Low, and others.410 Others such 

as Scott Simpkinson, Warren North, Glynn Lunney,

and Merritt Preston joined the Space Task Group 

(STG) at Langley. The STG was responsible for

planning Project Mercury and the ensuing human 

space programs.

As Chief of Space Flight Programs, Silverstein was

third in command when NASA officially began

operation on 1 October 1958. He was responsible for 

all spaceflight work done at the field centers and managed the personnel and budget decisions for the STG. 

Silverstein is credited with naming both the Mercury 

and Apollo programs. He also managed the nation’s 

early weather and communications satellites and space 

probes such as Ranger, Mariner, Surveyor, and Voyager.

NASA’s first priority was Project Mercury.”411,412
 128

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Project Mercury

The STG presented its plans for Project Mercury 

on 7 October 1958. The program sought to use an

Atlas missile to launch a series of capsules with a single astronaut into space. After an extensive evaluation 

of hundreds of military pilots, in early April NASA 

selected what came to be known as the Mercury 7. 

Engineers also began the testing of dozens of capsule

designs in NASA’s wind tunnels. The STG defined

the specifications based on those tests and hired

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation to create the capsule.413

The STG sought a facility that could simulate highaltitude conditions for a series of Mercury thruster 

tests. In May 1959 Lewis agreed to modify its massive 

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) to accommodate the 

program. The operators would not test the capsule in 

the tunnel’s test section but just upstream inside the 

large leg. Engineers removed the turning vanes and

refrigeration equipment in that area, leaving a 51-footdiameter, 120-foot-long chamber that could simulate 

altitudes up to 80,000 feet. The STG also assigned 

Lewis the responsibility for testing the capsule’s

separation system and escape tower rockets 

and verifying the control system for the Big Joe

capsule.414

Big Joe was a mock-up Mercury capsule designed 

to be launched to the edge of the atmosphere in 

order to simulate reentry without actually placing 

it in orbit. General Electric created the heatshield, 

and Langley designed the main portion of the

capsule. Lewis was responsible for the capsule’s

lower section, which contained the electronics 

and retrorocket tanks, the automatic stabilization

system, and assembly of the complete capsule.415

The stabilization system was critical to Mercury’s

success because the capsule would burn up

during reentry if the heatshield was not positioned

correctly. Lewis engineers installed an experimental Image 174: Gale Butler examines the Mercury capsule’s retrograde rockets 

prior to a test run inside the AWT (GRC–1960–C−53146).

Image 175: Technicians in the Fabrication Shop align the Mercury 

capsule afterbody with its pressure chamber in May 1959 

(GRC–1959–C–50759).
 Challenges of Space 129

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 176: Lewis technicians and engineers prepare the Big Joe capsule for launch from Cape Canaveral in 1959 (GRC–2009–C–02180).

rig with the lower capsule section inside the new AWT 

test chamber to verify the performance of the automatic controls and thrusters for Big Joe. The test

operators set the rig spinning in three directions simultaneously, then activated the control system that automatically fired thrusters to stabilize the capsule. The

series of AWT tests in spring 1959 successfully verified

the stabilization system’s performance.416

Lewis technicians in the Fabrication Shop then

assembled all of the vehicle components into the

final Big Joe capsule, which was flown to Cape

Canaveral aboard a C–130 transport aircraft in June 

1959. Forty-five Lewis personnel spent the summer

in Florida preparing the capsule for its mission.417 The

9 September 1959 Big Joe launch was successful

despite a glitch in the separation from the Atlas. The 

capsule and the control system performed so well that 

NASA canceled plans for a second Big Joe launch.418

Lewis researchers also used the AWT to test the

Mercury retrorocket package located in the lower section of the capsule. Three of these rockets separated 

the capsule from the booster, and three slowed the capsule for reentry into the atmosphere. The performance 

of these thrusters was critical because there was no 

backup system. In early 1960 the Lewis staff tested the 

Mercury capsule with simulated Atlas and Redstone

boosters to ensure that the retrorockets did not damage the booster during separation.419 A second series 

of tests verified the reliability of the igniter system 

for the braking retrorockets. These runs provided the

researchers with an opportunity to calibrate the retrorockets so that they would not alter the position of the 

capsule when fired.420

The STG also sought to qualify the escape tower 

rocket motors to determine if their exhaust plume 

would present a danger to the spacecraft. The escape 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 177: A mock-up Mercury capsule and escape tower rockets mounted in the AWT for testing in July 1960 (GRC–1960–C–53287).
 Challenges of Space 131

John H. Glenn Research Center

tower was a 10-foot steel rig attached to the nose of the

Mercury capsule. The tower had its own propulsion 

system, which could jettison the astronaut to safety in 

the event of emergencies on the launch pad or during 

liftoff.421 During summer 1960 mechanics mounted 

the escape tower and a mock-up Mercury capsule to 

the tunnel wall. After successfully firing three different motors at simulated altitudes up to 100,000 feet, 

the Lewis team determined that the plume was not a 

safety issue.422-425

v v v v v v

The most well-known of Lewis’s work for Project

Mercury was the Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia

Facility (MASTIF) or gimbal rig. The exhaustive 

training regimen for the seven Mercury astronauts

included instruction on how to bring a tumbling 

spacecraft under control. In late 1959 Lewis researcher 

James Useller decided to adapt the gimbal rig that had 

been developed to test the Big Joe control systems for 

this astronaut training. Mechanics installed a pilot’s

chair, hand controller, and instrument display at the 

center of the three-axis rig, as well as

nitrogen thrusters on the outer cages as 

control devices.426 Lewis pilot Joe Algranti

spent months helping the researchers

perfect and calibrate the rig.

In February and March 1960, the

seven Project Mercury astronauts traveled 

to Cleveland to train on the MASTIF. 

The center sponsored a press conference 

and built a makeshift dressing room, the

“Astro-Penthouse,” in the AWT test section for the celebrated visitors. One by one 

the astronauts entered the AWT chamber 

and climbed into the rig. The test engineer 

began rotating the MASTIF on each of 

the three axes individually, then all three 

simultaneously. The number of rotations 

increased from just 2 per minute to 50. In 

turn, each astronaut used hand controls to 

activate the thrusters on the outer cages to 

slow the rotations and eventually bring it 

to a stop.427,428

The high-speed rotations not only disorientated the astronauts but blurred their 

vision. Researchers installed cameras and 

sensing equipment to study the phenomena. The 

MASTIF training was among the most demanding

activities of the entire Mercury training program, 

and the astronauts often reached for the kill switch 

that shut the rig down.429 Although several struggled 

with the rig initially, all seven managed to complete 

the training. They found that staring at a single object

reduced their blurred vision.430

On 5 May 1961, just over a year after the conclusion

of the AWT tests, Alan Shepard became the first 

American to enter space. Gus Grissom repeated the 

suborbital flight in July. The Mercury test program

was Lewis’s most direct involvement with the

human spaceflight program of the 1960s. In a way it 

was similar to the troubleshooting work performed

for the military during World War II. The effort

accelerated the Mercury development and reduced

expenses. The modifications made to the AWT for the 

tests, however, meant that the facility would never be 

used as a wind tunnel again.

Image 178: Lewis pilot Joe Algranti explains the MASTIF operation to Alan 

Shepard in February 1960. Shepard was the first astronaut to operate the MASTIF 

(GRC–1960–C–52706).
Image 179: The MASTIF was erected in the wide end of the AWT, where the nitrogen 

thrusters generated a series of loud hisses as they were fired (GRC–1959–C–51723).
 Challenges of Space 133

John H. Glenn Research Center

Reaching Forth

The initial Mercury flights whetted the public’s

appetite for information about the astronauts and the 

space program. Outreach was one of the core tenets 

of the new civilian space agency. This was in stark

contrast to the restricted nature of the NACA, which 

held lavish Inspections for colleagues in the industry,

but strictly limited access to the public. NASA

expected that the interaction would encourage

students to pursue a science- or technology-based

education and, more importantly, garner public

support and congressional backing for the Agency.431

For the first time in its history, Lewis made efforts in 

the early 1960s to engage the general public through a 

series of open houses and space fairs. In April 1961 the 

center contributed to a display of model satellites at 

the Case Institute of Technology that attracted more 

than 12,000 people over two weeks. After witnessing 

the positive reaction, Lewis decided to host its first 

public open house to mark the center’s 20th anniversary. Approximately 17,000 people attended the twoday event in August 1962.432 These events, however, 

were overshadowed by the massive Space Science Fair 

at the Cleveland Public Auditorium in November 

1962. The event, cosponsored by NASA and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, included exhibits, films, and speakers from NASA centers, local universities, and private 

aerospace companies. Over 375,000 people attended

the Space Science Fair over its 10-day run.433 A similar

event, the Cleveland Press Parade of Progress

Exposition, was held in September 1964 at Public

Hall. Lewis had the largest display of over 300

participants at the event.

After the Parade of Progress Exposition, however, the 

center stepped back from large events and focused 

Image 180: Displays at the November 1962 Space Science Fair at the Cleveland Public Auditorium (GRC–1962–C–62704).
 134

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

its outreach efforts on connecting to smaller groups,

particularly students. In 1961 NASA initiated the 

Spacemobile Program. Staff members used these

vehicles to update educators and students on NASA’s

space exploration and aeronautic achievements.

Lewis’s four spacemobiles—each with an assigned

lecturer, exhibits, and models—traveled throughout

the Midwest. In 1966 the program conducted over 

1,600 remote presentations.434

In 1963 Walter Olson was named Director of Public

Affairs. Olson joined the lab during World War II

and spent most of his career managing the center’s

fuels and propulsion chemistry work. His new

responsibilities included the management of the

center’s technology transfer efforts and forging

relations with universities.435 Cal Weiss of the Technical

Services Division approached Olson in 1963 to discuss the creation of an Educational Services Program 

to supply schools and the public with NASA materials and respond to requests from the community. The 

proposal was accepted, and Weiss was placed in charge 

of the effort. Weiss and his colleague Terry Horvath 

also initiated a formal speakers’ club to discuss various 

NASA topics at local schools and social clubs.436 The 

center also established a junior apprentice program to 

help high-school-age students prepare for mechanical 

engineering careers.437

Image 181: Lewis staff with one of the Spacemobile vehicles in October 1964 (GRC–C–1964–72829).

Expansion

Perhaps Abe Silverstein’s greatest achievement during 

his time at headquarters was his ability to convince his 

colleagues to use liquid hydrogen as the primary propellant for upper-stage vehicles. Silverstein followed 

Lewis’s progress with liquid hydrogen and was confident that it was the optimal propellant. The aerospace 

industry was also following Lewis’s hydrogen work 

in the late 1950s. In 1957 General Dynamics began 

designing a second-stage rocket for the military based 

on the unique balloon tank design of its Atlas missile.

Concurrently, but unrelated, Pratt & Whitney

converted the technology from Project Suntan’s

hydrogen aircraft engine into the RL–10 rocket engine.

The RL–10 would be the first commercially produced 

liquid-oxygen—liquid-hydrogen engine.438

In 1958 Silverstein led a committee that investigated 

the performance requirements for upper-stage rockets. The group concluded that the large missions 

which NASA was planning would require the use 

of high-energy propellants, namely liquid hydrogen.

Almost immediately afterward, the military decided to 

merge General Dynamics’s upper stage with Pratt &

Whitney’s RL–10 engines.439 The result was the

Centaur rocket. Meanwhile, renowned rocket engineer

and director of the Development Operations Division

of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Wernher

von Braun, and his colleagues were designing the 

massive multistage launch vehicle that would

become Saturn.440
 Challenges of Space 135

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 183: Recommendations of the Silverstein Committee regarding 

the use of liquid hydrogen in the Saturn upper stages.

Image 182: Gene Manganiello (right) welcomes Wernher von Braun 

to Lewis in December 1959 (GRC–1959–C–52148).

In late 1959 Silverstein chaired the Saturn Vehicle 

Team, informally termed the “Silverstein Committee,” 

that was responsible for selecting upper-stage designs 

for the Saturn rocket. He felt that it was foolish to 

develop propulsion systems for future missions using 

traditional rocket fuel combinations when the emerging high-energy propellants could offer significantly 

improved performance.441 After much discussion, the 

Lewis contingent was able to convince a reluctant von 

Braun that liquid-hydrogen stages were the only practical alternative for Saturn. The initial Saturn configuration included an RL–10-powered second stage and 

the Centaur for the third stage.442 Lewis’s continuing 

efforts to develop liquid hydrogen would apply to both 

the Centaur and Saturn stages. In 1960 NASA contracted with Rocketdyne to develop a larger hydrogenoxygen engine, the J–2, for the Saturn upper stages.443

In addition to its liquid-hydrogen research, Lewis supported the Saturn development in other ways. The

Saturn program included the two-stage Saturn IB 

(S–IB), which was eventually used on some Skylab 

missions. The effort began in the late 1950s with a 

multiyear base-heating investigation of the S–IB’s 

eight-engine booster in the 8- by 6-Foot and 10- by 

10-Foot supersonic wind tunnels (8×6 and 10×10). 

The rocket engine’s exhaust heat tended to recirculate in the nozzle area. The resulting overheating of 

the lower end, or base, of the booster could cause the

engines to fail or could introduce aerodynamic concerns.

The Lewis study determined that turbine exhaust 

dramatically increased the base heating. Researchers 

found that the use of cooling air scoops and external 

flow deflectors decreased base heating significantly.444

Other efforts were focused on the Saturn V vehicle.

These included new base-heating and enginegimballing tests of the Saturn V second stage (S–IC), 

testing of the launch escape system, and microgravity 

studies of the S–IVB third-stage propellant tanks. A 

scale model of the S–IC was tested in both the 8×6 

and 10×10 to determine the force required to gimbal the stage’s five engines and the resulting flow patterns.445 Researchers also determined the stability

of the launch escape vehicle under simulated flight 

conditions in the 8×6. 

v v v v v v

In early 1961 the United States seemed to be rapidly losing ground in the Cold War’s new technology

front. During President John Kennedy’s first six 

months in office, the RL–10 engine and Centaur 

rocket were behind schedule, the Atlas boosters

suffered repeated failures, and the failed nuclear aircraft 

program was canceled. During the same period, the
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 184: Saturn model installation in the 8×6 in September 1960 (GRC–1960–C–54466).
 Challenges of Space 137

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 185: Silverstein holds a 3 November 1961 press conference announcing additional recruiting efforts. Over the previous months, the center 

had hired 135 new staff members, interviewed over 700 prospects, and had over 300 applications on file (GRC–1961–C–58359).

Soviets launched animals into space and safely 

returned them to Earth. Most notably, on 12 April, 

cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in 

space and the first to orbit Earth. 

On 25 May 1961 President Kennedy informed the

nation that he was accelerating the space program 

on two fronts—a human mission to the Moon and 

the development of nuclear rockets for the human

exploration of Mars and beyond.446 Lewis would make 

major contributions during the 1960s to both efforts.

Congress increased NASA’s budget dramatically to 

meet these goals. This led to a spike in staffing and a 

physical expansion that included the addition of the 

Johnson and Kennedy space centers. When NASA 

Headquarters reorganized its staff to accommodate 

the new Apollo Program, Abe Silverstein was displeased with the new chain of command. In October 1961 he returned to Cleveland to assume the 

director’s position at Lewis. Ray Sharp had retired

in January and passed away several months later.

Eugene Manganiello, who had served as acting

director in the interim, became Deputy Director.

Silverstein’s first action as director was to hold a press 

conference announcing that Lewis was looking to hire 

young engineers, scientists, and technicians. People 

from aerospace companies, the military, and universities were hired during this national recruiting campaign. The rush for additional staffing resulted in the 

center’s first hiring of journeymen since the reinstitution of the Apprentice School in 1949.447 By 1964 

Lewis had nearly 4,900 employees—more than any 

other NASA center except Marshall.448

Unlike the NACA, which developed technologies 

for the military to turn into actual engines or aircraft, NASA was now creating technology for its own 

use. The Agency’s space centers—the Jet Propulsion

Laboratory, Goddard, Johnson, and Marshall—were 

responsible for handling the bulk of that development. 

During the formation of NASA, the Agency sought 

to preserve the research nature of the NACA research 

laboratories—Lewis, Langley, and Ames—by assigning them to the Office of Advanced Research and

Technology (OART). The OART centers were

responsible for creating new knowledge and served 
 138

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

as a measure of the nation’s technical competency.

Ray Bisplinghoff, head of OART at the time, said

that the office was “the hard foundation upon which 

the nation’s aeronautics and space programs rest.”449

Abe Silverstein and his management corps debated 

whether or not to pursue any of the developmental programs that were emerging or to just continue 

supporting research in the NACA tradition. In the 

end, Bruce Lundin convinced Silverstein to do both.

Silverstein reorganized the center so that the research 

and development divisions were completely segregated. 

He also initiated the construction of the Developmental Engineering Building (DEB) outside of the center’s 

main gate to house the new developmental staff. The 

building, which opened in May 1964, even included its 

own cafeteria so that its staff would not have to enter 

the research portion of the center.

v v v v v v

The center also underwent substantial physical expansion during this period. Despite the Agency’s increase 

Image 186: Interior of the 20-foot-diameter vacuum tank in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory. The circular covers on the floor sealed the 

displacement pumps located beneath the chamber (GRC–1961–C–57748).

in funding, the Bureau of Budget still expected Lewis 

to convert as many of its aeronautics facilities to space 

research as possible before building new ones. Gene 

Manganiello, then acting director, noted that many of 

the facilities were already being converted and that the 

only remaining aeronautics area on campus was inside 

the hangar—and that was soon repurposed.450

In 1958 Lewis acquired the 115-acre West Area on 

the other side of Abram Creek from the main campus. 

When the funds for the land were requested in 1959, 

crews constructed a road through the ravine to link the 

property to the center. The land, purchased from several private owners and the Metropolitan Park Board, 

came with two homes which the center referred to as 

the Mitchell House and the Guerin House.451 Lewis 

used the former as a training office and the latter for 

social activities. The primary purpose for the West 

Area, however, was the construction of new worldclass facilities to support the center’s incipient electric 

propulsion research program.
 Challenges of Space 139

John H. Glenn Research Center

Lewis’s expansion was even more pronounced at Plum 

Brook. The center had already leased 500 acres at the 

site in 1956 to construct its nuclear test reactor. As 

Lewis expanded its research with high-energy propellants in the late 1950s, it was clear that it needed

additional test facilities. Several incidents at the Rocket

Lab and Rocket Engine Test Facility during this period 

made it apparent that increased testing on propellants 

was too risky at Lewis’s congested Cleveland campus. 

In 1957 Lewis made arrangements 

to lease an additional 3,100 acres at

Plum Brook for these new facilities,

collectively known as the Rocket

Systems Area.453 Plum Brook’s large

tracts of unpopulated space were

perfect for the potentially dangerous

research. The Rocket Systems Area 

consisted of a multitude of small 

test sites designed to tackle specific

engine components such as turbopumps, turbines, and storage tanks. 

It also included the High Energy 

Rocket Engine Research Facility

(B–1) and Nuclear Rocket Dynamics

and Control Facility (B–3). These 

vertical test stands could test fullscale liquid-hydrogen fuel systems

under simulated altitude conditions.

The Guerin House was actually the 

Boone homestead. Robert Boone and 

his family purchased the property in the 

early 1930s. Throughout the 1940s, the 

Boones and other residents endured the 

loud noise levels and vibrations emanating from the NACA’s large wind tunnels 

and engine test stands. The Boones sold 

their home and its 38-acre property to

the Guerin family in 1952, and NASA 

purchased it from the Guerins six years 

later. NASA retained the home—hidden 

from the test areas by trees and a pond—

and modified it to withstand frequent 

use. The Guerin House served as Lewis’s

social center for nearly 50 years.452

Image 187: The Guerin House (GRC–1964–C–72264).

Image 188: The J Site crew on the “portable” rig on 13 August 1960 before the first test at 

Plum Brook Station (GRC–2015–C–06550).

By 1961 the reactor and most of the Rocket Systems 

Area sites were beginning to operate, and several hundred Lewis employees were now permanently located 

at Plum Brook. In most cases, Lewis’s research divisions developed the test programs for the Plum Brook 

facilities. The Plum Brook staff prepared the facilities, 

ran the tests, and collected the data. By this time Lewis 

had made arrangements to add the Cryogenic Tank 

Storage Site (K Site) and the Hydrogen Heat Transfer
 140

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Facility to the area, and by 1963 even larger test sites 

were in the works, including the Space Power Facility 

(SPF) and the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility 

(B–2).454 In March 1963 NASA made arrangements 

with the military for the Agency to not only use Plum 

Brook’s remaining 3,500 acres but to permanently take 

possession of the entire property.455 The Plum Brook 

Ordnance Works (PBOW) was now officially called 

Plum Brook Station. 

Image 189 (inset): Initially, NASA let the PBOW structures 

stand. As more and more acres were acquired, however, workers began to destroy a large number of the buildings. In 1961 a 

local company was hired to raze all unusable structures and to 

dismantle three acid plants. However, a number of the nonmanufacturing structures were retained (GRC–2015–C–06565). 

Image 190: B Complex with the B–1 and B–3 test stands 

(GRC–1965–C–03012). 

Lewis constructed or repurposed 19 facilities for spacerelated research during the 1960s. Several prominent 

aeronautical facilities, including the Icing Research 

Tunnel (IRT) and the Four Burner Area were effectively shuttered.456

One of the most dramatic alterations was the conversion of the storied AWT into two altitude 

chambers known as the Space Power Chambers (SPC). The center had already removed the

tunnel’s cooling coils and turning vanes in 1959 for 

the Project Mercury tests. In 1961 Lewis management

decided to permanently alter the AWT by creating two 

vacuum chambers inside of it. NASA was initiating

a host of new space missions, but there were no large 

vacuum chambers that researchers could use to simulate the space environment.457 Crews removed the 

AWT’s drive fan, inserted three bulkheads to block 

off portions of the tunnel, and upgraded the vacuum 

pumping system. The result was two large chambers—

one a high vacuum and the other simulating upper 

altitudes. Just as those modifications were completed,

Lewis required a vacuum chamber for the newly

acquired Centaur Program. A vertical extension with 

a removable dome was added so that the rocket stage 

could be stood up within the vacuum chamber.458 The 

facility was finally completed in 1963.
 Challenges of Space 141

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 191: Three bulkheads were placed inside the AWT to create the SPC. The largest is seen here being inserted approximately where the wind 

tunnel fan was located (NASA C–1961–58551).

Image 192: Interior of the SPC’s 51-foot-diameter high-altitude test area inside the former AWT (GRC–1963–C–67001).
 142

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Electric Propulsion

Lewis researchers were interested in virtually any form 

of propulsion that was applicable to aircraft, missiles, 

or spacecraft. In the 1950s Abe Silverstein encouraged the pursuit of two diametric experimental

approaches—electric propulsion and nuclear propulsion. Nuclear propulsion yields an extremely high level 

of thrust that can transport large payloads for longduration missions. Electric thrusters are more efficient 

than chemical or nuclear rocket engines. They operate over a long timeframe but produce extremely low 

amounts of thrust. In the vacuum of space, the low 

thrust significantly increases the spacecraft’s velocity as 

the mission progresses. Small-scale electric engines are 

applicable for low-power missions such as keeping a 

satellite in its correct position or propelling deep space 

probes on lengthy journeys.459

The concept of electric propulsion had been proposed 

by rocket pioneers Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Robert

Goddard in the first years of the 20th Century.

Images 193: Lewis report from 1962 describing the history of electric 

propulsion and requirements for long-duration interplanetary missions.

Herman Oberth brought the obscure concept 

to public attention with his 1929 book, Ways to

Spaceflight. A number of scientists studied Oberth and 

became interested in the feasibility of ion propulsion 

after World War II, including Wernher von Braun’s 

colleague Ernst Stuhlinger.460 Stuhlinger published a 

groundbreaking paper in 1954 that covered all aspects 

of the electrically propelled space vehicle.461 Under 

Stuhlinger’s supervision, the army initiated testing of 

ion thrusters in 1958.462 NASA Marshall contracted 

with Hughes Research Laboratory to design and test 

the first electric propulsion engine, which Hughes first 

operated the thruster in September 1961.463

At Lewis, Wolfgang Moeckel of the Special Projects 

Branch discovered Stuhlinger’s paper in 1956 and

began calculating the theoretical capabilities of an 

electric thruster. Moeckel and his colleagues evaluated 

the ability of electric propulsion to perform a variety 

of space missions. The findings were presented at the

Lewis Flight Propulsion Conference in November 

1957. These mission studies led directly to Lewis’s 

implementation of a new research program to study 

different facets of electric propulsion.464

In 1960 the center restructured its advanced propulsion efforts. Among the new groups were the

Electromagnetic Propulsion Division led by Moeckel 

and the Chemistry and Energy Conversion Division 

led by Walter Olson. The former was responsible for 

the electric propulsion work. The latter studied new

sources of energy and power such as solar cells, fuels

cells, heat transfer, and ion energy.465 Electric

propulsion engines rely on energy conversion systems

to power the thrusters, so Olson’s group worked in

tandem with Moeckel’s. 

Meanwhile Howard Childs and Bill Mickelsen had 

begun designing a suite of new test facilities for conducting electric propulsion research. In 1958 Lewis

installed a 16-foot-long vacuum tank in the Prop 

House and renamed the building the Electric Propulsion Research Building (EPRB). Three more tanks 

were added shortly thereafter.466 The vacuum tanks 

were essential since the thrusters could not operate in

atmospheric air. In 1960 the center constructed a new 

facility with even larger and more powerful vacuum 

tanks, the Electric Propulsion Laboratory (EPL), and 

the Energy Conversion Laboratory (ECL) in the 
 Challenges of Space 143

John H. Glenn Research Center

West Area. The EPL includes 15- and 25-footdiameter tanks, several smaller chambers, and a 

clean room. The ECL contained laboratory facilities

used to study fundamental elements pertaining to 

the conversion of energy into electrical power.467

The completion of the new facilities in 1961 coincided with NASA’s decision to consolidate all of 

the Agency’s electric propulsion at Lewis.468 Lewis 

emerged as the nation’s preeminent electric propulsion research organization, and remains so to 

this day. v v v v v v

The Electromagnetic Propulsion Division pursued 

electrothermal, electromagnetic, and electrostatic 

propulsion systems. The most promising of the 

three fields was the electrostatic, or ion, engine. 

There were two ion engine design options—contact

and electric bombardment thrusters. The first 

was based on a Stuhlinger concept, the latter on a

design by Lewis researcher Harold Kaufman. The

Kaufman engine vaporized liquid mercury, which 

was then bombarded by electrons to create more 

electrons and ions. A negatively charged electric field 

and a positively charged screen drew the ions rearward and out of the engine as thrust.469 The electron 

bombardment thruster demonstrated 90-percent

efficiency during extensive testing in vacuum tanks 

at the EPL. All ensuing U.S. ion propulsion systems were derived from the original Kaufman 

thruster.470

Although Lewis’s vacuum tanks could simulate 

space conditions, it was important to demonstrate 

that the thruster would perform during an actual 

space mission. By April 1960 Lewis was planning the Space Electric Rocket Test (SERT–I). 

The SERT vehicle included two engines—a

cesium contact thruster and the electron bombardment thruster—mounted on the outer edge of 

the spacecraft so that the thrust would rotate the

vehicle. Lewis researchers tested SERT–I throughout 1963 and 1964 in the EPL vacuum tanks, and it 

was launched from Wallops Island on 20 July 1964.

Although the contact thruster failed to function, 

the electron bombardment thruster operated for 

over 30 minutes. The suborbital flight lasted only 

50 minutes, but it provided the first demonstration 

of electric propulsion technology in space.471

Image 194: Space Electric Rocket Test I (SERT–I) spacecraft and thrusters 

tested in EPL’s Tank No. 3 in June 1964 (GRC–1964–C–70258). 

Image 195: Kaufman with his electron bombardment thruster in the early 

1960s (GRC–2001–C–01603). 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 196: Technicians prepare the SERT–I spacecraft in an EPL cleanroom in February 1964 (GRC–1964–C–68553).
 Challenges of Space 145

John H. Glenn Research Center

Nuclear Propulsion 

Lewis researchers had been interested in nuclear 

propulsion since the end of World War II. Despite a

variety of studies at a number of institutions, including Lewis, the nuclear aircraft program never really 

progressed. There were inherent design issues, such 

as the massive amount of shielding needed to protect 

the crew and the possibility of crashes, that posed

major obstacles. Lewis researcher Frank Rom worked

on designs that included a thick stainless steel shell 

for the reactor that would shield the crew and provide 

containment protection in the event of a crash. In the 

end, however, engineers could not design an aircraft 

large enough to carry the heavy shielding or convince 

the public of its safety.472 The military lost interest 

in the concept in the late 1950s. The program was

officially canceled in spring 1961 just as 

the Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF) 

began operation. 

The cancellation coincided with President Kennedy’s call to expand research on

nuclear rockets, which offer superior 

performance in comparison to chemical

rockets. Unlike nuclear aircraft, these

upper-stage rockets would not be activated

until they were out of the Earth’s atmosphere, thus reducing the danger posed 

by a crash. Nuclear rockets could also be

designed so that the crew members were a 

significant distance away from the reactor.

This would reduce the amount of

required shielding.473

The design of the nuclear engine was 

similar in nature to the high-energy 

chemical rocket engines under development. Both systems used cryogenic

liquid hydrogen as the fuel, turbopumps 

to pump the fuel from the tank to the

engine, and regeneratively cooled nozzles. 

The main difference was that nuclear

engines used thermal radiation to heat 

the hydrogen and thus did not require an

oxidizer or combustion.474

In November 1955 the AEC and the

Air Force instituted Project Rover to

develop nuclear-powered missiles. It was Image 197: An unfueled Kiwi B–1–B reactor and its Aerojet Mark IX turbopump 

being prepared for installation in the B–3 test stand (GRC–1967–P–01289).

the nation’s first attempt to design a nuclear rocket

engine. Work began almost immediately to develop

engine components and systems at the Los Alamos

National Laboratory. The Air Force soon lost interest 

in the nuclear rocket, however, and their responsibilities 

and funding were transferred to NASA in December 

1959. At this point the proposed mission changed from 

a nuclear-powered missile to a nuclear rocket for longduration space exploration. The AEC was responsible

for designing the vehicle’s reactor, and Lewis managed

the development of the liquid-hydrogen system. 

The Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO), led 

by Lewis veteran Harold Finger, was established

in August 1960 to coordinate the AEC and NASA 

activities.475
 146

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Project Rover included several different and sometimes overlapping phases. The first, Kiwi, consisted of

a series of increasingly powerful, but not flightworthy,

reactors that researchers could use to study basic

reactor designs. The second phase, NERVA, would 

develop a flyable nuclear engine. The third part of the 

program—the Reactor-In-Flight-Test—would involve

an actual launch test. The AEC tested eight Kiwi

reactors between 1959 and 1964 at its Los Alamos 

and Nevada test sites with varying results. The SNPO 

felt confident enough to use the Kiwi 1–B1 design as 

the basis for the NERVA engine design in 1960. The 

SNPO contracted Rocketdyne, under the supervision 

of Lewis, to develop the hydrogen pumping system.476

Meanwhile Lewis was conducting a variety of studies in the Rocket Systems Area on the use of hydrogen in nuclear engine systems. The center conducted 

nearly all of its nuclear rocket testing at the new Plum 

Brook Station facilities. Plum Brook research included 

studies on specific Kiwi engines and basic research 

that could be applied to a variety of nuclear rocket 

designs. The researchers did not use any functioning 

reactors in their investigations, concentrating instead 

on the hydrogen propellant system, nozzles, and other

nonnuclear components. As such, much of the research 

could be applied to both chemical and nuclear rockets.

It was crucial for the planned long-term missions that 

the nuclear rocket be able to vary its speed and restart 

its engine without any external power. This was accomplished by allowing a small amount of liquid hydrogen 

to be vaporized by the reactor. The gaseous hydrogen 

activated a turbine that drove a turbopump to pump 

additional liquid hydrogen to the reactor.477

The process was similar to that used in chemical

rockets, but researchers needed to verify that it would 

apply to nuclear rocket systems. Lewis began a nearly 

two-year test program at the B–1 and B–3 stands in 

September 1964 to verify the engine’s startup, test 

two different turbopump designs, and obtain data to 

establish a preprogrammed startup system.478-480 The

propellant would be pumped through the rocket system as during a normal startup, but the engine would 

not be fired. Researchers used other Plum Brook 

sites to study the heat transfer properties of a nuclear

rocket nozzle, verify the design of a nuclear rocket heat

exchanger, test a variety of pumps and turbines, and 

study materials in the PBRF.

Image 198: The B–1 and B–3 test stands, 135 and 210 feet tall, could test different components of high-energy rocket engines under flight 

conditions (GRC–1964–C–01310).
 Challenges of Space 147

John H. Glenn Research Center

Meanwhile the AEC conducted a series of tests of 

the NERVA engine in Nevada. Early problems with 

the reactor’s fuel elements were improved. Then during 1969 a modified version was started and stopped 

over two dozen times in a vacuum environment. After

plateauing in the mid-1960s, the program’s budget 

began to decline as funding for extended missions to 

Mars or other distant destinations faded.481

Taming Liquid Hydrogen 

Although General Dynamics and NASA had committed to using liquid hydrogen in the Centaur and 

Saturn upper stages, there were still many unknowns 

regarding its use that had to be resolved before they 

could be successfully utilized in space. These included 

determining the optimal storage and pumping systems 

and learning how to control the liquid in microgravity 

conditions. Lewis conducted extensive research programs on all of these issues throughout much of the 

1960s.

Most high-performance rocket engines use turbopumps that rotate thousands of times per minute to 

deliver the propellant from the tank to the engine at 

high rates of speed. A failure will likely end the mission. 

The use of liquid hydrogen posed a particular problem 

for pumping. It was stored just below its boiling point, 

so a portion of the flow was likely to vaporize before 

reaching the pump. Lewis researchers tested hundreds 

of different spiral-shaped impeller designs to improve 

pump performance in these conditions. They often 

analyzed the new designs first in the Engine Research 

Building’s water tunnel. The pumps or components 

were then brought out to Plum Brook Station and run 

with liquid hydrogen in the Rocket Systems Area test 

sites.482 Researchers performed generic studies that 

could be applied to a variety of pumps and tested specific pumps for the NERVA and Centaur programs. 

Cryogenic propellants, such as liquid hydrogen, must 

be stored at extremely low temperatures. Thermoslike dewars suffice on Earth, but they are too heavy to

include in rocket designs. Despite the coldness of 

space, the rocket engine, its electronics, and solar

radiation all increase the propellant’s temperature, 

which results in fuel evaporation. Insulation solutions 

for relatively short-term missions, such as Centaur

and Saturn, were developed, but long-term missions

to other planets required more robust designs. Lewis 

conducted extensive research and testing on different

Image 199: Ron Roskilly demonstrates the testing of a hydrogen 

turbopump (right) at the Rocket Systems Area’s A Site (left) 

(GRC–1962–C–61077).

insulation systems for propellant tanks on space

vehicles and for proposed fuel depots in space.483

K Site was one of Plum Brook Station’s most active 

test facilities. The facility, which became operational in 

1965, consisted of a 25-foot-diameter vacuum chamber in which cryogenic propellant tanks were tested 

in simulated space conditions. The facility included 

equipment that could create the coldness of space and 

shake the test article to simulate launch vibrations.484 

Researchers used the site extensively to study the use 

of different gases to expel propellant from the tank, 

transfer propellant from one tank to another, and test 

a variety tank insulation systems. The most successful insulation designs were multilayer foil and mylar 

wraps, particularly a self-evacuating layered system.485

v v v v v v

Early in the space program, engineers did not know 

how liquid would behave in low gravity. On Earth, 

gravity separates liquid from vapor, but it was

unclear if that would occur in space. Lewis undertook

an extensive study to determine the behavior of liquid 

hydrogen in microgravity so that proper fuel systems 
 148

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

could be designed. Rocket designers needed to know 

where the propellant would be inside the fuel tank so 

that it could be pumped to the engine. Lewis researchers utilized sounding rockets, research aircraft, and the 

2.2-Second Drop Tower for these early microgravity 

studies. 

Image 200: Bob Siegel with a test rig for high-speed filming of liquid 

behavior in microgravity in the 8×6 wind tunnel (GRC–

1960–C–54149).

Image 201: Fred Haise, Lewis pilot and future Apollo astronaut, 

monitors the cameras and instrumentation for the experimental 

liquid-hydrogen container in the bomb bay of the AJ–2 aircraft 

(GRC–1961–C–56862).

The 2.2-Second Drop Tower descended 100 feet into 

a ravine along the Lewis campus, providing researchers 2.2 seconds of freefall for simulating microgravity. 

Researchers used the tower as an inexpensive tool for 

a large number of studies. Tests were set up in experiment carts equipped with cameras to film the behavior of liquid during freefall so that researchers could

investigate the wetting characteristics of liquid and

 Image 202: An Aerobee rocket being prepared for launch in January 1961 (GRC–1961–C–55686).
 Challenges of Space 149

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 204: A NASA AJ–2 Savage makes a pass for cameramen at the Cleveland Municipal Airport in November 1960. The AJ–2 was a 

Navy-carrier-based bomber in the 1950s (GRC–1960–C–54979).

liquid-vapor configurations and predict the equilibrium state in microgravity conditions. The early experimental fluid studies verified the predictions made by 

Lewis researchers that the total surface energy would 

be minimized in microgravity. Thousands of drop

tower tests in the early 1960s provided an increased

understanding of low-gravity processes and phenomena.

486 The tower afforded only a relatively short

experiment time, but the results were sufficient for

the research to be expanded with longer-duration freefall tests on sounding rockets or aircraft.

 

The center acquired two North American AJ–2

Savage aircraft in the early 1960s to fly microgravityinducing parabola flight patterns. Lewis engineers

installed a 100-liter liquid-hydrogen tank, a cryogenic 

cooling system, and cameras in the bomb bay. A pilot 

would fly the aircraft on a 13,000-foot level course over 

western Lake Erie. Then the pilot would pull up the nose 

40°. The decrease in speed would nullify both the latitudinal and longitudinal accelerations. Upon reaching 

17,000 feet, the pilot would turn the aircraft into a 45° 

dive. As the speed reached 390 knots, the pilot would 

pull the aircraft up again. Each maneuver produced

approximately 27 seconds of reduced gravity. A pingpong ball was hung in the cockpit to let the pilot know 

when the aircraft was in microgravity.487

Image 203: Orbit article on the recovery of an Aerobee telemetry unit 

from the Atlantic Ocean.
 150

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

For longer durations of microgravity, Lewis researchers utilized sounding rockets, an Atlas booster, and 

Scott Carpenter’s Mercury 7 mission. The STG

assigned Carpenter five somewhat basic experiments 

to perform during his June 1962 orbital flight, including a study of liquid behavior in microgravity for Lewis. 

The experiment consisted of a 3.5-inch-diameter glass 

sphere that was partially filled with a water mixture. 

Inside the sphere was a perforated tube that caused the 

liquid to rest at the lower portion of the tank while the 

vapor rose to the top. The experiment demonstrated 

that uneven acceleration and baffle misalignment did 

not alter the fluid’s position.488

In the early 1960s researchers launched a series of

microgravity fluids experiments inside a Lewisdesigned 9-inch-diameter tank on Aerojet’s Aerobee 

sounding rockets. A camera inside each suborbital 

Aerobee missile filmed the behavior of liquid hydrogen 

during its 4 to 7 minutes of freefall. Between 1961 and 

1964, Lewis conducted nine Aerobee launches over the 

Atlantic Ocean from Wallops Island. The flights provided data on nucleate boiling and pressure increases 

during microgravity. Lewis’s Flight Operations Branch 

and the Photo Lab participated in the tracking and

recovery of the test package from the Atlantic.489

The Aerobee launches provided sufficient data for 

most conditions, but additional time was needed to 

study situations with low heat flux. Lewis researchers arranged for an experimental tank to be filled 

nearly half way and flown on an Atlas booster. The 

25 February 1964 flight provided over 21 minutes of

microgravity. The instrumentation measured temperature, pressure, vacuum, and liquid level. Temperature 

instrumentation indicated wall drying during the 

freefall. The resultant pressure increases were similar 

to those experienced during the normal-gravity test.490

The Development Side

The Centaur upper-stage rocket was the first space

vehicle to use liquid hydrogen as a propellant. General 

Dynamics designed the unique spacecraft to be paired 

with the Atlas booster.491 The military originally

intended to use Centaur to launch the Advent satellite, but Centaur development problems ultimately 

convinced the military to use another booster. NASA, 

however, selected Centaur to launch a series of Surveyor spacecraft that would land on the lunar surface 

and explore the Moon prior to the Apollo missions. 

The 15,000-pound-thrust Pratt & Whitney liquidhydrogen-fueled RL–10 engines not only powered

Centaur, but were also incorporated into the early

upper stages for Saturn, so it was a serious

concern when combustion problems caused several

RL–10 engines to explode at Pratt & Whitney’s

Florida facilities. NASA Headquarters assigned 

Lewis, the only center with extensive hydrogen experience, the responsibility for investigating the RL–10. 

In March 1961 Lewis’s Chemical Rocket Division

began a series of RL–10 tests at the Propulsion

Systems Laboratory. Researchers first verified that 

the engines could be steered and throttled. Then they

determined that the injection of a stream of helium gas 

into the liquid-oxygen tank immediately resolved the 

engine’s combustion instability problems.492

The overall Centaur Program, managed by Marshall, 

continued to be beset by delays and quality issues. In 

May 1962 the first Atlas-Centaur (AC) launch attempt 

ended when the rocket exploded less than a minute

after liftoff. Marshall (which did not care for the 

rocket’s use of liquid hydrogen propellant or its 

Image 205: Memo authorizing the transfer of Centaur to Lewis in 

1962.
John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 206: Atlas booster being hoisted into the Dynamics Stand at Plum Brook Station in 1963. The Atlas and Centaur were tested individually, 

as a pair, and with a simulated Surveyor payload (GRC–1963–P–01700).
 152

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

unique pressurized balloon-like structure) and Surveyor’s developer (the Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory, JPL) called 

for Centaur’s cancellation.493 Instead,

after congressional hearings and internal 

NASA deliberations, NASA Headquarters

decided to transfer the Centaur Program to 

Lewis in September 1962.494,495 Although 

Lewis had scant experience managing large 

development programs, they were the

experts on liquid hydrogen and had

experience with the RL–10 engines. 

Center Director Abe Silverstein personally 

oversaw the intensive two-year checkout 

of Centaur, and numerous test facilities at 

Lewis and Plum Brook Station were built 

or modified specifically for this upper-stage 

vehicle. The engineers not only had to make 

sure that the rocket systems performed well 

but had to develop methods for handling 

the propellants in the microgravity of space, ensure 

that the engines could be restarted, and verify that the 

vehicle could withstand the vibrations of a launch. 

v v v v v v

Lewis conducted an extensive examination of Centaur 

in late 1962 and 1963. This included a full-scale test 

of the separation system in the new SPC and verification of the vehicle’s structural integrity in Plum Brook’s 

Dynamics Stand. The former led to a redesign of the 

retrorocket system. The latter verified that the Atlas 

could handle the unprecedented weight of the Centaur 

during a simulated launch. The test allowed NASA 

to lift the flight restraint for the upcoming launch

attempt.496 Lewis engineers were at the controls as

AC–2 successfully blasted off from Cape Canaveral on 

23 November 1963.

The AC Program included five developmental flights 

that would be flown with simulated payloads before 

the actual Surveyor missions began. There were still 

many questions to answer before the valuable lunar 

landers were risked on the new rocket. The failure 

of the next launch attempt, AC–3, to reach orbit in 

June 1964 raised concerns across the Agency again.497

Lewis stepped up its efforts during the next two years 

to ensure that Centaur remained on schedule and did 

not delay the Apollo landings. The SPC became the 

hub for the Centaur test program.

Image 207: A Centaur stage is lowered through the dome and into the SPC vacuum 

tank (GRC–1964–C–68846).

Image 208: AC–2 on a launch pad at Cape Canaveral in November 

1963. It was the first successful launch of a liquid-hydrogen rocket.

The Centaur upper stage from the AC–2 launch remains in orbit 

today (GRC–2015–C–06539).
 Challenges of Space 153

John H. Glenn Research Center

Centaur was designed to fire its engine multiple 

times during flight. For simplicity’s sake, however, the

engines were only fired once during each of the first 

three test launches. The AC–3 launch failed when 

the jettisoning of the vehicle’s nose cone disrupted its

guidance system. The manufacturer had tested the cone 

repeatedly prior to the mission in atmospheric conditions, but Lewis researchers wanted to verify its performance in a simulated space environment. The shroud 

was mounted vertically on a platform in the SPC

vacuum tank, and its jettison system was activated. 

The shroud suffered significant damage during one of 

the runs, so Lewis researchers redesigned the shroud

components and retested the system during fall

1964.498 The AC–4 launch in November 1964

proved to be the first Centaur mission to have a

completely error-free shroud jettison. Further modifications to the shroud were made, and it was requalified 

at the SPC in summer 1965. 

AC–4 was also the first attempt at restarting the

engines in space. When the first engine burn ended, 

the liquid hydrogen sloshed forward, causing some of 

the propellant to be lost through the 

tank vents. This threw off the vehicle’s 

balance and caused enough hydrogen 

spillage to prevent the engines from 

restarting for the second burn. Afterward, Lewis engineers developed and 

tested in the SPC a new balanced venting system that expelled gas in an even 

and nonpropulsive manner. The new 

design also included a baffle to prevent 

sloshing inside the tank.499,500 The next

attempt at a two-burn mission in April 

1966 was a success.

Lewis researchers considered electronic malfunctions to be one of the 

most likely causes of failures in space 

so they initiated a test program to

operate a complete Centaur vehicle 

in the SPC vacuum chamber. The 

facility permitted all elements of a

Centaur mission to be simulated

except the firing of the engines. The

engineers operated the vehicle’s electronics and controls systems as they

would during all phases of the missions. Image 209: Researchers prepare a Centaur-Surveyor nose cone shroud for a separation test 

in the SPC vacuum tank (GRC–1964–C–71091).

The tests revealed that the pressurization of the 

canisters that housed the electronics caused problems, that the minimization of the necessary power 

level reduced equipment temperatures, and that 

the electronics did not transfer heat to the propellant tanks. The study of these systems for long

periods of time in the SPC space tank facilitated 

the calibration of the electronics and improved the

inflight monitoring of the spacecraft.501

Lewis resolved issues with Centaur’s pumping, electronics, shroud, and propellant storage systems without impacting the Centaur schedule. The massive 

effort paid off on 30 May 1966 with the successful launch of Surveyor 1. Three days later, Surveyor

became the first U.S. spacecraft to land on another

celestial body. Centaur rockets sent six more Surveyors to the Moon over the next year and a half to scout

landing sites for the Apollo missions and perform

geological research. Lewis had not only directly contributed to the Apollo Program but had proven the

capability of a hydrogen-powered rocket and

demonstrated the center’s proficiency at program 
 154

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

management. Henceforth, Lewis

was recognized across the Agency

for its expertise in launch vehicle

operations.502

v v v v v v

Lewis acquired two additional 

development programs in fall 1962—

the Agena upper-stage rocket and the 

M–1 engine. Originally there was a 

dearth of open office space to house 

the personnel for these new programs, 

so a blockhouse with offices was 

quickly constructed inside the hangar, 

similar to what had been done for the 

Langley transfers in 1942. Meanwhile 

Lewis acquired property across Brookpark Road to 

construct the new DEB to permanently house the 

staff. The three-story, K-shaped DEB opened in 1964, 

and the staff transferred from the hangar.503

Agena was an upper-stage rocket used in tandem with 

Thor or Atlas boosters. Unlike Centaur, the Agena 

was fairly well established before being transferred to

Lewis, so it did not require extensive modifications.504

For each mission, Lewis’s Agena Office, led by Seymour 

Himmel, was responsible for determining the launch 

vehicle requirements, integrating the payload into the 

vehicle, and calculating the proper trajectories.505

The 17 Agena launches that took place before the program was transferred from Marshall to Lewis resulted 

in five failures and two partial failures. Lewis oversaw 28 successful 

Agena missions between 1962 and 

1968, including several Ranger and 

Lunar Orbiter missions to the Moon, 

a number of Earth observation satellites, and Mariner missions to photograph Mars and Venus in 1964 

and 1967. Mariner‒D, launched on

28 November 1964, became the

first successful mission to Mars and 

the first spacecraft to photograph 

another planet up close.506 Future 

Agena launches would be assigned 

to the more powerful Centaur stage 

once Centaur’s obligations to the 

Surveyor Program were complete.

Image 210: Lewis’s new DEB. 

Image 211: Lewis launch team monitors the Thor-Agena launch of an Orbiting Geophysical 

Observatory satellite in 1965 (GRC–2015–C–60541).

The 1.5-million-pound-thrust M–1 engine was the 

largest hydrogen-fueled rocket engine ever created. 

The M–1 Program began in 1962 as a joint project 

between Marshall and Aerojet-General. When NASA 

transferred the program to Lewis in 1962, the M–1 

was being considered for upper-stage vehicles that 

would be paired with the Saturn rocket for a human 

mission to Mars in the 1970s. Although much larger in 

size, the M–1 used liquid-hydrogen technology developed for the RL–10 and J–2.507 In August 1965, soon 

after Lewis reanalyzed the configuration to improve 

thrust, NASA canceled the M–1 program because 

of budget cuts and the lack of a post-Apollo mission.

Although the full M–1 engine was never completed, 

its thrust chamber was the largest ever tested.508
 Challenges of Space 155

John H. Glenn Research Center

v v v v v v

The early 1960s were one of the most productive

periods in Lewis’s history. The center leadership 

was critical to the formation of NASA in 1958 and 

the planning of the human missions of the 1960s.

During this period, Lewis had scrambled to quickly 

refocus its activities on spaceflight, adapting many of 

the skills and technologies that it had developed for 

aircraft and missile propulsion to space applications. 

The center’s fundamental work with liquid hydrogen directly impacted not only Centaur, but also the

upper stages for Saturn. Lewis provided key testing for 

Project Mercury, Centaur, and Saturn. Lewis’s electric 

and nuclear propulsion work also paved the way for 

more ambitious space missions that would not occur 

for decades—even some that have not yet taken place. 

Just as space accomplishments were finally beginning 

to pay off with the Apollo Program, Lewis began to 

change course once again. 

Image 212: Bill Harrison films a test analyzing the effect of a lander’s jets on simulated Moon dust. This experimental tank was located in the 

8×6 complex (GRC–1960–C–53768).
 156

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Endnotes for Chapter 5

391. Alex Roland, Model Research (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP–4103, 1985).

392. David Portree, NASA’s Origins and the Dawn of the 

Space Age (Washington, DC: NASA, 1998).

393. Walter Olson, “A Suggested Policy and Course of 

Action for NACA on Space Flight,” 2 December 

1957, NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

394. Irving Pinkel, Minutes of meeting of Research 

Planning Council, 5 December 1957, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

395. Bruce Lundin interview, Cleveland, OH, by John 

Sloop, 30 May 1974, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

396. Bruce Lundin interview, Cleveland, OH, by Eugene 

Emme, 5 June 1974, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

397. “Doolittle Visits Lewis Lab,” Wing Tips

(3 July 1958).

398. Bruce Lundin, “Some Remarks on a Future Policy 

and Course of Action for the NACA,” 1957, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Bruce Lundin Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

399. J. Howard Childs, Minutes of December 20, 1957, 

Meeting of Committee on Space Flight Laboratory, 

26 December 1957, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

400. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis 

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).

401. Childs, Minutes of December 20, 1957, Meeting.

402. Hugh Dryden, “A National Research Program for 

Space Technology,” A staff study of the NACA

(14 January 1958), http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4103/

app-h4.htm (accessed 15 April 2015).

403. Roland, Model Research.

404. Portree, NASA’s Origins.

405. Joseph Chambers and Mark Chambers, Emblems of 

Exploration: Logos of the NACA and NASA 

(Washington, DC: NASA/SP—2015-4556, 2015).

406. “Staff Invited To Submit Designs for NASA 

Insignia,” Orbit (30 September 1958), p. 1.

407. Chambers, Emblems of Exploration.

408. “This is NASA Insignia,” Orbit (31 July 1959), p. 1. 

409. Chambers, Emblems of Exploration.

410. “Lewis Men Now at NASA Headquarters,” Orbit

(9 January 1959).

411. “Biographical Sketch of Abe Silverstein,” August 

1973, NASA Glenn History Collection, Silverstein 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

412. Arnold S. Levine, Managing NASA in the Apollo 

Era (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4102, 1982) 

chap. 2.

413. Lloyd Swenson, James Grimwood, and Charles 

Alexander, This New Ocean: A History of Project 

Mercury (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4201, 1966).

414. James Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4001, 1963), 

Part II(A). [Maxime A. Faget, Chief, Flight Systems 

Division, memo to Project Director, “Status of Test 

Work Being Conducted at the Lewis Research Center 

in Conjunction With Project Mercury,” 

22 October 1959.]

415. Space Task Group, Project Mercury Preliminary

Flight Test Results of the “Big Joe,” Mercury R and 

D Capsule (Washington, DC: NASA Project

Mercury Working Paper No. 107 and NASA TM–

X–73017, 1959).

416. Lou Corpas, Frank Stenger, and Robert Miller 

interview, Cleveland, OH, by Bonita Smith, 

17 September 2001, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

417. Swenson, This New Ocean.

418. “It Was Like This at Canaveral,” Orbit (25 September 

1959). 

419. George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, The 

Mercury-Redstone Project (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM–X–53107, 1963), pp. 4–7.

420. Grimwood, Project Mercury, Part II(A). 

[Faget memo to Project Director.]

421. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, Project Mercury 

Familiarization Manual (St. Louis, MO: McDonnell 

SEDR–104, 1959), pp. 6–13 and 5–12.

422. James Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4001, 1963), 

Part II(A). [George Low memo to NASA 

Administrator, “Status Report No. 14, Project 

Mercury,” 22 May 1959.]

423. NASA Space Task Group, “Project Mercury 

(Quarterly) Status Report No. 6 for Period Ending 

April 30, 1960,” 1960.

424. James Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4001, 1963), 

Part II(B). [NASA Space Task Group, Project 

Mercury [Quarterly] Status Report No. 6 for Period 

Ending April 30, 1960.]

425. Swenson, This New Ocean.

426. Swenson, This New Ocean.

427. James Useller and Joseph Algranti, “Pilot Reaction to 

High Speed Rotation,” Aerospace Medicine 34, 

no. 6 ( June 1963).

428. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview by Smith.
 Challenges of Space 157

John H. Glenn Research Center

429. Neal Thompson, Light This Candle: The Life and 

Times of Alan Shepard America’s First Spaceman 

(New York, NY: Crown Publishers, 2004).

430. James Useller and Joseph Algranti, “Pilot Reaction to 

High Speed Rotation,” Aerospace Medicine 34, 

no. 6 ( June 1963).

431. Kim McQuaid, “The Space Age at the Grass Roots: 

NASA in Cleveland, 1958–1990,” 2007, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH,

pp. 12–14.

432. McQuaid, “The Space Age.” November to December 

1962.

433. McQuaid, “The Space Age at the Grass Roots.”

434. “Spacemobiles Tell NASA Story to Many,” Lewis 

News (24 November 1967).

435. Dr. Walter T. Olson, Vitae, (Glenn History 

Collection, Walter Olson Collection, Cleveland, 

OH).

436. Calvin Weiss interview by Rebecca Wright, 

6 June 2014, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

437. Billy Harrison and Nicki Harrison interview, 

Cleveland, OH, 14 October 2005, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection,

Cleveland, OH. 

438. John Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 

1945–1959 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4404, 

1977). 

439. A. O. Tischler interview, Cleveland, OH, by John 

Sloop, 25 January 1974, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

440. David Akens, Saturn Illustrated Chronology

(Huntsville, AL: NASA MHR–5, 1971).

441. Saturn Vehicle Team, “Report to the Administrator, NASA, on Saturn Development Plan,” 

December 15, 1959, pp. 1–4, 7–9.

442. Akens, Saturn Illustrated Chronology.

443. Akens, Saturn Illustrated Chronology.

444. Robert Wasko, Wind Tunnel Investigation of

Thermal and Pressure Environments in the Base of 

the Saturn S-IC Booster from Mach 0.1 to 3.5 

(Washington, DC: NASA TN D–3612, 1966).

445. Berhard J. Blaha, Robert A. Wasko, and Donald L. 

Bresnahan, Wind Tunnel Investigation of Saturn 

S-IC Aerodynamic Engine Gimbal Forces and Base 

Pressures Using a Cold-Flow Jet Simulation Technique

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–1470: 1967).

446. John F. Kennedy, “Special Message to the Congress 

on Urgent National Needs,” 25 May 1961.

447. Billy Harrison and Nicki Harrison interview, 

Cleveland, OH, 14 October 2005, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

448. “Personnel Summary,” 1997 NASA Pocket Statistics 

(Washington, DC: NASA History Division, 2007).

449. Raymond Bisplinhoff, “Summary of Remarks by 

R. L. Bisplinghoff, NASA-OART Management 

Meeting,” 9 December 1964, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, John Sloop Collection, Cleveland, OH.

450. Eugene Manganiello to William Woodward, 

“Justification for Energy Conversion Building,” 

28 October 1959, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

451. Robert Sessions memorandum for those concerned, 

1 July 1959, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Buildings and Grounds Collection, Cleveland, OH.

452. “Ohio Historic Preservation Office: Resource 

Protection and Review” Section 106 Review,

Project Summary Form (Columbus, OH: Ohio

Historic Preservation Office, 2007). 

453. “Missile Lab Here Getting 2 Buildings,” Cleveland 

Plain Dealer (4 September 1957).

454. Joy Owens, “NASA Asks $12 Million for Plum 

Brook Expansion,” Elyria Chronicle-Telegram

(26 May 1962). 

455. Department of the Army to the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, “Transfer and Acceptance 

of Military Real Property,” 15 March 1963, NASA 

Glenn History Office, Plum Brook Ordnance Works 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

456. Eugene Manganiello memo to I. H. Abbott and 

E. W. Conlon at NASA Headquarters, “Curtailment 

of Research Areas and Facilities for Fiscal Year 1962,” 

20 January1960, NASA Lewis Research Center, 

Cleveland, OH.

457. R. T. Hollingsworth, A Survey of Large Space 

Chambers (Washington, DC: NASA TN D–1673, 

1963), p. 12.

458. John Povolny, Space Simulation and Full-Scale

Testing in a Converted Facility (Washington, DC: 

NASA N66 35913, 1970), p. 2.

459. Wolfgang Moeckel, Electric Propulsion for Spacecraft 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–22, 1962).

460. Edgar Choueri, A Critical History of Electric 

Propulsion: The First Fifty Years (1906–1956)

(Reston, VA: AIAA–2004–3334, 2004).

461. Ernst Stuhlinger, “Possibilities of Electrical Space 

Ship Propulsion,” 5th International Astronautical 

Congress (Innsbruck: 1954), pp. 100–119.

462. Mike Wright, “Ion Propulsion: Over 50 Years in the 

Making,” Science@NASA (6 April 1999), http://

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/

1999/prop06apr99_2/ (accessed 1 April 2015).
 158

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

463. Wright, “Ion Propulsion,” http://science.nasa.gov/ 

science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/prop06apr99_2/ 

464. Wolfgang Moeckel to Ernst Stuhlinger, 2 June 1964, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Electric

Propulsion Collection, Cleveland, OH.

465. “Organizational Changes and Personnel 

Appointments,” Orbit (12 August 1960).

466. Wolfgang Moeckel, “Lewis Research Center Electric 

Propulsion Program,” 5 June 1961, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Electric Propulsion Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

467. Glenn Research Center Test Facilities (Cleveland, 

OH: NASA B–1128, August 2005).

468. Wright, “Ion Propulsion,” http://science.nasa.gov/ 

science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/prop06apr99_2/

469. Hugh Harris, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 70–74, 16 September 1970, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

470. Michael Patterson and James Sovey, “History of 

Electric Propulsion at NASA Glenn Research

Center: 1956 to Present,” Journal of Aerospace 

Engineering 26 (2013): 300–316.

471. Radio Corporation of America, Summary Report on 

the Development of the SERI I Spacecraft

(Washington, DC: NASA CR–54243, 1966).

472. Frank Rom interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 14 June 2002, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

473. William Corliss and Francis Schwenk, Nuclear

Propulsion for Space (Oak Ridge, TN: Atomic

Energy Commission, 1971).

474. Corliss, Nuclear Propulsion.

475. James Dewar, To the End of the Solar System: The 

Story of the Nuclear Rocket (Lexington, KY: 

University Press of Kentucky, 2004).

476. “NERVA,” Flight International (9 August 1962).

477. Herbert Heppler, et al., Startup Dynamics and

Control (Washington, DC: NASA X66–51410, 

1966).

478. Wojciech Rostafinski, An Analytical Method for 

Predicting the Performance of Centrifugal Pumps 

During Pressurized Startup (Washington, DC: 

NASA TN D–4967, 1969).

479. John Clark, Analytical and Experimental Study of 

Startup Characteristics of a Full-Scale Unfueled 

Nuclear Rocket Core Assembly (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM X–1231, 1966). 

480. David Robinson, et al., Flow Initiation with Turbine 

Accelerated Tank Pressure 35 PSIA; Runs 12, 14–17 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–52089, 1965).

481. James Dewar, To the End of the Solar System: The 

Story of the Nuclear Rocket (Ontario, Canada:

Apogee Books, 2007).

482. Lewis Research Center, Facilities and Techniques 

Employed at Lewis Research Center in Experimental 

Investigations of Cavitation in Pump (Cleveland, 

OH: NASA TP 19–63, 1964).

483. Richard Priem, Liquid Rocket Technology for 

the Chemical Engineer (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM X–52695, 1969).

484. Lewis Research Center, “Capabilities and Facilities of 

the Plum Brook Station,” c1970, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Plum Brook Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

485. Lightweight, Self-Evacuated Insulation Panels

(Washington, DC: NASA Tech Brief 70–10646, 

1970).

486. Edward Otto, Static and Dynamic Behavior of the 

Liquid-Vapor Interface During Weightlessness 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–52016, 1964).

487. James Useller and Fred Haise, Jr., Use of Aircraft 

for Zero Gravity Environment (Washington, DC: 

NASA TN D–3380, 1966).

488. Donald Petrash, Thomas Nelson, and Edward Otto, 

Effect of Surface Energy on the Liquid-Vapor 

Interface Configuration During Weightlessness 

(Washington, DC: NASA TN D–1582, 1963).

489. David Chato, The Role of Flight Experiments in the 

Development of Cryogenic Fluid Management 

Technologies (Washington, DC: NASA/TM— 

2006-214261, 2006).

490. Kaleel L. Abdalla, Thomas C. Frysinger, and Charles 

R. Andraechio, Pressure-Rise Characteristics for 

a Liquid-Hydrogen Dewar for Homogeneous 

Normal Graivty Quiescent, and Zero Gravity Tests 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–1134, 1965).

491. Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, Taming Liquid 

Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket 1958– 

2002 (Washington, DC: NASA SP 2004–4230, 

2004).

492. William E. Conrad, Ned P. Hannum, and Harry E. 

Bloomer, Photographic Study of Liquid-Oxygen 

Boiling and Gas Injection in the Injector of a 

Chugging Rocket Engine (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM X–948, 1964).

493. Brian Sparks to Homer E. Newell, 21 September 

1962, NASA Glenn History Collection, Centaur 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

494. Edgar Cortright to Abe Silverstein, “Re: Project 

Centaur,” 20 September 1962, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Centaur Collection, Cleveland, OH. 
 Challenges of Space 159

John H. Glenn Research Center

495. Edgar M. Cortright interview, Houston, TX, by Rich 

Dinkel, 20 August 1998, NASA Johnson Space 

Center Oral History Project, Houston, TX. 

496. Rocket Systems Division Reports, Dynamics 

Laboratory, October 1963.

497. Rocket Systems Division Reports.

498. Jack Humphreys, Centaur AC-4 Nose Jettison Tests 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–52154, 1966).

499. Raymond Lacovic, et al., Management of Cryogenic 

Propellants in a Full-Scale Orbiting Space Vehicle 

(Cleveland, OH: NASA TN D–4571, 1968). 

500. William Groesbeck, Design of Coast-Phase 

Propellant Management System for Two-Burn AtlasCentaur Flight AC-8 (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–X–1318, 1966), p. 2.

501. Ralph Schmiedlin, et al., Flight Simulation Tests of 

a Centaur Vehicle in a Space Chamber (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM–X–1929, 1970).

502. Robert C. Seamons to Abe Silverstein, “Atlas Centaur 

Success. The Perfection of the Centaur AC-10,” 

22 October 1962, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

503. “Moving Days at DEB,” Lewis News (5 June 1964).

504. “Agena: Fact Sheet for FY 1963 Congressional 

Presentations,” 1963, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Agena Collection, Cleveland, OH.

505. Public Information Office, “The Agena Project,” 

February 1967, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Agena Collection, Cleveland, OH.

506. Public Information Office, “The Agena Project.” 

507. Walter Dankhoff, The M-1 Rocket Engine Project 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–20854, 1963).

508. Aerojet-General Corporation, Development of a 

1,500,000-Lb-Thrust Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid 

Oxygen Engine (Washington, DC: NASA 

N68–15861, 30 August 1967). 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 213: The new Space Power Facility opened in late 1969. It was one of three world-class 

facilities brought online at Plum Brook Station (GRC–1969–C–03156).
John H. Glenn Research Center

6. Limitless Opportunities

“I am firmly convinced that without the staff that NACA had in its three 

research centers that we would never have been able to put a man on the moon.”

—Jesse Hall
 162

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 214: A test capsule is suspended over the mouth of the Zero Gravity Research Facility (Zero-G) prior to the first drop test on 6 June 1966 

(GRC–1966–C–02290). 
Limitless Opportunities 163

Limitless Opportunities

Zero Gravity Demonstration

Events were held throughout 1966 to commemorate

Lewis’s 25 years of research—including a citysponsored Lewis Day on 23 January 1966 and a threeday Inspection in October. The Inspection, Lewis’s first 

since 1957, drew 2,000 business, industry, and government executives and included an employee open house. 

The visitors witnessed presentations at the major

facilities; viewed the Gemini VII spacecraft, a Centaur 

rocket, and other displays in the hangar; and witnessed 

what a press release referred to as “a dramatic demonstration in Lewis’s 500-foot-deep Zero-G during the 

first day....”510,511

The Zero-G was a new drop tower that provided

researchers with 5.2 seconds of microgravity. It had 

over twice the capability of the center’s 2.2-Second 

Drop Tower and was the largest facility of its kind in 

the world. Lewis engineers began planning the facility 

The successful launch of Surveyor 1 on an AtlasCentaur in May 1966 brought a sense of closure to the 

Lewis Research Center’s pressure-filled first decade of 

space activities. The landing coincided with the center’s 25th anniversary. The nation was experiencing 

growing civil rights unrest, escalation of the Vietnam 

War, and increasing poverty. With Apollo’s final sprint 

to the Moon, NASA distanced itself both literally 

and figuratively from the nation’s turmoil. With the

exception of the shocking Apollo 1 accident in January

1967, NASA’s achievements in the late-1960s provided the nation with an unrivaled source of accomplishment. Although the Soviet Union had achieved 

another round of space firsts in 1966, the untimely 

death of program chief Sergei Korolev in January

essentially ended any Soviet race to the Moon.

Apollo 8’s successful orbiting of the Moon in

December 1968 quickly led to the Apollo 11 landing the following July. NASA’s achievements were a

unifying source of pride and excitement across the

nation and the globe.

With the initial successes of the Surveyor Program 

in 1966, Lewis’s contributions to the Apollo Program 

were mostly complete. Just as the public was beginning 

to witness the Apollo milestones, Lewis redirected a 

large portion of its efforts and plunged determinedly 

into aviation. A host of new aeronautical challenges 

had arisen during the previous decade, including

attempts at the long-awaited supersonic transport 

(SST) vehicle, the need for quieter and more efficient 

engines, and an increased desire for vertical and short 

takeoff aircraft. Although Lewis continued to manage 

Centaur and pursue space power and propulsion alternatives, the center increasingly focused on aeronautics.

Lewis had a diversified research portfolio, an experienced 5,000-person staff, and a battery of facilities 

at its disposal.509 Nothing seemed impossible. While 

the nation was beset by turmoil, Lewis was flush 

with a sense of confidence that had not been present in years. This manifested itself in the construction of several of the center’s marquee facilities: the 

Zero-G, the Spacecraft Research Propulsion Facility, the Space Power Facility (SPF), the Propulsion

Systems Laboratory (PSL) No. 3 and 4, and the 9- by 

15-Foot Subsonic Wind Tunnel.

Image 215: Zero-G drop preparations in September 1966 

(GRC–1966–C–03685).
 164

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

in the early 1960s as researchers struggled to understand the effects of microgravity on liquid hydrogen. 

The construction process, which began in April 1964, 

was similar to that used to build missile silos: A hole 

was excavated in 25-foot segments, then lined with 

concrete. After that, a steel vacuum chamber was built 

inside the completed shaft to prevent any air resistance 

from impeding the freefall.512,513

The experiments were enclosed in a 2,500-pound

experiment package that was suspended over the hole 

then released. Special test equipment and high-speed 

cameras allowed researchers to film and take measurements of the experiment as it fell, and a 15-foot-deep 

canister of special polystyrene pellets at the base 

of the shaft slowed and stopped the test package.

Determining the proper type of pellets to use proved 

to be one of the most troubling aspects of the facility’s

design. Engineers tested different samples right up

until the facility’s completion in 1966. They conducted 

the tests at the Space Power Chambers (SPC), the 

Nuclear Rocket Dynamics and Control Facility (B–3) 

test stand at Plum Brook, and even in the elevator 

shaft of the Terminal Tower, Cleveland’s tallest building at the time.514

The center sought to show off the brand new Zero-G 

at the 1966 Inspection. During the first day, the operators realized that they did not have enough of the foam

pellets to continue the planned demonstrations, so the center ordered a 

new load from the manufacturer and 

installed them for the second day of the 

Inspection. A group of visitors gathered around the shaft the next morning and watched the staff drop the 

experiment package down the shaft. 

Black smoke began pouring out of the 

hole and soon covered all the equipment in the facility. The engineers had 

not given the pellets enough time to 

go through the required off-gassing

period. The fire was easily contained, 

but embarrassed Lewis officials had 

to quickly usher the tour group out 

and get all available hands to help 

wipe down the sooty surfaces in the 

facility. The tours resumed shortly 

thereafter without any additional 

demonstration drops.515

Although the issues concerning the behavior of liquid 

hydrogen in space had largely been resolved by the 

time that the Zero-G was completed, researchers used 

the facility to study fluid pumping, heat transfer, and 

sloshing.516 The Zero-G enabled researchers to study 

fire dynamics and fluid motion much more closely 

than previously possible. 

Reappearance of Aeronautics

After reaching its peak in 1966, NASA’s funding

began subsiding. The rush toward the Moon was well 

underway, and it was becoming evident that that level

of support would not be forthcoming in the future.

Most of the urgent problems regarding the early

space program had been resolved, and plans for more 

advanced missions began fading as fiscal realities set in. 

NASA was just beginning to analyze design concepts

for what would become the space shuttle, and Lewis

was not directly involved.

Meanwhile the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) was seeking assistance with a host of aeronautical issues brought on by the advent of the jet

airliner in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The jet engine 

transformed commercial aviation—enabling transcontinental flights and lowering passenger expenses. The 

jet also introduced concerns about engine noise and 

Image 216: Construction of the 50-foot-diameter cooler for PSL No. 3 and 4. The cooler 

contained 5,500 water-fed cooling tubes and three banks of spray nozzles to reduce the engine 

exhaust temperature from 3,500 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit (GRC–1969–C–03898).
Limitless Opportunities 165

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 217: Pilots Clifford Crabs and Byron Batthaer with Lewis’s F–106B Delta Dart. The modified fighter aircraft could record 480 pressure 

measurements and nearly 100 other flight characteristics every 11 seconds (GRC–1971–C–00847).

pollution as airport congestion increased. There also 

was interest in new SST and vertical or short-takeoff 

and landing (V/STOL) aircraft, which required more 

efficient engines than those currently available. In

addition, engine manufacturers were developing

engines that would create much higher turbine temperatures than previous models.517 In the mid-1960s the 

FAA asked NASA’s three former NACA centers—

Ames, Langley, and Lewis—to address these and other

related problems.

Abe Silverstein’s redirection of the center in 1966

included the addition of the Airbreathing Engine

Division, the acquisition of a F–106B Delta Dart aircraft, the shift from rocket to aircraft engine testing 

in the PSL, and the initiation of design work for two 

new, more powerful PSL test chambers.518 Silverstein 

added three new aeronautics divisions in 1968.519

Unlike the center’s groundbreaking military-driven

engine work in the 1940s and 1950s, these new studies 

also included civilian applications. Lewis would never 

again forsake its aeronautics base.

v v v v v v

The major breakthroughs in propulsion during the 

1940s and 1950s led many to believe that supersonic 

airlines were just over the horizon. In response to new 

programs by a French/British partnership and the

Soviet Union, President John F. Kennedy initiated the 

National Supersonic Transport Program in 1963. The 

government selected Boeing to design the airframe and 

General Electric to develop the engines for a vehicle 

that would surpass the European efforts.520 Lewis 

engineers served as advisors to the U.S. program for 

several years. 
 166

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

The two critical issues were drag and noise. Supersonic 

aircraft burn a large quantity of fuel while accelerating to their cruising speed, so decreasing aerodynamic 

drag was imperative; and significant noise reductions 

would have to be demonstrated before the FAA would 

certify the vehicle.521 Lewis partnered with General 

Electric under the Department of Transportation’s 

Supersonic Transport Program to conduct aerodynamics and noise investigations. The former sought to 

investigate how changing pressure levels affected inlet 

performance and airflow over the engine nacelle.522

The latter analyzed different types of noise suppressors, compared static noise levels with those in flight, 

and assessed the effect of velocity on nozzle shapes.523

Lewis acquired the F–106B in October 1966 to facilitate this research. Then mechanics and engineers went 

through an extensive effort to remove the weapons

systems and install research equipment. The most

obvious modification was the addition of two General

Electric J85 turbojets underneath the aircraft’s 

wings—one was a standard model and the other

incorporated a series of experimental inlets and nozzles.524 The delta-winged F–106B with the additional 

engines underneath roughly simulated the shape of the 

SSTs. Flight testing was critical because wind tunnel 

investigations needed to use small models to avoid wall 

interference.525

Lewis and General Electric developed different

advanced inlet and nozzle configurations and

Image 218: Lewis researchers take ground-based noise measurements from the F–106B (GRC–1971–C–00775).

installed them on the J85 engine. They tested the J85

extensively in the PSL and the 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (8×6). The modified engine was 

then installed underneath the F–106B and flighttested in a 200-mile flight corridor over Lake Erie.526

Over the course of several years, Fred Wilcox and his 

colleagues used the aircraft to analyze noise and drag 

levels for the various configurations. They investigated 

various types of nozzles and found that mounting the 

nozzle directly underneath the wing reduced drag.527 

For the noise investigations, microphones were set up 

on the tarmac. The aircraft first performed static engine

tests on the ground, then flew low-altitude passes to 

determine which nozzles yielded the least noise.528 

Wilcox and his team found that the experimental nozzles did not prove as effective as hoped for.529

The National Supersonic Transport Program was not 

progressing well, and public opposition to the aircraft’s 

noise and pollution levels grew. The program was 

canceled in 1971, but Lewis completed the planned 

tests. Meanwhile the Soviets and Europeans flew their 

SSTs.530 The F–106B executed 300 test flights during its almost nine-year detail to Lewis and led to 45 

technical reports.531 A second F–106 aircraft that was 

acquired during this period to serve as a chase plane 

went on to perform a variety of other research flights 

for the center. 
Limitless Opportunities 167

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 219: A General Electric Quiet Engine tested with Lewis’s acoustically treated 

nacelle on the hangar apron (GRC–1972–C–01486).

v v v v v v

The sharp increase in commercial flights during the

late 1950s and early 1960s led to airport congestion, 

which exacerbated aircraft pollution and noise. The

noise issue was such a concern that President Lyndon

Johnson personally called on federal agencies to

develop abatement programs.532 During this period 

of airliner expansion, engine manufacturers developed 

a new type of engine: the turbofan. The turbofan’s

exhaust speed was lower than that of turbojets. This 

provided better fuel efficiency and reduced exhaust 

noise. The fan and the other internal machinery of turbofans, however, generated higher levels of mechanical

noise than turbojets did. Lewis researchers, who had

conducted engine noise-reduction studies in the

mid-1950s, took up the effort again in the late 1960s.

They developed several experimental

options for redesigning turbofans to 

reduce the fan noise.533

NASA initiated the Quiet Engine 

Program in 1969 to demonstrate that 

it was possible to incorporate noisereduction technologies into the types 

of engines typically used on Boeing 

707 or McDonnell-Douglas DC–8 

airliners without diminishing engine 

performance. The effort was aided by 

the new low-bypass-ratio turbofan

engines, the emergence of new acoustic technologies, and improved understanding of how an engine fan creates 

noise.534

Also in 1969 Lewis contracted with 

General Electric to build and aerodynamically test three experimental 

engines.535 Engineers reduced the 

speed and pressure of the fan, and 

incorporated acoustic treatments in 

the engine cover, or nacelle.536 The 

engines were then brought to Lewis in 

December 1971 for testing. To accommodate the engine, Lewis engineers 

built an outdoor engine stand, the Fan 

Noise Test Facility, off of the Main 

Compressor and Drive Building of the

10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind 

Tunnel. 

Carl Ciepluch and his colleagues ran the engine at different speeds with microphones set up 10 feet away. 

The studies revealed that not only did the untreated 

version of the General Electric engines generate less 

noise than was anticipated, but the modified nacelle 

reduced engine noise substantially. Lewis researchers then verified the engine performance in simulated

altitude conditions in the PSL. The Quiet Engine Program engines proved to be significantly quieter than 

any contemporary commercial engine.537 Lewis hosted 

an Aircraft Noise Reduction Conference in May 1972 

to share the results of the Quiet Engine Program with 

industry,538 and NASA and industry used the resulting technology in future noise reduction programs.
 168

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

New Materials

Engines are complex machines that operate in a variety 

of environments, and it is essential to develop specialized materials for specific components or applications. 

Temperature, strength, and weight are the primary 

concerns, but reliability, durability, flammability, maintainability, and cost-effectiveness are also important. 

Lewis’s Materials and Structures Division increased 

its efforts to address these concerns in the 1960s. The 

center built several new facilities to accommodate this 

research, including the Materials Processing Laboratory and the Materials and Structures Laboratory.539

Lewis researchers investigated the reliability of materials based on both their likelihood to fracture under 

certain conditions and their physical breakdown over 

time. The researchers subjected materials to stresses 

or temperature fluctuations and then analyzed their 

physical properties to predict behavior. 

Image 220: Pouring of a nickel alloy at Lewis’s Technical Services Building in April 1966 

(GRC–1966–C–01563).

In the 1960s Lewis developed several key steel alloys 

for advanced jet engines. These materials had to be 

heat resistant, formable, and affordable. Lewis alloys 

from this period include Tungsten RHC, which had 

higher strength at temperatures over 3,500 degrees 

Fahrenheit than any other metal, a cobalt-tungsten 

alloy that combined strength at high temperatures 

and magnetic properties, and a nickel-tungsten alloy 

that could withstand high temperatures and repeated 

temperature fluctuations.540,541 The center also began 

research in ceramic materials, which were lighter than 

steel and could withstand higher temperatures.542

v v v v v v

During this time, the researchers also were using the 

Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF), NASA’s only 

nuclear reactor, to study the effects of radiation on 

materials. Although this was primarily in support of the nuclear rocket 

effort, there were other applications 

as well. The 60-megawatt test reactor 

went critical for the first time in 1961 

and began its full-power research

operations in 1963. Over the next 

decade, the reactor performed some 

of the nation’s most advanced nuclear 

research and proved itself as both a 

safe and efficient test facility.543

The reactor core, where the chain 

reaction occurred, sat at the bottom 

of a tubular pressure vessel. The core 

and its fuel rods with uranium isotopes were surrounded by deep pools 

of water that cooled the reactor and 

blocked any escaping radiation. The 

test articles were generally tiny samples of materials that were encapsulated in small shuttles referred to as

“rabbits.” The rabbits were pneumatically pushed into one of the reactor core’s 44 test locations. After a 

predetermined amount of time, the 

samples were removed and remotely 

analyzed in thickly shielded test cells 

to determine changes in their physical properties.544,545
Limitless Opportunities 169

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 222: The reactor was submerged in deionized water to assist with the cooling, and its 

core emitted a blue glow known as Cherenkov radiation, c1962 (GRC–1996–C–03983).

Image 221: Plum Brook Station manager Alan “Hap” Johnson and reactor chief Brock 

Barkley examine Moon dust that had been irradiated in the PBRF to identify its composition. The 25 milligrams of lunar soil had been retrieved by the Soviet Luna XVI spacecraft in 

September 1970 (GRC–1970–C–00950).549

The PBRF was unique in its ability 

to subject test specimens to radiation 

and cryogenic temperatures simultaneously. This was essential for the 

study of materials for nuclear rockets 

that would use liquid hydrogen. The 

reactor’s cryogenic test facility was 

large enough to test small mechanical

components and instrumentation

devices. Researchers used the PBRF to 

support studies from Lewis, Westinghouse, and Lockheed for the Nuclear 

Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application 

(NERVA), Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power–8 (SNAP–8), and other 

programs.546,547

The reactor also was used for nonaerospace applications. Dean Schiebley led 

an effort for the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 to use neutron 

activation to determine the presence 

of pollutants in fuel, air, and vegetation. The studies were part of a

larger effort to identify and catalog

local pollutants. The reactor also tested

corn samples for the Department 

of the Interior to help identify the

nutritional value of crow-pecked corn, 

which seemed to grow larger than

unpecked corn.548

Interactive Computing

Lewis’s computer systems made significant improvements in the 1960s 

through the introduction of transistors 

and interactive computing. During the 

center’s 1959 reorganization, Lewis 

merged the computing personnel that 

had been assigned to the research

divisions into the new Instrument

and Computing Division. This group

included data processing, mechanical 

computations and analysis, machine 

computing, and instrument systems. 

The development of the transistor in 

the 1950s revolutionized computer 

systems. The initial electronic computers used vacuum tubes—which were 
 170

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

larger, hotter, more expensive, and less reliable than 

transistors. IBM introduced the first line of affordable transistor computers, the 1401, in late 1959 to an 

overwhelming response. In 1962 Lewis purchased two 

IBM 1401s for business applications.550

In 1962, Lewis also obtained the transistor-based IBM 

7090 for analytical processing. The performance of the 

7090 was on par with its vacuum-tube predecessor, but 

by 1964 Lewis had purchased the 7094, which handled twice as much data. The 7094 was coupled with 

a 7044, permitting flexible job scheduling for the first 

time. Lewis acquired a second 7094 in 1968.551

The next big phase was interactive computing, which 

allowed a user to make changes to the computer program as it was running. Lewis acquired an IBM 360 in 

1966 for interactive and traditional analytical and data 

processing applications. The system had two central 

processing units (CPUs) that could handle 79 interactive, graphic, and communication lines simultaneously. Researchers also could use the 360 for computer

modeling work.552

Lewis upgraded its centralized data recording capabilities in 1968 with the addition of the CADDE II

system. The staff used the system to record data 

from 63 different Lewis facilities. Unlike the original 

CADDE, CADDE II could record test data from up 

to three facilities simultaneously. The new system was 

connected to the IBM 360, resulting in almost real time 

computational performance. The center utilized the 

1401s, 7094s, and CADDE II until the mid-1970s.553

Lewis Reaches Out

In the mid-1960s the Lewis staff was larger than 

at any other time in Lewis’s history. The core group

of NACA veterans and their families had literally 

grown up together at the lab. Many had relocated to 

Cleveland, and coworkers became friends and, in some 

instances, spouses. This cycle repeated itself with the 

influx of new personnel in the early 1960s. The new 

hires were primarily young people recently graduated from universities. Many moved to Cleveland and 

were beginning families. The veterans recognized the

importance of the tight-knit Lewis community to 

the overall performance of the center and sought to

include the younger generation.

Image 224: Patricia Coles, center, is named Miss NASA Lewis at 

the 1971 annual picnic. Coles, the daughter of renowned Lewis magneticism researcher Willard Coles, worked in the center’s Personnel 

Division (GRC–2015–C–06554).

Image 223: Betty Jo Armstead [nee Moore] monitors an IBM 1403 

high-speed printer in February 1964. This was linked to the IBM 

7094/7044 Direct Couple System (GRC–1964–C–68508).
Limitless Opportunities 171

John H. Glenn Research Center

The center created the Lewis Social Activities

Committee (LeSAC) in September 1963 to bring 

the two demographic groups together. Director Abe

Silverstein appointed key personnel from each division 

to ensure wide participation in LeSAC. The committee 

devised a variety of events, including mixers, nights out 

on the town, picnics, formal dances, and theme parties. 

All assistance—from photographers and graphic artists, to carpenters and fabricators, to those procuring 

bands or food and beverage—was volunteered. The 

Lewis News quoted one volunteer in 1964 as saying 

Image 225: Lewis employees enjoying themselves at the 1971 annual picnic at 

the picnic grounds (GRC–2015–C–06567).

Image 227: Members of the Boy Scout Explorer Post in the 

cockpit of Lewis’s North American AJ–2 Savage in 1968 (GRC–

2015–C–06569).

Image 226: Young men at Lewis participating in the Neighborhood 

Youth Corps in January 1967 (GRC–1967–C–00640). 

that the Friday night preparations were sometimes more fun than the Saturday event.554

LeSAC instituted the Miss NASA Lewis

competition at the 1964 annual picnic.

Contestants from various offices around the 

center vied for trophy and crown. Duties

primarily involved participation at the center’s 

charitable functions and other LeSAC events. 

Over the years, winners emerged from the 

Chemical Rocket, Personnel, and Procurement

divisions and the library. The LeSAC activities 

and Miss NASA Lewis competition ceased in 

the mid-1970s.

The center also channeled its abundant

resources into efforts for the local community. Lewis hosted programs that provided an

opportunity for underprivileged youths to

learn science and engineering skills, Christmas

events for needy children, and regular activities

at a newly established Boy Scout Explorer Post. 

Beginning in 1963 Lewis and Case Institute of Technology cosponsored an annual 10-week fellowship 

for approximately two dozen science and engineering faculty members. The faculty attended lectures 

by the Lewis staff and pursued research in their fields

of interest. By 1967 five other NASA centers had

taken Lewis’s lead and extended their own fellowships.555 Lewis also hosted a Youth Science Congress 
 172

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 229: Pamphlet from a Lewis conference for the power 

industry.

Image 228: Over 500 people attended Lewis’s Conference on Aerospace Related 

Technology for Industry in Commerce in May 1967 (GRC–1967–C–01813).

for 20 exceptional Midwest high-school students.

The students were able to talk with researchers and 

tour facilities while gaining experience in writing and 

presenting research reports.556 The Lewis Speakers 

Bureau remained active throughout this period with 

new topics relating to civilian air travel and interplanetary space missions.

Lewis instituted a technology utilization program in 

the mid-1960s to demonstrate possible terrestrial

applications of NASA’s technological breakthroughs. 

As a civilian agency, NASA considered the transfer of 

technology to industry to be one of its primary missions. The transmission of technology had to be rapid 

in order for it to be relevant to the private sector. Lewis 

issued Special Publications and Tech Briefs regarding 

specific innovations. To facilitate the dissemination

of information, Walter Olson, Lewis Director of

Public Affairs, organized a series of annual conferences in the mid-1960s to share NASA research with

particular fields—including the steel industry in 1964, 

the petroleum industry in 1965, small businesses in

1967, the electric power industry in 1968, and aerospace materials manufacturers in 1969. These events 

drew hundreds of guests and often included talks by 

NASA administrators.
Limitless Opportunities 173

John H. Glenn Research Center

A New Generation of Space Missions

Lewis’s space propulsion work in the late 1960s was 

dominated by two very different efforts—the liquidhydrogen-fueled Centaur rocket and the electron 

bombardment thruster. Both had already demonstrated their performance in space but were now

embarking on new, more complex endeavors. AtlasCentaur began a new career orbiting large satellites

and sending probes across the universe; and the ion 

thruster powered a new Space Electric Rocket Test II 

(SERT–II) vehicle, which produced unprecedented 

electric propulsion performance. 

Lewis’s launch vehicles team and the Centaur vehicle 

had proven themselves with the Surveyor missions in 

the mid-1960s. Lewis personnel were recognized as

experts in the launch business, and Centaur was now the 

nation’s most powerful space tug.557 As such, NASA

phased out its use of the Agena rocket. Scheduled 

Agena missions such as the Advanced Test Satellite, 

Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO), Intelsat, 

Mariner, and Pioneer were assigned to Centaur.558

Lewis created the Launch Vehicles Division in 1969 to 

address all Atlas-Centaur issues, including integration 

of the payload into the launch vehicle, establishment 

of the correct flight trajectories, and preparation of the 

vehicle for launch. The staff worked closely with the 

launch crews at the NASA Kennedy Space Center, 

the spacecraft designers from other NASA centers, 

and eventually commercial and military organizations. 

Lewis also worked with General Dynamics to update 

Centaur with a new computer system and an equipment module to house the new electronics.559

In August 1968 Centaur’s first post-Surveyor

attempt failed when the vehicle’s engines failed to

restart.560 This added to the pressure regarding the 

launch of OAO–2 four months later. OAO–2 was a 

space telescope designed to operate above atmospheric 

distractions. At 4,436-pounds, it was Centaur’s largest payload to date, and its unprecedented size forced 

Lewis engineers to use a much longer Agena shroud 

on the Atlas-Centaur. The Agena shroud and its jettison system were combined with the cylindrical section 

of the Centaur shroud and a new interstage adapter.

Lewis verified the performance of the new system 

with full-scale tests in the SPC’s altitude tank. The

7 December 1968 launch was a success, and OAO–2’s

space telescopes provided a wealth of astral information during their four years of operation.561,562

The Lewis launch team received an Agency Group 

Achievement Award for their efforts.563

Centaur then launched the Mariner 6 and 7 spacecraft in February and March 1969. After a six-month 

journey, the twin probes provided the most accurate 

photography of the Martian surface yet and revealed 

the makeup of the planet’s polar ice cap. The findings 

disputed NASA’s belief, based on the earlier Mariner 4 

images, that the Mars landscape was similar to that of 

the Moon.564,565

The ensuing May 1971 launch of Mariner 8 failed 

when Centaur’s guidance system malfunctioned,

but less than one month later, Atlas-Centaur sent 

Mariner 9 into Mars orbit. It was the first spacecraft

Image 230: Atlas-Centaur launch of the OAO–2 satellite 

(GRC–2015–C–06558).
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 231: Three successful SPC tests of the unique OAO–2 shroud jettison system, half of which lies on the net in the 

foreground, verified its flight performance and led to Centaur’s first post-Surveyor success (GRC–1968–C–01258).
Limitless Opportunities 175

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 232: A 25-mile-diameter Martian volcano photographed by 

Mariner 9 in November 1971. Mariner 9 revealed that the complex 

Martian terrain included channels, polar-layered materials, mammoth volcanos, sand dunes, and a vast canyon system 

( JPL–PIA04003).

Image 233: Press kit for the Atlas-Centaur launch of the Mariner 

Mars spacecraft.

to orbit another planet. Mariner 9 yielded over 7,000 

images, which for the first time revealed the full

extent of the Martian terrain. In March 1972

Centaur launched Pioneer 10, which became the first 

spacecraft to visit Jupiter and the first to exit the

solar system. In addition, Atlas-Centaur began launching a series of Intelsat communications satellites for 

COMSAT Corporation. These early communications satellites enabled global television broadcast 

and dramatically reduced the cost of intercontinental

telephone transmissions.566

v v v v v v

The SERT–I mission in 1964 successfully demonstrated that the electron-bombardment ion thruster 

could perform in space. Lewis researchers immediately 

began taking steps to conduct a longer space demonstration. NASA approved the SERT–II mission in 

August 1966. Lewis was responsible for the entire 

launch vehicle, the SERT–II spacecraft, and its propulsion system. Raymond Rulis was project manager, 

and Harold Kaufman was responsible for the thruster

fabrication. Over the next three and a half years,

the Lewis staff subjected the SERT–II thrusters to 

extensive qualification testing, including six months

of continuous operation in the Electric Propulsion 

Laboratory (EPL) vacuum tanks. Lewis then subjected

the entire spacecraft to vacuum testing for another

50 hours.567

SERT–II employed two solar-powered mercury ion 

bombardment thrusters. The spacecraft used 1 kilowatt of electric power to ionize mercury molecules and 

accelerate them in 6-inch-diameter exhaust beams at 

up to 100,000 mph. It was important to determine

if the thruster would interfere with the spacecraft’s 

electronics or communications systems or damage the 

solar arrays.568

A Thor-Agena rocket launched SERT–II into orbit on 

3 February 1970, and the first thruster was activated a 

week later. Lewis researchers calibrated the propellant 

flows, verified the thruster’s flight power conditioner, 

and tested the overall thruster performance on the 

spacecraft.569 A piece of space debris however, caused 

an electrical short that caused the thrusters to shut 

down before SERT–II completed its six-month goal.
 176

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Lewis researchers were able to dislodge the debris 

and restart one of the engines in 1973.570 Over

the next eight years, they were able to repeatedly 

restart the thrusters until the mercury propellant 

finally ran out. During this period, researchers

restarted the thruster 300 times without issue,

and reactivated one thruster after 10 years of

dormancy.571

SERT–II came to life once again in 1989 when the 

Lewis team was able to reboot the vehicle without

the thrusters for a two-year analysis of solar array

erosion. Although initially dubbed as a failure, SERT–II set a duration record for in-space

operation of a solar electric propulsion system,

demonstrated the thrusters’ starting capabilities, 

and revealed the durability of the solar arrays after 

extended time in space.572

Image 234: SERT–II spacecraft in the foreground after testing in 

the EPL in December 1969 (GRC–1970–C–00112).

Image 235: Termination of SERT–II thruster operations in June 1981 from the control room in the 8×6 building (GRC–1981–C–02861).
Limitless Opportunities 177

John H. Glenn Research Center

Emergence of Space Power

Long-duration spacecraft require self-sustaining

on-board power to operate their electronics, communications, and navigation systems, and in some 

instances, to drive electric propulsion systems. Space 

power systems have two tasks: obtaining energy and 

converting it to electricity. The two primary sources 

used to supply energy are solar energy and nuclear

energy. Rankine, Brayton, and Stirling systems have 

been used to convert this energy into electricity.573 In 

1963 Lewis created the Space Power System Division, 

led by Bernie Lubarsky, to advance these space power

and related technologies. Decades later, space power

remains one of the center’s core programs.

Solar cells were developed in the mid-19th century and 

improved on over the next century. The mid-1950s saw 

the emergence and improvement of silicon solar cells 

and thin-film solar cells.574 The first significant demonstration of the potential of solar cell technology was 

in space. Vanguard, the first U.S. satellite, employed a 

small solar array to power the satellite’s radio systems 

in 1958. Virtually all succeeding space vehicles and 

satellites have employed solar cells to generate power. 

Joseph Mandelkorn and several of the researchers who 

designed the Vanguard system joined NASA Lewis in 

1961. The radiation in space severely shortened solar 

cell life. To address this problem, Mandelkorn and a 

colleague developed a new type of radiation-resistant 

silicon solar cell. It became an industry standard.575

Lewis’s High Energy Fuels Laboratory included equipment that allowed researchers to create their own 

silicon crystals and subject them to a multistep manufacturing process to create solar cells.576 At Lewis, 

Mandelkorn continued to perfect the solar cell. His 

radiation-resistant cells lasted 25 times longer than 

existing solar cells. NASA mandated that only this 

“superblue” type of cell be used on its spacecraft and 

presented Mandelkorn with a unique $5,000 bonus 

for his contributions.577 In general Lewis photovoltaic research in the 1960s sought to determine and

address the causes of solar cell inefficiency. Key

developments included shallow junction cells and back

surface fields.578

The Chemistry and Energy Conversion Division began 

investigating the high-power and low-cost thin-film 

solar cell concept in 1961. The expensive conventional 

low-power solar cells that most space vehicles used at 

the time were both delicate and heavy. The Mariner IV 

spacecraft had required 28,000 solar cells for its flyby 

of Mars in 1964.

Thin-film cells were made by heating semiconductor 

material until it evaporated. The vapor was then condensed onto an electricity-producing film only 1000th 

of an inch thick. The physical flexibility of the new 

thin-film cells allowed them to be furled, or rolled up, 

during launch. Lewis researchers tested the new thinfilm solar cells for 18 months in an EPL space simulation chamber with rotating periods of light and found 

no degradation.579,580

Early thin-film solar cells degraded while in storage, 

however, if moisture was present. By the late 1960s

researchers improved the shelf life, but temperature 

fluctuations continued to impact performance.581

When Lewis researchers began investigating this problem in 1967, they found that the cause stemmed from 

flaws in the manufacturing of the grid that joined the 

cells.582 Research continues today, and thin-film solar 

cells are still considered to be a less expensive option 

for the future.583

Image 236: High-voltage solar array test in the Engine Research 

Building during July 1965 (GRC–1965–C–01839).
 178

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

v v v v v v

Lewis also examined thermonuclear methods of

acquiring energy for spacecraft. The most significant work went into the SNAP program, which was

initiated by the military and the Atomic Energy

Commission (AEC) in the 1950s to develop a series

of radioisotope and reactor-powered systems for a

variety of applications, including space.587 NASA

became involved with the effort in 1960 while seeking 

a way to power its own space efforts. In March 1960 

NASA contracted with Aerojet-General to develop 

what was called the SNAP–8 power conversion system. Henry Sloan’s Space Power Division provided 

oversight of the project.

SNAP–8 integrated a high-temperature Rankine 

conversion system with the AEC reactor. It was the 

first attempt to develop a space power system that 

utilized liquid metals. In these systems, the liquid 

metal flows through the reactor and carries heat to the heat exchanger; there the 

metal is vaporized and used to operate the

turbine.588 Because metals can operate 

at higher temperatures than water can, 

such reactors require less heat-transfer

material.589

Developmental problems and budget

reductions led to a reorganization of the 

SNAP–8 program in 1963. The new

effort concentrated more on subsystems 

and component technology than on a 

complete power system.590,591 In 1964

Lewis technicians set up a SNAP–8 test 

rig with a mercury boiler and condenser in 

Cell W–1 of the Engine Research Building.

Researchers used the rig to study the heat 

transients in the system’s three loops. In 

1967 Lewis operated a complete Rankine 

system for 60 days in W–1 to verify the 

integrity of the Lewis-developed mercury

boiler.592,593 Further tests in 1969 confirmed

the shutdown and startup of the system

under normal and emergency conditions.594

Meanwhile Aerojet had operated the 

first complete Rankine system in June 

1966 and completed a 2,500-hour endurance test in early 1969. The SNAP–8

Image 237: A model of the SNAP–8 power system created by the Lewis Fabrication 

Shop prior to a September 1966 Space Power Conference at the center 

(GRC–1966–C–03304).586

During the mid-1960s Lewis researchers discovered 

that solar cell behavior on Earth varied at different

altitude levels because of the difference in the amount

of atmospheric particulates. Solar cell performance 

needed to be predicted for different altitudes before

the cells could be standardized.584 In the early 1960s 

Henry Brandhorst developed a method to calibrate

solar cells using Lewis’s B–57B aircraft. The pilots

would take the aircraft up into the troposphere

and expose the solar cell to the sunlight. The aircraft

would steadily descend while instruments recorded 

how much energy was being captured by the solar 

cell. From these data, Brandhorst could estimate the 

power for a particular solar cell at any altitude. The 

aircraft-based system permitted measurements above 

the ground haze and weather and provided a multitude of plot points.585 These calibration flights have 

been a critical component of Lewis’s solar cell work for 

decades.
Limitless Opportunities 179

John H. Glenn Research Center

Rankine system had reached a state of mission readiness, but the AEC struggled to develop a reactor. The 

fuel elements repeatedly cracked during operation.

Reductions in government funding led to the cancellation of the program in the early 1970s. Although 

SNAP–8 never flew in space, NASA recognized 

the Lewis and Aerojet success with the Rankine system with a NASA Group Achievement Award in

November 1970.595,596

v v v v v v

Lewis researchers were also investigating the potentially more efficient and powerful Brayton power

conversion system in the late 1960s and 1970s.597

Brayton engines are similar to turbojets except that 

the high-temperature gas is recycled instead of

exhausted. The system circulates a helium-xenon

liquid that can be heated by either nuclear or solar

energy. The liquid passes through turbines that drive 

the compressor and alternator, is cooled, and is then 

pressurized by the compressor. Excess heat is dissipated through a radiator.598

Lewis’s testing of the individual components, subsystems, and complete systems revealed that the technology performed as good as or better than predicted. The 

system’s main component, the Brayton Rotating Unit, 

included the drive shaft with a turbine, alternator, and 

compressor.599 In the late 1960s Lewis tested each of 

the components and then the entire system. In 1968 

Lewis researchers subjected the rotating units to up 

to 21,000 hours of endurance testing to verify their 

ability to meet the proposed five-year mission goals. 

The units exhibited a high rate of energy conversion. 

The Brayton Rotating Unit program demonstrated 

that the materials, manufacturing processes, and 

startup were reliable.600 The success of these tests ultimately led Lewis researchers to develop a solar dynamic

power system for the space station in the 1990s.601

Lewis researchers designed a space radiator and tested 

it with a 15- to 20-kilowatt Brayton cycle power system in Plum Brook’s new SPF vacuum chamber. They 

sought to determine the radiator’s effect on the overall power system in a simulated space environment.

Image 238: Brayton system setup in the SPF prior to the installation of the space radiator. The tests, which began in September 1969, were the 

first ever conducted in the new vacuum tank at Plum Brook Station (GRC–1970–C–01966).
 180

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

insight into the origin and propagation of the fire.604 

The investigation board was under intense pressure 

to identify the cause quickly so that the investigation 

would not impact the overall Apollo schedule. The 

board issued its 400-page report two months later. It 

concluded that a host of manufacturing and oversight 

errors led to the deadly spark in the capsule wiring that 

ignited the oxygen-rich cabin air.605

Pinkel spent the next year helping to redesign the Apollo capsule 

and spacesuits with flame-resistant

materials.606

Following the investigation, NASA 

Administrator James Webb asked 

Pinkel to serve as director of the 

new Aerospace Safety Research 

and Data Institute (ASRDI). This 

Lewis-based group collected information about all of NASA’s safety 

problems in a single dynamic database and sponsored a limited amount 

of safety research.607

The Safety Data Bank contained

over 10,000 entries associated with

fire, explosions, lightning strikes,

cryogenic fuel hazards, rotor bursts,

Image 240: Pinkel, foreground, along with Homer Carhart, Alan 

Krupnick, and Robert Van Dolan, inspect the Apollo 1 review capsule 

on 10 March 1967 (NASA 265–577C–4).

Image 239: Notebook kept by Irv Pinkel during the Apollo 1 investigation.

After subjecting the Brayton system to simulated

orbits with 62 minutes of Sun and 34 minutes of

shadow, the researchers found a 4-percent power variation during the transitions.602 Lewis continued its 

Brayton system and overall space power research in the 

following decades.

Aerospace Safety

Despite NASA’s overall success in the late-1960s, 

the dangers of aerospace research were never far. 

During 1966 and 1967 three astronauts perished in 

T–38 fighter crashes and another in an X–15. On 

8 June 1966 the F–104 flown by former Lewis pilot

Joe Walker came into contact with an XB–70

during a formation flight over Muroc Lake and fatally

plummeted onto the desert floor. The most shocking 

incident was the January 1967 launch pad fire that 

claimed Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee 

during preparation for the Apollo 204 (renamed

Apollo 1) mission.603

NASA immediately launched an urgent accident

investigation into Apollo 1 and requested that Irving

Pinkel apply his experience from the Crash Fire 

Test program to the investigation. Pinkel arrived at

Kennedy within days of the incident to help inspect the 

damaged capsule, develop an event timeline, and offer 
Limitless Opportunities 181

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 241: Damage to the PSL Equipment Building (GRC–1971–C–01422).

Image 242: Wrecked F–8 with Pinkel, seen to the right, who led the ensuing investigation (GRC–1969–C–02422).
 182

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Although fire and security forces had been at the lab 

since the 1940s, Lewis formally established a Safety 

Office in 1952 to proactively protect employees and 

property.615 This new office established Area Safety 

Committees to review potential hazards posed by 

all research within a particular zone. The committee 

worked with the engineers and researchers to mitigate 

hazards, then issued the required safety permits. An 

Executive Safety Board of upper-level management 

handled any disputes between the committees and the 

researchers.616 This system has functioned well for 

over 60 years. Despite the presence of large quantities

of fuels, heavy machinery, radiation, and other

hazards, Lewis has maintained an excellent safety

record.

Giants at Plum Brook Station

Plum Brook Station’s twin research facility titans, the

SPF and the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility

(B–2), officially opened on 7 October 1969 after

nearly six years of construction. SPF’s 100-footdiameter, 150-foot-tall vacuum tank and B–2’s ability 

to fire large rocket stages in a space environment were 

unrivaled in the United States. SPF was designed to

test full-scale nuclear power sources, such as the

SNAP–8, at simulated altitudes of 300 miles. The

chamber is accessible on each side by massive 50- 

by 50-foot doors that open into large assembly and

disassembly rooms.617

The first series of tests at SPF involved the Brayton 

Cycle space power system.618 Over the next several 

years, researchers used SPF to test the large shroudjettison systems for the Apollo-Skylab and TitanCentaur launch vehicles.619,620

Lewis created B–2 to test complete rocket propulsion 

systems with up to 100,000 pounds of thrust in a simulated space environment. The facility has the unique 

ability to maintain a vacuum at the rocket’s nozzle 

while the engine is firing. Giant diffusion pumps are 

employed to reduce chamber pressure at both B–2 

and SPF to simulate the vacuum of space. The rocket 

fires into a 120-foot-deep spray chamber that cools the

exhaust before it is ejected outside the B–2. The

facility also utilizes a cryogenic cold wall to create the 

temperatures of space and quartz lamps to replicate 

the radiation of the Sun.621

hazardous materials, structural failures, and aircraft

systems and operation. Solomon Weiss took over

the ASRDI in 1972, with George Mandel handling

the publications and information services. Budget 

reductions ultimately forced the incorporation of

the data bank into NASA’s centralized database at

the Scientific and Technical Information Office in 

1976.608

In April 1970 Pinkel was summoned again, this time 

to serve as observer for the Apollo 13 review board. 

Lewis utilized its Zero-G in June 1970 to help

determine the likelihood that a short circuit ignited

Teflon wire insulation and caused the Apollo 13 oxygen

tank failure. The experiments demonstrated that the 

capsule’s oxygen-rich environment permitted the

insulation to burn in a microgravity setting.609,610 The 

review board concluded that an electrical fire started in 

one of the service module oxygen tanks.611

Board Chairman Edgar Cortright thanked Pinkel

afterward, “It was a long and concentrated effort and 

required a considerable personal sacrifice on your part

to be so long away from home and office. However, 

your dedicated participation was instrumental in 

bringing our work to a satisfactory conclusion in a 

relatively brief time span.”612 Pinkel retired two years 

later, but was called on again and again to assist with 

accident investigations of all types.

v v v v v v

Lewis also experienced some serious, but fortunately 

nonlethal, accidents during the late 1960s, including 

the crash of a Vought F–8 Crusader that the center 

had used as a chase plane. On 14 July 1969 the F–8 

clipped the exposed raised end of the runway while it 

was performing some practice landings. It skidded off 

the pavement onto its side and burst into flames. The 

center’s emergency crews responded rapidly and were 

able to rescue the pilot.613

In the early morning hours of 7 April 1971, a massive 

explosion ripped through the floor of PSL’s Equipment 

Building. The blast seriously injured two employees 

and caused major damage to the facility. The building’s 

I-beams, windows, heavy equipment, and 6-inch-thick 

concrete floor were damaged. It was later determined 

that the sealing of a 96-inch valve caused the exhauster 

equipment to operate like compressors, quickly overpressurizing the system to failure.614
John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 243: A Centaur D1–A rocket is readied for a test firing inside the B–2 vacuum chamber. The test 

chamber, 55 feet high by 33 feet in diameter, can handle rockets up to 22 feet long (GRC–1969–C–02596).
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 244: The shroud for Skylab installed inside the SPF vacuum chamber for a jettison test. The shroud enclosed the multiple docking adapter, 

the top of the airlock, and the Apollo telescope mount. Problems with the ejection system were found during two tests in winter 1970. The issues 

were remedied, and the shroud was successfully jettisoned at a simulated 330,000-foot altitude in June 1971 (GRC–1969–C–03690). 
Limitless Opportunities 185

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 246: Silverstein bids Christine Truax farewell as she retires as head of the Computing 

Section in July 1967. She had joined the NACA in the early 1940s (GRC–2015–C–06573).623

Image 245: Irving Pinkel’s 1974 retirement mat signed by the 

Silversteins, Bruce Lundin, Bernie Lubarsky, and others (NASA 

Pinkel Collection).

The first test at B–2 was a hot firing of a Centaur D1–A 

vehicle on 18 December 1969. The D1–A was a nextgeneration Centaur that included improved computer 

and avionics systems. Engineers had been trying to

determine if the propellant system’s boost pumps were 

necessary for the engines to start. Tests of the pump 

system in Plum Brook’s High Energy Rocket Engine 

Research Facility (B–1) test stand indicated that the 

pumps were superfluous. The B–2 test program confirmed these findings by testing a full-scale Centaur 

system without the pumps. The eventual elimination 

of the boost pumps simplified the system and reduced 

vehicle cost by over $500,000.622

Departures

The late 1960s brought the first wave of retirements 

of the original staff from the early 1940s. Some—like

upper-level managers Charles Herrmann, Oscar Schey, 

Irv Pinkel, James Braig, and Newell Sanders—were 

prominent figures at the center. Others—like assistant 

Mary Lou Gosney, nursing supervisor Ruth Elder, and 

waiter Josephus Webb—had become beloved for their 

personalities and service. Still others—like illustrator

Richard Buchwald, architect Amuil Berger, and

mechanical supervisor Melvin Harrison—let their 

skills speak for them. Many others who had begun their

careers with the NACA during World War II retired 

in the late 1960s and early 1970s, including Center

Director Abe Silverstein.
 186

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Although he had 40 years of service with the NACA 

and NASA, the 61-year-old Silverstein was still relatively young when he announced his retirement in

October 1969. The Apollo Program was at its apex, 

and NASA was already planning shuttle activities

for the 1980s. He explained at the time, “It may be 

important that the men whose decisions initiate 

the new long-range projects be available to complete 

them. Since I do not think I can stretch my 40 years of

service into 50, it is perhaps best for me and for the 

Lewis Center if I bow out now.”624

As Center Director, Silverstein had personally ensured 

the success of the Centaur Program in the early 1960s 

and initiated the 1966 transition back to aeronautics. The center was healthy and had an experienced 

management staff. Silverstein’s final years with NASA 

were relatively uneventful. In February 1968 he gave 

the Theodore Von Karman Lecture in Tel Aviv and

became active in community and civic affairs. He 

served as a trustee at several institutions, established 

a successful Boy Scout Explorer Post at Lewis, and

created a local Soviet Anti-Semitism Council. The 

awards and honors only increased during his final 

years, including a NASA Distinguished Service Medal 

and a Rockefeller Public Service Award in 1968.625

Endnotes for Chapter 6

509. Lynn Manley, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 66–54, 16 September 1966, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

510. Manley, NASA Lewis Research Center press release 

66–54. 

511. Lynn Manley, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 66–61, 4 October 1966, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

512. Jack Lekan, Eric S. Neumann, and Raymond G. 

Sotos, Capabilities and Constraints of NASA’s 

Ground-Based Reduced Gravity Facilities

(Washington, DC: NASA N93–20184, 1993).

513. “515-Foot Zero-G Facility Ready for Major Mission,” 

Lewis News (25 November 1966).

514. “515-Foot Zero-G Facility.”

515. Howard Wine interview, Cleveland, OH, by Sandra 

Johnson, 3 June 2014, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

516. “Zero Gravity Research Facility at Lewis Research 

Center,” c1966, NASA E–882, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

517. Abe Silverstein, Progress in Aircraft Gas Turbine 

Engine Development (Washington, DC: NASA TM 

X–52240, 1966).

518. Lynn Manley, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 66–2, 14 January 1966, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

519. Charles Kelsey, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 68–29, 3 May 1968, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

520. Erik Conway, High-Speed Dreams: NASA and the 

Technopolitics of Supersonic Transportation, 1945– 

1999 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University 

Press, 2008).

521. “Staff Men are Part of SST Study Group,” Lewis 

News (10 November 1966).

522. Fred Wilcox to the Record, “Definition of F-106 

Research Program and Results of Study of Accuracy,” 

8 December 1967, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Flight Research Collection, Cleveland, OH.

523. J. F. Brausch, Flight Velocity Influence on Jet Noise of 

Conical Ejector, Annular Plug, and Segmented 

Suppressor Nozzles (Washington, DC: NASA 

CR–120961, 1972).

524. Fred Wilcox, “F106B Retirement, Comments on Its 

Tour of Duty at Lewis,” 17 May 1991, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

525. Wilcox to the Record.

526. Wilcox, “F106B Retirement.”

527. Wilcox, “F106B Retirement.”

528. Brausch, Flight Velocity Influence.

Image 247: Silverstein badge for Apollo 11 launch.
Limitless Opportunities 187

John H. Glenn Research Center

549. “Plum Brook Irradiates Russian Moon Dust,” 

Lewis News (30 July 1971).

550. Frank da Cruz, “The IBM 1401” (2009), http://www.

columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/1401.html

(accessed 17 June 2015).

551. Mainframe Systems Branch, “History of Computing 

at Lewis Research Center,” (NASA B-0300, 

September 1990) (Glenn History Collection, 

Computing Collection, Cleveland, OH).

552. Mainframe Systems Branch, “History of Computing.”

553. Mainframe Systems Branch, “History of Computing.”

554. “LeSAC Marks Its First Birthday,” Lewis News

(11 September 1964).

555. Charles Kelsey, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 67–36, 13 June 1967, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

556. Hugh Harris, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 68–24, 9 April 1968, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

557. Cary Nettles to Virginia Dawson, “Centaur Notes,” 

8 May 2002, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

558. “3 Atlas-Agena Launches Assigned to Atlas-Centaur,” 

Lewis News (6 January 1967), p. 1.

559. Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, Taming Liquid 

Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket 1958– 

2002 (Washington, DC: NASA SP 2004–4230, 2004).

560. Lewis Research Center, Atlas-Centaur AC-17 

Performance for Applications Technology Satellite

ATS-D Mission (Washington, DC: NASA TM 

X–2525, 1972).

561. John J. Nieberding, Atlas-Centaur AC-16 Flight 

Performance Evaluation for the Orbiting 

Astronomical Observatory OAO-II Mission

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–1989, 1970). 

562. “OAO Meets Milestone,” Lewis News (31 January 

1969), p. 2.

563. “NASA Cites Atlas, Centaur for OAO II,” Lewis 

News (6 June 1969).

564. KSC Centaur Operations Branch, Atlas/Centaur-20 

Mariner-6 Flash Flight Report (Washington, DC: 

NASA TR–954, 5 March 1969). 

565. S. A. Collins, Mariner 6 and 7 Pictures of Mars 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–263, 1971).

566. “Big Boost From Rockets,” 13 September 1973, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Inspections

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

567. William Kerslake and Louis Ignaczak, Development 

and Flight History of SERT II Spacecraft

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–105636, 1992).

568. Joann Temple, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 66–19, 5 May 1966, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

529. Wilcox, “F106B Retirement.”

530. High-Speed Research—The Tu-144LL: 

A Supersonic Flying Laboratory (Washington, DC:

FS-1996-09-18-LaRC, September 1996), http:// 

www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/

TU-144.html (accessed 23 May 2011).

531. “Final Flight,” Lewis News (4 February 1977).

532. Lyndon B. Johnson to Heads of Departments and 

Agencies, “Memorandum on Aircraft Noise and Land 

Use in the Vicinity of Airports” (22 March 1967), 

Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The 

American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.

ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28160 (accessed 8 July 2015).

533. “Quieting the Skies,” 19 September 1973, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Inspection Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

534. James J. Kramer and Francis J. Montegani, The 

NASA Quiet Engine Program (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM–X–67988, 1972).

535. James Kramer, The NASA Quiet Engine

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–67884, 1971).

536. Dennis Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to 

Aircraft Engine Noise Research,” Journal of 

Aerospace Engineering (April 2013).

537. Carl Ciepluch, et al., “Quiet Engine Test Results,” 

Aircraft Engine Noise Reduction (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP–311, 1972), pp. 183–214.

538. Charles Kelsey, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 72–29, 1 May 1972, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

539. “Materials for Man,” 19 September 1973, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Inspection Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

540. Hugh Harris, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 67–60, 16 September 1967, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

541. “First Exclusive Patent License,” Lewis News

(28 February 1964).

542. “Materials for Man.”

543. Lynn Manley, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 66–45, 12 August 1966, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

544. Mark Bowles, Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear 

Program at Plum Brook Station 1955–2005 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2006–4317, 2006).

545. Mark Bowles and Robert Arrighi, NASA’s Nuclear 

Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2004–4533, 2004).

546. Bowles, Science in Flux.

547. Mark Bowles, NASA’s Nuclear Frontier.

548. Charles Mitchell, NASA Lewis Research Center 

press release 72–21, 10 March 1972, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.
 188

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

588. “SNAP-8 (System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power).” 

589. “SNAP-8 Passes Milestone,” Lewis News

(13 December 1964).

590. James A. Albers, Ronald H. Soeder, and Pierre A. 

Thollot, Design-Point Performance of a DoubleContainment Tantalum and Stainless Steel

Mercury Boiler for SNAP-8 (Washington, DC: 

NASA TN D–4926, 1968). 

591. “SNAP-8 Clocks 2500 Hours,” Lewis News

(14 March 1969).

592. Robert P. Macosko, William T. Hanna, and 

Sol H. Gorland, Performance of an Experimental 

SNAP-8 Power Conversion System (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM X–1732, 1969). 

593. Aerojet-General Corporation, SNAP-8 Electrical 

Generating System Development Program

(Washington, DC: NASA CR–1970, 1971).

594. Voss, SNAP Reactor Overview.

595. “NASA Awards Laud Efforts,” Lewis News

(20 November 1970).

596. “Lewis Holds Conference on Space Power Systems,” 

Lewis News (2 September 1966).

597. “Looks to 1971 Accomplishments,” Lewis News

(29 January 1971).

598. Lee S. Mason and Jeffrey G. Schreiber, A 

Historical Review of Brayton and Stirling Power 

Conversion Technologies for Space Applications

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2007-214976, 

2007).

599. Donald G. Beremand, David Namkoong, and Robert 

Y. Wong, Experimental Performance Characteristics 

of Three Identical Brayton Rotating Units

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–52826, 1970).

600. Lee Mason, “Dynamic Energy Conversion: Vital 

Technology for Space Nuclear Power,” Journal of 

Aerospace Engineering 26 (2013): 352–360.

601. Lyons, “Power and Propulsion.” 

602. Ralph C. Nussle, George M. Prok, and David Fenn, 

Performance of a Brayton Power System With a 

Space Type Radiator (Washington, DC: NASA TN 

D–7708, 1974).

603. Courtney G. Brooks, James M. Grimwood, and 

Lloyd S. Swenson, Chariots for Apollo: A History of 

Manned Lunar Spacecraft (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–4205, 1979).

604. Floyd Thompson to Irving Pinkel, 3 February 1967, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Irving Pinkel 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

605. Brooks, Chariots for Apollo.

606. Irving Pinkel interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 30 January 1985, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

569. W. R. Kerslake, et al., Flight and Ground

Performance of the SERT II Thruster (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM X–52848, 1970).

570. Louis R. Ignaczak, N. John Stevens, and Bruce E. 

LeRoy, Performance of the SERT II Spacecraft 

After 4.5 Years in Space (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM X–71632, 1974).

571. William Kerslake, SERT-II Thrusters—Still Ticking 

After Eleven Years (Reston, VA: AIAA 81–1539,

27 July 1981).

572. Kerslake, Development and Flight History.

573. Ronald Sovie, Power Systems for Production, 

Construction, Life Support, and Operations in Space 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–100838, 1988).

574. Sheila Bailey, Larry Viterna, and K. R. Rao, “Role 

of NASA in Photovoltaic and Wind Energy,” Energy 

and Power Generation Handbook: Established and 

Emerging Technologies (New York, NY: ASME, 2011).

575. Valerie Lyons, “Power and Propulsion at NASA 

Glenn Research Center: Historic Perspective of 

Major Accomplishments,” Journal of Aerospace 

Engineering 26 (April 2013): 288–299.

576. “Solar Cell Fabrication Is Shown,” Lewis News

(9 June 1967).

577. “Mandelkorn Presented Largest Contributions 

Award at Lewis,” Lewis News (14 August 1964).

578. Bailey, “Role of NASA.”

579. “New Thin-Film Solar Cells May Provide Space 

Power,” Lewis News (5 August 1966). 

580. Daniel Bernatowic, Cadmium Sulfide Thin-Film 

Solar Cell Review Introduction (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM X–52579, 11 June 1968).

581. F. A. Shirland, Americo Forestieri, and A. E. 

Spakowski, Status of the Cadmium Sulfide ThinFilm Solar Cell (Washington, DC: NASA TM 

X–52436, 1968).

582. Bernatowic, Cadmium Sulfide Thin-Film Solar Cell 

Review.

583. K. Zweibel, Thin Film Photovoltaics (Washington, 

DC: NREL/CP–520–25262, 1988).

584. “Preparing for Solar Cell Tests,” Lewis News

(10 April 1964).

585. Henry W. Brandhorst, Airplane Testing of Solar 

Cells (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–51946, 

2–3 June 1964).

586. “SNAP-8 (System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power),” 

press release, January 1967, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

587. Susan Voss, SNAP Reactor Overview (Kirtland Air 

Force Base, NM: Air Force Weapons Laboratory, 

AFWL–TN–84–14, 1984).
Limitless Opportunities 189

John H. Glenn Research Center

607. Pinkel interview by Dawson.

608. Aerospace Safety Research and Data Institute, The 

Safety Data Bank, March 1975, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

609. Thomas Cochran, et al., Burning of Teflon-Insulated 

Wires in Supercritical Oxygen at Normal and Zero 

Gravities (Washington, DC: NASA TM X–2174, 

1971). 

610. Hugh Harris, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 70–22, 12 June 1970, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

611. Hearing Before the Committee on Aeronautical and 

Space Sciences, Apollo 13 Mission Review, United 

States Senate, 30 June 1970.

612. Edgar Cortright to Irving Pinkel, 11 June 1970, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Irving Pinkel 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

613. “NASA Aircraft Accident Report,” 1969, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Flight Research

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

614. Jack Esgar, “NASA Industrial Mishap Report,” 

27 April 1971, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

615. Edward Sharp, “Establishment of Safety Office,” 

18 August 1952, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

616. William Brown, Safety Management of Complex 

Research Operations (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM−81772, 1981).

617. Hugh Harris, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 69–54, 7 October 1969, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

618. Nussle, Performance of a Brayton Power System.

619. Charles Daye, Skylab Payload Shroud Jettison Tests 

(Washington, DC: NASA TN D–36913, 1972). 

620. Lewis Research Center Staff, Centaur Standard 

Shroud Heated Altitude Jettison Tests (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM X–71814, 1975).

621. Lewis Research Center, “Capabilities and Facilities 

of the Plum Brook Station,” c1970, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Plum Brook Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

622. Lewis Research Center, “Centaur Space Vehicle 

Pressurized Propellant Feed System Tests” 

(Washington, DC: NASA TN D–6876, 1972).

623. “Three Lewis Staffers to Retire,” Lewis News

(7 July 1967).

624. “Director Announces Retirement,” Lewis News

(24 October 1969).

625. Charles Kelsey, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 69–1, 11 January 1969, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 248: Lewis’s front entrance reflects the center’s new focus (GRC–1980–C–04980).
John H. Glenn Research Center

7. Crisis

“Today there is much more to be done,

our country’s needs are more manifold and our

capabilities far broader than was the situation in 1958.” 

—Bruce Lundin
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 249: A 5,000-pound-thrust rocket engine is fired at the 

Rocket Engine Test Facility as part of a thermal fatigue investigation 

in September 1975 (GRC–1975–C–03125).
Crisis 193

NASA Lewis Research Center’s heady days of the 

1960s came to a sobering end at noon on 5 January 

1973. Center Director Bruce Lundin informed the 

staff assembled in the Plum Brook cafeteria that the 

Office of Management and Budget had canceled all 

research programs without near-term applications. 

This included NASA’s nuclear propulsion and power 

efforts. The Plum Brook Reactor Facility would cease 

operations immediately, and the station’s other sites 

would be shut down over the next 18 months.626 The 

reactor crew filed out of the hall and gathered in the 

reactor control room to watch Bill Fecych terminate 

the chain reaction for the final time.627

The cuts were the latest in a series of reductions

coinciding with the end of the Apollo Program. The 

nation’s priorities were changing, and Congress was 

reigning in NASA’s once generous budget. The Agency

was transitioning, as well, with the development of a 

new reusable space shuttle. Although Lewis found

itself largely outside of the shuttle development,

the center soldiered on with its successful aircraft 

Crisis

Image 251: The staff gathers in the control room on 5 January 1973 as the Plum Brook Reactor is shut down one final time 

(GRC–2003–C–00847).

Image 250: Lundin memo announcing the termination of the 

nuclear program.
 194

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

propulsion, space communications, and Centaur programs. In addition, Lundin and his staff began applying 

the center’s aerospace skills to the resolution of newly 

emerging problems on Earth—particularly pollution, 

alternative energy resources, and energy efficiency.

Despite these efforts, Lewis’s budget and staffing levels continued to decline throughout the 1970s, and 

several of the large test facilities were operating below 

their capacity. John McCarthy, who succeeded Lundin 

as Center Director in 1978, launched a campaign to 

improve Lewis’s image and increase congressional support. These efforts, however, were overshadowed by 

the Reagan Administration’s attempt to downsize the 

federal government in 1980 and 1981.628Although the 

center’s 40-year existence was in jeopardy for a time, 

Lewis managed to weather the storm and emerge more 

resilient than ever.

Turbulent Skies 

NASA’s budget had been declining steadily since its

peak in 1966, resulting in increasingly severe cuts

at the centers, particularly the former NACA laboratories—Langley, Ames, and Lewis. Between 1966 and

1973 Lewis’s 5,000-person workforce declined by

20 percent. The cancellation of the nuclear programs

caused the elimination of another 700 positions.629-634

There was a real danger of losing what Walter

Olson referred to as “the fine problem-solving

machine known as Lewis.”635 Although management 

attempted to ameliorate the reductions by encouraging those who had begun their careers in the 1940s to 

retire, large numbers of layoffs were inevitable. 

As NASA’s overall budget shrank, the Agency

increased its spending on the space shuttle development. The shuttle was considered the first step 

to the creation of a large orbiting space station. The 

center did not play a primary role in the overall

development of the space shuttle. Lewis’s independence—first under Abe Silverstein and then Bruce 

Lundin—kept Lewis out of NASA’s mainstream space 

programs in the 1970s. Lundin’s unfavorable technical opinions on the shuttle and his unhappiness with 

the Lewis reductions strained the center’s relationship 

with headquarters at a time when NASA’s structure 

was evolving.636,637

Nearly all of the center’s funding came from the

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST). 

OAST served other programs and institutions and 

did not depend on large projects. Thus OAST was 

only a fraction of NASA’s overall budget.638 NASA 

was beginning to divide up elements of major programs among several centers instead of allocating them

entirely to a single center. This increased the competition among the centers, and the larger institutions 

like Johnson Space Center and Marshall Space Flight

Center did not look favorably toward the former 

NACA centers now under OAST. Lewis decided to 

seek additional work outside the Agency.

Pollution Monitoring

One unexpected result of the space program was a new 

appreciation for the uniqueness and fragility of Earth. 

Spacecraft had photographed the inhospitable surfaces 

of Mars and Venus and men had trod over the desolate lunar landscape. These images contrasted with

Apollo 8’s celebrated earthrise photograph, which 

vividly captured Earth’s beauty and vulnerability.

The nation began taking measures to protect natural 

resources, conserve energy, and reduce pollution. This 

new interest in the environment led to the creation of 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. 

Image 252: Silverstein and Lundin talk at a 1968 reception for 

Lundin at the Guerin House (GRC–2015–C–06553).
Crisis 195

John H. Glenn Research Center

Lewis staff members developed an in-house school to 

learn about a variety of environmental problems and 

initiated efforts to monitor and reduce pollution. At 

the time, Cleveland was infamous for its collection of 

steel mills and for its fires on the Cuyahoga River. In 

the early 1970s Lewis agreed to assist the city with 

its efforts to control its air pollution. Lewis designed

inexpensive and easy-to-use pollution-monitoring 

equipment and developed methods for cataloguing 

pollution particles by size, shape, and type. Lewis 

personnel also set up a series of monitoring stations 

around the city to identify the sources of particular 

contaminants and the effect of weather on pollution. 

They placed some of the stations at schools so that

students could participate in the effort.639 The

researchers were able to construct a mathematical

model of the city based on the data.640 Lewis

announced the results of this two-year study in

November 1972. The air quality in the main industrial 

valley did improve over the course of the study.641

Lewis also initiated a broader effort to monitor pollution in the skies and waterways. The center added 

the Combustion and Pollution Research Branch to the 

Airbreathing Engines Division to investigate aircraft 

emission levels. During normal conditions jet engines 

operate at nearly 100-percent combustion efficiency, 

but when the engines are idling and during takeoff, 

Image 253: NASA’s F–106B Delta Dart was acquired as the chase plane for the center’s first F–106B. After that program ended, the chase plane 

was equipped with air-sampling and ocean-scanning equipment and performed remote sensing throughout the 1970s. The ocean-scanning equipment was stored in the nose section of the F–106B (GRC–1979–C–02423).

not all of the fuel burns. The unburned elements mix 

with the air and other pollution, and the Sun transforms the mixture into smog. Nitrogen emitted during 

takeoff contributes the most to smog. Lewis set out to 

measure pollutants at high altitudes and stratosphere 

to determine the extent of the problem.642

Lewis created the Global Air Sampling Program 

(GASP) in 1972 to measure pollution levels along the 

air lanes frequently traversed by the airline industry.643 

Porter Perkins, a prominent icing researcher from the 

NACA era, served as project manager. Participating 

airline companies installed commercial air-sampling 

equipment on Boeing 747 aircraft to automatically 

measure a variety of pollutants and collect dust particles to analyze their chemical composition.644,645

After several years of preliminary tests, the research 

flights commenced in March 1975. Four airline companies installed the sampling equipment on their

aircraft and flew routes all over the world. By July 1978 

nearly 7,000 GASP flights had taken measurements. 

These included samples from both poles during a

special round-the-world flight to mark Pan Am’s 50th 

anniversary.646 Lewis also installed the GASP equipment on their F–106B Delta Dart. The F–106B not 

only augmented the Boeing 747 sampling but measured the amount and distribution of ash and gases
 196

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

in the stratosphere following Mount St. Helen’s

eruption in 1980. GASP significantly increased

existing climate information, providing the first

climate information for some geographical areas and

significantly increasing the existing data for others.

The data helped researchers determine the effect of

air traffic, seasons, and weather on pollution

concentrations.647

Lewis also utilized its F–106B to support the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

water-monitoring efforts. NOAA’s Nimbus 7 satellite 

included the Coastal Zone Color Scanner to measure 

salinity, color, and temperature in coastal waters. These 

factors indicated the presence of algae 

and pollution. The satellite’s scanning 

system, however, developed problems 

just months after deployment. In an

effort to resolve the issue, Lewis agreed 

to install the scanning equipment on 

the F–106B, and Lewis pilots flew the 

aircraft along the same flight path as 

Nimbus 7 to gather the desired data. 

NOAA engineers were able to use 

the Lewis data to recalibrate the satellite system.648 The NOAA/NASA 

scanning effort was then extended to 

the Great Lakes and Midwest river

systems.

v v v v v v

NASA also partnered with NOAA and the Coast 

Guard for another water-monitoring effort—not for 

pollution, but for ice. The freezing of large portions 

of the Great Lakes regularly halted the region’s shipping industry during the winter months. Even with 

satellite imagery, ship captains had difficulty identifying areas of open water or thin ice. Lewis researchers 

developed the Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR), 

which employed microwaves to measure ice distribution. When used in conjunction with electromagnetic 

systems, SLAR enabled researchers to determine the 

thickness of the ice and provided accurate data on the 

ever-changing ice flows.649,650 

Image 254: A NASA OV–10 aircraft participates in the Project Icewarn program during 

March 1973 (GRC–1973–C–00948).

Image 255: Two-way ship traffic through Neebish Channel, Michigan, in January 1976 (GRC–1976–C–00365).
Crisis 197

John H. Glenn Research Center

Project Icewarn was a multiyear feasibility study to determine if the monitoring system 

could be implemented in a 

way that was practical for ship 

captains to use. During the 

1972–73 winter, Lewis and 

Coast Guard aircraft worked 

in conjunction with researchers in small boats to calibrate 

and verify the systems.651 An 

aircraft with this dual system 

made a single pass over an area 

and relayed the information via 

a NOAA satellite to a ground 

station. NOAA personnel converted the information into 

maps and transmitted them 

to ships. That winter, shipping continued throughout 

the season for the first time in memory. Lewis participated in Project Icewarn for several years until the 

Coast Guard took full control. The ice monitoring was 

eventually performed by satellite technology, which 

improved dramatically over the years.652

v v v v v v

In 1973 Congress added significant amendments 

to the national air pollution standards set out in the 

1963 Clean Air Act. These new standards led to comprehensive emissions regulations across the nation.653 

The 1973 statutes required the airline industry to

reduce their emissions of carbon monoxide, unburned

hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and smoke by twothirds by 1979.654 Lewis initiated in-house efforts

and large programs in conjunction with engine manufacturers to develop new lower-emission combustors.

Combustors mix compressed airflow with fuel, then 

ignite it as it flows toward the exhaust nozzle to

provide thrust.655

In the 1940s and 1950s, Lewis combustion researchers focused their efforts on reliability, particularly at 

high altitudes. By the mid-1960s they were seeking to 

improve combustion efficiency and reduce emissions. 

Many of the engines on civilian aircraft during that 

period were originally created for military applications. These engines used fuel-rich mixtures that emitted high levels of pollution. One of Lewis’s first steps 

was to reduce the fuel levels in the combustion chamber.656 Many fuel injectors at the time did not properly

Image 256: A J–58 engine in a new test chamber in the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) with a 

swirl-can combustor on display (GRC–1973–C–03376).

atomize the fuel, which led to the emission of carbon 

dioxide while the aircraft was idling. The researchers 

found that injecting a small amount of air into the fuel 

nozzle improved the atomization.657

Nitrogen, the other main pollutant, was more difficult to control. A new type of combustor would 

have to be designed. Traditional combustors use fuelrich mixtures that produce carbon dioxide and high

temperatures. The high temperatures generate excessive levels of nitrogen oxide pollutants and require a 

longer combustor to reduce the temperature of the 

fuel-air mixture before it comes in contact with the 

turbine. Lewis began this effort in the early 1970s by 

creating the swirl-can combustor, which employed a 

lean direct-injection concept. Such systems inject fuel 

directly into the flame and employ additional small

injectors.658,659 The design spreads the flame zone 

uniformly and quickly mixes hot gases with combustor 

air to reduce flame temperature.660

In the 1972 Experimental Clean Combustor

Program, Lewis contracted with Pratt & Whitney and 

General Electric to develop two complete combustors 

incorporating the swirl-can design and compare it to 

a standard model.661 General Electric developed the 

dual-annular combustor, and Pratt & Whitney the 

Vorbix combustor. The two companies continued to 

mature their designs in the ensuing years, and they 

are now available on the CFM56, GE 90, and V2500

engines.662 Combustors would continue to be a key 

component of the center’s aeropropulsion research.
 198

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

AWARENESS

Bruce Lundin introduced the Acquainting Wage Board,

Administrative and Research Employees with New 

Endeavors of Special Significance (AWARENESS) 

program in fall 1971 to periodically brief the staff 

on relevant topics. Nearly 800 employees and guests 

turned out for the inaugural event in November 1971, 

a talk by Wernher von Braun. Center management 

renamed the program Alerting Lewis Employees on 

Relevant Topics (ALERT) in November 1973.663

Hundreds of staff members attended the monthly

sessions to hear lectures by Lewis researchers, NASA 

officials, scientists, local politicians, and academics 

from outside the Agency.664

Meanwhile the AWARENESS title was applied to 

a new program that sought to improve staff morale

through discourse and recognition. The center adopted

the “Lewis Means Teamwork” slogan and strove 

to demonstrate how each Lewis position contributed to the goals of both Lewis and the nation.

AWARENESS sought to acknowledge group 

accomplishments and highlight some of the center’s 

lower-profile activities.665 The recognition aspect had 

two components—events like the one honoring the 

extended team that helped build the new Propulsion 

Systems Laboratory (PSL) and promotional efforts 

like multipage Lewis News features highlighting the 

work of a specific program or branch. The committee 

Image 257: Lundin with Gerald Soffen, Cleveland native and 

Chief Scientist for the Viking missions, at an ALERT event in the 

Developmental Engineering Building auditorium in February 1977 

(GRC–1977–C–02740).

also organized a series of informal meetings between 

members of the upper management and the staff to 

improve communication. Later in the 1970s the Lewis 

Center Director periodically invited individual staff 

members to sit on stage with him and have a dialogue. 

The AWARENESS and ALERT programs were very 

successful and continued into the mid-1990s.

Image 258: Acting Director Bernard Lubarsky takes questions from staff members during a 13 April 1978 AWARENESS forum 

(GRC–1978–C–01278).
Crisis 199

John H. Glenn Research Center

v v v v v v

In mid-December 1972, just as NASA was deciding 

to cancel its nuclear program, Deputy Administrator George Low asked OAST to initiate a series of

Inspections similar to those held by the NACA.666 

Although the stated goal was similar to the NACA 

events—“displaying our programs and accomplishments and rapidly disseminating technology to the 

user”—these new Inspections were much more

politically motivated. The public’s interest in NASA 

was waning after Apollo, and the three research centers were struggling. It was imperative to demonstrate 

their contributions to life on Earth. The theme, which 

echoed a similar campaign introduced by President 

Richard Nixon, was “Technology in the Service of 

Man.”

Walter Olson served as chairman of the planning 

committee. The eight tour stops focused primarily on 

terrestrial applications of NASA research, including 

aircraft noise reduction, pollution control, and clean 

energy. Even the launch vehicle presentation emphasized spinoff benefits such as the semiconductors,

materials, insulation, and cryogenic storage devices 

that had found their way into a myriad of everyday

applications.667

The September 1973 event was a tremendous success

in nearly every way. It received rave reviews. Nearly

900 invited very important persons (VIPs) participated in the Inspection, and another 22,000 people

attended the employees’ day and public open house 

held afterward.668 Perhaps more importantly, the

Inspection focused Lewis’s attention and boosted

employee morale in the midst of major reductions. The 

Inspection failed, however, in the most consequential matter—generating congressional interest. John

Donnelly, head of NASA’s public affairs programs, 

commented afterward, “I’m not convinced that we got 

our money’s worth. We just didn’t get the people who 

count.”669 The Lewis event was NASA’s last attempt to 

revive the fabled Inspections.

Image 259: Display for the Big Boost From Rockets presentation at the 1973 inspection, which discussed the applications of rocket technology for 

everyday life (GRC–1973–C–3372).
 200

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Energy Systems for Earth

The dramatic increase in U.S. energy consumption in 

the 1960s and 1970s coupled with growing demands 

for cleaner energy began taxing the energy production industry. Both conservation and the development

of alternative energy sources would be needed to

improve the situation, which was exacerbated by the 

Arab Oil Embargo in October 1973.670 For the first 

time, Americans experienced fuel shortages and price 

spikes. President Nixon challenged the nation to 

achieve energy self-efficiency in the same unified manner that had driven the successes of the Manhattan

Project and the Apollo Program. He and his

successor, Gerald Ford, created the Federal Energy 

Administration and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) to handle current

energy allocation and long-term energy research,

respectively. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter combined these two groups into the new Department of 

Energy (DOE).671

Lewis researchers had been urging center management 

to utilize their expertise in areas such as materials,

bearings, lubrication, seals, combustion, aerodynamics,

and turbomachinery to address these new energy

problems. Bruce Lundin was able to convince headquarters that Lewis’s aerospace experience could

be applied to new fields opened up by the Energy

Crisis and the environmental movement—fields

Image 260: Bruce Lundin watches as NASA Administrator James Fletcher and 

ERDA Administrator Robert Seamans start the Plum Brook wind turbine for the 

first time (GRC–1975–C–03866).

that were previously outside of NASA’s

scope.672 The 1974 NASA Authorization

Act gave the center approval to pursue

energy-related research according to its own 

judgment.673

Lundin spearheaded an effort to transform Lewis into the Agency’s lead energy 

conversion center. Lewis considered aeropropulsion, space power and propulsion, 

communication satellites, and terrestrial 

propulsion and power to be part of this

effort.674 Soon Lewis was partnering with 

DOE to develop terrestrial power sources 

using renewable energy sources like wind 

and solar, as well as new technologies like the 

Stirling engine and nickel batteries.

v v v v v v

The Wind Energy Program was perhaps Lewis’s most 

well-known alternative energy endeavor. Although 

the windmill had a long tradition of use around the 

world, it had primarily been applied to small, private 

water-pumping machines. Beginning in the 1930s 

there had been limited efforts to develop larger wind 

turbines to generate electrical power. The Smith 

Putnam wind turbine, which operated briefly in the 

United States during 1941, was the largest of these.675 

These early devices were technically feasible but were

unable to compete with the low cost of traditional fossil fuels. Engineers revisited the wind turbine concept 

in the 1970s as energy prices escalated and concern 

grew over emissions from fossil fuels.676,677Although 

the technology existed, there were questions regarding 

wind energy’s reliability, public acceptance, integration 

with the utility grid, and most importantly, cost.678

While visiting Puerto Rico for an unrelated project, 

Lewis researchers were approached by local officials 

interested in utilizing wind energy to create electrical 

power. Joe Savino, Ron Thomas, and Richard Puthoff 

proposed applying the center’s experience with aerodynamics, powerplants, and energy conversion to wind 

energy. At the time, the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) was studying improvements to the energy field 

as a whole, but it did not have any research facilities 

of its own. The NSF partnered with Lewis in 1973 

to conduct a symposium that assembled wind turbine

experts from around the world, including some who

had pioneered the field in the 1930s. As a result, the 
Crisis 201

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 261: Lewis engineers set up a Mod–0A–2 wind turbine in 

Culebra, Puerto Rico (GRC–1978–C–02389).

Image 262: Wind energy program pamphlet.

NSF and NASA announced a joint effort with ERDA 

to pursue large-scale wind energy technology.679

ERDA partnered with other institutions on smaller,

more experimental designs.

ERDA assigned Lewis the responsibility for developing a series of large and increasingly powerful

horizontal-axis wind turbines to be integrated into 

power grids. Lewis began by translating all known 

wind energy documents. The engineers then began

designing three generations of turbines—one to obtain 

basic design and operation information, one to demonstrate that a working turbine and energy conversion 

system was feasible, and a third to create a cost-effective,

repeatable system that would make the concept

appealing to commercial groups.680

The first step was the construction of an experimental 

100-kilowatt (kW) wind turbine at the recently mothballed Plum Brook Station in 1975. The device was 

large enough to obtain useful data, but small enough to 

permit frequent updates and modifications.681 Plum 

Brook veteran Henry Pfanner was responsible for the 

operation of the 125-foot-diameter turbine atop a

100-foot tower. The researchers first used the wind 

turbine to validate analytical predictions, then to study 

the effectiveness of various configurations. It was

necessary to maintain the predetermined power output so as to not overpower the power grid.682

The Plum Brook wind turbine efficiently produced 

power, but problems arose with the structural integrity

of the aluminum blades. The rotor design, unexpected 

load levels, and airflow blockage by the steel truss and 

stairway leading to the top of the machine all contributed to the problem. Lewis engineers were able 

to successfully redesign the blades,683 and the turbine

became NASA’s workhorse for testing new technologies before they were transferred to industry. These 

technologies included new low-cost towers, new control systems, more efficient airfoils, and rotor hubs 

with teeter mechanisms to reduce structural loads. 

During its 10 years of operation, the Plum Brook wind 

turbine was reconfigured over a dozen times.684

Meanwhile NASA and ERDA engineers expanded

the Plum Brook design into new 200-kW wind

turbines. Westinghouse used the NASA design

to manufacture these turbines and install them in 

Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 263: Installation of 2–MW wind turbine in Goldendale, Washington, in November 1980 (GRC–1980–C–05886).
Crisis 203

John H. Glenn Research Center

Although these early machines demonstrated

that large turbines could be integrated into the

grid, they could not compete with the price

of fossil fuels. However, the 200-kW turbines 

did demonstrate an increasing reliability that 

spurred Westinghouse to privately develop 

a 600-kW version. Fifteen of these more 

powerful models were sold and successfully

operated in Hawaii and Colorado.685

In 1979 the significantly more powerful

2-megawatt (MW) turbine was then installed 

in the mountains of North Carolina near the 

town of Boone. Although still considered a 

first-generation device, the machine was twice 

the size of the earlier models and generated the 

highest power levels to date. Local residents

complained that the machine interfered with

local television signals and generated lowfrequency noise.686 NASA engineers were 

able to resolve the noise problem by reducing the rotational speed of the blades, but 

the television interference proved more

difficult to remedy, so the nearby homes were 

upgraded to cable television.687 The firstgeneration multimegawatt design, which was

removed after 2 years, did not demonstrate the long life necessary for commercial

development. Nonetheless, the North Carolina

machine provided important lessons for the future

industry, including the need to locate turbines an

appropriate distance from populated areas.688

The first second-generation turbine was a 2.5-MW

model developed under contract with Boeing. The 

design was a major wind turbine advance that

replaced the steel truss tower with a hollow steel tube, 

rotated the blade tips instead of the entire blade for 

control, and reduced loads by allowing the blades to 

teeter at the hub. Three of the turbines were built at 

same site in Washington State to study the interaction

between units.689 The researchers, however, found 

that a manufacturing error in the rotor caused greater 

stresses than anticipated, which required modifications to the turbines. Operation ceased in 1986 as the 

federal government cut funding, and the three turbines 

were eventually sold for scrap.690,691 In the mid-1980s

Boeing built another 2.5-MW turbine that became 

the first U.S. wind turbine to be sold to a commercial 

customer.692

During this period Lewis also provided the technical management for the development of a large wind 

turbine in Wyoming by Hamilton Standard and the

Department of the Interior. The 4-MW turbine

included lightweight, flexible towers and fiberglass blades manufactured on automated winding

machines.693 It proved to be the nation’s most powerful turbine for over 20 years. A comparable 3-MW

machine operated for many years in Europe with

similar success.694

In 1980 NASA issued both General Electric and

Boeing contracts to develop the third generation of 

large-horizontal-axis wind turbines. As federal funding for wind energy decreased, General Electric

decided not to pursue the development. Its model was 

completed under the Federal Wind Energy Program. 

Boeing proceeded with the development of its turbine 

at Oahu, Hawaii, using a design that expanded on

NASA’s second-generation models. Completed in

1987, the turbine had the largest blade diameter in

the world and was the first turbine that could

Image 264: The Boeing 7.2-MW wind turbine began operation in in Oahu in July 

1987 (GRC–1987–C–05991).
 204

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

operate at variable speeds—a feature that increased

efficiency and output.695 The Boeing turbine was the 

most successful of all the NASA/ERDA machines

in terms of performance and commercial market 

potential. The device was sold to the local utility

in 1988 and set a one-month record for wind turbine 

production in March 1991.696

The Oahu machine brought a close to Lewis’s wind

energy research. The center’s efforts peaked in 1979 

and 1980 with the involvement of nearly 100 staff 

members. Much of the research was aimed at supporting technology—rotors, structural dynamics, electrical 

systems, controls, utility integration, economics, and 

environmental effects.697 As Lewis moved away from 

terrestrial energy research in the early 1980s, NASA 

decided to transfer the Plum Brook wind turbine to 

DOE’s Solar Energy Research Institute. In late 1985 

over 100 people attended a ceremony at the site to 

mark the conclusion of NASA’s 10-year operation of 

the device.698

By this time the Energy Crisis had passed, and the

government stopped funding most wind energy

projects. As the price of oil plummeted, the numerous

requests to install the Boeing wind turbine in Hawaii

were canceled, and the manufacturers soon ceased

their efforts.699 The vast majority of U.S. wind turbine 

and other renewable energy manufacturers went out

of the business during this period. The few manufacturers that made it through, developed small

turbines that required less capital expense during the 

tight market.700

Increased funding by several European nations in the 

1980s and 1990s, particularly Denmark and Germany,

expanded wind energy technology and provided

Europe with most of the existing market. During 

this period the size of the turbines increased, eventually rivaling and exceeding the size of the large NASA 

turbines. Today the vast majority of wind turbines are 

large devices that offer increased reliability and lower 

maintenance costs in comparison to the use of many 

small machines.701 It was not until the 2000s that the 

United States resumed its efforts in the wind energy 

field. In 2008 and 2009, the United States increased its 

installed capability for wind energy by 45 percent and 

achieved the largest installed wind energy capacity of 

any country in the world. General Electric is now the 

largest U.S. producer of wind turbines.702

The legacy of the NASA/DOE program can be found 

throughout the wind industry today. NASA demonstrated that two blades provide the optimal efficiency, 

but the European manufacturers who had dominated 

the market in the 1990s felt that the three-bladed 

design was more aesthetically pleasing. Nonetheless 

NASA-derived technologies in use today include 

steel tube towers, variable-speed generators, highperformance laminar airfoils, and fiberglass blade 

manufacturing.703 In addition, engineering models, 

such as the Viterna Method for wind turbine aerodynamics developed by NASA engineer Larry Viterna 

are used throughout the world.704

v v v v v v

Lewis researchers used their experience with photovoltaic power generation for space vehicles to

develop terrestrial applications for solar energy during the 1970s. Except for higher levels of radiation 

in space, the development was essentially the same. 

ERDA sought to spur the development of low-cost 

Image 265: Robert Ragsdale briefs Senator Howard Metzenbaum 

on the Solar Simulation Laboratory during a visit to Lewis on 

13 February 1974 (GRC–1974–C–00599).
Crisis 205

John H. Glenn Research Center

solar cell arrays within 20 years, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL) sponsored a program

that analyzed different commercial solar cells.

This program included testing high-output solar

panels in atmospheric conditions at Lewis’s outdoor 

Photovoltaic Systems Test Facility in 1976. Lewis was 

able to obtain the first data on high-power solar arrays 

in the environment.705

Lewis’s Solar Simulator in the High Temperature 

Composites Laboratory was one of the nation’s largest 

facilities for testing terrestrial solar cells. In this indoor 

facility, solar cells were arranged in a collector that 

was aligned with a bright solar simulator. The setup 

allowed researchers to study a number of solar collectors and high-efficiency single-junction solar cells. 

The researchers could control the radiation levels, temperature, airflow, and fluid flow, as well as modify any 

aspect of the collector. Susan Johnson and Frederick 

Simon developed a single mathematical equation to 

correlate the efficiency data from 35 unique solar collectors. These collectors had a variety of applications, 

including temperature control systems in buildings.706

Lewis researchers also developed power-conversion

systems to transform solar energy into electrical

power for remote areas. In May 1978 NASA and 

the DOE signed an agreement with the Papago

Native American tribe in Schuchuli, Arizona, to supply the village with solar-generated electricity within 

the year. Lewis provided all of the equipment and 

technical assistance, and the tribe’s construction team 

built the arrays and support equipment. The 3.5-kW 

system, activated on 16 December 1978, was modest 

in scope but resulted in the first solar electric village. 

The system provided power to operate a refrigerator, 

freezer, washing machine, and water pump for the village and lights in each of the 16 homes.707

Lewis engineers improved the photovoltaic system

for the DOE and the Agency for International

Development and oversaw its installation in a number 

of remote villages without utilities in South America, 

India, and Africa. Lewis researchers consulted with 

local users regarding the amount of power needed 

and the solar panel design. Lewis solar power systems 

were installed to provide electricity for remote villages,

medical clinics, and refrigeration machines.708 Later, 

Lewis engineers doubled the initial power system at 

Tangaye, Upper Volta, by adding additional arrays.709

Between 1975 and 1985 Lewis designed, fabricated, and 

installed 58 photovoltaic systems in 28 countries.710 In 

addition to the larger projects, Lewis installed many 

smaller systems at fire lookout stations, weather

stations, highways, and other locations.711

Lewis also continued its research into solar cells for 

space applications. These efforts included developing easy fabrication techniques, increasing efficiency,

reducing cost, reducing weight, and developing strategies for limiting damage from radiation.712

v v v v v v

One of the more unique applications of Lewis’s aerospace skills to benefit life on Earth was the use of the 

cyclotron to treat cancer patients. General Electric built 

the device beneath the Materials and Stresses Building 

in the early 1950s to test the effects of radiation on

different materials being considered for nuclear aircraft 

engines. The cyclotron could split beryllium atoms to 

cause neutrons to be released.713 In the early 1970s 

Lewis physicist James Blue developed a technique to 

stream these neutrons directly at an object such as a 

tumor. 

In 1975 the Cleveland Clinic Foundation partnered 

with NASA Lewis to employ the center’s cyclotron 

to study fast neutron radiation treatments for certain 

cancer patients. There had been debates in the medical

Image 266: Residents of Schuchuli, Arizona, attend the dedication 

ceremony for the solar village project (GRC–1978–C–05107).
 206

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

community for years comparing the effectiveness of 

fast neutron therapy with that of x-ray radiation. The 

use of fast neutrons allowed better targeting of the

tumor, but only a limited number of facilities could 

produce sufficient neutrons to carry out this treatment.714 Lewis’s cyclotron had a dual-beam system 

that could target the tumor with fast neutrons both 

vertically and horizontally.715 In 1979 the National 

Cancer Institute incorporated the Lewis treatments 

in a larger 10-year study of the effectiveness of fast 

neutron treatments. Blue considered the cyclotron 

particularly effective for salivary gland and prostate

tumors, but less so for those affecting the central nervous

system. Over the years, the clinic staff treated 1,200 

patients at the cyclotron.

The clinic terminated the program in 1990 as it

began concentrating its efforts on treatments that did 

not involve radiation. Substantial improvements to

x-ray technology and the cost of transporting patients 

and equipment to the center had made the Lewis program, which had always been considered temporary, 

less imperative. The end of the Lewis program coincided with the cessation of cyclotron cancer treatment 

activities around the nation.716

Space Technology Hits the Road

Congressional studies during the 1970s determined 

that current automotive engines did not comply with 

the nation’s new long-term emissions and efficiency 

objectives. There were a number of alternative propulsion concepts that had the potential to meet these 

goals if sufficiently supported. Congress enacted legislation in February 1978 that instructed the DOE to 

pursue these advanced automotive engines—including

a Stirling-based system and a gas turbine engine.717

The DOE partnered with NASA Lewis on the

Automotive Stirling Engine (ASE) program. Lewis 

had investigated Stirling systems for space power

applications in the 1960s.

The ASE was originally a five-year study, but budget 

cutbacks in the early 1980s resulted in a lower intensity 10-year effort. The effort included research on

materials, combustion, controls, and other technologies, but the main thrust was the development of a 

working engine. The engine was to improve fuel economy by 30 percent, be able to use a variety of fuels, and 

reduce emissions.718 These objectives had to be reached 

without significantly impacting vehicle performance,

reliability, and cost.719

Like the Brayton Cycle engine, the Stirling engine is a 

closed-cycle engine that recirculates a working gas. In 

the automotive Stirling engine, hydrogen is used as the 

working gas. Continuous burning of the air and fuel 

heats the hydrogen to power the pistons. By design, 

Stirling engines are quiet and highly efficient, have low 

emissions, and can use different types of fuel.720

In March 1978 NASA signed contracts with

Mechanical Technology Incorporated (MTI), United

Stirling of Sweden, and AM General (AMG) to

develop the Stirling automotive engine. MTI managed 

the effort, United Stirling developed the engine, and 

AMG integrated the system in its vehicles.721

ASE began by improving the net efficiency of a baseline engine from 3 to 37 percent. The researchers then 

developed two generations of Stirling engines. The 

first was installed in an AMC Spirit, which operated for over 9,000 hours and was driven over 1,000 

miles. The engine was tested in a variety of AMC vehicles.722 The second-generation engine—a substantial

improvement over the early designs—was both

Image 267: Medical personnel treat patients in the cyclotron area 

(GRC–1978–C–04709).
Crisis 207

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 268: American Motors Pacer vehicle modified to run on twenty 6-volt batteries 

(GRC–1977–C–02096).

reasonably priced and compact enough to be installed 

in the AMC Celebrity. The engine demonstrated a 

high level of efficiency during its test program in 1986 

and 1987.723

The ASE program concluded in 1989. The technology 

met or exceeded all of its original goals and produced 

the first demonstration that the Stirling system could 

be applied and operated. By this time, however, the

energy crisis had passed, and automobile manufacturers were not ready to overhaul their production plants 

and train their employees on Stirling technology.724

v v v v v v

Lewis created a Transportation Propulsion Division

in 1977 to coordinate a number of automotive projects, including research on new drivetrains, improved 

powertrains, and overall engine improvements.

Lewis also contributed to a renewed interest in electric

automobiles,725 which had been popular in the United

States until the Ford Model T made gas-powered 

vehicles affordable.726 Lewis focused on battery performance—the most critical component of electric 

vehicle operation. The researchers applied their experience with batteries for satellites to the automobile issue 

and developed a nickel-zinc battery that offered almost 

twice the range of traditional automobile batteries.727

Lewis also analyzed the performance of all 16 commercially available electric vehicles to determine the 

current state of electric vehicle technology. These 

were gas-powered vehicles that had been modified to 

run on batteries. Some of the vehicles 

had analog data-recording systems to 

measure the battery during operation 

and sensors to determine speed and distance. The vehicles were run on a local 

test track to analyze their range, acceleration, coasting, braking, and energy 

consumption. Lewis researchers found 

that the performance of the different

vehicles varied significantly but that the 

range, acceleration, and speed were generally lower than those found on conventional vehicles. They concluded that

traditional gasoline-powered vehicles

were as efficient as the electric vehicles,

but advances in battery technology and 

electric drive systems would significantly improve

efficiency and performance in the coming years.728

Aeronautics Expanding

The airline industry continued to grow exponentially, 

increasing air pollution, noise, and airport congestion. The resurgence of Lewis’s aeronautics programs, 

which had begun in the mid-1960s, continued

unabated throughout the 1970s. Unlike the research 

of the NACA era, Lewis now worked in tandem with 

industry on research and technology. Industry was

responsible for developing the resulting concepts into 

commercial products. Lewis efforts included work 

on new technologies like vertical or short-takeoff 

and landing (V/STOL) aircraft, noise reduction,

energy efficiency, and control systems. The research 

was aided by the two new altitude chambers in the PSL 

complex—No. 3 and 4—and the new 9- by 15-Foot

Low-Speed Wind Tunnel (9×15). 

The design of cost-effective and functional V/STOL 

aircraft has proven to be one of the aircraft industry’s 

most elusive endeavors. Since the 1950s aeronautical engineers have been trying to perfect vehicles that 

combine the helicopter’s ability to elevate vertically with 

the horizontal cruising speeds of traditional aircraft.

V/STOL aircraft not only had military applications,

but also had the potential to relieve airport congestion

by requiring shorter runways so smaller airports could

handle more traffic.729 Tilt engines, tilt wings, and

vectoring engine thrust are the primary technologies

necessary for V/STOL vehicles.730
 208

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

NASA’s three research centers—Langley, Ames, and 

Lewis—began pursuing the V/STOL technology in

the 1960s as interest increased globally. Lewis specialized in the engines and their integration into the 

airframe. The researchers initially sought to identify

operating problems, develop basic technology that 

could be applied to future designs, and analyze different aircraft configurations based on a particular

mission.731

Lewis designed the 9×15 to study V/STOL engine 

models at the low speeds encountered during takeoff and landing. Built inside the return leg of Lewis’s

8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (8×6) to minimize the time and cost of its construction, the 9×15 

was used to study lift fans, a multifan wing design, 

and V/STOL inlets for Boeing and Grumman.732 

The Lewis V/STOL effort in the 1970s also included 

studies of inlet guide vanes and fan stages in the Engine 

Research Building, propulsion control simulation and 

engine tests in the PSL altitude chambers, and an array of inlet and deflector 

studies in the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (10×10).733 These 

systems are very complex, and until

recently there was only one successful V/STOL aircraft operating in the 

United States—the British-designed 

Hawker Harrier.734

Lewis’s Quiet Clean Short Haul

Experimental Engine (QCSEE) program actively pursued powered lift 

(tilting down of engine or wing for

extra lift during takeoff ) technology for 

transport aircraft with a limited flight 

range operating from small airports.735

QCSEE sought to develop economical 

and environmentally beneficial highspeed, short-distance aircraft technologies. Regulators could use the data to 

create effective regulations, and industry could develop the technology. 

The basic engine design was a highbypass turbofan that could deflect 

its exhaust downward by using wing 

flaps. Lewis contributions included 

variable-pitch compressor blades that 

could reverse airflow through the

engine during landing to reduce the required runway length. Lewis’s improvements to turbine staging

resulted in a four-stage turbine that performed as well 

as a normal eight-stage turbine.736 Lewis researchers 

investigated two powered-lift designs and an array of 

new technologies in a specially designed test stand, 

the Engine Noise Test Facility, on the hangar apron. 

The QCSEE engines met the researchers’ performance 

goals without increasing noise or pollution levels.

Although the short-distance transport aircraft for 

which the engines were intended never materialized, 

different technological elements of the engine were

applied to some future General Electric engines.737

v v v v v v

The addition of two new test chambers, No. 3 and 4, 

to the PSL complex was Lewis’s most significant aeronautics investment since the mid-1950s. The two new 

40-foot-long and 24-foot-diameter altitude chambers

could test engines twice as powerful as any then in 

Image 269: A V/STOL engine with a zero-length inlet installed in the 9×15 

(GRC–1980–C–04513).
Crisis 209

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 270: Diagram showing the 9×15 section in the return leg of the 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (CD–1202–09).

existence. The new chambers were located on the 

other side of the original PSL Equipment Building 

and used the same air-handling equipment. Nearly 

5,000 tons of steel were used during the 1967 to 

1972 construction.738 The new test chambers, which

began operation in 1973, were significantly more powerful than the original PSL chambers. Researchers 

used all four of the PSL chambers extensively during 

the 1970s. The center continues to upgrade the facility’s capabilities. Today the PSL is NASA’s only facility 

that can operate full-scale engines in simulated flight 

conditions.

Lewis collaborated with the Air Force on two comprehensive programs in the 1970s that utilized surplus

Pratt & Whitney F100 and General Electric J85–21 

engines as testbeds to study engine design issues such 

as flutter, inlet airflow distortion, and electronic controls. As engine designs became more complex, problems like flutter (compressor blade vibration due to 

distortions in airflow) were more pronounced, and 

sophisticated control systems were required. The

researchers used the PSL chambers to validate predictive computer codes that were being used to

design compressor blades and other components.

After mapping the engine performance under normal 

conditions, the researchers destabilized the airflow to 

determine the effects of flutter.739 They then compared 

the data with results from computer models. The

efforts led to technological improvements and identified areas requiring future research.740

v v v v v v

The PSL was also instrumental in the development 

of digital “fly-by-wire” engine control systems in the 

1970s. Engine control systems determine the amount 

of fuel, the nozzle area, and other parameters required 

to produce specific levels of thrust in a variety of flight 

conditions. Engine controls had traditionally been

mechanical systems, but the newer, more sophisticated 

engines required improved computer-based control 

systems that could manage multiple facets at the same 

time.

Researchers at the NASA Dryden Flight Research 

Center created the first computer-based fly-by-wire 

system in the late 1960s. Then Lewis researchers

began to develop a single system that would integrate the control of the engine inlet, afterburner,

and nozzle. Lewis researchers tested the system on 
 210

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 271: A Pratt & Whitney F100 engine in PSL No. 4 during September 1981 (GRC–1981–C–04382).

Image 272: A Refan engine installed on a DC–9 for a ground test in January 1975 (GRC–1975–C–00104). 
Crisis 211

John H. Glenn Research Center

a Pratt & Whitney TF30 engine in the PSL during 

1975, and Dryden flight-tested it soon thereafter.741

Lewis then developed a series of equations that converted the pilot’s input into optimal engine performance. In 1977 the system was verified on an F100 

engine in the PSL.742 The next step was the Full 

Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system, 

which managed all engine components to maximize

efficiency. The system was tested in the PSL during 

1979 before being flight-tested on an F–15 at Dryden. 

The use of these FADEC systems is pervasive throughout the engine industry today.743

v v v v v v

Although noise-reduction technology was increasingly 

available in the 1970s, the airline industry balked at

installing it on existing aircraft without a legal mandate. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), however, 

could not create regulations until the technology was 

demonstrated to be both effective and economically 

feasible to incorporate.744 Lewis’s Refan Program was 

an effort to demonstrate that noise-reduction modifications could be applied to existing aircraft engines at 

a reasonable cost and without diminishing the engine’s 

performance or integrity. The program focused on the 

Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofan—which, in the early 

1970s, was one of the airline industry’s most widely 

used engines.745

The Refan redesign replaced the engine’s two-stage 

fan with a larger single-stage fan. This slowed the 

engine’s exhaust flow and significantly reduced the 

amount of noise it generated. Booster stages were

added to maintain the proper level of airflow through

the engine. Acoustic treatments were also installed

on the fan duct walls, around the exhaust, and on the 

inlet guide vanes.746 These modifications added about 

250 pounds to the engine, but this was compensated 

for by the new design’s extra thrust.747

Lewis researchers first tested a modified JT8D in the 

PSL for 200 hours under simulated altitude conditions. Then the Refan engine was ground-tested on 

an actual aircraft before it was used for a series of 

flight tests in early 1975. The Refan Program reduced

the JT8D’s noise by 50 percent while increasing the 

fuel efficiency.748 McDonnell Douglas announced

that the refanned engines would be added to their

DC–9s in the 1980s, but both the DC–9 and the

Boeing 727 became outdated before Refan technology

was incorporated. The advancements were applied

instead to the next-generation Boeing 737 and

MD–80.749,750

v v v v v v

The 1973 Oil Embargo triggered fuel shortages and 

precipitous rises in energy prices that impacted the 

airline industry exceptionally hard. As a result NASA 

instituted the Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program 

(ACEE) in 1975 to develop new technologies to

improve aircraft efficiency.751 The ACEE effort

included three airframe programs based at Langley and 

three propulsion programs based at Lewis—Engine 

Component Improvement (ECI), Energy Efficient 

Engine (E3), and the Advanced Turboprop (ATP). 

NASA’s primary partners for the ACEE propulsion 

studies were General Electric and Pratt & Whitney.

The ECI program sought to quickly improve fuel

efficiency by modifying the components on existing 

engines that received the most wear and by developing 

methods to detect engine deterioration. The Lewis staff 

first identified 150 prospective short-term improvements that would increase efficiency by five percent 

on the two most prevalent engine models for airliners. 

The 16 most plausible concepts were then evaluated 

and developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s.752 

General Electric emerged from the ECI program with 

enhanced components such as a redesigned fan, a

single-shank blade, and active clearance control for

turbines, as well as significantly improved engine

diagnostics. At the time, retrofitting the existing engines 

was not considered cost effective, but the industry was

pleased with the Lewis research results and incorporated

the improvements into new engine models.753

The E3 Program sought to develop new turbofan

engines that would reduce fuel consumption and

operating costs while adhering to noise and pollution regulations. General Electric and Pratt & Whitney based the designs for their experimental engines 

on the high-bypass turbofan engine. The companies 

created preliminary designs, worked on component 

improvements, and then tested the new hardware 

on engine cores. Budget cuts in 1982 forced NASA 

to cancel its full-scale testing of the engines, but

General Electric went on to test their model the

following year, demonstrating that it had achieved the 

program’s goals.754 General Electric integrated its E3
 212

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

engine speed and thus less fuel. Lewis had tested several turboprop models in the Altitude Wind Tunnel 

during the NACA period, and several airliners had 

employed the engines in the 1950s. The new ATP

engines, however, were designed for efficient highspeed aircraft. These modern engines had at least eight 

blades and were swept back for better performance and 

noise reduction. 

Daniel Mikkelson of Lewis and Carl Rohrbach of

propeller manufacturer Hamilton Standard began 

revisiting the turboprop concept in the early 1970s 

before ACEE began. Soon a team of Lewis engineers

Image 273: Salvatore Grisaffe (left) and Oral Mehmed with a Hamilton Standard SR–6 propfan in the 8×6 test 

section (GRC–1980–C–04620).

advances into the design of its CF6–80E and GE90 

engines. Pratt & Whitney continued to develop their 

E3

 technologies and eventually incorporated them into 

their Geared Turbofan engine in the mid-2000s.755

The ATP program was the most significant ACEE 

propulsion effort. It sought to resurrect and greatly 

enhance the turboprop (propeller driven by a gas turbine) technology that emerged in the 1940s and 1950s. 

The new engines were intended to perform as well as 

the turbofan engines used by airliners while providing fuel savings of 20 to 30 percent. The turboprops

could move large quantities of air, so they required less 
Crisis 213

John H. Glenn Research Center

was working on the project.756 After the Lewis

researchers developed the advanced turboprop theory 

and established its potential performance capabilities, 

they began an almost decade-long partnership with 

Hamilton Standard to develop, verify, and improve the 

concept. 

Despite its promise, the ATP was initially left out of 

the 1975 ACEE program because of the perceived

social stigma regarding propellers and the reluctance 

of the airline industry to completely overhaul its

collective fleet.757 Lewis and Hamilton Standard continued their efforts, however, and tested a series of 

small-scale models with different blade shapes and 

angles in the 8×6 wind tunnel. The performance of 

the single-rotation propfan proved successful enough 

to convince NASA to incorporate the ATP into the 

ACEE program in 1978. NASA would significantly 

expand the ATP program in the 1980s.758

Image 275: Display for November 1982 Propfan Acoustics Workshop at Lewis (GRC–1982–C–6372).

Image 274: General Electric E3

 (GRC–1983–C–03109).
 214

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

that permitted a single

spacecraft to visit multiple outer planets. 

Viking was the first

attempt to send an

orbiter and lander to 

Mars. NASA scheduled six TitanCentaur missions—

two Vikings, two Voyagers, and two German

Helios vehicles to

capture close-up data

from the Sun. The 

Viking and Voyager

missions were among

NASA’s most important efforts during the 

1970s, and there was 

tremendous pressure 

to meet the deadlines 

and limited launch 

windows.

Because the Viking vehicles were over three times the

weight of Atlas-Centaur’s previous heaviest payload,

NASA engineers decided to mate Centaur with the

more powerful Titan III. General Dynamics introduced a new Centaur model for Titan—the D–1T. 

Image 276: Atlas-Centaur decal highlighting its interplanetary missions.

Image 277: Centaur rocket control room in the Development Engineering Building during the preparations for the TitanCentaur-Helios launch on 10 December 1974. From here the Lewis staff in Cleveland could monitor and back up the Lewis 

launch team in the actual control room at Cape Canaveral (GRC–1974–C–04007). 

Titan-Centaur

The Centaur Program, particularly the new TitanCentaur vehicle, produced the center’s highest-profile 

accomplishments of the 1970s. Centaur staff members, who had a full launch schedule and offices outside 

the main Lewis campus, were almost impervious to the 

center’s funding trials during this period. Lewis worked 

with General Dynamics to update Centaur with a new 

computer system and an equipment module. 

Lewis managed the Atlas-Centaur launches of

communications satellites and space telescopes, as

well as 13 planetary launches over a 10-year span—a

feat that had not been equaled before or since. These 

began with three Mariner missions to Mars and the 

Pioneer 10 visit to Jupiter.

In 1973, the new Centaur D1–A sent Pioneer 11

by Jupiter and Saturn, before this spacecraft also

exited the solar system, and launched Mariner 10, 

the first spacecraft to use the gravitational pull of

one planet (Venus) to reach another (Mercury).759,760

Centaur’s greatest achievements during this busy

decade were accomplished with an alternative booster

vehicle, the Titan III. In the late 1960s NASA

engineers began planning two ambitious space

exploration initiatives—Voyager and Viking. Voyager

would take advantage of a rare planetary alignment
Crisis 215

John H. Glenn Research Center

after Centaur’s RL–10 engines failed to operate. Lewis 

and General Dynamics investigators concluded that

the failure of Centaur’s liquid-oxygen boost pumps 

was not unique to the Titan-Centaur and could have

occurred on any of the previous Atlas-Centaur

missions.765 The successful Helios-1 launch in

December 1974 restored confidence in Centaur.

Nonetheless, tensions were high as work proceeded

toward the scheduled spacecraft launches, including 

The D1–T’s biggest modification was its use of a

completely new fairing: the Centaur Standard

Shroud. Lewis tested a scale-model of the shroud

extensively in the 8×6 and evaluated the full-size

fairing at Plum Brook Station’s Nuclear Rocket

Dynamics and Control Facility (B–3) test stand and

Space Power Facility in the early 1970s.761,762

The first Titan-Centaur launch was a proof test

of the launch vehicle. Since the proof test did not

have a scheduled payload, Lewis researchers designed

the small Space Plasma, High Voltage Interaction

Experiment (SPHINX) research satellite to take

advantage of the free ride. Researchers designed it

to study the electrical interaction of SPHINX’s

experimental surfaces with space plasma to determine

if higher orbits would improve the transmission

quality of communications satellites.763,764

v v v v v v

The 11 February 1974 launch, however, proved to be 

one of the Launch Vehicle Division’s darkest days. 

The launch pad safety officer destroyed the vehicle

Image 278: Saturn and its moon Titan as seen from Pioneer 11 on 

26 August 1979 (NASA GPN–2002–0006).

Image 279: Titan-Centaur carrying Viking 1 (1975–L–07178). 
 216

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

before going their separate ways. Voyager 1 then

headed toward the edge of the solar system. Meanwhile Voyager 2 became the first spacecraft to approach

Uranus and Neptune in 1986 and 1989, respectively. 

Then Voyager 2 also began to exit the solar system. The 

two space probes succeeded in leaving the solar system 

in 2004 and 2007.768

Centaur closed out its eventful decade with the 1978

Atlas-Centaur launches that sent Pioneers 12 and 13 

toward Venus.769 The mighty Titan-Centaur was

retired, as it prepared to transfer its launch services to 

the space shuttle. An updated version of the vehicle 

was resurrected in the 1990s.

v v v v v v

Although Lewis’s work on liquid-hydrogen injectors, 

turbopumps, and nozzles in the 1960s influenced the 

design of the Space Shuttle Main Engines, the center 

did not play a direct role in the primary development of 

the actual shuttle. Lewis did, however, provide critical 

test data in support of the shuttle design and contributed to improvements of the shuttle insulation system 

and fuel cells. The former was essential to protect the 

vehicle during reentry, and the latter powered all of the 

shuttle’s on-board equipment.770

Image 280: Ken Baskin checks a complete 2.25-scale model of the shuttle in the 10×10 test section during July 1975 (GRC–1975–C–02011).

those for the $1 billion Viking Program. The marquee

twin Viking launches occurred on 20 August and

7 September 1975. The Titan, Centaur, and Centaur

Standard Shroud performed perfectly on both

launches. The two orbiters and landers arrived at Mars

in July and September 1976, respectively. The landings, the first ever on Mars, were one of NASA’s

biggest achievements in the post-Apollo years. Lewis

News described the scene the following summer when 

Viking made its first transmissions from Mars, “All the 

problems associated with the Viking program seemed

to evaporate when [Titan-Centaur Director Andy] 

Stofan, together with other scientists who had spent

their entire careers dedicated to the program, watched 

the martianscape appear on the screens—line by line—

a year later at the Jet Propulsion Lab in California.”766

The successes were followed by another Helios launch 

in January 1976. The two Voyager missions to explore 

several outer planets, referred to as the Grand Tour, 

were next. The successful 20 August 1977 Voyager 1 

launch was followed 16 days later by Voyager 2. The 

complex missions required the Titan-Centaur to perform six different engine burns to achieve the proper 

trajectories.767 The two Voyager spacecraft visited

Jupiter in 1979 and Saturn in late 1980 and 1981
Crisis 217

John H. Glenn Research Center

In July 1975 Lewis engineer Ken Baskin conducted 

a series of tests with a subscale model of the shuttle 

launch vehicle in the 10×10.771 Baskin sought to

determine the effects of the recirculation of the rocket 

exhaust on the shuttle’s external fuel tank and solid 

rocket boosters. He simulated launch conditions by 

firing the rockets in the same manner as during a shuttle launch. Rockwell International engineers utilized 

the data from the 10×10 runs to facilitate the design 

of the shuttle’s insulation systems.772 Then Lewis and 

Rockwell followed up these tests in 1977 with additional heating studies on a slightly larger version of the 

shuttle model. Technicians installed over 100 hightemperature transducers on the model to read heat 

and pressure distributions as it was fired in the 10×10. 

The 10×10 tests were augmented by similar studies in 

the 8×6 and Ames’s 11- by 11-Foot Transonic Wind

Tunnel. Rockwell used the information to evaluate a 

new reusable blanket-type insulation for the shuttle.773

The shuttle’s electric system was powered by three 

hydrogen and oxygen fuel cells, and NASA engineers 

were concerned about the longevity of these devices on 

extended missions. Fuel cells rely on powdered catalysts to expedite the reaction of the hydrogen with the 

oxygen. The effectiveness of these powders, however, 

declined eventually, causing short circuits and inefficiencies. In 1974 Lewis researchers determined that a 

new gold and platinum alloy was more efficient than 

the existing platinum and palladium combination. The 

new catalyst reduced the required fuel cells from three 

to two, resulting in both cost and weight savings.774

On 12 April 1981 Columbia rose up from Launch 

Pad A into the Florida sky and became the first space 

shuttle to enter orbit and land on a runway. The launch 

signaled NASA’s return of humans to space and the

beginning of a new era of space research. Although 

Lewis did not have a large role in the shuttle development, it would be a primary contributor of experiments to be performed during shuttle missions.

Communications

Communications satellites were one of the space

program’s most tangible products for the public.

Until NASA launched a series of new commercial 

satellites in the early 1960s, all telephone and television transmission required cables. The initial communications satellites were basically mirrors that 

reflected transmissions from one site to another.

A number of test facilities, including the Space Power

Chambers (SPC), began closing their doors in the 

mid-1970s because of staff and program reductions. 

The SPC included a whole complex of support buildings, including one that housed the large compressors 

and exhausters used to simulate altitudes within the 

facility. In July 1970 Lewis converted a section of this 

Exhauster Building into the Aerospace Information

Display. The room featured models, hardware, and 

exhibits that had been used at various outreach 

events in the 1960s. 

By 1975 all of the exhauster equipment had been 

removed from the building. Lewis soon expanded the 

display area throughout the building, which was first 

renamed the Visitors Information Center and then 

the Visitors Center. It not only housed an array of 

exhibit displays, but provided educational supplies 

for teachers, staff members, and the general public. It 

also served as home for Lewis’s Speakers Bureau. The

effort was a success, and the Visitors Center became

a popular attraction for the community, particularly 

local schools.776

Image 281: Aircraft models hang in the Visitor Center foyer 

(GRC–1977–C–04170).

Telstar, launched in 1962, was the first satellite to

amplify the signal and retransmit it, providing the 

first transatlantic television signal. The Intelsats of the 

mid-1960s could handle hundreds of different channels, providing instantaneous television and telephone 

contact with other continents.775
 218

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 282: Lewis News article about CTS receiving an Emmy. 

Image 283: Lewis-designed CTS transmitting vehicle 

(GRC–1977–C–01038).

Image 284: The CTS satellite is prepped for testing in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory vacuum tanks during November 1974 

(GRC–1974–C–03902).

As innovative as these devices were, they still required 

relatively large transmission and receiving equipment 

on the ground. NASA developed two programs in 

the early 1970s to test experimental satellites capable 

of significantly amplifying the signal and, therefore,

reducing the size of ground equipment. The

Applications Technology Satellite–6 (ATS), launched 

in May 1974, employed a narrow high-power beam 

that reduced the equipment size and allowed reception 

in remote areas. ATS–6 broadcast a variety of educational programs to locations around the globe, but 

only over an area of roughly 40,000 square miles at a 

time.777

The Communications Technology Satellite (CTS), 

a joint venture between Lewis and the Canadian

Department of Communications, used a more powerful transmitter that could provide the same quality

signal over a larger area—about one-third of the country. This capability stemmed from a new travelingwave-tube technology developed at Lewis.778,779
Crisis 219

John H. Glenn Research Center

Research Analysis Center

Data recording was an essential element for testing. 

There was no use running a test if the data could not 

be recorded and analyzed. As testing became more 

sophisticated, the costs of data recording and storage 

escalated.787 Although Lewis researchers continually 

designed more efficient methods of data collection, it 

had become apparent by the mid-1970s that the center’s computing capabilities were lacking. This was 

particularly true in the rapidly expanding new field 

of computational fluid dynamics and structures.788

Despite the Agency’s budget woes, NASA funded a 

new centralized computer center at Lewis. Ground was 

broken for the new Research Analysis Center (RAC) 

in January 1979 at the former site of the center’s picnic grounds. The RAC building would be the first new 

building at the center since the late 1960s.

The RAC building opened in 1980. It featured a large, 

open area for the mainframe computers and two floors 

of office space. Complying with President Jimmy

Carter’s energy efficiency directives, the Lewis design 

utilized the heat from the computer systems to warm 

the entire building, employed energy-efficient lighting, 

and reduced its window areas.789

The $12 million new Cray S/2200 computer system 

went into operation in October 1982. Linked to all 

of Lewis’s test facilities via coaxial cable, the Cray was 

a number cruncher that could be used for computational flow dynamics and structural analyses. It allowed

researchers to use visualizations to analyze test data 

and predictive models. The Cray was 10 times faster 

and one-quarter the physical size of the IBM 370 that 

it was replacing.790

Image 285: Work stations in the RAC building 

(GRC–1981–C–03752).

Henry Kosmahl’s Multistage Depressed Collector was 

the key element of the CTS.780 It was developed in 

the late 1960s to increase the efficiency of the microwave tubes used to amplify signals on communications

satellites. By adding the multistage collector to the 

tube, Kosmahl was able to capture significantly more 

electrons from the signal than with a standard tube. 

The resulting efficiency was over twice that of contemporary tubes, and the improved traveling-wave 

tube enabled smaller, less-expensive ground receiving

stations to be used. 

Lewis tested the collector and a model of the CTS 

satellite in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory’s

vacuum tanks, and managed the Delta launch vehicle that placed CTS in orbit on 17 January 1976. In

addition, the satellite’s primary control center with 

eight reflector antennas was based at Lewis. Lewis also 

designed a mobile CTS station that consisted of a bus 

and a trailer that were equipped with a large antenna, 

recording equipment, and cameras for live television 

interviews.781,782

Lewis controlled and coordinated CTS’s U.S.-

sponsored experiments. Throughout 1977 and 1978 

NASA permitted qualified groups to utilize CTS 

from one of the three transmission centers. The primary users came from the education, medical, special

services, and technology fields, but CTS also was

utilized to address specific needs, like enabling flood 

victims to contact out-of-state relatives. 

As planned, NASA terminated CTS activities in

1979 after three successful years of operation.783

CTS transmitted power levels that were 10 to 20

times higher than those of contemporary satellites.784 

This reduced the cost of satellite transmission and

expanded reception to areas that had smaller, less

sophisticated ground receiving equipment.785

CTS technology was successfully applied to a number of communication satellites, providing access to a

variety of users who had previously been priced-out of 

the field, many of whom went on to use commercial 

communication satellites.786

In 1987 the CTS team received the first Emmy ever 

presented to a federal agency.
 220

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

v v v v v v 

Lewis had many personal computers and word processing units scattered throughout the center, but 

they were not always compatible or connected with 

one another. In the late 1970s, the Computer Services

Division (CSD) began analyzing the center’s future 

network requirements. As a result, the center sought 

to synchronize its disparate systems with the new Cray 

supercomputer in the RAC Building and to create

a more interactive computing culture. Technicians

installed nearly 22 miles of coaxial cables to connect 

the various systems across the campus.791,792 

In August 1982 Lewis became the first NASA center

with an operational integrated network.793 CSD

introduced the Lewis Information Network (LINK) 

to take advantage of this new cable backbone. The 

LINK network handled high-speed telecommunications, internet, and video transmissions. It also allowed 

real-time transmission of data from the test facilities 

to the main IBM 370 processor and back to the facilities. Lewis could connect computer systems at other 

centers to LINK via a satellite dish located behind the 

RAC.794

With LINK in place, the CSD began taking steps to 

provide desktop computing for every employee and

established the Lewis Information Management

System (LIMS) project office in 1984 to develop and 

implement the effort. In October 1987 the center held 

a ceremony in the Administration Building auditorium 

to unveil a LIMS workstation for employees.795 Over 

the next three years the center installed 3,000 diskoperating-system- (DOS-) based personal computers.

796 LIMS improved word processing and other

existing services, introduced new capabilities like 

email, and provided greater access to computational 

and graphical programs.797 The benefits of computers were now literally at the fingertips of every Lewis 

employee.

New Perspective

Bruce Lundin retired in August 1977 after 35 years 

at the center and nearly 8 as Center Director. The

final years were trying, but Lundin managed to guide 

the center through yet another major transformation. 

Bernard Lubarsky, another Lewis veteran, served as 

Acting Director for over a year after Lundin’s departure. Funding for aeronautics and energy programs

improved in the mid-1970s, but support for other

Image 286: Cray computer system in the RAC building (GRC–1982–C–05464).
Crisis 221

John H. Glenn Research Center

Lewis mainstays like chemical rocket research

was reduced by similar amounts.798 The 

combination of budget cuts and Lewis’s

enthusiastic interest in programs that 

focused on Earth’s resources spurred

rumors that the center would be transferred from NASA to the DOE. The 

center’s perceived lack of direction worried some staff members. Lubarsky

increased the number of staff/management 

AWARENESS meetings to try to stem the 

increasing malaise at the center.799,800

In November 1978, NASA brought in

John McCarthy, former Director of Space 

Research at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, to formally succeed Lundin.

Being Lewis’s first Director without any 

NASA experience, McCarthy was able to view the 

center’s problems from a new perspective. In his first 

address to the staff, McCarthy did not hesitate to

explain that Lewis and Cleveland had a poor reputation 

elsewhere in the country. In addition to the city’s bankruptcy and pollution problems, which were well known,

McCarthy explained that others mistakenly considered Lewis’s research programs and staff as pedestrian. 

He continued, “I think that Lewis is plagued with the 

problem of spending all their time doing their job and 

ignoring the selling aspects and the PR aspects, including [promoting Lewis work at] headquarters.”801

McCarthy and Lubarsky met for several days with 

NASA officials to discuss the Agency’s long-range 

plans, and tasked Seymour Himmel with the

development of a plan to restore Lewis’s reputation.

Showcasing of the center’s talents was the first

step.802 McCarthy initiated a series of annual reports 

that described the center’s competencies, goals, and

accomplishments. Unlike his predecessors, McCarthy 

also spent a good deal of time in Washington, DC, 

seeking support for Lewis from Headquarters and

local representatives. Lubarsky left NASA in January 

1979 to serve in the Central Intelligence Agency.803

President Ronald Reagan’s administration, which took office in 1980, implemented a series of reductions that 

threatened to not only derail McCarthy’s 

efforts but shut down the center once 

and for all. The conservative think tank, 

the Heritage Foundation, issued a report 

advocating sharp reductions of expenditures across most federal agencies.804

Science and research were among the 

areas on the chopping block, including 

civil aviation research. Budget Director

David Stockman instructed NASA 

to trim its nonshuttle budget by 

nearly one-third. This had serious

implications for not only Lewis, but 

Ames and Langley, as well.805

Image 287: Lewis’s first attempt at annual self-assessment and planning.

Image 288: Director John McCarthy (left), former Acting Director Bernie 

Lubarsky (center), and future Director Andy Stofan (GRC–1978–C–04732).
 222

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 289: The Lewis hangar in November 1981 (GRC–1981–C–05731).

McCarthy increased his efforts to drum up support 

locally—from industry—and in Washington, DC, 

where Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar and other

local representatives took up the fight. Ten upperlevel Lewis managers established a Save the Center 

Committee to augment McCarthy’s efforts.806,807

The crisis reached its apex in December 1981 when 

Stockman rejected a NASA appeal to ease the cuts.808

There was pushback from some key figures, however. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger stressed 

that the cuts would impede development of the new 

stealth bombers; Neil Armstrong stated that previous aeronautics cuts did not spur additional industry 

research; and Representative Don Fuqua warned that 

the cuts would “drive the nail into the coffin” of the 

U.S. aeronautical program, resulting in a “second rate 

power.”809 NASA officials met with top White House

advisors on Friday, 11 December 1981. By Monday it 

was clear that Lewis would remain open.810,811

The hour of crisis had passed. Administrator James 

Beggs praised McCarthy for standing “strong and tall” 

during the budget crisis and closure talks.812 In March 

1982 McCarthy announced he was returning to

academia.813 Lewis, however, had turned the corner.
Crisis 223

John H. Glenn Research Center

644. Marvin Tiefermann, Ozone Measurement System for 

NASA Global Air Sampling Program (Washington, 

DC: NASA TP−1451, 1979). 

645. Thomas Dudzinski, Carbon Monoxide Measurement 

in the Global Atmospheric Sampling Program 

(Washington, DC: NASA TP–1526, 1979).

646. “Researchers Find Out What’s Over the Poles,” Lewis 

News (11 November 1977).

647. William Jasperson and James Holdeman, 

Tabulations of Ambient Ozone Data Obtained by 

GASP Airliners; March 1975 to July 1979 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM−82742, 1984).

648. Warren Hovis, John Knoll, and Gilbert Smith, 

“Aircraft Measurements for Calibration of an 

Orbiting Spacecraft Sensor,” Applied Optics 24, no. 3 

(1 February 1985). 

649. T. D. Brennan and Richard Gedney, Coast Guard/

NOAA/NASA Great Lakes Project ICEWARN 

(Washington, DC: NASA N76266555, 1976). 

650. “Ice Information System May Help Shippers,” Lewis 

News (6 April 1973).

651. R. J. Jirberg, R. J. Schertler, and R. T. Gedney,

Application of SLAR for Monitoring Great Lakes 

Total Ice Cover (Washington, DC: NASA TM 

X–71473, 1973). 

652. James Haggerty, “Waterway Ice Thickness 

Measurements,” Spinoff 1978, An Annual Report 

(Washington, DC: NASA, 1978).

653. Paul Rogers, “EPA History: The Clean Air Act of 

1970,” EPA Journal ( January/February 1990), 

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-cleanair-act-1970 (accessed 2 March 2015).

654. C. C. Gleason and R. W. Niedzwiecki, Results of the 

NASA/General Electric Experimental Clean

Combustor Program (Reston, VA: AIAA

No. 76−763, 1976).

655. “Technology in the Service of Man, Lewis Research 

Center,” 1973, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

656. C. T. Chang, et al., “NASA Glenn Combustion 

Research for Aeronautical Propulsion,” Journal of 

Aerospace Engineering (April 2013).

657. “Technology in the Service of Man.”

658. Dipanjay Dewanji, “Lean Direct Injection,” Leonardo 

Times ( June 2012). 

659. “Low NOx, Lean Direct Wall Injection 

Combustor Concept Developed,” Research and 

Technology, 2002. 

660. “Technology in the Service of Man.”

661. Lundin, “On the Management of National Energy 

R&D.”

662. Chang, “NASA Glenn Combustion Research.”

Endnotes for Chapter 7

626. Bruce Lundin, untitled talk at Plum Brook Station, 

5 January 1973, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Bruce Lundin Collection, Cleveland, OH.

627. Robert Didelot interview, Cleveland, OH, by Mark 

Bowles, 22 January 2002, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

628. “NASA Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program Marked 

for Elimination,” Aerospace Daily 113, no. 36 

(January 1982).

629. Bruce Lundin to Lewis Employees and Resident 

Personnel, “Cleveland Press News Item,” 21 January 

1971, NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors 

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

630. Bruce Lundin to Lewis Employees, “Reduction in 

Force,” 14 March 1972, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

631. William McCann, “NASA to Ax 600 Jobs at Lewis 

Center,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (6 January 1973). 

632. Ihor Gawdiak and Helen Fedor, NASA

Historical Databook Volume IV, NASA Resources 

1969–1978 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4012, 

1994). 

633. Jane Van Nimmen, Leonard Bruno, and Robert 

Rosholt, NASA Historical Databook Volume I, NASA 

Resources 1958–1968 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–4012, 1976). 

634. Lynn Manley, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 66–60, 30 September 1966, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Press Release Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

635. Walter T. Olson, “Lewis at 40: A Reflection,” Lewis 

News (25 September 1981). 

636. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis 

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991). 

637. Robert English interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson, 11 July 1986, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

638. Bruce Lundin, “On the Management of National 

Energy R&D,” 4 January 1974, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

639. Charles Kelsey, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 72–2, 19 April 1972.

640. Hugh Harris, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 71–1, 5 January 1971.

641. Charles Kelsey, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 72–102, 21 November 1972.

642. “Technology in the Service of Man.”

643. “GASP Monitors Fluorocarbons,” Lewis News

(27 June 1975).
 224

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

663. “ALERT Committee Offers Six Programs,” Lewis 

News (5 October 1973).

664. “ALERT Committee.”

665. Bruce Lundin, “Lewis Means Teamwork,” pamphlet, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

666. E. C. Kilgore to George Low, “NASA Inspections,” 

14 December 1972, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

667. “Technology in the Service of Man.”

668. Walter Olson to George Low, “NASA Inspection: 

Technology in the Service of Man, Lewis 1973,” 

29 November 1973, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

669. John Donnelly to George Low, 20 December 1973, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Inspections

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

670. “U.S. Energy Information Administration, Energy 

Perspectives 2011,” Table 1.1 (Washington, DC: 

USEIA, 2011).

671. Richard Nixon, “Address to the Nation About 

Policies To Deal With the Energy Shortages” 

(7 November 1973), Online by Gerhard Peters and 

John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4034 

(accessed 14 July 2015).

672. Olson, Lewis at 40.

673. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

674. Andrew Stofan, “Foreword,” Technical Facilities 

Lewis Research Center (Washington, DC: 

GPO−1982−561−508, 1982).

675. David Spera, Wind Turbine Technology (New York, 

NY: ASME Press, 2009).

676. Joseph Savino, A Brief Summary of the Attempts to 

Develop Large Wind-Electric Generating Systems in 

the US (Washington, DC: NASA TM X–71605, 

1974). 

677. “ERDA/NASA/NSF Wind Energy Program,” 

c1973, NASA Glenn History Collection, Wind 

Energy Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

678. “National Need: Abundant Domestic Supplies of 

Clean Energy,” NASA CS-65027, c1972, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Wind Energy Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

679. Alfred Eggers and Bruce Lundin, “Memorandum of 

Understanding Between Research Applications 

Directorate of the National Science Foundation and 

the NASA Lewis Research Center Concerning 

Cooperative & Collaborative Efforts for a Program of 

Research in Wind Energy Conversion,” 4 December 

1973, NASA Glenn History Collection, Wind 

Energy Collection, Cleveland, OH.

680. L. V. Divone, “Evolution of Modern Wind Turbines,” 

Wind Turbine Technology, D. A. Spera, editor

(New York, NY: ASME Press, 1994).

681. David Spera, “Ten-Year Wind Turbine Program Sets 

Stage for Future,” Lewis News (29 November 1985).

682. James Schefter, Capturing Energy from the Wind 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP−455, 1982).

683. Sheila Bailey, Larry Viterna, and K. R. Rao, “Role 

of NASA in Photovoltaic and Wind Energy,” Energy 

and Power Generation Handbook: Established and 

Emerging Technologies (New York, NY: ASME, 

2011).

684. Spera, “Ten-Year Wind Turbine Program.”

685. Larry Viterna interview, Cleveland, OH, 

4 September 2015, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

686. Divone, “Evolution of Modern Wind Turbines.”

687. L. A. Viterna, “Method for Predicting Impulsive 

Noise Generated by Wind Turbine Rotors,” 

Internoise 82 Proceedings (San Francisco, CA: 

International Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 

1982), pp. 339–342.

688. Divone, “Evolution of Modern Wind Turbines.”

689. Bradford Linscott, Joann Dennett, and Larry Gordon, 

The Mod-2 Wind Turbine Development Project 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–82681, 1981).

690. Divone, “Evolution of Modern Wind Turbines.”

691. Gipe, Wind Energy Comes of Age.

692. Larry Viterna interview.

693. Spera, Wind Turbine Technology.

694. Bailey, “Role of NASA.”

695. Ronald Thomas, DOE/NAA Lewis Large Wind 

Turbine Program (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–82991, 1982).

696. Divone, “Evolution of Modern Wind Turbines.”

697. David Spera, Bibliography of NASA-Related 

Publications on Wind Turbine Technology

1973–1975 (Washington, DC: NASA CR–195462, 

1995).

698. Spera, “Ten-Year Wind Turbine Program.”

699. Bailey, “Role of NASA.”

700. Larry Viterna interview.

701. Spera, Wind Turbine Technology.

702. Bailey, “Role of NASA.”

703. Lyons, “Power and Propulsion.”

704. A. C. Hansen and C. P. Butterfield, “Aerodynamics of 

Horizonal-Axis Wind Turbines,” Annual Review of 

Fluid Mechanics 25 (1993): 115–149.

705. Bailey, “Role of NASA.”
Crisis 225

John H. Glenn Research Center

728. Miles Dustin and Robert Denington, Test and

Evaluation of 23 Electric Vehicles for State-of-the-Art 

Assessment (Washington, DC: NASA TM–73850, 

1978).

729. “Technology in the Service of Man.”

730. Seymour Lieblein, Problem Areas for Lift Fan 

Propulsion for Civil VTOL Transports (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM X–52907, 1970).

731. Seymour Lieblein, “V/TOL Aircraft,” Exploring in

Aeronautics (Washington, DC: NASA EP–89, 

1971).

732. Ronald Blaha, “Completed Schedules of NASA 

Lewis Wind Tunnels, Facilities and Aircraft

1944–1986,” February 1987, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Test Facilities Collection, Cleveland, OH.

733. “V/STOL Propulsion Is...,” Lewis News

(28 March 1980).

734. Seth Anderson, Historical Overview of V/STOL 

Aircraft Technology (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–81280, 1981).

735. Carl Ciepluch, A Review of the QCSEE Program 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–71818, 1975).

736. “Technology in the Service of Man.”

737. Harry Bloomer and Irvin Loeffler, QCSEE Overthe-Wing Engine Acoustic Data (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM–82708, 1982).

738. Robert Arrighi, Pursuit of Power NASA’s 

Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2012–4548, 2012).

739. Joseph Lubomski, Characteristics of Aeroelastic 

Instabilities in Turbomachinery: NASA Full Scale 

Engine Test Results (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–79085, 1979).

740. Ross Willoh, et al., “Engine Systems Technology,” 

Aeronautical Propulsion (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–381, 1954). 

741. Richard P. Hallion, On the Frontier: Flight Research 

at Dryden, 1946-1981 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–4303, 1984).

742. Link Jaw and Sanjay Garg, Propulsion Control

Technology Development in the United States

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2005-213978, 

2005).

743. D. Kurtz, J. W. H. Chivers, and A. A. Ned Kulite, 

Sensor Requirements for Active Gas Turbine Engine 

Control (Leonia, NJ: Kulite Semiconductor

Products, Inc., 2001).

744. Lundin, “On the Management of National Energy 

R&D.”

745. “Quieting the Skies,” 19 September 1973, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Inspection Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

706. Susan Johnson and Frederick Simon, Evaluation of 

Flat-Plate Collector Efficiency Under Controlled 

Conditions in a Solar Simulator (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM X–73520, 1976).

707. William Bifano, et al., Social and Economic Impact 

of Solar Electricity at Schuchuli Village: A Status 

Report (Washington, DC: NASA TM–79194, 

1979).

708. Bailey, “Role of NASA.”

709. Ken Atchison and Paul Bohn, Solar Cell Systems to 

be Used in Experimental Third World Projects 

(Washington, DC: NASA Release 81–10172, 1981).

710. Lyons, “Power and Propulsion.”

711. Bailey, “Role of NASA.”

712. “The Lewis Space Solar Cell Team,” Lewis News

(12 October 1979).

713. Del Zatroch and James Blue, “Cyclotron’s Fast

Neutrons Fight Cancer,” Lewis News (14 June 1985). 

714. Donald Alger and Robert Steinberg, A High Yield 

Neutron Target for Cancer Therapy (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM X–68179, 1973).

715. “Purer Isotope Technique May Help Medicine,” 

Lewis News (23 October 1970).

716. “Lewis Cancer Treating Cyclotron Shuts Down,” 

Lewis News (1 February 1991).

717. Noel Nightingale, Automotive Stirling Engine

Mod II Design Report (Washington, DC: NASA 

CR–175106, 1986).

718. William Tabata, Automotive Stirling Engine

Development Program—A Success (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM–89892, 1987).

719. Nightingale, Automotive Stirling Engine.

720. Mechanical Technology Incorporated, Assessment 

of the State of Technology of Automotive Stirling 

Engines (Washington, DC: NASA CR–159631, 

1979).

721. Tabata, Automotive Stirling Engine Development.

722. William Tomazic, “Stirling Engine Technology

Project Tests New Automotive and Space Power 

Uses,” Lewis News (31 May 1985).

723. Nightingale, Automotive Stirling Engine.

724. Tabata, Automotive Stirling Engine Development.

725. “The ERDA–NASA Energy Activities Team,” Lewis 

News (14 May 1976), p. 3.

726. Rebecca Matulka, “The History of the Electric Car” 

(15 September 2014), http://energy.gov/articles/ 

history-electric-car (accessed 1 June 2015).

727. “New Technology for Transportation,” NASA

Spinoff 1977 (Washington, DC: NASA, 1977), 

p. 90.
 226

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

746. “Quieting the Skies.”

747. “Refan Program Flight Tests JT8D’s,” Lewis News 

(24 January 1975).

748. Leonard Stitt and A. A. Medeiros, Reduction of 

JT8D Powered Aircraft Noise by Engine Refanning 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM X–71536, 1974).

749. “Refan Powers New Aircraft,” Lewis News

(23 December 1977). 

750. Dennis Huff, “NASA Glenn’s Contributions to 

Aircraft Engine Noise Research,” Journal of 

Aerospace Engineering (April 2013).

751. Mark Bowles, The Apollo of Aeronautics: NASA’s 

Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program 1973–1977 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2009–574, 2009).

752. Donald Nored, “ACEE Propulsion Overview,” c mid1970s, NASA Glenn History Collection, ACEE 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

753. N. N. Anderson, “NAS 3–20636—Engine 

Component Improvement Program, Airline 

Evaluation,” 19 December 1980, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, ACEE Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

754. Carl Ciepluch, Donald Davis, and David Gray, 

“Results of NASA’s Energy Efficient Engine 

Program,” Journal of Propulsion 3, no. 6 (1987).

755. Bowles, Apollo of Aeronautics.

756. Bowles, Apollo of Aeronautics.

757. Bowles, Apollo of Aeronautics.

758. Bowles, Apollo of Aeronautics.

759. P. Genser, “Overall Atlas & Centaur Flight Record,” 

30 April 1980, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Centaur Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

760. Dawson, Taming Liquid Hydrogen.

761. Titan/Centaur Project Office, Centaur Standard 

Shroud Cryogenic Unlatch Tests (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM X–71455, 1973). 

762. Lewis Research Center Staff, Centaur Standard 

Shroud Heated Altitude Jettison Tests (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM X–71814, 1975).

763. John Stevens, Solar Array Experiments on the 

SPHINX Satellite (Washington, DC: NASA TM 

X–71458, 1973). 

764. Hugh Harris, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release No. 74–5, 8 February 1974, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Centaur Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

765. R. J. Rollbuhler, Centaur Boost Pump Turbine

Icing Investigation (Washington, DC: NASA TM 

X–73421, 1976).

766. “Lewis Marks Anniversary of Role in Mars Landing,” 

Lewis News (22 August 1986).

767. “Titan-Centaur D-1T TC-6 and TC-7 Launch 

Operations and Flight Events,” 

ELVL−1975−0000860 (1975), NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Centaur Collection, Cleveland, OH.

768. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Voyager: The Interstellar 

Mission” (2015), http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/index. 

html (accessed 15 July 2015).

769. Dawson, Taming Liquid Hydrogen.

770. M. J. Braun, “Technology Transfer: Lewis Research 

Center to Space Shuttle,” 4 November 1981, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

771. Blaha, “Completed Schedules of NASA Lewis Wind 

Tunnels.” 

772. J. W. Foust, Base Pressure and Heat Transfer Tests of 

the 0.0225-Scale Space Shuttle Plume Simulation 

Model (19-OTS) in Yawed Flight Conditions in the 

NASA-Lewis Research Center 10x10-Foot 

Supersonic Wind Tunnel (Washington, DC: NASA 

CR–151415, 1978).

773. B. A. Marshall and J. Marroquin, Results of the 

AFRSI Detailed-Environment Test of the 

0.035-Scale SSV Pressure Loads Model 84-0 in the 

Ames 11x11 Ft. TWT and the Lewis 8x6 Ft. and 

10x10 Ft. SWT (Washington, DC: NASA 

CR–167685, 1984).

774. Martin Braun, “Technology Transfer: Lewis 

Contributions to Space Shuttle,” Lewis News

(26 February 1982).

775. “Technology in the Service of Man.”

776. Calvin Weiss, discussion with Bob Arrighi, 

24 October 2008, NASA Glenn Research Center, 

Cleveland, OH.

777. “Technology in the Service of Man.”

778. Sanford Jones, “Space Electronics Inspection Stop 5,” 

19 September 1973, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Inspections Collection, Cleveland, OH.

779. William Rapp, Dail Ogden, and Darcy Wright, An 

Overview of the Communications Technology

Satellite Project—Executive Summary (Washington, 

DC: NASA CR–168010, 1982).

780. Jones, “Space Electronics Inspection Stop 5.”

781. “CTS Ends Tests,” Lewis News (27 December 1974). 

782. “Lewis Helps With Satellite,” Lewis News

(14 January 1976).

783. Rapp, An Overview of the Communications 

Technology Satellite Project.

784. “NASA Wins Emmy Award for CTS,” Lewis News

(2 October 1987). 

785. Charles Kelsey, NASA Lewis Research Center press 

release 71–19, 6 May 1971.
Crisis 227

John H. Glenn Research Center

808. Judy Grande, “Stockman Key Figure in Future of 

NASA Lab,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (8 December 

1981). 

809. “Budget Cuts Forcing NASA to Close Lewis 

Research Center,” Defense Daily (9 December 1981). 

810. Judy Grande, “There’s Still Hope for Lewis,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer (12 December 1981).

811. Judy Grande, “Lewis Lab to Remain Open,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer (14 December 1981).

812. “Beggs Reaffirms—No More Staff Reductions.”

813. “Week in Review,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(7 March 1982).

786. Rapp, An Overview of the Communications 

Technology Satellite Project.

787. Daniel Whipple, “Proposals and Ideas for the 

Structuring and Design of a Large Facility Data 

System,” November 1981, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Computing Services Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

788. John McCarthy, “Meet the Director,” 8 November 

1978, NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

789. “Ground Broken for One of Nation’s Top 

Technological Computer Centers,” Lewis News

(19 January 1979).

790. “New Computer is Mental Giant,” Lewis News

(8 October 1982).

791. Daniel Whipple interview, Cleveland, OH, by Bonita 

Smith, 2 August 2001, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

792. Roger Schulte, Lewis Information Network (LINK) 

Background and Overview (Washington, DC: NASA 

TM–100162, 1987).

793. NASA Lewis Research Center, “Integrated Program 

Plan for Computing,” February 1990, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Computer Services Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

794. Whipple interview by Smith.

795. “Developed by Representatives from Throughout the 

Center,” Lewis News (30 October 1987).

796. Office of the Inspector General, “Audit of Lewis 

Information Management Systems (LIMS),” Audit 

Report LE–93–002, 19 March 1993, Glenn History 

Collection, Computer Services Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

797. “LIMS Will Enhance Office Productivity,” Lewis 

News (19 October 1984).

798. “State of Center Healthy, Lubarsky Tells Supervisors,” 

Lewis News (11 November 1977). 

799. McCarthy, “Meet the Director.” 

800. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

801. McCarthy, “Meet the Director.”

802. McCarthy, “Meet the Director.”

803. Jeffrey Richelson, The Wizards of Langley: Inside the 

CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology (New 

York, NY: Basic Books, 2008).

804. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

805. “Beggs Reaffirms—No More Staff Reductions,” 

Lewis News (2 July 1982). 

806. Dawson, Engines and Innovation.

807. James Hawker and Richard Dali, Anatomy of an 

Organizational Change Effort at the Lewis Research 

Center (Washington, DC: NASA CR–4146, 1988).
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 290: Andy Stofan speaks at the Shuttle/Centaur rollout ceremony on 23 August 1985 

at General Dynamics’s San Diego headquarters (GRC–1985–C–06212).
John H. Glenn Research Center

8. Bootstrapping the Center

“I want [an employee’s] thoughts 

and his ideas, not just his arms and legs. 

There is an untapped talent of thoughts 

and ideas that is not being utilized.”

—Andy Stofan
230

Image 291: The Icing Research Tunnel’s drive fan as it appeared in July 1982. The IRT had been recently 

restored to support Lewis’s reinstituted icing research program (GRC –1982–C–04302).
Bootstrapping the Center 231

“It was a damn miracle,” Lewis engineer William 

“Red” Robbins recalled of Lewis’s first official strategic planning effort, which included proposals to manage five new large projects. “Now you get one or two 

out of five, that’s ideal. You’re damned lucky. (Center 

Director Andy Stofan) was real lucky. He brought 

them all in.”814 Stofan, who replaced the outgoing John

McCarthy in June 1982, expanded on McCarthy’s 

initial efforts to reverse the reactionary mindset that 

had taken hold at the center. Stofan led a two-pronged 

attack to remake Lewis: first, conduct long-range 

planning with an emphasis on acquiring key Agency 

programs; second, transform the center’s management 

system.

The five new projects referred to by Robbins were the 

next phase of the Advanced Turboprop (ATP) program, the Advanced Communications Technology 

Satellite (ACTS), Shuttle/Centaur, restoration of the 

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) for icing research, and, 

perhaps most importantly, the electrical power system 

for Space Station Freedom. These programs would 

dominate Lewis’s activities for the next decade. They 

not only brought Lewis back into NASA’s primary 

space missions but led to the first new personnel additions in years and a major upgrade to the center’s computing services.

John Klineberg became Director in 1986 and bolstered the center’s future by strengthening its ties with 

industry, universities, and the military. Lewis’s growth 

continued with the appointment of Larry Ross as

Director in 1990. The gradual reopening of Plum 

Brook Station during this period was a palpable sign 

of Lewis’s comeback. President George H. Bush’s 

Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) led to several new 

programs at Plum Brook. Although Lewis succeeded 

technologically in almost all of the new efforts, external factors dimmed the initial promise of several of 

the endeavors. Nonetheless the 1980s and early 1990s 

proved to be as productive as any in the center’s history. 

Lewis was back.

Recreating Lewis

As one of his final acts as Director, John McCarthy 

asked Robbins to initiate a long-range planning effort 

to prevent a recurrence of the threatened shutdown.815

Robbins reorganized the Save the Center Committee 

as the Strategic Planning Committee and set to work. 

The 15-member group, which included representatives 

from Lewis’s space, aeronautics, and institutional areas, 

began meeting in March 1982. Neither McCarthy nor 

incoming Director Andy Stofan participated in this 

process. The committee analyzed the center’s history 

and areas of expertise while trying to predict the 

nation’s future aerospace trends. The group then 

evaluated several alternatives for Lewis to pursue, 

their impact, and political ramifications. For the 

first time in nearly a decade, Lewis was becoming 

aggressive in regards to its future. Over the course 

of a week in June 1982, the committee members 

presented their findings to center management 

and then to Stofan upon his arrival shortly 

thereafter.816

Lewis hired Stofan right out of university in 

1958 as a research engineer, and he was soon 

analyzing the sloshing effects of liquid hydrogen for the Centaur Program. Stofan was promoted through a number of positions in the

program, culminating in his appointment as

Head of the Titan-Centaur Project Office and

Director of the Launch Vehicles Directorate.

Bootstrapping the Center

Image 292: Strategic planning cartoon.
232

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

With the end of the Titan-Centaur Project in 1978,

Stofan accepted the position of Deputy Associate

Administrator of Space Science at headquarters.817

Administrator James Beggs recalled, “it didn’t take us 

long to realize that we had a rising star in Andy.”818 

After several years, however, Stofan tired of Washington, DC. When Beggs asked him to return to

Cleveland as Center Director to rebuild Lewis, he 

looked forward to the challenge.819 Upon his arrival 

in June 1982, Stofan took McCarthy’s initial planning and image rehabilitation efforts and energetically

applied them in a manner that complemented his

attempts to restore employee morale and introduce 

new inclusive management techniques.

Stofan worked with the directorate heads to formalize 

the recommendations into a “Strategic Planning 

Options” report, which was released in December 1982. 

The planning was sometimes a difficult process because 

the management team was not used to being asked for 

their opinion on such critical decisions, but Stofan 

insisted on their participation.820 For aeronautics, the 

plan sought to fully restore the icing research program, 

increase experimental work on the ATP, and continue 

basic propulsion research. For space, it included 

the pursuit of ACTS, increased electric propulsion 

efforts, and a new experimental microgravity 

research program to be conducted on the shuttle and the 

proposed space station. The 

report also proposed integrating 

the Centaur rocket into the 

shuttle system and extending the 

Atlas-Centaur launches.821

The new programs came just 

in time. Earlier in 1983 NASA 

had announced that it would 

phase out all of its terrestrial 

energy projects. In November 

1982 Beggs had allowed Lewis 

to temporarily continue existing 

energy research for several years, 

but stated, “For the future it 

will be our policy to support 

energy programs which yield 

benefit to the aeronautics and 

space programs.”822 In addition, 

NASA was beginning to 

examine its withdrawal from the expendable launch 

vehicle business. This would ultimately transfer 

responsibility for Centaur to private industry. In 

an effort to realign Lewis with NASA’s main space 

missions, the report audaciously advocated Lewis’s 

management of the electrical power system for the 

newly planned space station.823 The changes were 

cemented with a reorganization in February 1983. The 

most significant adjustment was the creation of the 

new Space Technology Directorate, which included 

the former terrestrial energy research, space power 

systems, and space propulsion technology areas.824

The strategic planning effort made it clear to the 

committee members that they all worked for Lewis, 

not for their individual divisions or fields. Stofan

seized upon this and implemented what he referred 

to as “participative management.”825 Larry Ross later 

stated that the center’s culture had changed from 

“individual entrepreneurship to one of people pulling 

together as a unit, as a community unto itself.”826 

Under the NACA, Lewis had a great deal of autonomy 

and relied on the unilateral decision-making of Abe 

Silverstein, Bruce Lundin, and a few others to bring the 

center success. That autonomy eroded under NASA, 

and the autocratic management system did not work 

in the current corporate climate. Stofan’s inclusion 

Image 293: Stofan talks with managers during a “Meet the Director” event at the picnic grounds in 

October 1986 (GRC–1982–C–06266).
Bootstrapping the Center 233

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 294: Lewis’s 1983 Strategic Plan.

of staff from across the center in high-level decisions 

empowered the workforce and gave them a stake in the 

center’s success.827

It was not easy to get center personnel to participate in 

the process, and it was not easy to change the decadesold culture. Morale was low, and many had spent

their entire careers in another type of atmosphere.828

Employees were slow to approach Stofan during

informal Meet the Director sessions, so he increased

the number of these types of meetings, expanded

the Acquainting Wage Board, Administrative and 

Research Employees with New Endeavors of Special 

Significance (AWARENESS) program, and began 

converting the Utilities Building into the Employee 

Center.829

On 20 January 1981 newly elected President Ronald 

Reagan authorized a federal hiring freeze. The freeze 

was augmented by layoffs, personnel transfers, and 

incentives for nondefense government employees to 

retire.830,831 Although this round of layoffs did not 

dramatically affect Lewis, many veteran employees—

including top managers such as Seymour Himmel, 

Walter Olson, and Merwin Ault—left to take advantage of the increased retirement benefits.832 The years 

of downsizing had resulted in an aging workforce that 

was now leaving just as new programs were being

introduced. 

Stofan strove to address these deficits by hiring a 

younger contingent of civil servants for research 

positions and contracting out for institutional work. 

In summer 1983, Lewis hired 190 new professionals, 

nearly all directly out of university. It was the first 

increase in staffing since the mid-1960s.833 Although 

this increase in hiring was short-lived, it did provide 

a boost in morale. The utilization of contractors was 

controversial among the veteran personnel, however. 

Lewis had emerged from the NACA, which had 

prided itself on accomplishing all of its duties, from 

janitor to scientist, in-house. In the 1960s Lewis 

continued to handle most tasks but began contracting 

out for the creation of large hardware. In the 1970s 

NASA began contracting for additional tasks, like 

food service, but Lewis stubbornly resisted this 

trend, and tensions mounted between the center and 

headquarters. Administrator Beggs ordered Stofan 

to increase Lewis’s contractor staff to bring the center 

more in line with the other centers.834,835 In many 

cases these contractors were retired Lewis employees 

who accepted positions with private firms.

Aeronautic Achievements

The ATP program had begun in the mid-1970s 

with theoretical analysis and wind tunnel studies. 

The emerging swept-propeller design permitted 

fuel-efficient performance at relatively high subsonic 

speeds without the drag implications of normal 

propellers. Largely through Lewis’s advocacy, the 

program slowly began to gain traction with the aircraft 

industry and military, which were feeling the effects 

of the energy crisis. NASA incorporated the ATP 

into the larger Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program 

(ACEE) effort in 1978.836,837 The renewed program 

consisted of three phases: (1) developing the initial 

propeller, drive system, and airframe technologies;

(2) testing larger propellers and advanced drive 

systems; and (3) integrating the system into an aircraft 

for flight-testing.

NASA contracted with Pratt & Whitney and the

Allison Engine Company to develop the drive system 

and verify the propeller blades’ ability to withstand 
234

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

the forces of a full-scale engine for long durations. In 

the meantime, General Electric unveiled its own turboprop design—the Unducted Fan (UDF) with gearless and counter-rotating blades. Although NASA did 

not foresee this development, the Agency incorporated 

the UDF into Lewis’s ATP test program in 1984.838

General Electric successfully ran the UDF on a test 

stand, and Lewis and Pratt & Whitney tested various 

scale models of the Pratt & Whitney engine integrated 

in an aircraft in the 9- by 15-Foot Low-Speed Wind 

Tunnel (9×15) and other facilities.

The final phase of the program, which began in

October 1984, consisted of a series of flight tests for 

the Pratt & Whitney and General Electric engines to 

evaluate the propeller’s structural integrity and vibrations of the propeller, as well as noise levels inside the 

aircraft and on the ground. Lockheed incorporated 

the Pratt & Whitney engine in a Gulfstream II aircraft, and Lewis pilots flight-tested the engine on the 

Gulfstream between 1987 and 1989.839 Additional 

flight tests in 1989 measured the noise levels from the 

ground. General Electric flight-tested their engine on 

a Boeing 727 and a McDonnell Douglas MD–80 in 

1986 and 1987.

Image 296: The Gulfstream II and Learjet, both flown by Lewis pilots, conduct inflight noise measurements (GRC–1987–C–10756).

Image 295: Collier Trophy awarded for Lewis’s ATP work.
Bootstrapping the Center 235

John H. Glenn Research Center

Lewis pilot Bill Rieke performed the difficult task of 

flying the center’s Learjet alongside both the Gulfstream and 727 to record the engine noise in flight. The 

108 test flights during this period demonstrated that 

the turboprop engines consumed up to 50 percent less 

fuel than contemporary turbofan engines while maintaining comparable performance. Although noise levels were elevated, they were considered reasonable.840

NASA and the participating engine manufacturers had 

demonstrated a significant new propulsion technology 

that could save billions of dollars in fuel annually. Oil 

prices, however, stabilized by the mid-1980s, and the 

industry balked at converting its fleet of jet aircraft 

to turboprops. Nonetheless, NASA and its industry 

partners received the Collier Trophy for their efforts 

in 1987.841 

v v v v v v

Icing research became an issue again in the late 1970s 

with the surge in the number of helicopters, small 

regional prop-driven airliners, and general aviation 

aircraft. Lewis’s icing program, which had begun in

the 1940s, had been suspended for nearly 20 years

following the establishment of the space agency and

the addition of jet engines to the nation’s airline 

fleet. The aircraft industry occasionally used the 

Icing Research Tunnel (IRT), but Lewis’s own icing 

research was nonexistent during the 1960s and early 

1970s.842 In July 1978 Lewis hosted the International 

Workshop on Aircraft Icing during which participants 

urged Lewis to restore its icing research program 

to address the concerns posed by the new types of 

aircraft.843 Lewis consequently brought the IRT back 

online and formed a small, modestly funded group of 

icing researchers. 

Headquarters did not agree to fully restore the program until a series of icing-related commuter aircraft 

crashes occurred in the early 1980s.844 The new 

funding allowed the center to acquire the DeHavilland 

Twin Otter aircraft, modernize the IRT, and initiate 

a study on the restoration of the AWT for helicopter 

icing studies. The center expended a substantial 

amount of time and money on the AWT effort before 

Congress terminated the activity in March 1985.845 

The Twin Otter and the IRT, however, continue to 

serve as premier icing research tools.

Lewis’s new icing program was broad in scope.

Researchers used the IRT, Twin Otter, and computer 

simulation systems to improve ice protection systems, 

instrumentation, testing capabilities, and computer 

Image 297: A Propfan Test Assessment model is tested for flutter in the 9×15 wind tunnel during October 1985 (GRC–1985–C–07896).
236

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

modeling. The tunnel, aircraft, and software complemented and validated each other’s data.846 The IRT 

was more active in the 1980s than at any point since 

1950. Researchers investigated issues related to helicopter inlet icing, fluid deicers, pneumatic deicing 

boots, icing on general aviation aircraft, and a series of 

electromechanical deicing systems.847

Helicopter icing was a particular concern at the time. 

There were few all-weather helicopters in the United 

States because of the demanding Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) certification process.848 In 

an effort to improve this practice, Lewis undertook 

an extensive effort to determine if the IRT could 

accelerate all-weather use. Lewis also established a

Rotor Icing Consortium, consisting of industry, 

military, and university representatives, to consult on 

the effort. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation agreed to 

supply a complex subscale version of its Black Hawk 

helicopter, and Lewis designed the test program.849

Image 298: A prototype turning vane for the new AWT installed in 

the IRT during December 1985 (GRC–1985–C–09342).

Image 299: Rotorcraft model installed in the IRT (GRC–1993–C–03670).
Bootstrapping the Center 237

John H. Glenn Research Center

Because the model Sikorsky Black Hawk was the first 

rotorcraft to be operated in a U.S. wind tunnel, the

researchers initially installed a smaller Bell OH–58 

tail rotor on a special rig to serve as a trial run.850

They found that some modifications to the tunnel and

operating procedures were required, but the OH–58 

tests successfully prepared Lewis for the Sikorsky 

model.851,852 The researchers began testing the heavily 

instrumented OH–60 Black Hawk model in fall 1989 

and tested again several years later with another rotor. 

Data from the more than 200 runs revealed that the 

NASA software predictions were correct for ice found 

in warmer temperatures but that the code needed

additional work for icing at lower temperatures.853

v v v v v v

The first predictive icing computer codes were developed in the 1980s to offset the costs associated with 

wind tunnel or flight testing. The IRT and Twin

Otter repeatedly verified different ice prediction software data. Lewis contributed by providing grants to 

universities in 1983 to develop icing codes for certain 

specific parameters. In 1987 Lewis combined several 

of these codes into a single piece of software applicable 

to the aircraft industry—the LEWis ICE accretion 

program (LEWICE). LEWICE takes into account 

velocity, droplet size and trajectory, and ice layering to 

predict the location, shape, and rate of ice buildup over 

time, as well as the amount of heat required to prevent 

icing. The software helps aircraft designers assess performance losses for a range of icing parameters. The 

software predictions were validated in the IRT and 

with the Twin Otter. Lewis has updated the LEWICE 

software several times over the years, including developing a three-dimensional version. The aeronautics 

community continues to utilize this award-winning

desktop-based version of the program.854,855

Like their predecessors in the 1940s and 1950s, 

Lewis pilots purposely flew the Twin Otter into iceproducing clouds. The Twin Otter was equipped with 

a heavy-duty deicing system and was resilient enough 

to fly through difficult weather conditions. Lewis technicians equipped the aircraft with a laser spectrometer 

to determine water droplet distribution, color radar,

atmospheric measuring devices, and probes to measure 

water content in clouds.856 In the mid-1980s Lewis 

employed the Twin Otter extensively to gather data 

on icing’s effect on aircraft performance, commuter

aircraft icing, stereophotography methods for measuring ice, and alternative ice-prevention systems.857,858

Image 300: Lewis’s Twin Otter during a wing icing study in Duluth, Minnesota (GRC–1988–C–01725).
238

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

The Electro-Impulse Deicing System (EIDI) 

developed by Lewis in partnership with Wichita 

State University was one of the most successful iceprevention systems. The EIDI used coils of copper 

ribbon that conducted an electrical impulse on the 

aircraft’s leading edges to prevent ice accumulation. 

Test flights with the Twin Otter and a Cessna in the 

mid-1980s demonstrated that the EIDI system was 

an inexpensive and energy-efficient method of deicing 

wings.859 Several companies are marketing the system 

for general aviation aircraft today. 

Trying to locate the correct types of ice-producing 

clouds can be frustrating for researchers. So the Army 

created the Helicopter Icing Spray System (HISS) 

to create icing conditions in the atmosphere. HISS 

consisted of a Chinook helicopter equipped with 

an 1,800-gallon water tank and spray assembly. The

helicopter would fly horizontally and spray droplets 

into frigid air. Then a research aircraft would follow, flying through the ensuing trail of artificial icing

conditions.860 The Lewis icing group took the Twin 

Image 301: The Twin Otter performs an inflight icing test in Duluth, Minnesota, while a Sikorsky helicopter trails water vapor to simulate icing 

clouds (GRC–1988–C–01727).

Otter to Minnesota during winter 1989 to help calibrate the HISS, test their own cloud sensor equipment, and generally take advantage of the region’s 

natural icing atmosphere. Lewis pilots flew the Twin 

Otter through the HISS cloud, took measurements, 

and then photographed the ice buildup on the aircraft 

after exiting the cloud. Lewis was able to both improve 

their icing database and assist in the calibration of the 

Army’s instrumentation.861 The center’s icing research 

program is flourishing today, with the IRT serving a 

long line of federal and commercial customers.

v v v v v v

Lewis also sought to improve the design of helicopter propulsion systems. Helicopter development had

begun in the early 20th century, but the first practical machines did not appear until World War II. The

arrival of gas turbine engines improved performance

after the war, and the United States utilized helicopters

as aerial ambulances during the Korean War. By the 

1960s, the military was also successfully using helicopters as weapons.862 It was in this atmosphere that 
Bootstrapping the Center 239

John H. Glenn Research Center

NASA Lewis and the Army joined forces in 1970 to 

design new helicopter transmissions that were lightweight and quiet.

Helicopters rely on advanced transmission systems 

to convert the energy from the horizontal engine to 

the vertically mounted rotor, but the transmissions in 

service during the 1960s were heavy, loud, and shortlived.863 Erwin Zaretsky’s Gearing and Transmission 

Section performed much of the Lewis work.864 They 

used computer modeling to develop the new designs 

but relied on testing actual transmissions to verify 

the computer codes. Lewis built two full-scale transmission test stands and four component stands to 

support models. The Engine Research Building’s 500-

horsepower (hp) Helicopter Transmission Rig, which 

began operating in 1979, could test both traditional 

helicopter transmissions and the new Lewis-designed 

traction transmissions. In 1981 Lewis added a 3,000-hp

transmission rig to measure component variables in 

hopes of reducing engine noise and overhauls.865

The team thoroughly mapped and analyzed a

UH–60 Black Hawk transmission on Lewis’s new 

500-hp transmission rig to validate the new predictive 

computer codes that would be used to design advanced 

transmissions. Meanwhile other researchers were

developing lightweight materials and lubricants and 

designing new types of gears that reduced the overall 

transmission weight and had significantly longer lifespans.866,867 The researchers were able to demonstrate 

these new technologies in a Bell OH–58 helicopter 

transmission on the Lewis test rig. 

Vibrations from the transmission gears generate a

significant amount of noise within the helicopter 

cabin that can affect pilot performance. To reduce the 

noise, Lewis researchers improved the manufacturing 

of spiral bevel gears to reduce the geometrical errors 

that cause vibrations. They also constructed a dualmeasurement method that significantly reduced the 

number of false alarms in systems that monitor the 

health of the engine.868

Image 302: Helicopter Transmission Rig in the Engine Research Building (GRC–1978–C–4355).
240

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

In 1987 the Army and NASA undertook a new 

joint initiative to develop conceptual transmissions 

for advanced military and cargo helicopters. These 

designs would reduce weight and noise while 

increasing reliability.869 The effort resulted in four 

new transmission designs, including a modified Bell 

OH–58C model that utilized the Lewis bearing and 

gear technology and new methods of lubrication and 

cooling. The transmission’s increased power, torque, 

and efficiency was the foundation for Bell’s new

OH–58D helicopter.870

New Endeavors in Space

In the early 1980s Lewis secured two new space programs that directly involved the center with NASA’s 

human space efforts for the first time since the early 

1960s: the Shuttle/Centaur and the Space Station 

Power System programs. After playing only a minor 

role in the shuttle development, the new Lewis management team strove for inclusion in the Agency’s next 

major space program—the space station. Lewis sought 

to use its 20 years of energy conversion experience to 

become the Agency’s space power leader. The center 

believed that the proposed space station would be just 

the first of many projects.871,872

As the space shuttle program came to fruition in 1981, 

NASA resurrected its long-dormant plans to construct an orbiting space station. The station would 

need a large electric power system to operate electronics, conduct experiments, and maintain its orbital

position. Photovoltaic power modules with solar

arrays would provide the basic power requirements, 

and a solar dynamic power system would concentrate 

and store energy to maintain power for when the

station was in the shade. It would be the largest space 

power system that had ever been attempted.873,874

Lewis’s pursuit of the space station program was a 

controversial decision. Some Lewis veterans felt that 

such a large development program would negatively 

impact the center’s research efforts. Other centers, 

especially the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, 

questioned Lewis’s technical capability and its ability 

to manage such a large program. Lewis’s management, 

confident of the center’s competence in both of these 

areas, opened a project office in August 1982 to 

determine the best way to integrate its skills with the 

proposed space station’s needs. After nearly a year of 

the center’s dogged advocacy, NASA assigned the 

power system to Lewis in late 1983.875,876

Image 303: Space station solar array being set up in the PSF cleanroom in July 1990 (GRC–1989–C–00115).
Bootstrapping the Center 241

John H. Glenn Research Center

For the first time since the Centaur Surveyor Program, 

Lewis had a direct role in NASA’s crewed spaceflight 

efforts. This led to increased funding and affirmed 

the center’s critical contributions to the Agency.877 

In 1985 Lewis created the 250-person Space Station 

Freedom Directorate under Ron Thomas and began 

constructing the Power Systems Facility (PSF). PSF 

served as the hub for the entire directorate’s testing, 

provided a repository for the test data, and included 

a 100-foot-square, 63-foot-high class-100,000 clean 

room.

878 From 1984 to 1986 Lewis undertook an 

intensive effort to define the station’s power requirements and develop an adequate system within budgetary limitations.

The overall space station design, however, changed 

dramatically several times in the mid-1980s, resulting

in budget overruns and schedule slippage.

Political arguments over the funding and technical

debates regarding the design continued throughout 

the 1980s. The amount of requisite power changed

after each of these modifications, causing numerous

revisions of the power system’s technical requirements.879 In 1988 it became apparent to the Lewis

staff that the latest design would stretch the

75-kilowatt system to its limits.880

The design changed again in March 1990 when

Congress ordered NASA to reduce the station’s size 

by 50 percent. This reduction decreased the number 

of externally mounted experiments and the overall 

power requirements. Program managers eliminated 

one of the four solar arrays and indefinitely delayed 

the implementation of the solar dynamic power system. Although this caused the disbanding of the Solar 

Dynamic Power Module Division, Lewis carried forward its work on power modules in the 1990s while 

continuing its efforts to meet the space station’s everchanging expectations.881

v v v v v v

Lewis’s seminal Centaur Program began to lose steam 

in the 1980s. As the six Titan-Centaur launches were 

successfully completed in the mid-1970s, NASA was 

developing the space shuttle. The Agency decided to 

phase out its expendable launch vehicle operations—

including Saturn Delta and Atlas-Centaur—and 

use the shuttle exclusively to launch its satellites and

spacecraft. 

The Agency, however, severely miscalculated the 

cost and frequency of the shuttle launches. As the

demand for commercial and military satellites 

grew, the European Space Agency filled the void 

with its Ariane launch vehicles. NASA continued

stringing the Atlas-Centaur along on a limited

basis to launch satellites, but the manufacturers,

General Dynamics and Lockheed, began phasing out 

their vehicle production. In addition Centaur was

becoming somewhat outdated, and the number of

resident experts on staff at Lewis, General Dynamics, 

and Pratt & Whitney was dwindling.882

The Reagan Administration’s Commercial Space 

Launch Act of 1984 allowed private companies to

begin providing launch services, but the commercial

providers could not compete with the subsidized 

shuttle and Ariane programs. It was not until the loss 

of Challenger in 1986 that the government took serious steps to halt its planned phase-out of expendable 

launch vehicles for NASA missions and its plans to 

launch commercial satellites from the shuttle.883

NASA implemented a new mixed-fleet policy that 

utilized the shuttle and commercial expendable launch 

vehicles. The Agency continued to manage the launch 

of government payloads while General Dynamics 

now handled those for private industry. In addition, 

NASA would no longer purchase vehicles from the 

manufacturer, but would buy launch services. General 

Dynamics and Martin Marietta (formerly Lockheed) 

not only manufactured the Atlas-Centaurs, which 

were now referred to as only “Atlases,” but also handled 

Image 304: Space station report prepared for Andy Stofan in his new 

role as Associate Administrator.
242

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 305: Atlas-Centaur 1 shroud jettison test at the newly reactivated Space Power Facility (SPF) for the 

upcoming Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) launch. It was the first major hardware 

test at the SPF in over 15 years (GRC–1990–C–00216).
Bootstrapping the Center 243

John H. Glenn Research Center

the hardware integration and actual launches. Lewis 

oversaw the government missions using Atlas- or

Titan-Centaurs, while the NASA Goddard Space 

Flight Center managed smaller vehicles like the 

Delta. The NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center was 

responsible for processing the vehicles and launching 

them.884 The 25 September 1989 launch of a U.S. Navy

Fleet Satellite Communications (FLTSATCOM) satellite was Lewis’s final commercial launch.

Concurrently with these developments, NASA was 

attempting to deal with the shuttle’s limited ability to 

launch spacecraft. The shuttle’s low Earth orbit meant 

that some sort of booster vehicle would be needed 

to deploy spacecraft requiring higher altitudes, such 

as the upcoming Ulysses and Galileo missions to the 

Sun and Jupiter, respectively. In 1979 NASA began 

analyzing a number of options, including the use of a

Centaur stage.885,886 After much debate, in early 1981 

the Agency decided to use Centaur as that booster. 

Again there was robust debate about which center 

should manage the effort. The main space centers—

Johnson, Kennedy, and Marshall—argued vehemently 

that Shuttle/Centaur belonged at Marshall, not Lewis. 

Director John McCarthy argued that Lewis’s existing Centaur team had experience updating vehicles,

integrating payloads, and dealing with contractors.887 

Headquarters agreed and assigned responsibility for 

Shuttle/Centaur to Lewis in May 1981. Congress

approved the decision in July 1982, providing the

center with a $100 million shot in the arm just

as Stofan became Director. He said at the time,

“We are in a position to move promptly. We’re off and 

running.”888

In 1983 Lewis created a Shuttle-Centaur Program

Office under Red Robbins. Lewis worked with

General Dynamics to reconfigure the upper stage into 

shorter, stouter versions—the Centaur G and Centaur 

G Prime—and to develop a launching system that 

would fit in the shuttle’s payload bay. This was the first 

time that Lewis had worked directly with Johnson, and 

tensions were strained. Lewis’s expertise with Centaur 

was undisputed, but the center had been outside the 

human spaceflight program since Project Mercury. 

Johnson had managed the Agency’s human spaceflight 

program since the early 1960s and was protective

of its procedures and approach to safety and mission 

assurance in human spaceflight. Johnson also had

serious concerns about transporting Centaur and its 

tank of liquid hydrogen alongside its astronauts. For

several years Lewis and Johnson engineers wrangled 

over weight, redundancy, and quality assurance issues.

Another issue was that Centaur was designated 

as both a payload and part of the shuttle system: as

such it had to meet a large number of demanding

requirements.889-891

Image 306: Shuttle/Centaur Program report.

Image 307: Centaur G on a work stand being prepared for the Ulysses 

mission at the Vertical Processing Center on 6 February 1986 (NASA 

KSC–86PC–0088).
244

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Lewis engineers worked determinedly throughout 

the mid-1980s to modify the Centaur and integrate it 

into the shuttle in time to meet the launch window for 

Ulysses and Galileo in late spring 1986. In January 1986 

the Shuttle/Centaur underwent a successful tanking 

test at Cape Canaveral and appeared to be on schedule 

to meet the impending launch opportunities.892

On 28 January, however, Challenger exploded shortly 

after liftoff, and everything related to the shuttle was 

in question. Robbins saw the writing on the wall and 

retired immediately.893 NASA grounded the shuttle 

fleet for nearly three years and delayed the Galileo and 

Ulysses missions indefinitely. The Agency canceled 

the Shuttle/Centaur Program five months later when 

officials concluded that the vehicle could not meet the 

shuttle’s new stricter safety standards. The increase in 

required redundancies that would cause an untenable 

increase in weight.894 The cancellation, which came 

after years of intensive effort, was one of Lewis’s biggest 

disappointments. Nonetheless, Larry Ross recalled, 

“Our team emerged as better technical contributors, 

better engineers. We also ended up with some very 

good managers.”895

v v v v v v

Lewis’s third major space effort during this period was 

ACTS. As federal subsidies for U.S. satellite research 

decreased in the early 1980s, foreign competitors 

accelerated their satellite development and Japan 

Image 308: Artist’s rendering of the ACTS deployment from 

Discovery (GRC–1987–C–01695).

Images 309: ACTS antennas mounted on the 8- by 6-Foot (8×6) Supersonic Wind Tunnel (GRC–1996–C–03369).
Bootstrapping the Center 245

John H. Glenn Research Center

became the premier telecommunications satellite 

provider. ACTS was one of the initial steps taken 

to reestablish the nation’s communications satellite 

leadership.896

In 1978 Lewis researchers began assessing the nation’s

communications requirements for the 1990s. They 

then examined the feasibility of conceptual hardware 

items and took steps to get them into flight condition. In August 1984 Lewis received approval to 

contract with Lockheed to manufacture the satellite. 

Lewis created the ACTS Project Office under Richard

Gedney to manage the development of the satellite’s

various components. The office designed the Multibeam Communications Package, analyzed the entire

communications system, and created the ground

station to handle all communications with the

satellite. Lewis was responsible for integrating the 

satellite with both the ground station and the shuttle 

launch vehicle.897

Space Shuttle Discovery deployed ACTS on

12 September 1993. As it had for ACTS’s mid-1970s

predecessor, the Communications Technology

Satellite, the depressed collector transmission tube 

generated the high-power satellite communication

services. ACTS, however, used the higher-frequency 

Ka Band, which provided additional bandwidth. As 

the first high-speed digital communications satellite, 

ACTS served as a testbed for researchers. ACTS’s 

ability to lift its beam from one location to another 

and rapidly change its relay destinations resulted in its nickname—the 

“Switchboard in the Sky.”898

The satellite hosted over 65 industry and university experiments in 

the ensuing years. Lewis terminated 

its test operations in May 2000, 

but external users continued to 

use ACTS for several years. ACTS 

technology quickly demonstrated 

its application to industry, education, and telemedicine. Concurrent 

advances in ground-based fiber 

optics and cell phone technology, 

however, proved more effective for 

the current applications.899

NASA’s New Mission

In 1986 Stofan accepted a position at headquarters 

managing the space station program’s tangled contractual obligations. Stofan was succeeded at Lewis by his 

Deputy Director, John Klineberg, who had worked for 

the aerospace industry in California throughout the 

1960s. Klineberg had begun his NASA career in 1970 

as an aeronautical research engineer at the NASA Ames 

Research Center. Four years later he had been named 

head of the Low Speed Aircraft Branch at headquarters, 

and in 1978 NASA Administrator Robert Frosch had 

asked Klineberg to serve as John McCarthy’s Deputy

Director at Lewis.900,901

As Director, Klineberg saw several of the center’s new 

programs come to fruition, including the ATP and 

ACTS. He also managed the space station power 

effort as the design continually transformed. Klineberg 

continued Stofan’s ongoing strategic planning efforts 

and provided the staff the flexibility and freedom 

to carry out their research. In 1986 he oversaw the 

creation of an Employee Center which consolidated 

personnel services such as the cafeteria, the credit

union, the exchange, and medical services.902 Two 

of Klineberg’s most notable achievements were 

the restoration of Plum Brook Station and the 

establishment of the Ohio Aerospace Institute (OAI). 

OAI is a nonprofit partnership between Lewis, the 

Air Force Research Laboratory, the local business 

community, researchers from the various institutions, 

Image 310: OAI (GRC–1991–C–01824).
246

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

and nine Ohio universities. Established in 1989 with

Michael Salkind as president, the consortium facilitates collaboration on aerospace research, continuing 

education, and technology transfer. Lewis provided 

eight acres at the edge of its West Area for construction of a 70,000-square-foot home for the group. Ohio 

funded the $10.7 million construction, and the federal government supplied three-fourths of the annual

operating budgets.903 Ohio Governor Richard Celeste 

and other officials participated in the groundbreaking ceremony in October 1990, and the eye-catching

steel-and-glass facility opened in October 1992.904

OAI offers free classroom and modern communication facilities for students, researchers, and faculty.905 

It also awards fellowships and scholarships for graduate students pursuing aerospace and science degrees at 

Ohio universities. The students are afforded the opportunity to work with experts in the field while working 

on their degrees.906,907 OAI includes distance learning 

facilities that allow Lewis engineers to earn graduate 

degrees from remote universities. 

v v v v v v

The desolation at Plum Brook Station was interrupted 

in 1980 when NASA granted Garrett Corporation

permission to modify the Space Power Facility (SPF)

for a five-year uranium centrifuge demonstration. As

that project was winding down in 1985, the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed Plum 

Brook’s situation and recommended that NASA

remove the test facilities and excess the land. Robert

Kozar, a former Plum Brook engineer, led a

multiagency commission that reviewed the OMB’s

findings. The commission concluded that NASA

should fully reactivate Plum Brook Station, not excess

it. NASA accepted the commission’s recommendations and assigned Kozar the responsibility for

restarting the four largest facilities—the SPF,

the Space Propulsion Research Facility (B–2), the

Cryogenic Propellant Tank Facility (K Site),

and the Hypersonic Tunnel Facility (HTF).908 The 

facilities would be operated on a strict pay-as-yougo policy. The Rocket Systems Area and the reactor

facility would not be resurrected.

Plum Brook engineers had to reverse the serious 

modifications that Garrett had made to the SPF before 

it could be reactivated. The work proceeded rather 

quickly, and the vacuum chamber was reactivated 

in 1988.909 In the 1990s engineers used the SPF to 

conduct shroud jettison tests for Atlas, Titan, and 

Ariane rockets. NASA restored K Site by 1989 and 

used it to investigate the use of slush hydrogen as a 

propellant in the 1990s. NASA brought the B–2 

vacuum chamber back online in 1987 for the military’s 

Image 311: John Klineberg (GRC–1987–C–75023).

Image 312: Plum Brook status report.
Bootstrapping the Center 247

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 313: Interior of the B–2 test chamber with the lid removed in April 1987 (GRC–1987–C–02665).
248

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Space Power Experiments Aboard Rockets program, 

and restored the facility’s liquid-hydrogen system in 

1996.910 The restoration of the HTF, which began in 

1990, took six years to complete.911 Although it was 

not as active as it had been in the 1960s, Plum Brook 

Station and its unique test facilities were once again 

contributing to the national space program.

Space Exploration Initiatives

In April 1990 Larry Ross replaced John Klineberg as 

Lewis Center Director when the NASA Administrator

asked the latter to serve as Director of the Goddard

Space Flight Center. Like Stofan, Ross had begun

his career at Lewis in the early 1960s as a test engineer

right out of university and had worked his way up 

through the Centaur Program. Ross was active in the 

Centaur’s Surveyor and orbiting space telescope missions. In 1976, he was named Director of the TitanCentaur Program and, in 1978, Chief of the Launch 

Vehicles Directorate. Klineberg selected Ross to serve 

as Deputy Director in 1987.912,913

Lewis research thrived during Ross’s four-year tenure. 

The center’s annual budget exceeded $1 billion for the 

only time in its history, and the center published more 

technical reports in 1990 and 1991 than at any point 

since 1974. In addition, it added 200 new civil servant 

positions and helped to establish a new business

park outside its west gate to house contractors.914

The reactivation of Plum Brook Station continued, 

the ACTS and microgravity programs thrived, and 

the Atlas I-Centaur launched the CRRES satellite—

the first NASA satellite to be launched by General 

Image 315: Larry Ross (right) meets with Bob Angus in the Administration Building during August 1993 (GRC–1993–C–06422).

Image 316: Ross as a Centaur test engineer in the early 1960s 

(GRC–2008–C–01424).

Image 314: Ross instituted a regular column in the Lewis News.
Bootstrapping the Center 249

John H. Glenn Research Center

Dynamics under the new commercial launch business 

model. Ross began holding private one-on-one lunches 

with employees to increase dialogue at the center, and 

he instituted a regular column in the Lewis News. 

The world was undergoing a dramatic transformation during this period. In 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev

became leader of the Soviet Union and introduced his 

perestroika reforms. In rapid succession Gorbachev 

reorganized the Soviet ruling structure, brokered an 

arms reduction agreement with the United States, 

and loosened control of Russia’s satellite states. The 

dismantling of the Berlin Wall in 1990 proved to be 

the most enduring symbol of the new atmosphere. In

December 1991 the Soviet Union dissolved, bringing 

the nearly 50 years of the Cold War to an end.915

President George H. Bush took advantage of the ease

in tensions to introduce his new Space Exploration 

Initiative (SEI). The initiative, announced in July 

1989 on the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, called for completion of the space station, a return 

to the Moon, and an eventual human voyage to Mars. 

Image 317: Conceptual drawing of a lunar-oxygen-augmented nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) (GRC–1997–C–00827).

The president, however, did not obtain a reliable cost 

appraisal for the endeavor until after the announcement. Ohio Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar rued 

the fact that the president “did not add some muscle to 

his plan.”916 The eventual $500-billion-dollar estimate 

and poor planning effectively killed the initiative after 

about 18 months, although the official cancellation did 

not occur until early 1992.917

Although the SEI was short-lived, it did revive interest 

in the long-duration human missions that had been 

conceived in the early 1960s. These complex endeavors 

required two technologies that Lewis had investigated 

extensively in the 1960s—nuclear propulsion and the 

long-term storage of cryogenic fuels. Lewis researchers 

took up these subjects once again in the 1990s.

v v v v v v

Researchers consider nuclear propulsion to be 

the most viable method for transporting humans 

to Mars. With twice the thrust of traditional 

chemical rockets, NTRs would significantly reduce 

travel time and extend launch windows. In 1990, 
250

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

NASA, the Department of Defense, and the

Department of Energy jointly analyzed 17 nuclear 

rocket designs. They concluded that solid core 

designs based on Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle 

Application (NERVA) technologies from the 1960s 

were the safest, most feasible, and quickest to develop. 

They were also aware of the public’s hesitancy regarding 

nuclear energy and the need for new ground testing 

centers.918

Lewis, the NASA center with the most nuclear propulsion experience, established a 13-person Nuclear

Propulsion Office in May 1991 to oversee NASA’s

new nuclear efforts.919 Researcher Stanley Borowski

and his colleagues published a number of papers

examining different aspects of NTR missions—

including the use of liquid oxygen extracted from the 

martian atmosphere to power an afterburner-type

configuration.920 In addition, Frank Rom and other 

Lewis veterans resumed the nuclear work that had 

been suspended almost 20 years before. 

As the studies progressed, researchers argued that a

bimodal nuclear rocket would be the most costeffective design. Theoretically, NASA’s proposed

nuclear stage for heavy lift work would have plenty of

fuel remaining after it completed its initial full-power 

boost. Borowski and others argued that the rocket

system could be modified to utilize the remaining

fissionable material to generate lower levels of propulsion for the remaining journey to Mars and possibly a 

return trip to Earth for reuse.921 The SEI effort and 

its proposed mission to Mars did not come to fruition, 

but the center continues studying the technology for 

the inevitable resurgence of the concept. 

v v v v v v

In the 1960s Lewis had extensively studied methods 

of insulating storage tanks for cryogenic propellants to 

support future human missions to Mars, but NASA 

canceled the research as plans for those types of 

missions faded with NASA’s post-Apollo budget cuts. 

The issues with the long-term storage of cryogenic 

propellants resurfaced with the SEI’s proposed mission 

to Mars. It was critical that propellants be stored and 

transferred in space so that the spacecraft would not 

have to carry all the fuel needed for a long-duration 

flight during Earth-to-orbit launch. 

Lewis had conducted a great deal of research in 

simulated space conditions, but there had not yet been 

a test in space. Lewis’s Cryogenic Fluids Technology 

Office had begun work on a shuttle-based cryogenic 

fluid management experiment, but NASA canceled

this effort after the loss of Challenger. When the SEI

emerged, Lewis campaigned for a free-flying cryogenic

fluid management demonstration on an expendable

rocket. The result was the Cryogenic On-Orbit Liquid

Depot Storage, Acquisition, and Transfer Satellite 

(COLD–SAT).922

Lewis devised COLD–SAT to be launched on an

Atlas in 1997. It included 13 experiments to study

the pressurization, venting, fuel transfer, insulation,

and filling of cryogenic propellant tanks.923 Lewis

reactivated K Site at Plum Brook Station in 1988 to

support COLD–SAT, but NASA then canceled

this proposed $200-million effort following an extensive feasibility study in 1990. As a part of this effort, 

two Tank Pressure Control Experiments using Freon 

were flown aboard the space shuttles in the early 1990s. 

Nonetheless, by August 1989 plans were under way 

for a new research program at K Site to study slush 

hydrogen. Researchers felt that they could reduce the 

Image 318: NASA Technical Memorandum about NTR.
Bootstrapping the Center 251

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 319: William Klein examines settings for the slush hydrogen test rig in the K Site vacuum chamber during June 1991 

(GRC–1991–C–07458).

volume of liquid hydrogen by 15-percent by lowering its temperature and forming slush. This would

decrease the size of the tank and overall vehicle. The 

new interest in slush hydrogen was largely driven by 

the experimental National Aerospace Plane (NASP) 

that was born out of the X-plane and Dynasoar

efforts in the 1960s. NASA and the military had

secretly initiated the technology demonstration effort, 

also known as the X–30, in the early 1980s. President

Reagan formally announced the program in his 1986 

State of the Union Message, calling it the Orient

Express. NASP would be an extremely lightweight, 

runway-based vehicle that could fly into orbit at

hypersonic speeds.

A number of new technologies were required to meet 

those specifications, and Lewis was heavily involved 

with three of these fields: high-temperature materials 

and seals, regenerative cooling, and cryogenic propellant 

management that included slush hydrogen.924 Bruce 

Steinetz developed a unique high-temperature flexible 

fiber seal to prevent the hot engine gases from escaping 

through the vehicle’s moving panels. In 1996 NASA 

named the seal the Government Invention of the 

Year.925

Lewis had briefly explored slush hydrogen in Plum 

Brook’s Boiling Fluids Rig during the 1960s, but it was 

the National Bureau of Standards (now the National

Institute of Standards and Technology) that had

generated much of the existing data.926 The recently

renovated K Site provided Lewis an optimal facility

for performing basic slush-hydrogen research. Lewis

installed a hydrogen densification system at K Site 
252

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 320: A 13-foot-diameter propellant tank installed in K Site’s 25-foot-diameter vacuum chamber (GRC–1967–C–03315).
Bootstrapping the Center 253

John H. Glenn Research Center

that could generate over 700 gallons of slush hydrogen

each day. It was the largest slush hydrogen system in 

the world.927

In 1987 Lewis coordinated a new national slushhydrogen development team to acquire basic slushhydrogen data, design handling systems, and generate

computer models for pumping, transferring, and

storing the hydrogen. The Space Vehicle Propulsion 

Branch used K Site to analyze the tank pressurization 

and flow of the slush from the tank, and Lewis created 

computer models to predict this activity.928

The utilization of slush hydrogen to cool the NASP 

vehicle was a major breakthrough in the program. The 

vehicle needed to reach Mach 25 to achieve orbit, but 

early studies indicated that the high speeds would produce intense aerodynamic heating that would overheat 

the exterior surfaces. This hurdle was overcome with 

the introduction of a new flow system that released 

slush hydrogen to the leading edges. The heat converted the slush to liquid, which was then used as the 

vehicle’s propellant. Early calculations revealed that the 

amount of liquid hydrogen required for cooling was 

greater than that required for propellant.929

Lewis researchers also pursued the use of a heatabsorbing chemical reaction that used two unique 

forms of hydrogen. This process reduced the amount 

of hydrogen required for cooling. Although much 

of the research was conducted in the Cryogenics

Components Laboratory,930 engine concept tests were 

run in the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 

and the PSL, external burning studies were conducted 

in the 8×6, and significant work on high-temperature 

seals and materials was performed.931

Military funding for the program ceased in 1993 

as the Cold War ended. Lewis had been involved in 

many aspects of the program, and the researchers had

developed a number of new technologies. Nonetheless, 

NASP was far from being ready for flight.

Lewis’s First 50 Years

Lewis’s year-long celebration of its semicentennial 

commenced on a frozen 23 January 1991—50 years 

after the original groundbreaking. A local high-school 

marching band roused the 300 attendees as officials 

unveiled a time capsule in front of the Administration 

Building. The capsule, which was incorporated into 

a 9-foot-tall sculpture, contained 58 items, including reports, videos, photographs, and articles.932,933

At this time, Lewis management decided to name the 

Employee Center in honor of former Director Ray 

Sharp.934 To further commemorate the anniversary, 

NASA commissioned historian Virginia Dawson to 

write the history of the center. Dawson interviewed 

many of the center’s iconic leaders and researchers 

and retrieved invaluable center documents from the

National Archives. Her Engines and Innovation: Lewis

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology

remains the definitive description of Lewis’s history.935

The extraordinary accomplishments of the center’s 

first 25 years were in some ways matched in the second

25 years in ways that the NACA could not have foreseen 

in 1941. The successes were tempered by the unrelenting budgetary realities of the Agency. Lewis, nonetheless, had turned a corner. The center was more successful 

in the late 1980s and early 1990s than at any point since 

the 1960s, managing the space station power system, 

the ACTS satellite, and the launch vehicle operations 

for NASA’s missions. In addition, the center was

heavily involved in the development of new technologies 

for future high-speed and subsonic aircraft.

Image 321: Historian Virginia Dawson conducting research in 1984 

for her history of the center, Engines and Innovation 

(GRC–1984–C–03885).
254

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Endnotes for Chapter 8

814. William Robbins interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Virginia Dawson, 15 May 1986, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

815. Robbins interview by Dawson.

816. William Robbins interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Michael McMahon and Virginia Dawson, 15 May 

1986, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

817. Lewis Public Information Office, “Biographical 

Sketch of Andrew J. Stofan,” January 1984, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

818. “Budget Cuts Forcing NASA to Close Lewis 

Research Center,” Defense Daily (9 December 1981).

819. Andrew Stofan interview, Cleveland, OH, by Tom 

Farmer, “This Way Up: Voices Climbing the Wind, 

WVIZ Documentary,” 1991, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

820. Stofan interview by Farmer.

Image 322: Time capsule installed in front of the Administration Building in 1991 (GRC–1991–C–08985).

821. “Strategic Planning Options for Lewis Research 

Center,” June 1982, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

822. “Lewis’ Energy Work Gets a Qualified Go-Ahead,” 

Lewis News (5 November 1982).

823. “Strategic Planning Options.”

824. “Reorganization Focuses on National Goals,” Lewis 

News (4 February 1983).

825. W. Warner Burke, Edward Richley, and Louis 

DeAngelis, “Changing Leadership and Planning 

Processes at Lewis Research Center,” Human 

Resource Management (Spring 1985). 

826. “The Present: Lewis People and Their Missions, A 

50-Year Voyage: Cleveland’s Saga of Air and Space,” 

1991, Glenn History Collection, Directors 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

827. James Hawker and Richard Dali, Anatomy of an 

Organizational Change Effort at the Lewis Research 

Center (Washington, DC: NASA CR–4146, 1988).

828. Stofan interview by Farmer. 

829. Hawker, Anatomy of an Organizational Change 

Effort.
Bootstrapping the Center 255

John H. Glenn Research Center

830. John David Lees and Michael Turner, Reagan’s 

First Four Years: A New Beginning (Manchester, 

UK: Manchester University Press, 1988). 

831. Ronald Reagan, “Memorandum Directing a Federal 

Employee Hiring Freeze” (20 January 1981), Online 

by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The 

American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.

ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=43601 (accessed 16 July 2015).

832. John Klineberg talk, c1981, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

833. “190 New Hires Biggest Boost to Lewis Workforce in 

20 Years,” Lewis News (29 July 1983).

834. Stofan interview by Farmer.

835. Hawker, Anatomy of an Organizational Change 

Effort.

836. D. A. Sagerser and S. G. Ludemann, Large-Scale 

Advanced Propfan Program Progress Report 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–87067, 1985).

837. Herman Mark interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Virginia Dawson, 12 March 1985, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

838. Roy Hager and Deborah Vrabel, Advanced 

Turboprop Project (Washington, DC: NASA

SP–495, 1988).

839. Edwin Graber, “Overview of NASA PTA Propfan 

Flight Test Program,” Aeropropulsion 1987

(Washington, DC: NASA, 1992).

840. Hager, Advanced Turboprop Project.

841. Mark Bowles, The Apollo of Aeronautics: NASA’s 

Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program 1973–1977

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2009–574, 2009).

842. “Icing Research Tunnel History: 50 Years of Icing, 

1944–1994,” 9 September 1994, NASA Glenn 

History Office, Test Facilities Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

843. Aircraft Icing (Washington, DC: NASA

CP–2086, 1979).

844. William Leary, We Freeze to Please: A History of 

NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for 

Flight Safety (Washington, DC: NASA SP–2002–

4226, 2002).

845. Congressional Advisory Committee on Aeronautics 

Assessment, NASA Aeronautics Budget for FY86, 

Org 2600, Box 55, “Response to Congressional 

Advisory Committee on Aeronautics” folder, 

846. J. J. Reinmann, R. J. Shaw, and W. A. Olsen, Jr., 

Aircraft Icing Research at NASA (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM–82919, 1982).

847. Reinmann, Aircraft Icing Research.

848. A. A. Peterson, L. Dedona, and D. Bevan, Rotorcraft 

Aviation Icing Research Requirements, Research 

Review, and Recommendations (Washington, DC: 

NASA CR–165344, 1981).

849. Thomas Miller and Thomas Bond, Icing Research 

Tunnel Test of a Model Helicopter Rotor 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–101978, 1989).

850. Miller, Icing Research Tunnel Test.

851. “Lewis Team Uses Model Helicopter Rotor To 

Develop Techniques for First Test of Helicopter 

Model in Icing Research Tunnel,” Lewis News

(30 March 1990). 

852. Reinmann, Aircraft Icing Research.

853. Randall Britton and Thomas Bond, An Overview of a 

Model Rotor Icing Test in the NASA Lewis Icing 

Research Tunnel (Washington, DC: NASA

TM–106471, 1994). 

854. John Reinmann, Robert J. Shaw, and Richard 

Ranaudo, NASA’s Program on Icing Research and 

Technology (Washington, DC: NASA TM–101989, 

1989). 

855. NASA Glenn Research Center, “LEWICE” (2014), 

http://icebox.grc.nasa.gov/design/lewice.html 

(accessed 16 July 2015).

856. “Otter Is Research Workhorse,” Lewis News

(23 April 1982).

857. Reinmann, NASA’s Program.

858. NASA Glenn Research Center, “LEWICE.”

859. Mark G. Potapczuk, “Aircraft Icing Research at 

NASA Glenn Research Center,” Journal of Aerospace 

Engineering 26 (2013): 260–276.

860. Peterson, Rotorcraft Aviation Icing.

861. “Lewis and Army Teams Join Forces To Improve 

Icing Flight Research,” Lewis News (30 March 1990).

862. Stanley McCowen, Helicopters: An Illustrated 

History of Their Impact (Weapons and Warfare)

(Santa Barbara, CA: ABC−CLIO, 24 May 2005).

863. John Acurio, “Propulsion Directorate,” Lewis News

(9 January 1987).

864. “Helicopter Group Saluted,” Lewis News

(27 July 1984).

865. “Helicopter Test Rig is Operational,” Lewis News

(16 July 1982).

866. “Novel Face Gears Proved Feasible for Advanced 

Rotorcraft Transmissions,” Research & Technology 

1992 (Washington, DC: NASA TM–105924, 

1992). 

867. Timothy Krantz, NASA/Army Rotorcraft 

Transmission Research, A Review of Recent 

Significant Accomplishments (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM–106508, 1994).
256

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

868. Ajay Misra and Leslie Greenbauer-Seng, “Aerospace 

Propulsion and Power Materials and Structures 

Research at NASA Glenn Research Center” Journal 

of Aerospace Engineering 26, (2013): 459–490.

869. John Coy, Dennis Townsend, and Harold Coe, 

Results of NASA/Army Transmission Research 

(Washington, DC: NASA TR–87–C–3, 1987).

870. “Advanced Technology Helicopter Transmission,” 

Lewis Research and Technology Report 1985

(Washington, DC: NASA, 1985).

871. Stofan interview by Farmer.

872. “New Lewis Office Seeks Space Station Involvement,” 

Lewis News (27 August 1982). 

873. Donald Nored and George Halinan, Electrical Power 

System for the U.S. Space Station (Washington, DC: 

NASA TM–88856, 1986). 

874. “Why the Power Systems Facility is Needed,” Lewis 

News (2 October 1987).

875. Stofan interview by Farmer.

876. “New Lewis Office.”

877. Robbins interview by Dawson.

878. “Why the Power Systems Facility is Needed.”

879. Andy Stofan interview, Cleveland, OH, by Adam 

Gruen, 7 March 1988, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

880. William Broad, “Space Station Plan Found 

Unworkable,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(19 March 1990).

881. Thomas Gerdel, “Lewis Space Station Project 

Changing,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (6 March 1991).

882. Joseph Nieberding and Francis Spurlock, “U.S. ELVs: 

A Perspective on Their Past and Future,” Space 

Commerce 1 (1990): 29–34.

883. Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, Taming Liquid 

Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket

1958–2002 (Washington, DC: NASA

SP 2004–4230, 2004).

884. “Field Center Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) 

Roles, Responsibilities, and Organizational 

Structure,” 17 December 1987, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Centaur Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

885. Centaur G Subagreement to the NASA/DOD 

Memorandum of Understanding on Management 

and Operation of the Space Transportation System,” 

November 1982, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Centaur Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

886. “Shuttle/Centaur Overview,” Lewis Research Center 

press release, July 1985, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Centaur Collection, Cleveland, OH.

887. John McCarthy to Alan Lovelace, 25 March 1981, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Centaur 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

888. Karen Long, “Lewis Gets 50% Boost in Budget,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer (28 July 1982).

889. Lutha Shaw interview, Cleveland, OH, by Virginia 

Dawson and Joe Nieberding, 10 November 1999, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Centaur 

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

890. Larry Ross interview, Cleveland, OH, by Mark 

Bowles, 29 February 2000, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

891. Vernon Weyers interview, Cleveland, OH, by Mark 

Bowles, 8 April 2000, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Centaur Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

892. Dawson, Taming Liquid Hydrogen (NASA SP 

2004–4230).

893. Robbins interview by Dawson.

894. James Fletcher to Slade Gorton, 24 June 1986, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Centaur 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

895. John Mangels, “Long-Forgotten Shuttle/Centaur 

Boosted Cleveland’s NASA Center Into Manned 

Space Program and Controversy,” Cleveland Plain 

Dealer (11 December 2011).

896. “The ACTS Initiative: Pioneering the Next 

Generation of Space Communications,” NASA Tech 

Briefs (May 1988).

897. “Working to Meet the Communication Needs of the 

1990s,” Lewis News (1 November 1985). 

898. “Switchboard in the Sky: The Advanced 

Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS),” 

NASA Facts (Washington, DC: FS–2002–060013–

GRC, June 2002).

899. “Switchboard in the Sky.” 

900. Kenneth Atchison, “Truly Appoints Klineberg as 

Director of Goddard Space Flight Center,” NASA 

Release 90–51, 9 April 1990. 

901. “Profile: John Klineberg.” Space News

(11 October 1999).

902. “Employee Center Dedicated,” Lewis News

(8 August 1986). 

903. Frank Montegani, “OAI Questions,” Lewis News

(24 April 1992). 

904. John Klineberg to Thomas J. Coyne, 31 January 1990, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors 

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

905. “Hopes Soar with OAI,” Lewis News (4 December 

1992).

906. “The Present: Lewis People and Their Missions.”

907. Ohio Aerospace Institute (Cleveland, OH: The 

Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, 2004),

http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=OAI

(accessed 22 July 2015).
Bootstrapping the Center 257

John H. Glenn Research Center

908. Robert Kozar interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Virginia Dawson, 30 March 2000, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Oral History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

909. Roger Smith, Space Power Facility Readiness for 

Space Station Power System Testing (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM–106829, 1995).

910. “Well Preserved Plum Brook Facilities Could Be 

Used for Space Station and Aerospace Plane Testing,” 

Lewis News (11 December 1987).

911. Scott Thomas and Jinho Lee, The Mothball, 

Sustainment, and Proposed Reactivation of the 

Hypersonic Tunnel Facility (HTF) at NASA Glenn 

Research Center Plum Brook Station (Washington, 

DC: NASA/TM—2010-216936, 2010).

912. “Ross Is Named to Head Launch Vehicles Group,” 

Lewis News (21 March 1978). 

913. “Ross Appointed Deputy Director,” Lewis News

(2 October 1987). 

914. “State of the Center Address Highlights Past 

Achievements,” Lewis News (10 May 1991).

915. Jack Matlock, Jr., Reagan and Gorbachev: How 

the Cold War Ended (New York, NY: Random 

House Publishing, 2005).

916. “NASA Lewis Spirits Soar Over Space Plans,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer (21 July 1989).

917. Thor Hogan, Mars Wars: The Rise and Fall of the 

Space Exploration Initiative (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP–2007–4410, 2007).

918. Stanley Borowski, et al., “Nuclear Thermal Rockets: 

Key to the Moon-Mars Exploration,” Aerospace 

America 30, no. 7 ( July 1992): 34–37.

919. Vernon Weyers to Lewis Supervisors, “Establishment 

of the Nuclear Propulsion Office,” 1 May 1991, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors 

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

920. Stanley Borowski, Leonard Dudzinski, and

Melissa McGuire, Vehicle and Mission Design 

Options for the Human Exploration of Mars/

Phobos Using “Bimodal” NTR and LANTR 

Propulsion (Washington, DC: NASA/

TM—1998-208834, 1998).

921. Borowski, Vehicle and Mission Design Options.

922. David DeFelice to Robert Arrighi, email,

23 February 2015, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

923. John Schuster, Edwin Russ, and Joseph Wachter, 

Cryogenic On-Orbit Liquid Depot Storage, 

Acquisition, and Transfer Satellite (COLD–SAT) 

(Washington, DC: NASA CR–185249, 1990).

924. “The National Aero-Space Plane,” Round Trip to 

Orbit: Human Space Flight Alternatives

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 

OTA–ISC–419, August 1989).

925. “Lewis-Developed Seal Wins Acclaim,” Lewis News

(June 1997).

926. John Klineberg to J. R. Thompson, 2 April 1990, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

927. “Plum Brook’s K-Site Facility Reactivated for Slush 

Hydrogen Tests,” Lewis News (11 May 1990).

928. “Fueling and Cooling the National Aero-Space 

Plane,” Lewis News (11 May 1990).

929. “The National Aero-Space Plane.”

930. “Converting Parahydrogen to Orthohydrogen May 

Cool the National Aero-Space Plane,” Lewis News

(11 May 1990).

931. “Airbreathing Propulsion for Hypersonic Flight:

The Lewis Perspective,” 2 April 1996, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

932. “Time Capsule Contributions,” Lewis News

(22 November 1991). 

933. Karen Long, “Celebrating a Half-Century of 

Innovation,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(24 January 1991).

934. “Sharp Center Dedication Remembers the Past,” 

Lewis News (11 October 1991).

935. Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis 

Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).
258

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 323: Fluids and Combustion Facility during testing at the 

Structural Dynamics Laboratory (GRC–2004–C–01827).
Reformation 259

John H. Glenn Research Center

9. Reformation

“My challenge is to convince you that you could do more,

do it a little better, do it for less if we use more innovative

management techniques and utilize the individual

capabilities of each and every NASA employee.”

—Dan Goldin
260

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 324: Technician analyzes a NASA Solar Electric Power Technology Application Readiness 

(NSTAR) thruster in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory (EPL) during December 1993 

(GRC–1993–C–08855).
Reformation 261

Zero Base Review

Upon becoming NASA Administrator in April 1992, 

Dan Goldin quickly introduced a new “Faster, Better, Cheaper” philosophy in hopes of reforming the

Agency’s culture of large programs, which did not

mesh with the new atmosphere of federal downsizing.

The massive Space Exploration Initiative had failed

almost immediately, and the Agency was floundering 

under the costly space station, shuttle, and Hubble 

Space Telescope programs. Under Goldin, NASA 

would focus on a series of smaller, less expensive

advanced technology missions, reduce management 

levels at headquarters, and improve planning efforts 

for future missions. Goldin began taking steps to

restructure the shuttle and space station programs and 

canceled expensive, lower priority programs like the 

National Aerospace Plane.937

With Congress poised to cut the estimated $30-billion

space station, NASA had to reduce the program’s

cost, finalize the design, and adhere to a schedule. In 

February 1993 newly elected President Bill Clinton 

gave Goldin three months to reinvent the space station 

with a significantly reduced budget and development 

schedule.938 This monumental effort was complicated 

Reformation

Image 325: Dan Goldin began his professional career in 1962 working on electric propulsion systems at Lewis. He left NASA for TRW 

in 1967 and worked his way up to be the firm’s vice president

(GRC–1962–C–60944).

By the time that President Bill Clinton took office 

on 20 January 1993, the recent Cold War victory had 

reduced international tensions but had left the federal 

government strapped with a massive federal deficit. 

Clinton’s inauguration coincided with NASA’s latest

review of the space station effort. The review determined 

that the program was over budget and behind schedule once again. The space station served as a palpable

example of what many considered was wrong with 

the government: a sprawling federal program that 

had been sold to the nation without its true costs and 

schedule revealed. Clinton ordered NASA Administrator Dan Goldin to conduct a massive restructuring 

of the program to expedite the station’s construction 

while significantly reducing its funding. This effort led 

to the dissolution of NASA Lewis Research Center’s 

Space Station Freedom Directorate. 

The primary theme throughout Goldin’s nearly

10-year term, the longest of any NASA Administrator, was “Faster, Better, Cheaper.” This meant not only 

doing more with less, but being smarter and willing 

to replace single expensive missions with a greater 

number of smaller, less expensive endeavors. In 1995 

the White House charged Goldin with reforming 

the entire Agency to meet imminent federal budget 

cuts. Goldin subjected the NASA centers to dramatic

reductions, reorganizations, and consolidations in

an attempt to create a more efficient agency. He

instructed each center to analyze methods for

streamlining activities and reducing overhead and 

staff. Despite the self-imposed downsizing, Congress 

reduced NASA’s funding even further.936

In January 1994 Goldin appointed Donald Campbell 

as Lewis’s Center Director. The Agency’s turmoil made 

Campbell’s decade-long tenure, which roughly paralleled Goldin’s, among the most difficult periods in the 

center’s history. A large portion of its space station 

work and several of its traditional roles had been transferred elsewhere; other areas, like electric propulsion, 

microgravity, and aeropropulsion, flourished. Nonetheless, Lewis, which had survived the layoffs in the 

1970s and the near closure in 1981, persevered once 

again during the Agency’s latest reductions. The center 

marked its transformation in 1999 with its redesignation as the John H. Glenn Research Center.
262

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 326: Artist’s rendering of Space Station Freedom’s Alpha design (GRC–1994–C–00566).

by the announcement in April that the Russians would 

be playing a role in the program. The Soviet Union

had broken apart just over a year before, and the

Clinton Administration was seeking to forge new ties.

In addition, management hoped that Russian participation would reduce U.S. expenditures, accelerate construction, and provide alternative access to the

station.939

NASA’s intensive redesign resulted in three possible 

configurations. Each exceeded the mandated budget 

restrictions, but all three were significantly less expensive than the original plan. In June 1993 Clinton

approved a combination of two of the designs and

included the solar power units from the third. In one 

of its most significant decisions regarding NASA’s

human space program, Congress approved continuation

of the pared-down program by a single vote.940-942

In fall 1993 the Clinton Administration announced 

that Russia would not be just contributing to the 

space station but would be a full partner. NASA

released the final space station redesign several days 

later, and Space Station Freedom became the International Space Station (ISS).943,944 After nearly a decade 

and $11.2 billion spent, very little space station hardware had been built, let alone launched into orbit. Now 

concrete steps were finally in place to begin the actual 

construction in 1998.945,946

As part of the new direction, NASA transferred all 

management functions to the ISS project office at 

Johnson Space Center and all systems engineering

to the Boeing Company. This restructuring resulted

in the closure of the program’s headquarters in

Reston, Virginia, and large cutbacks at the other

centers, including Lewis.947,948 The center disbanded 

its four-division Space Station Freedom Directorate in 

January 1994. v v v v v v

As the space station saga played out, Washington, DC, 

was undergoing its own transformation. In spring 1993, 

the House of Representatives introduced balancedbudget and deficit-reduction bills, and Vice President 
Reformation 263

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 327: Goldin and Campbell converse in the Lewis hangar in August 1998 (GRC–1998–C–01638).

Al Gore announced the Administration’s strategy to 

reinvent government. One of the plan’s many goals 

was a dramatic reduction in the federal workforce. By 

1995, NASA was able to reduce its civil servant staff 

by nearly 4,000 through a hard hiring freeze, buyouts, 

and attrition. The downsizing and other consolidation 

efforts generated billions in budget reductions over 

Goldin’s first three years at NASA.949,950

As part of this process, Goldin followed through 

on an effort initiated by his predecessor to identify

institutional changes that would improve the Agency. 

The recommendations of the internal report, which 

sparked harsh criticism when it was leaked to the

media in fall 1993, included the transfer of Lewis’s 

space propulsion research to Marshall Space Flight 

Center, the closure of Plum Brook Station, and the

relocation of the center’s aircraft to the Dryden Flight 

Research Center (now Armstrong Flight Research 

Center). Although these recommendations were not 

immediately implemented, they presaged actions in 

the near future.951

On 6 January 1994 NASA announced the appointment of new directors at five NASA centers—

including Lewis. Goldin asked Larry Ross to manage a feasibility study for a new national wind tunnel 

complex and named Donald Campbell as the center’s 

eighth Center Director.952,953 Campbell had spent his 

career at the Wright-Patterson Air Force base. Over 

the course of 30 years he had worked his way up from 

aircraft engine test engineer to program manager to 

the Director of Aeropropulsion and Power.954

The Campbell appointment came at the same time 

that the center dissolved its large Space Station Directorate and the Agency learned that its budget would 

be substantially reduced in the coming years.955 In 

November 1994 the Republican Party won control 

of both houses of Congress and promised to balance

the federal budget. With further cutbacks eminent, 

Goldin had taken steps to reduce the Agency’s budget by $35 billion over the next five years. Despite this

effort, the Clinton Administration ordered the Agency 

to cut another $5 billion in December 1994.956 
264

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Goldin instructed the centers to perform a zero-based 

self-assessment of all their functions to identify methods for streamlining activities and creating efficiencies in preparation for the impending fiscal year 1996 

budget submission. This type of review did not base 

current expenditures on those from previous years but 

required a new justification for each line item. NASA 

planned to reduce its civil servant staff to its lowest 

levels since the early 1960s, remove unneeded facilities, and minimize management overhead.957,958 The 

reanalysis led to NASA’s reassignment of civil servants 

in operations work to research activities, introduced 

full-cost accounting and standardization, and transferred the management of certain science programs to 

university partners. The effort also included the establishment of “centers of excellence” and the consolidation of communications, information technology, and 

certain administrative services.959

NASA issued the “A Budget Reduction Strategy”

report in February 1995 to spur discussions regarding 

the realignment of center roles.960,961 The document 

recommended that Lewis’s responsibility for expendable launch vehicles, communications, hypersonics, 

and flight research should be relinquished, and that 

Plum Brook Station, the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL), and the Rocket Engine Test Facility 

(RETF) should be closed. Campbell and Lewis managers countered most of these suggestions, but Lewis’s 

internal review found that the center could decrease its 

spending by almost $30 million through consolidation 

and personnel reductions.962

Lewis and the other centers reported their Zero 

Base Review findings to headquarters in mid-March 

1995,963 and Goldin announced the results on 19 May

1995. Even with NASA’s self-imposed reductions, 

Congress ordered the Agency to cut more. There 

would have to be some fundamental changes in the 

Agency’s way of doing business.964,965 The Agency 

identified Lewis’s primary missions as aeropropulsion 

and commercial communications and named Lewis 

NASA’s center of excellence for turbomachinery—

although the designation was later extended to microgravity research in fluid physics, combustion, and to

a lesser extent, materials and fundamental physics

microgravity research.966

Lewis would maintain Plum Brook Station and the 

PSL but would close the RETF. In a huge hit to its

morale, the center also would have to transfer its 

launch vehicles responsibilities to Kennedy Space 

Center, flight operations to Dryden, and space propulsion to Marshall. Campbell reorganized the center in 

October 1996 to focus on the responsibilities set out 

by the Zero Base Review. Campbell stated, “We’re 

moving into a new era within the Agency where we will 

be accountable for all of our resources.”967

Space Station Transformation

Under the new U.S.-Russian space agreement, NASA 

would assist with the Russian space station Mir, which 

had been in orbit since 1986. The Mir collaboration 

would provide NASA with hands-on space station 

experience and the Russians with superior U.S. technologies such as the space power system. In February 1994, NASA assigned Lewis the management of 

the joint U.S.-Russian Mir Cooperative Solar Array 

program. The program sought to extend the life of 

Mir’s ailing power system and provide energy for U.S.

experiments on the station. The United States provided the photovoltaic power modules and a solar collector to concentrate the energy, both of which Lewis 

had designed for the canceled Space Station Freedom 

program. The accordionlike power module was 9- by 

52-feet and contained over 6,000 flexible solar cells. 

Russia designed the array’s support structure.968

Lewis researchers traveled to Kennedy in early 1996 to 

verify the panel’s electrical performance after its shipment to the launch site.969 The system was launched 

Image 328: Space Experiments Division’s internal review for NASA’s 

Zero Base Review.
Reformation 265

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 329: ISS solar array testing in the Space Power Facility (SPF) 

(GRC–2000–C–00279).

Image 330: Testing for the Mir Cooperative Solar Array (GRC–1995–C–00994).

on Space Shuttle Atlantis in May 1996 and 

successfully installed on Mir. The Mir power 

system provided data that helped engineers 

predict the lifespan of the ISS solar panels. 

Meanwhile researcher Richard Shaltens led

the development of the solar concentrator,

which uses a large mirror to reflect solar

radiation into a Brayton cycle energy conversion system that stores the energy.970

Shaltens tested the system in an EPL vacuum chamber in early 1995. Researchers

operated the system for over 365 hours

under various simulated solar conditions. 

It was the nation’s first operation of a solardynamic power system in realistic space

conditions.971 NASA and the Russian Space

Agency intended to verify the system aboard

Mir in 1997, but NASA’s restructuring of

its Mir activities led to the cancellation of the 

mission.972 Lewis continued working on the

system and testing the hardware, much of

which had already been constructed, for

possible future U.S. deployment.973

The ISS employed a larger version of the 

photovoltaic power system that Lewis had 

developed for Space Station Freedom and 

Mir. This 110-kilowatt system was the

largest and most advanced in existence.

Construction of the ISS began in 1998, 

and in December 2000, astronauts installed 

the station’s eight 35-foot-long solar arrays, 

which included 250,000 solar cells.974

Although Lewis did not lead the ISS power 

program, the center’s Power Systems Project 

Office supported the ongoing effort by lifecycle testing of the nickel-hydrogen batteries and testing the gimbals that rotated the

solar arrays. Lewis researchers also designed 

a plasma contactor, which eradicates the 

electrical charges that build up on the ISS 

exterior and can injure astronauts working on the solar arrays. The power system 

requires a large radiator to dissipate heat 

from the energy conversion process and 

the on-board equipment. From 1996 to 

1999 Lewis engineers tested the radiator in 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 331: Titan-Centaur launch of the Cassini/Huygens spacecraft on 15 October, 1997 (NASA KSC–97PC–1543).
Reformation 267

John H. Glenn Research Center

simulated space conditions inside the SPF at Plum 

Brook Station. The center continues to be responsible

for the testing and operations of the power system 

flight hardware and for the computer modeling used 

to predict the power system’s performance.975,976

Launch Vehicles Travails

One of the more painful results of the Zero Base

Review was the transfer of Lewis’s responsibility for 

the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicles to Kennedy. NASA 

had turned over its launch services to private industry in the 1980s, but Lewis had continued to manage 

launches carrying NASA payloads. In this role, Lewis 

had purchased launch services from the manufacturer, integrated the payload into the launch vehicle, 

and identified the proper trajectory and launch window.977 During the Zero Base Review, representatives 

from Goddard Space Flight Center, Kennedy, and 

Lewis met several times to discuss potential methods 

of streamlining NASA’s expendable launch vehicle

activities. In November 1996 the Agency decided to 

consolidate all launch services work at Kennedy.978

Lewis’s final two Centaur launches were joint missions with NASA and the European Space Agency 

(ESA). The first, the Solar Heliospheric Observatory 

(SOHO), was designed to conduct in-depth studies

of the Sun. An Atlas-Centaur launched SOHO in

December 1995. The second, Cassini/Huygens, was 

even more ambitious.979 The mission would use the 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory- ( JPL) designed Cassini 

Image 332: Twin peaks on the martian surface as seen by Sojourner (NASA).

orbiter and ESA’s Huygens lander to explore Saturn’s 

largest moon, Titan. The $2 billion spacecraft weighed 

3 tons and was the largest and most complex interplanetary spacecraft ever assembled. NASA selected 

the powerful Titan IV-Centaur launch vehicle for the 

effort. The size of the spacecraft, its power source, and 

the long distance to Saturn complicated the launch. 

Lewis’s involvement included the 1990 testing of the 

Titan IV shroud in the SPF, integrating the spacecraft 

into the rocket, and determining the launch window 

and trajectory.980

The Titan IV-Centaur lifted off in the early morning hours of 15 October 1997 with Lewis personnel

assisting with the launch operations and controlling 

the Centaur until it separated from the spacecraft, 

sending Cassini/Huygens on a seven-year journey to 

Titan.981 In 2005 Huygens became the first spacecraft to land on an object in the outer solar system.

Cassini brought an end to Lewis’s supervision of 

NASA’s launches. During its 35 years in the business, 

Lewis had managed the launches of 17 interplanetary 

missions, 21 lunar vehicles, several telescopes, and

dozens of satellites.982

v v v v v v

NASA did not perform any planetary missions 

throughout most of the 1980s, but the situation 

changed rapidly in the 1990s with Cassini/Huygens 

and a series of nine smaller, less costly technologybased missions. Early satellites and spacecraft were 

small because launch vehicle capability was limited. As 
268

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Atlas-Centaur and other rockets, including the shuttle, became commonplace, the 

payloads increased. However, the number 

of these larger, more expensive missions

diminished as the Agency’s budget shrank 

in the late 1970s. In the early 1990s NASA 

began launching a series of small spacecraft, and in 1992, Dan Goldin used this 

philosophy as the basis for his Faster,

Better, Cheaper plan for the Agency. 

NASA would increase its space science

efforts by concentrating on simple, rapidly 

developed, and reasonably priced missions 

that could be flown more frequently. The 

failure of such a mission would not deal a 

crushing blow to the Agency.983

The Mars Pathfinder was one of NASA’s 

first efforts in this new realm. JPL designed

both the Pathfinder lander and its

Sojourner rover, the first wheeled vehicle 

on Mars. Mars Pathfinder sought to demonstrate that a low-cost mission could be 

sent to the Martian surface at a reasonable cost to evaluate the performance of a 

rover. Pathfinder would be NASA’s first

return to the Martian surface since Viking 

in the mid-1970s.984 Viking had used retrorockets to slow its descent and soft-land 

on Mars. JPL engineers, however, did not 

want to contaminate the Pathfinder landing site with rocket exhaust. Instead they 

designed a unique landing system that used 

a parachute and rocket braking to slow the

descent and a collection of airbags to cushion

the impact. The airbags allowed Pathfinder 

to safely bounce multiple times before coming to a stop.985

Because JPL engineers were concerned that 

the cloth airbags might rip open on Mars’s 

rocky surface, they asked Lewis to develop 

a series of tests in the SPF’s large vacuum 

chamber to verify the airbags’ integrity. In 

a simulated martian atmospheric environment, the test engineers slammed the bags 

and lander model down from the top of the 

Image 333: Pathfinder airbag drop in the SPF (GRC–1995–C–01614).
Reformation 269

John H. Glenn Research Center

122-foot-tall chamber onto an angled board that had 

rocklike materials affixed to it. They simulated different types of terrain by adjusting the board’s attitude 

from horizontal to steep angles. 

The need for the test program became evident when 

several of the single-layer bags tore open. JPL engineers 

repeatedly modified the bags and systems without success. Finally the design team created a 17-square-foot 

collection of 24 bags composed of multiple lightweight 

layers instead of a single thick layer of fabric.986,987 

The new design was then successfully inflated in simulated space conditions inside the Spacecraft Propulsion

Research Facility (B–2) test chamber.988 Pathfinder

was launched on 2 December 1996, and the airbag system worked flawlessly as Pathfinder descended onto a 

rocky ancient floodplain on 4 July 1997.989

Image 334: Lewis News article about Lewis’s experiments on Pathfinder.

v v v v v v

In the early 1990s Lewis’s Photovoltaic Research 

Branch created a computer model to predict the 

different types of solar radiation present in the martian atmosphere. JPL engineers used this model

to determine that there was enough solar energy to 

operate the lander and rover. The team also used 

the model in designing the solar panels to power 

the vehicles. The Pathfinder mission was the first 

use of solar-powered technology on Mars.990

JPL asked Lewis to contribute three experiments 

to the Pathfinder mission. Geoffrey Landis and 

other Lewis researchers were interested in using 

Sojourner to verify the amount of solar energy on 

Mars and determine the effect of dust on solar 

array performance. The rover included an instrumented solar cell encased by a retractable glass 

window. Once each day, the cover was drawn 

back to expose the cell directly to the sunlight. 

Another sensor with two vibrating crystals—

one covered and one exposed daily—was used to 

measure the amount of dust that settled on the 

unit. A comparison of these data to the readings 

with the dust-covered glass door closed revealed 

moderate power losses.991,992

Lewis also worked with the rover’s wheels. 

There was concern that the wheels might accumulate static electricity that could overload the vehicle’s 

batteries. Lewis developed and tested small tungsten 

discharge plates to attract any electrical charges and 

discharge them into the atmosphere. JPL added the 

plates to Sojourner, and they protected the rover as 

intended. In addition, engineers covered one of the

rover’s wheels in a metallic coating to measure the 

abrasiveness of the surface. A small sensor relayed data 

on the erosion of the coating over time.993

Although the martian surface mission had been

designed for 30 days, Pathfinder and Sojourner operated for nearly three months. The mission provided a 

wealth of information and led NASA researchers to 

conclude that the planet once had liquid water and

a thicker atmosphere.994 Pathfinder spurred a series

of increasingly large rover missions to Mars that

continues today.
270

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Electric Propulsion in Space

NASA introduced its New Millennium Program 

in 1994 as part of its broader effort to launch more 

frequent and cost-effective science missions. The program’s primary objective was the demonstration of 

various advanced technologies that could be utilized 

by future spacecraft. JPL partnered with Orbital to 

design the Deep Space 1 spacecraft to validate a variety of these new technologies—including the Lewisdesigned thruster and power-processing unit for the 

ion propulsion system and its complementary solar 

concentrator arrays.995

Deep Space 1 was NASA’s first space mission using

ion thrusters as its primary mode of propulsion. The 

spacecraft’s ion propulsion system was based on an 

electron bombardment thruster whose origin can 

be traced back to the original thruster that Harold 

Kaufman invented at Lewis in 1958. The center had 

been pursuing electric propulsion since the late 1950s, 

and each successive generation of thruster improved 

upon its predecessor. In the late 1970s Lewis researchers began using xenon, instead of mercury and cesium, 

as the preferred working gas because it is nontoxic, 

it can be stored at high pressure, and its high atomic 

mass provided favorable performance.996

Lewis began developing 30-centimeter- (cm) diameter xenon thrusters and a solar array and concentrator in the mid-1980s. The solar power system, which 

included a unique magnifying lens that concentrated 

solar radiation onto two high-power solar arrays, could 

generate up to 20 percent more power than contemporary systems.997 These developments led to Lewis’s 

November 1992 partnership with JPL on the NASA 

Solar Electric Power Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR), a solar-powered xenon-gas-based 

electric propulsion system. Lewis created the initial 

prototype, and JPL tested it for over 8,000 hours in 

simulated space conditions. The actual NSTAR flight 

engine was industrially manufactured on the basis of 

the Lewis design.998

Deep Space 1 was launched into space on a Delta II 

rocket on 24 October 1998. The solar arrays deployed 

within hours of the launch, and the ion thruster began 

operation as scheduled 30 days later.999 Deep Space 1 

successfully demonstrated its new technologies during 

its first 90 days, including operation of the NSTAR 

thruster. After reaching the asteroid Braille in April 

1999, NASA extended the mission. NASA issued its 

final commands on 18 December 2001, three months 

after the spacecraft encountered the Borrelly comet. 

The NSTAR system operated for over 

16,000 hours, far surpassing Space 

Electric Rocket Test II’s (SERT–II’s) 

record-setting performance.1000,1001

NSTAR propulsion system was also 

utilized on JPL’s 2007 Dawn mission 

to explore the two largest objects in 

the asteroid belt, the protoplanet 

Vesta and dwarf planet Ceres. Dawn 

was the first scientific mission to use 

solar electric power. The propulsion 

system included three solar-powered 

NSTAR ion thrusters that were

operated sequentially. Glenn manufactured several of the components 

and oversaw the hardware review

process. Dawn successfully visited 

Vesta in 2011 and Ceres in 2015.1002

Image 335: NSTAR thruster test (GRC–2015–C–06537). 
Reformation 271

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 336: A researcher prepares the NSTAR thruster for a 2000-hour wear test in the EPL during November 1994 (GRC–1994–C–05234).

Aeronautics 

One of the Zero Base Review’s more controversial recommendations was the transfer of the center’s flight 

operations work to Dryden. If fully implemented, 

the proposal would be the death knell for the center’s 

50-plus-year flight research program. The hangar, 

which was the center’s first and most recognizable 

structure, would be utilized only to host visiting aircraft, and the 14-person Flight Operations staff would 

be reduced to 2. 

The Zero Base Review instructed the centers to

consolidate all required research aircraft at Dryden 

while excessing the rest. At the time, Lewis possessed six aircraft—a Learjet, a Twin Otter, a DC–9, 

a Gulfstream, a North American Rockwell OV–10A, 

a Beechcraft T–34, and the NASA 5. The latter four 

were quickly transferred, but there was resistance to 

transferring the others because of their importance to 

Lewis’s research efforts.

Image 337: Flight Operations veterans Kurt Blankenship and Bill 

Rieke flying the center’s Learjet (GRC–2001–C–003108).
272

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Learjet to calibrate their

advanced solar cells. It would 

have to make arrangements to 

continue this work at Dryden. 

The microgravity program 

utilized the modified DC–9 

before it was transferred in September 1997. After that, the 

researchers conducted all microgravity flights on Johnson’s 

KC–135. Operations of the

Learjet and Twin Otter were set 

to be terminated in early 2000. 

This time, however, there was strong pushback from 

several members of Congress, particularly regarding 

the projected savings and the negative impact on the 

research programs. An Inspector General investigation in 2000 found that the NASA Zero Base Review 

incorrectly assumed that Dryden could handle all of 

the Agency’s aircraft without increases in personnel. 

More importantly, the review did not address the

Image 338: Aircraft consolidation plan. 

The Twin Otter was the workhorse for the center’s 

icing research program. So that the program could 

still use the Twin Otter’s services, Lewis began negotiations to transfer the Twin Otter to the Canadian

National Research Council. The council would then 

lease the aircraft’s services back to NASA’s icing

program. The photovoltaic program relied on the

Image 339: Icing researcher Judy Van Zandt with pilots Rich Ranaudo and Tom Ratvasky beside the Twin Otter (GRC–1997–C–03962).
Reformation 273

John H. Glenn Research Center

effect of the transfers on the individual research programs.1003 The Inspector General determined that 

the Twin Otter and Learjet should be maintained in 

Cleveland,1004 and NASA canceled its plans to eliminate Lewis’s Flight Operations efforts. 

v v v v v v

The Zero Base Review also impacted the center’s

aeronautical research, including the closure or 

threatened-closure of some aeronautical facilities, 

in particular wind tunnels that were thought to be

duplicated elsewhere. Nonetheless, Lewis participated 

in three large multicenter aeronautics programs—

High Speed Research (HSR), Advanced Subsonic 

Technology (AST), and Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET). Congressman Conrad Burns stressed 

the national importance of these efforts during a 1995 

NASA appropriations hearing. “It is estimated that 

the first country to market ... an [HSR] aircraft stands 

to gain $200 billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs.... 

[The AST] market ... generates 1 million jobs and 

contributes over $25 billion annually to the U.S. trade 

balance. These programs are moneymakers, and it is 

in the national interest to give them the support they 

need.”1005

By the 1990s, fear of another energy crisis faded and a 

strong energy market emerged. This led to a renewed 

interest in supersonic passenger aircraft. The nation’s 

first attempt at supersonic transport in the 1960s had 

failed as opposition arose over its potential noise and 

pollution. A second effort in the 1970s produced some 

new technology, but the declining market for supersonic transports and budget cuts led to its cancellation in 1981.1006 With stable energy prices and the 

impending retirement of the European Concorde, 

analysts predicted that the market for larger, more economical supersonic transports would open up in the 

2000s.1007

Image 340: Bill Darby prepares an HSR inlet duct model in the Engine Research Building (GRC–1995–C–02109).
274

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

In 1990 NASA undertook the HSR program to

develop technology for the high-speed civil transport vehicles expected to emerge in the coming years. 

The HSR sought to develop basic technologies for a 

theoretical aircraft that could transport 300 passengers across the ocean at 1,500 mph. It would be up to

industry to utilize the technology to design and manufacture the vehicle.1008

The HSR program involved all of NASA’s aeronautics centers, with Langley Research Center managing 

the overall effort, and Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, and

General Electric as the key partners. Lewis was responsible for the propulsion system.1009 The first phase of 

the program confirmed that the HSR concept was feasible. Then in 1996 NASA began developing component technology to make the system environmentally 

and economically viable. The propulsion system had

to significantly reduce emissions, meet airport noise

requirements, and be cost effective. To meet these 

goals, Lewis concentrated on combustors, exhaust 

nozzles, engine inlets, and fans.1010

The combustor, or combustion chamber, was the 

key to lowering the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions 

that occurred when the engines raced during takeoff.

Reducing ozone-depleting NOx was essential to the 

overall HSR design. To address this need, the design 

team modified the combustor concept from the 1970s 

that used premixed and prevaporized fuel. Testing of 

this combustor in the Engine Research Building demonstrated that it could meet the program’s reduced 

emissions goal, but Lewis continued its efforts because 

of concerns about combustion instability and loss of 

engine power.1011

In addition to the emissions reduction, Lewis lowered 

noise levels using a mixer-nozzle, developed a combustor liner with ceramic matrix composite materials, and 

designed an advanced supersonic inlet. These efforts 

involved testing the advanced inlet on an engine in the 

10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel, small-scale 

combustors and high-temperature ceramic matrix 

composite materials in the Engine Research Building,

engine emissions in the PSL, and nozzles in the

Aero-Acoustic Propulsion Laboratory.1012

The HSR was terminated prematurely in 1999 when 

new economic studies indicated that the market for 

supersonic transport was not materializing. There was 

also concern that technologies meeting certain shortterm environmental levels might not be applicable to 

unknown future standards. Finally, the supersonic 

transport was geared toward international flights, 

and NASA management was increasingly seeking to 

concentrate on making improvements to domestic 

air travel.1013 NASA shelved the premixed, prevaporized combustor concept as the supersonic transport 

application disappeared. Nonetheless the program 

showed that a cost effective, environmentally friendly

supersonic transport engine could eventually be

produced.1014

v v v v v v

The United States dominated the airliner manufacturing market for decades, but that share began decreasing 

with the emergence of Europe’s Airbus in the 1970s 

and 1980s. The U.S. airline industry was hampered 

by overcrowded airports, the lack of life-prediction 

technologies for older aircraft, and new environmental 

regulations. Several NASA centers and manufacturing corporations initiated the AST program in 1996 

to enhance the technological base for large U.S. civil 

transport aircraft, focusing on the technologies with 

the highest payoffs. AST sought to increase airline 

profitability through increased productivity, better efficiency, and reduced cost. The ambitious effort integrated aircraft, airline operators, airspace systems, safety, 

and environmental aspects into a single program.1015

Lewis worked closely with engine manufacturers on 

AST’s propulsion aspects, including noise reduction, 

emissions control, and engine systems components. 

Engine designers found that increased internal pressure improved engine performance but also elevated 

emissions. The Advanced Subsonic Combustion Rig, 

which was added to the Engine Research Building in 

the mid-1990s, was essential to the Lewis effort. It was 

the nation’s only facility that could test full-scale combustors under operating conditions similar to those experienced in new high-pressure-ratio engines.1016,1017

In the early 1990s Lewis undertook a long-term effort 

to design a new lean fuel combustor that did not premix the fuel and air. This lean direct injection (LDI) 

system employed numerous injectors that added fuel 

directly to the flame. Researchers have demonstrated 

that the LDI system performs well at mid and high 

power levels. The center continues to develop the LDI 

concept, improving component fabrication, fuel spray, 

and active controls.1018,1019
Reformation 275

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 341: Advanced Subsonic Combustion Rig in the Engine Research Building (GRC–1999–C–00249).

Under the AST program, General Electric developed 

its successful twin-annular pre-mixing swirler (TAPS) 

combustor, which was based on its lean dual annular design from the 1970s. TAPS resolved previous 

problems with uneven temperatures and high carbon 

dioxide levels, resulting in a more stable combustor 

that maintained low emissions during both high- and 

low-power operation. During low-power cruising, the 

TAPS combustor produced roughly half of the NOx

that fuel-rich fuel combustors produced.1020

The Department of Energy developed a new combustor type in the 1980s that was diametrically different 

from the Lewis lean-burn concept. The Rich-burn/

Quick-mix/Lean-burn (RQL) combustor quickly 

transitions a rich fuel input into a lean burn area. This 

generates additional soot but enables the combustor 

to meet desired low-NOx levels and simplifies operation. In the AST program, Pratt & Whitney decided 

to pursue the RQL technology with its Technology for 

Advanced LOw NOx (TALON) combustors. 

The AST program also examined different sawtooth 

chevron nozzle configurations to quiet engine exhaust.

The jagged nozzle edge facilitates the mixing of the 

hot engine exhaust and the cool atmosphere. This

interaction has been a significant source of engine 

noise. Researchers tested 54 small-scale nozzle designs

in Glenn’s Aero-Acoustic Propulsion Laboratory. 

Ensuing flight tests in 2001 on the center’s Learjet 

demonstrated that the chevron nozzles reduced noise 

significantly with only negligible impact on the engine’s 

thrust.1021

v v v v v v

Congress sharply reduced funding for the AST effort

in 1999, but NASA centers sustained separate portions of the program.1022 Lewis established the new 

UEET program in October 1999 to carry on its

pollution-reduction work. UEET addressed pollution 

by decreasing fuel consumption through improved

efficiency and continuing the development of 

low-emission combustors. To improve efficiency, 

Lewis studied highly loaded turbomachinery, new
276

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

lightweight composite materials for compressors and 

turbines, the aerodynamics of engine-airframe integration, and intelligent propulsion controls.1023

NASA had also continued some AST work under 

the new Vehicle Systems Program (VSP). VSP was 

a multicenter and industry partnership that sought 

to develop an array of new technologies for future

civilian aircraft of all sizes and applications. Its broad 

goals were distilled into four research areas—lower 

emissions, new energy sources, quiet engines, and

improved aerodynamics for fuel efficiency. In 2003 the 

VSP officially incorporated Lewis’s UEET efforts.1024 

The five-year UEET project was geared toward developing specific near-term technological advances that 

aircraft manufacturers could employ to minimize pollution while maintaining high performance. The overall VSP program sought to reduce NOx emissions by 

70 percent during takeoff and landing and by up to

90 percent during normal cruising. Again the combustors were the key to achieving these goals.1025

Under Glenn’s UEET management, Pratt & Whitney 

and General Electric continued development of their 

respective combustors, the RQL-based TALON and 

the lean mix TAPS. The manufacturers overcame a

new wave of issues resulting from the significant

increase of operating pressures required by these new 

engines. These engines operated at much higher pressures than previous generations of engines, but they 

produced only half of the emissions. Pratt & Whitney 

utilized the TALON in its PW1000G engine series,

which powers Airbus’s A320 airliners and other aircraft.

General Electric incorporated the TAPS combustor 

into their next-generation (GEnx) engine design.

The GEnx engine, which powers Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, was one of the most significant results of the AST 

and UEET programs. Glenn’s contributions to the 

GEnx include the combustor, the noise-reducing chevron nozzles, and several new materials technologies. 

Image 343: Burner rig heating a titanium-aluminide alloy sample 

(GRC–1999–C–01995).

Image 342: The UEET logo.

Image 344: Pratt & Whitney combustor test setup in an Engine 

Research Building test cell during September 1998 (GRC–

1998–C–01995).
Reformation 277

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 345: GEnx engine with a chevron nozzle on an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner. By Oliver Cleynen (own work) [cc BY-SA 3.0 (http://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

The GEnx was the first jet engine to include a fan case 

and blades made entirely from composite materials.

Glenn researchers had investigated fiber-andmatrix composite materials in the 1990s and established a method for designing an all-composite fan. 

Glenn researchers had also demonstrated that the 

lightweight titanium-aluminide alloy was strong 

enough to withstand impacts. Consequently, GEnx 

employs titanium-aluminide turbine blades. Glenn 

also worked with General Electric on the implementation of a nickel-aluminide alloy as a coating for the 

high-pressure turbine blades on the GEnx. In the 

1990s, Glenn, General Electric, and Pratt & Whitney

developed the ME3 alloy, which could perform in temperatures up to 1300°F. General Electric incorporated 

ME3 turbine disks into the GEnx engine.1026

NASA restructured the VSP program in early 2005 

resulting in the cancellation of the UEET effort.

NASA’s aeronautics budget in the 1990s was the highest that it had ever been as the nation sought to poise 

its aviation industry for increased competition in the 

coming years. The cancellation of HSR and AST 

in 1999 returned the aeronautics budget to the level 

that it had been at since the early 1970s. The program

terminations did not cause any Agency layoffs or

facility closures, but they signaled the beginning of a 

decline in aeronautics research. NASA began transferring personnel to space programs that combined aeronautics and space technologies.1027 Lewis’s aeronautics 

budget declined from $250 million in 1998 to $158

million in 2000, and the center considered shutting 

down or mothballing nearly all of its aeronautics

facilities except the Icing Research Tunnel.1028

v v v v v v

The center was also involved in less advanced types 

of aircraft. The popularity of privately piloted general 

aviation spiked in the late 1970s before increases in 

fuel prices, aircraft costs, and complexity of operation 

caused the market to plummet. Analysts predicted 

that the field was ripe for resurgence in the mid-1990s, 

but the industry had performed little research and

development in the interim, particularly in regards to 

engines. The existing engines were reliable, but they 

were complicated, noisy, and expensive.1029

In 1996 Lewis and the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) created the General Aviation Propulsion (GAP)

program to quickly develop new technologies that 
278

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

would result in inexpensive general aviation engines 

with low emissions and noise. The GAP program

addressed both piston engines for private aircraft and 

turbojets for small business aircraft. The researchers 

sought to simplify the engine design and manufacturing process to reduce costs while improving performance and decreasing noise.1030

NASA worked with Teledyne Continental Motors to 

develop an inexpensive 200-horsepower piston engine 

that was quiet, lightweight, and easy to operate. The 

cost savings were achieved primarily by incorporating 

many components into a single aluminum casting. In 

addition, the diesel engine could run on jet fuel, which 

was less expensive than aviation gas, and pilots could 

operate the engine with a single lever that controlled 

the fuel flow.1031,1032 In the end, however, the engine 

was not certified. Aircraft manufacturers were wary of 

its low power and advanced design. Despite the diesel’s 

popularity overseas, the U.S. aircraft industry remains 

lukewarm to the general concept.1033,1034

The jet engine phase of the program sought to reduce 

engine costs by a factor of 10.1035 NASA worked with 

Williams International to develop the FJX–2 turbofan engine. This 700-pound-thrust engine weighed 

less than 100 pounds. Lewis researchers analyzed the 

engine on test rigs in 1997. Then the complete engine 

was operated for over 500 hours during the next three 

years, including under simulated altitude conditions 

in the PSL. An independent analysis showed that the 

cost of the FJX–2 was on par with contemporary piston engines of the same size. Williams incorporated 

the FJX–2 into its V-Jet II concept aircraft. After performing successful test flights, Williams presented the 

V-Jet II at the 1997 Oshkosh Airshow.1036

The following year, Eclipse Aviation sought to modify 

the V-Jet II and make it available commercially. The 

result—the Eclipse 500—was flight-tested in 2002 

with the NASA engine, which had been renamed the 

EJ22. The test revealed that Eclipse’s modifications to 

the aircraft design had increased weight to the point 

that the lightweight engines were not powerful enough 

Image 346: Cessna 206 general aviation aircraft (GRC–1980–C–05641).
Reformation 279

John H. Glenn Research Center

to sustain peak performance. The company decided to 

use traditional jet engines instead. The aircraft went 

on to be a successful inexpensive business jet, but the 

projected cost-savings and industry revolution were 

not realized. In the end, neither of the GAP engines 

made it to the FAA certification process, but the program demonstrated that quiet, reliable engines could 

be produced at a low cost.1037,1038

Microgravity Research Blossoms

Lewis’s microgravity program grew rapidly in the late 

1980s and reached its apex in the 1990s. Lewis’s two 

drop towers were beehives of experimental activity, 

new research aircraft flew low-gravity parabolas, and 

the center constructed specialized facilities to prepare 

experiments for shuttle missions. The new space shuttle program did not attract the number 

of research customers that NASA officials had predicted. As a result, Glenn 

was frequently able to utilize the vehicle 

to expand its microgravity studies. The 

shuttle would carry over 200 Glenn

microgravity experiments before being 

retired in 2011.1039

Building on its early 1960s research that 

revealed how liquid hydrogen would

behave in space and determined the 

cause of the Apollo 1 fire. Lewis now 

dove deep into microgravity research 

involving combustion, materials, and 

physics. The work in the Zero Gravity 

Research Facility (Zero-G) in the late 

1960s made it apparent that the microgravity environment provided a unique 

setting for studying the basic elements 

of combustion and fluid physics, which 

had as many applications on Earth as 

in space.1040 The center established the 

Aerospace Environment Branch in the 

1970s to further pursue the research.

In 1980 Lewis acquired a Learjet and 

modified it to serve as a multipurpose 

testbed that could perform microgravity 

missions. As with the AJ–2 in the 1960s, 

the pilot flew a series of parabolas, each 

of which produced up to 20 seconds of 

microgravity. Lewis opened the Microgravity Materials Science Laboratory in 

Image 347: Lewis’s DC–9 on the downward slope of a microgravity-inducing parabola 

(GRC–2001–C–00615).

September 1985 to assist researchers in modeling and 

planning materials experiments for the shuttle.1041,1042

In 1986, as work in the Agency and center expanded

significantly, the center created the Space Experiments 

Division to develop shuttle experiments.1043

In the early 1990s Lewis ramped up its microgravity efforts even further by significantly upgrading its 

two drop towers and adding the $7.1 million Space 

Experiments Laboratory to the Zero-G in 1993. The 

new facility, which contained a high bay and several 

clean rooms, allowed the Space Experiments Division to consolidate its shuttle preparation work, which 

had previously been performed at 12 different facilities.1044 In October 1993 Lewis acquired a McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 aircraft to expand its low-gravity flight 
280

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 348: View down the 2.2-Second Drop Tower (GRC–1994–C–05830).

capabilities even further. The Lewis Flight Operations staff removed the passenger seats, installed padding, and added new electrical and data systems. The 

DC–9 flew the same parabolas as the Learjet (yielding

20 seconds of microgravity), but the DC–9 could

accommodate a great deal more experimental equipment and personnel than the Learjet could.1045,1046

Between 1995 and 1997 the DC–9 flew over 430 

hours while hosting more than 70 experiments.1047

Lewis also utilized sounding rockets to provide up to

6 minutes of microgravity for combustion and fluid 

experiments.

The center had the most comprehensive set of microgravity facilities anywhere, advanced new diagnostics 

techniques, and an engineering and technical staff to 

support that research. In-house researchers, industrial 

partners, and academic communities from all over the 

world utilized Lewis’s unique tools to either validate 

textbook doctrine or to develop new insights into

fundamental combustion, fluid, and materials phenomena. The number of pending grants and proposals 

increased from 50 to several hundred over the course 

of a few years. The 2.2-Second Drop Tower often supported 12 tests per day, the Zero-G conducted larger, 

more precise drop experiments daily, and Lewis aircraft carried experiments from across all disciplines 

most of the year.1048

v v v v v v

In the 1960s Lewis researchers were occasionally 

able to conduct longer-duration microgravity studies

using NASA spacecraft. These experiments, however, 

were governed by the mission’s available physical space, 

power, and duration. The new space shuttle program 

provided researchers with abundant resources for

experiments lasting up to two weeks. It was the ESA, 

however, that initially led the way in utilizing the shuttle for microgravity research. In March 1982 NASA 
Reformation 281

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 349: Simon Ostrach floats in the KC–135 as Renato Colantonio monitors a microgravity experiment (GRC–1996–C–02847).

included a series of ESA microgravity experiments on 

the third shuttle mission. The following year the ESA 

created the Spacelab module—a reusable platform that 

could house multiple microgravity experiments that 

would be operated by shuttle astronauts during their 

flight. In April 1985 U.S. researchers began conceiving their own experiments for Spacelab, and in January 

1992 STS–45 carried the International Microgravity 

Laboratory, which included experiments from numerous international investigators, including Lewis.1049

The U.S. Microgravity Laboratory 1 (USML–1), 

which flew in a Spacelab module on STS–50 for

14 days in June–July 1992, was the nation’s first

major collection of shuttle experiments and remains

the pinnacle of Lewis’s shuttle-based microgravity.

USML–1 contained 31 different government, university, and industry experiments, including 7 from

Lewis. As Lewis’s first significant presence on a shuttle 

mission, the center gave it top priority. 

Simon Ostrach, the former Lewis researcher who 

became internationally renowned for his work 

on buoyancy-driven flows, devised the SurfaceTension-Driven Convection Experiment (STDCE) to

study fluid flows in the absence of such phenomena. 

STDCE was Lewis’s largest payload to date and the

center’s number one concern at the time. Lewis was

faced with a critical prelaunch decision when the 

STDCE hardware accidentally fell from a hoist at the 

Kennedy Space Center. Preliminary tests suggested

that it had not been damaged, so the team decided

to fly the hardware “as is.” In flight, STDCE and the 

six other experiments performed flawlessly. Five of

these were small, hand-operated experiments that were

performed in a glovebox in Spacelab. They were conceived, developed, and managed by a group of

inexperienced, early career people at the center. These

same experimenters, owing in large part to this early, 

hands-on experience with spaceflight hardware, are 

managing major projects at the center today.1050,1051
282

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

USML–1 paved the way for a new generation of 

U.S. microgravity research.1055,1056 Virtually every

space shuttle mission of the 1990s included at least 

one Lewis microgravity experiment, and several 

flew multiple Lewis investigations. Lewis worked 

with the Marshall payload operations personnel to

integrate the flight experiments with Spacelab prior to 

each launch. The researchers and engineers were also 

highly involved with the development of crew procedures and the frequent, face-to-face training of the

astronauts who would perform the experiments.1057 

Image 350: A candle flame in a microgravity environment 

(GRC–1998–C–00486).

One of the USML–1 experiments, which its own investigators labeled as “perhaps the most trivial experiment 

to ever fly on the shuttle,” sought to determine if a candle flame would burn in zero gravity. At the time, there 

was a widespread belief that the candle would not burn in a low-gravity atmosphere because there would be 

no buoyant-driven convection to bring fresh oxygen to the flame. Some people believed, however, that a process known as molecular diffusion would deliver sufficient oxygen to the flame. Three researchers—Daniel

Dietrich, Howard Ross, and a Case Western Reserve University professor, James T’ien—set out to answer 

the question once and for all by attempting the experiment in space. Candle experiments conducted on the 

shuttle and later on Mir proved that not only would the candle flame burn, albeit weakly, but it would survive 

up to four times longer than if it burned on Earth. The flame had a round shape because of the lack of buoyant 

convection in the weightless environment.1052

This simple experiment eventually led to new important technology in a completely different field. In order 

to fly on the Mir, the Russians required the Glenn researchers to incorporate oxygen and carbon dioxide sensors into the experiment. They created new smaller and more accurate sensors. Ten years later one of those 

sensors was incorporated into the mask of pilots flying the F–22 fighter aircraft. At the time, F–22 pilots 

were occasionally passing out in flight for unknown reasons. Glenn’s new sensors confirmed suspicions that 

the problem stemmed from an oxygen deficiency. So, from a simple curious question about candles, came a 

sensor that helped solve a problem in state-of-the-art military aircraft.1053,1054

Some of the hardware was rapidly redesigned to study 

fluid oscillations and was reflown in October 1995 

as USML–2. The three U.S. Microgravity Payload 

missions in the early 1990s were notable because the 

experiments were controlled remotely from the new 

Telescience Support Center at Lewis.1058,1059 The 

Microgravity Science Laboratory (MSL), which was 

flown in July 1997, contained experiments from several 

universities that helped professors rewrite textbooks. 

MSL also included 11 Lewis tests, including Combustion Module-1. The module was the largest package of 

Lewis experiments ever flown and the shuttle’s most 

complex set of experimental payloads yet.1060

Significant Lewis shuttle experiments during this

period included the creation of what today are still the 

weakest flames (1 watt) ever observed in nature, the 

identification of the universal relationship between

soot creation and slow-burning diffusion flames 

(which has medical, fire prevention, engine manufacturing, and industrial applications),1061 critical property measurements during dendrite crystal growth 

(which helps improve industrial metal casting processes),1062 the first observation of dendritic growth in 

crystals with small, evenly dispersed particles (which 

revealed the value of microgravity for studying the 

behavior of gel-like materials),1063 and the determination that microgravity significantly affected the process 

of using heat to compact metal without liquefying it 

(which allowed cost reductions in the manufacturing 

of metal cutting tools).1064 
Reformation 283

John H. Glenn Research Center

Among the most notable achievements was the shattering of long-held misconceptions about how flames 

would behave in the absence of gravity. The nowoutdated ideas that flames would be weak and not survive without a buoyant flow were proven wrong, and 

fires were discovered to be potentially more hazardous 

in spacecraft than on Earth. Fundamental experiments 

showed that a steadily propagating flame can exist in 

microgravity; Sandra Olson’s experiments in this area 

revealed that materials would burn at lower oxygen 

concentrations and, when imposed with a forcedairflow typical of spacecraft ventilation systems,

actually burn faster than their normal gravity counterparts. The experiments and associated theoretical and 

numerical studies showed the importance of radiation 

heat transfer in combustion systems and its criticality 

in determining flame burning rates and flammability 

limits.1065,1066

One of the key factors of flying experiments in space 

was knowing the residual gravity levels. The center

Image 351: Liquid-Phase Sintering brochure.

designed and flew the Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) to determine variations in the 

microgravity levels during flight. SAMS flew on every 

mission, even those without other center hardware. 

The SAMS unit that completed the most flight hours 

of any experimental hardware during the shuttle era is 

now on display in the Smithsonian Institution. SAMS 

units continue to fly today on the International Space 

Station.1067,1068 

v v v v v v

The center’s Microgravity Program was at its peak in 

the mid-1990s and involved over 700 civil servant, 

contractor, and university personnel. It was at this 

point that NASA initiated the Zero Base Review.

Despite protests by NASA’s director of Life and

Microgravity Sciences and others at headquarters

(including independent assessment teams), Agency 

leadership assigned Marshall as the lead center for 

Image 352: Lewis News article by Don Campbell about the National 

Center for Microgravity Research.
284

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

overall management of microgravity science. The new 

designation remained in place despite vocal opposition 

by Lewis management and members of Congress.1069

At the urging of some at headquarters, NASA maintained Lewis’s responsibility for fluids and combustion 

research, but Marshall gained oversight of the overall 

microgravity science program. Eventually, as part of 

the Agency’s downsizing, Lewis transformed its Space 

Experiments Division into the Microgravity Science 

Division and excessed the DC–9. In its place, arrangements were made for Johnson’s KC–135 aircraft to 

periodically travel to Cleveland to carry out microgravity flight tests.1070 Although staffing in this field 

dropped dramatically, microgravity payloads in fluids 

and combustion science, as well as SAMS, fly today 

on the International Space Station, and Glenn remains 

the renowned leader in these fields.

As part of Administrator Goldin’s desire to create a 

new close university tie for each NASA center, the

National Center for Microgravity Research was

instituted at Case Western Reserve University in 

March 1997 under the leadership of Simon Ostrach.

This new scientific community utilized Lewis’s microgravity facilities and experts.1071 The institute thrived

for nearly 10 years before NASA cut its funding.1072

v v v v v v

Researchers in Lewis’s Electro-Physics Branch developed one of the more unique spinoffs of space technology. Bruce Banks, Kim de Groh, and others found 

that in space single atoms of oxygen, referred to as

atomic oxygen, caused some degradation and embrittlement to external components like solar arrays. Glenn 

researchers undertook an extensive effort in the 1990s

to understand and prevent this damage. Since oxygen 

does not remain as a single atom in the Earth’s atmosphere, they created a vacuum facility that enabled 

atomic oxygen to be applied to a large sample surface 

area in a simulated space environment. The researchers also conducted numerous experiments on both the 

shuttle and the ISS.1073,1074 They found that atomic 

oxygen causes most organic materials to become

gaseous carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. To mitigate the corrosion, the group developed a method of 

coating solar arrays with a thin film that blocks atomic 

oxygen without impeding solar cell performance. 

Image 353: Demonstration of the restoration of a fire-damaged 

painting from Saint Alban’s church (GRC–2011–C–00516).

Banks and Sharon Miller began pursuing ways to 

utilize the destructive nature of atomic oxygen for 

terrestrial applications, such as cleaning delicate materials. The numerous uses identified included the sterilization of medical implants, the decontamination of 

aircraft components, the creation of better seals, and 

most notably, the restoration of damaged artwork.1075 

Paintings with surfaces damaged by soot, ink, or other 

markings are very difficult to repair without harming 

the pigment. Miller and Banks found that atomic oxygen slowly gasifies the damaging hydrocarbons on the 

surface without impacting the underlying paint. 

They experimented with several purposely damaged 

paintings in their vacuum test facility. Over the course 

of several days, they were able to successfully remove 

the contaminants. This restoration could be performed 

on what were thought to be permanently damaged 

works. Then an art conservator could apply a binder 

to protect the actual paint.1076 The researchers created 

a portable atomic oxygen device that could be used

remotely at museums and churches. The device has 

been used successfully to restore works by Jackson

Pollack, Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, and other 

artists, with works dating back to the Renaissance.1077
Reformation 285

John H. Glenn Research Center

Physical Downsizing Begins

NASA’s downsizing in the late 1990s 

led to a push to remove duplicative 

or unused infrastructure. As missions 

and staffing decreased, the Office of 

Inspector General felt that the need for 

facilities should diminish correspondingly,1078 but this assessment did not 

take into account that maintaining

usable facilities was less expensive 

than rebuilding them when the need

resurfaced. Lewis had a long history of 

repurposing or upgrading its facilities 

when missions changed. Nonetheless 

the Office of Inspector General began

an unremitting campaign to convince 

NASA to reduce its physical assets.

The center began taking steps to

remove two historical facilities—the 

RETF and the Plum Brook Reactor 

Facility (PBRF). The former was still 

in use, but the reactor had been in a 

safe-protected mode since early 1973.

Lewis constructed the RETF engine test stand in the 

mid-1950s to study engines that used high-energy 

liquid propellants. In 1984 the National Park Service 

placed the RETF on its National Register of Historic 

Places for its contributions to the 1960s space program.1079 Researchers continued to use the RETF in 

the 1990s, including for demonstrations of a new fuel 

injector designed to reduce the cost of launching payloads into space.1080

The RETF was set back in a ravine at the far western end of the campus. The neighboring Cleveland

Hopkins International Airport had long sought to 

extend its runways through the area, but Lewis had 

steadfastly refused to cede the property. As part of the 

Agency’s streamlining in the mid-1990s, NASA began 

consolidating all of its space propulsion activities at 

Marshall and Stennis Space Center. The resulting cancellation of Lewis’s chemical rocket program led to a 

1995 agreement with the City of Cleveland to remove 

the RETF. NASA demolished the structure in 2003, 

and the new runway opened in 2004.1081

In 1998 the center undertook an ambitious plan to

finally remove the PBRF, the Agency’s only nuclear 

Image 354: Rocket engine firing at the RETF in July 1995 (GRC–1995–C–02448).

reactor. Efforts to repurpose the facility after its 1973 

shut down had been fruitless. NASA had commissioned multiple studies in the late 1970s and 1980s to 

identify the necessary costs and procedures to remove 

the reactor, but in each case the Agency considered the 

effort too expensive. The estimates only increased over 

the years, however, and at the urging of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC), NASA finally

decided to proceed with the decommissioning in 1998. 

The cost was exponentially higher than the proposals 

had been in the 1970s.1082,1083

A joint NASA-U.S. Army Corps of Engineering team 

spent three years developing an extensive decommissioning plan, which the NRC approved in 2002. 

Crews began stripping the facility of all of its internal 

components, piping, and equipment and removed the

radioactive material from the site. Once this first phase 

of the decommissioning work was completed, NASA 

suspended the project until additional funding was 

provided. The final demolition proceeded quickly once 

the effort resumed, and by October 2012, the 27-acre 

site had been remediated back to its original condition.
286

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

New Name

The center’s near closure in 1981 was fresh in the 

minds of local Congressmen as they responded to 

NASA’s Zero Base Review recommendations in the 

mid-1990s. Although there was no current danger 

of shutting down the center, the continuing cutbacks 

and Agency redirection were threatening to render the

center impotent. In September 1998 Senator Mike 

DeWine initiated an effort to bolster the center’s 

wounded standing by renaming it after his colleague 

John Glenn. 

John Glenn retired from Congress in 1997 after serving as a Senator from Ohio for 24 years. In addition, 

Glenn, who was famously the first American to orbit 

the Earth, would soon return to space as a crew member of the STS–95 shuttle mission. The renaming 

not only honored Glenn’s contributions to NASA, 

but ostensibly elevated the center’s public visibility. 

John Glenn was universally recognized, while George 

Lewis was relatively unknown outside the aerospace

community. 

Image 355: The gutted remains of the reactor’s Hot Lab, which was used to remotely examine irradiated test specimens (NASA SPF 1697).

DeWine attached the action to the Veterans

Administration—Housing and Urban Development

Appropriation for 1999. President Clinton approved 

the proposal on 21 October 1998, a week before 

Glenn’s shuttle mission. The center officially became 

the John H. Glenn Research Center on 1 March 1999, 

and the Cleveland campus was named Lewis Field.1084

Glenn later recalled, “Quite apart from whether my 

name was on it or associated with it, I was proud of 

the fact that we were calling attention to some of these

advances in research and engineering that had come 

from the center, and which make a big difference for 

our country. And the fact that my name was going to 

be connected with that, I was particularly proud.”1085

It was the fourth name since the center’s establishment in 1941. Although several NASA centers have 

changed names, this was the first time that one honorary designation was replaced by another.
John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 356: John and Annie Glenn were feted during the center’s renaming ceremony on 7 May 1999. The activities 

included an F–16 flyby, a parade, a picnic, and a renaming ceremony in the hangar (GRC–1999–C–01153).
288

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

The world changed dramatically during Don Campbell’s final years as Director. Upon hearing news that 

an airliner had crashed into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, Campbell and Bill Wessel, 

Director of Safety and Assurance, hurried into a conference room to watch the developing news. As soon as 

the second tower was struck, they initiated plans to evacuate the center. The situation in Cleveland was tense 

because of concern about a Delta airliner with a possible bomb heading toward Hopkins Airport, Cleveland 

Mayor Michael White ordered the closure of all federal and city buildings and the schools, while Hopkins 

officials emptied the airport as the aircraft approached. The aircraft landed safely and was ordered to park 

away from the terminal but near the NASA hangar. As a precaution, Glenn decided to evacuate all of its 

staff out the rear gate at the opposite end of the center, and the ensuing traffic jam took 90 minutes to clear. 

Later, an FBI inspection of the aircraft and passengers revealed no weapons.1086

Glenn reopened two days later under eerily empty skies as the endless march of airliners into and out of the 

adjacent airport was suspended. The center added increased security measures, random vehicle searches, and 

new communications plans and closed the Visitor Center indefinitely. 

The 1990s were a difficult period for both the

Agency and the center. The Faster, Better, Cheaper

and Zero Base Review initiatives produced mixed

results. NASA’s successes with Mars Pathfinder and 

Deep Space 1 were tempered by embarrassing losses 

of other Mars missions. The Agency overstated some 

predicted reductions, made poor decisions regarding facility closures, and performed inaccurate cost/

benefit analyses of its actions. An Office of Inspector 

General report specifically castigated the Agency for 

Image 357: Don Campbell addresses the audience at NASA Day in Dayton, Ohio (GRC–2003–C–02406).

the attempt to consolidate its aircraft and close Plum 

Brook Station.1087 Nonetheless, an in-house study 

interviewed hundreds of NASA and NASA-related 

personnel and found wide support for what the effort 

accomplished.1088 Although, the harsh budget reductions and program transfers would continue into the 

next millennium, the center achieved a number of

major accomplishments in aeronautics and space in

the 1990s.
Reformation 289

John H. Glenn Research Center

Endnotes for Chapter 9

936. Nancy Kassebaum, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year, 

1996, Senate Congressional Record, vol. 141, 

no. 1662, 19 October 1995.

937. Jon Boyle, “Working ‘Faster, Better, Cheaper’: A 

Federal Research Agency in Transition” 

(Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

2002).

938. William Broad, “Space Station Trimming Back, 

Survives the Ax,” New York Times (19 February 

1993).

939. William Broad, “Large Role for Russia Expected on 

Station,” New York Times (13 April 1993).

940. White House Press Release, Space Station Redesign 

Decision Reduces Costs, Preserves Research,

Ensures International Cooperation, 17 June 1993. 

941. Marcia Smith, NASA’s Space Station Program: 

Evolution and Current Status, Testimony Before the 

House Science Committee, 4 April 2001. 

942. “President Approves Space Station Redesign,” Lewis 

News (2 July 1993).

943. Warren Leary, “With Russian Aid, Better Space 

Lab,” New York Times (5 November 1993).

944. Smith, NASA’s Space Station Program. 

945. Smith, NASA’s Space Station Program.

946. “President Approves Space Station Redesign.”

947. “Questions Related to Closing of Reston Space 

Station Program Office,” 17 August 1993, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Space Station Collection, 

Cleveland, OH. 

948. William Broad, “Space Station Work Gets Tight 

Controls,” New York Times (18 August 1993).

949. Kassebaum, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Authorization Act.

950. Laurie Boeder and Dwayne Brown, “Review Team 

Proposes Sweeping Management, Organizational 

Changes at NASA,” NASA press release 95–73, 

19 May 1995, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

951. Larry Ross, “Roles and Missions,” Lewis News

(19 November 1993). 

952. Larry Ross interoffice memorandum, “Evolution,” 

6 January 1994, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

953. Jeff Vincent, “NASA Administrator Announces 

Management Changes,” NASA Headquarters press 

release 94–3, 6 January 1994, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

954. “Ross to Head Up Wind Tunnel Program Office,” 

Lewis News (28 January 1994). 

955. Kristin Wilson, “NASA Takes Steps To Get More 

Out of Future Budgets,” Lewis News (25 February 

1994).

956. Kassebaum, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Authorization Act.

957. General Accounting Office, NASA Infrastructure: 

Challenges to Achieving Reductions and Efficiencies 

(Washington, DC: GAO/NSIAD–96–187, 

September 1996). 

958. Boeder, “Review Team Proposes Sweeping 

Management.”

959. Boeder, “Review Team Proposes Sweeping 

Management.”

960. General Accounting Office, “NASA Infrastructure.”

961. Boeder, “Review Team Proposes Sweeping 

Management.”

962. “Center Can Save $29.5 Million Through Innovative 

Activities,” Lewis News (14 April 1995).

963. “Center Can Save $29.5 Million.”

964. “Administer Goldin Explains Streamlining,” Lewis 

News (17 February 1995). 

965. Boeder, “Review Team Proposes Sweeping 

Management.”

966. Robert Fails, “ZBR Implementation Plan Briefing 

to Office of Aeronautics,” 6 February 1996, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

967. Jenise Veris, “Realignment Will Optimize NASA 

Lewis Capabilities,” Lewis News (November 1996).

968. Mike Skor and Dave J. Hoffman, “Mir Cooperative 

Solar Array,” Research & Technology 1996

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–107350, 1997).

969. T. W. Kerslake, D. A. Scheiman, and D. J. Hoffman, 

“Dark Forward Electrical Testing on the Mir 

Cooperative Solar Array,” Research & Technology

1996 (Washington, DC: NASA TM–107350, 

1997).

970. Richard R. Secunde, Thomas L. Labus, and Ronal 

Lovely, Solar Dynamic Power Module Design 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM−102055, 1989).

971. R. K. Shaltens and R. V. Boyle, Update of the 2 kW 

Solar Dynamic Ground Test Demonstration

Program (Washington, DC: NASA TM–106730, 

1994).

972. John Mansfield to Donald Campbell, “Solar 

Dynamics,” 15 February 1996, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.
290

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

973. Thomas Kerslake, Lee Mason, and Hal Strumpf, 

High-Flux, High-Temperature Thermal Vacuum 

Qualification Testing of a Solar Receiver Aperture 

Shield (Washington, DC: NASA TM–107505, 

1997).

974. Valerie Lyons, “Power and Propulsion at NASA 

Glenn Research Center: Historic Perspective of 

Major Accomplishments,” Journal of Aerospace 

Engineering 26 (April 2013): 288–299.

975. “Powering the Future,” NASA Facts (Washington, 

DC: NASA PB–00537–0611, 2011). 

976. Lyons, “Power and Propulsion.”

977. Larry Ross, Lew Allen, and Forrest McCartney, 

“Memorandum of Agreement Among the Lewis 

Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

and the John F. Kennedy Space Center Concerning 

Planetary Missions on a Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

Vehicle,” 5 September 1990, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Centaur Collection, Cleveland, OH.

978. “Transition Plan for Transferring Program 

Management of Intermediate Expendable Launch 

Vehicle (IELV) Launch Services From Lewis 

Research Center to Kennedy Space Center,” 

14 May 1997, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

979. Michael Meltzer, The Cassini-Huygens Visit to 

Saturn: An Historic Mission to the Ringed Planet 

(New York, NY: Spring Praxis Books, 2014).

980. “A Big Boost for Cassini,” NASA Facts

(Washington, DC: NASA FS–1999–06–004– 

GRC, June 1996).

981. “ A Big Boost.”

982. Joe Nieberding, “History of Launch Vehicles at 

Lewis Research Center,” 3 March 2010, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Centaur Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

983. Howard E. McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper: 

Low-Cost Innovation in the U.S. Space Program 

(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 

2001).

984. Steven Stevenson, Mars Pathfinder Rover—Lewis 

Research Center Technology Experiments Program 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–107449, 1997).

985. “Mars Pathfinder Air Bag Landing Tests” 

(21 May 2013), http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ 

glenn/about/history/marspbag.html (accessed 1 

August 2014).

986. Stevenson, Mars Pathfinder Rover. 

987. McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper.

988. Kristin Wilson, “Plum Brook Tests Put Bounce 

in Pathfinder Landing System,” Lewis News

(November 1996).

989. “Mars Pathfinder, Exploring Mars With the 

Sojourner Rover” (10 August 2012), http://www. 

nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars-pathfinder/ (accessed 

28 March 2015).

990. McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper.

991. Geoffrey Landis, “Pathfinder—A Retrospective,” 

Spaceflight 44 (August 2002).

992. McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper.

993. McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper.

994. “Mars Pathfinder,” http://www.nasa.gov/mission_ 

pages/mars-pathfinder/

995. “Deep Space 1 Launch” NASA Press Kit, October 

1998.

996. Michael Patterson and James Sovey, “History of 

Electric Propulsion at NASA Glenn Research

Center: 1956 to Present,” Journal of Aerospace 

Engineering 26 (2013): 300–316.

997. Doreen Zudell, “Glenn’s Ion Engine Earns Its 

Wings,” Aerospace Frontiers (February 2002).

998. Patterson, “History of Electric Propulsion.”

999. “Deep Space 1 Ion Propulsion System Operation 

Sequence and Status” (21 May 2008), 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/history/ 

ds1opseq.html (accessed 22 July 2015).

1000. Patterson, “History of Electric Propulsion.”

1001. “Glenn Contributions to Deep Space 1” 

(21 May 2008), http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ 

glenn/about/history/ds1.html (accessed 22 July 

2015).

1002. Patterson, “History of Electric Propulsion.”

1003. Carroll Little to Distribution, “Consolidation of 

Aircraft at the Dryden Flight Research Center,” 

5 October 1995, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1004. Edward Heffernman to Mike DeWine, 

14 August 2000, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1005. Kassebaum, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Authorization Act.

1006. Edward McLean, Supersonic Cruise Technology 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–472, 1985).

1007. “The High-Speed Research Program: A 

Conversation With Project Manager Joe Shaw,” 

Lewis News (25 May 1990).

1008. “The High-Speed Research Program.”

1009. “NASA’s High-Speed Research Program,” NASA 

Facts Online, 2004, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, High-Speed Research Collection,

Cleveland, OH. 

1010. Dhanireddy R. Reddy, “Seventy Years of Aeropropulsion Research at NASA Glenn Research Center,” 

Journal of Aerospace Engineering (April 2013). 
Reformation 291

John H. Glenn Research Center

1011. C. T. Chang, “NASA Glenn Combustion Research 

for Aeronautical Propulsion,” Journal of Aerospace 

Engineering (April 2013).

1012. Research & Technology 1997 (Washington, DC: 

NASA/TM—1998-206312, 1998).

1013. “Impact of the Termination of NASA’s High Speed 

Research Program and the Redirection of NASA’s 

Advanced Subsonic Technology Program,” Report to 

Congress, 4 December 2000.

1014. Reddy, “Seventy Years of Aeropropulsion Research.”

1015. “Advanced Subsonic Technology,” Spinoff

(Washington, DC: NASA NP–217, 1995).

1016. Pete Pachlhofer and Peg Whalen, “Lewis’ Advanced 

Subsonic Combustion Rig Unique Facility Will 

Develop Advanced Subsonic Technology for

Commercial Aircraft,” Lewis News (29 July 1994). 

1017. Kenneth Zaremba, “Improving Aviation Through 

Cutting Edge Research,” Lewis News (April 1997).

1018. C. T. Chang, “NASA Glenn Combustion Research 

for Aeronautical Propulsion,” Journal of Aerospace 

Engineering (April 2013). 

1019. “Pure Power PW1000G Engine” (2015), http:// 

www.pw.utc.com/PurePowerPW1000G_Engine 

(accessed 11 October 2015).

1020. Chang, “NASA Glenn Combustion Research.”

1021. K. B. M. Q. Zaman, J. E. Bridges, and D. L. Huff, 

“Evolution from ‘Tabs’ to ‘Chevron Technology’—

A Review,” International Journal of Aeroacoustics 10, 

no. 5 (October 2011): 685–710.

1022. “Impact of the Termination.”

1023. Shaw, R. J., “Ultra-efficient Engine Technology 

(UEET) Project,” Research & Technology 2003 

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2004-212729, 

2004).

1024. Carol Ginty, “Overview of the Ultra-Efficient Engine 

Technology and Quiet Aircraft Technology Projects” 

9 November 2004, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1025. Reddy, “Seventy Years of Aeropropulsion Research,” 

26.

1026. Michael Nathal and Jenise Veris, “Glenn Takes a 

Bow for Impact on GEnx Engine,” Aerospace

Frontiers ( July 2008).

1027. “Impact of the Termination.”

1028. “Impact on Glenn Research Center of HSR/AST 

Termination,” 4 December 2000, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Directors Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

1029. “Making Future Light Aircraft Safer, Smoother, 

Quieter, and More Affordable,” NASA Facts

(Washington, DC: FS-1996-07-001-LeRC. 1996).

1030. “Revolutionary GA Engines on the Way?” Flying 

Magazine (March 1997).

1031. “Small Aircraft Propulsion: The Future Is Here,” 

NASA Facts (Washington, DC: FS–2000– 

04–001–GRC, 2000).

1032. Mike Busch, “GAP Engine Update,” AVweb 

(27 July 2000), http://www.avweb.com/news/ 

reviews/182838-1.html?zkPrintable=true

(accessed 28 March 2015).

1033. Bill Brogdon, “Aircraft Diesel Engines,” 

10 May 2012, NASA Glenn History Collection,

General Aviation Program Collection, Cleveland, 

OH.

1034. Stephen Pope, “Diesel Aircraft Engines 

Revolution,” Flying Magazine (28 October 2013), 

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/diesel-aircraftengines-revolution (accessed 24 March 2015). 

1035. Lori Rachul, “NASA Initiates New General

Aviation Propulsion Program,” NASA News 96–46

(3 August 1996).

1036. Williams International, The General Aviation 

Propulsion (GAP) Program (Washington, DC: 

NASA/CR—2008-215266, 2008).

1037. David Nolan, “The Little Engine That Couldn’t,” 

Air & Space Magazine (November 2005). 

1038. “Air Taxi at Your Service,” NASA Spinoff 2002 

(Washington, DC: NASA/NP–2002–09–290– 

HQ, 2002): 68–69.

1039. “NASA, “GRC Microgravity and Technology Flight 

Experiments: Accomplished,” ISS Research Project 

(1 April 2013), https://issresearchproject.grc.nasa. 

gov/accomplished.php (accessed 3 December 2015).

1040. Lauren M. Sharp, Daniel L. Dietrich, and 

Brian J. Motil, “Microgravity Fluids and Combustion 

Research at NASA Glenn Research Center,” Journal 

of Aerospace Engineering 26 (April 2013): 

439–450.

1041. Thomas Glasgow, Microgravity Materials Science 

Laboratory pamphlet B–0115, February 1988, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Microgravity 

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

1042. “Center Opens New Microgravity Materials Lab,” 

Lewis News (6 September 1985). 

1043. Larry Ross, “Space Flight Systems Directorate,” 

Lewis News (9 January 1987).

1044. Dallas Lauderdale and Jack Lekan, “Space 

Experiments Lab/Zero G Rehab,” Lewis News

(7 June 1991).

1045. John Yaniec, Users Guide for NASA Lewis 

Research Center DC-9 Reduced Gravity Aircraft 

Program (Washington, DC: NASA TM–106755, 

1995). 
292

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

1046. “Microgravity in the Sky,” Lewis News

(31 March 1995).

1047. Sharp, “Microgravity Fluids and Combustion 

Research.”

1048. Howard Ross email to Robert Arrighi, “New 

Improved Microgravity Section,” 19 November 

2015, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

1049. T. Y. Miller, First International Microgravity

Laboratory Experiment Descriptions (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM–4353, 1992).

1050. Ross email to Arrighi.

1051. Simon Ostrach and Y. Kamotani, Surface Tension 

Driven Convection Experiment (STDCE) 

(Washington, DC: 1996 (NASA CR–198476, 

1996).

1052. H.D. Ross, D.L. Dietrich, and J.S. Tien. “Candle 

Flames in Microgravity: USML–1 results– 

1 Year Later,” Joint Launch + One Year Science 

Review of USML–1 and USMP–1 With the 

Microgravity Measurement Group (Washington, 

DC: NASA CP-3272-Vol-2, 1994).

1053. Ross email to Arrighi. 

1054. “NASA Technology Transfer Program: “Portable

Unit for Metabolic Analysis (PUMA)” http:// 

technology.nasa.gov/patent/LEW-TOPS-16

(accessed 3 December 2015).

1055. Simon Ostrach interview, Cleveland, OH, 2013, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1056. N. Ramachandran, D. O. Frazier, and S. L. 

Lehoczky, Joint Launch + One Year Science Review 

of USML-1 and USMP-1 With the Microgravity 

Measurement Group (Washington, DC: NASA 

CP–3272, 1994).

1057. Ross email to Arrighi. 

1058. Ostrach interview. 

1059. Ramachandran, “Joint Launch.”

1060. “STS–83 Columbia Microgravity Science 

Laboratory–1 (MSL–1),” Kennedy Space Center 

Release No. 42–97, March 1997. http:// 

www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/release/1997/42-97.htm

(accessed 3 December 2015).

1061. P. B. Sunderland, D. L. Urban, and Z. G. Yuan, 

Laminar Soot Processes Experiment: Findings

from Space Flight Measurements (Washington, 

DC: NASA/CP—2003-212376).

1062. Diane Malarik and Martin Glicksman, “Isothermal 

Dendritic Growth Experiment (IDGE) Is the First 

United States Microgravity Experiment Controlled 

From the Principal Investigator’s University” 1997, 

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20050177156

1063. Jerri Ling and Michael Doherty, “Physics of Hard 

Spheres Experiment (PhaSE) or “Making Jello in 

Space” http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20050177227

1064. Anish Upadhyaya, Ronald Iacocca, and Randall 

German, Gravitational Role in Liquid Phase

Sintering (Washington, DC: NASA/CP–1998- 

208868, 1998). 

1065. Ross email to Arrighi. 

1066. Sandra L. Olson and Gary A. Ruff, 

Microgravity Flame Spread in Exploration

Atmospheres: Pressure, Oxygen, and Velocity 

Effects on Opposed and Concurrent Flame Spread 

(Washington, DC: NASA TM—2008-215260, 

2008).

1067. Ross email to Arrighi. 

1068. Richard DeLombard and S. Ryaboukha, “Space 

Acceleration Measurement System” Investigation 

8.8.1 Summary Report, http://history.nasa.gov/ 

SP-4225/science/sams.pdf

1069. Mike DeWine, et al., “FY2001 Action Plan for 

NASA Glenn Research Center,” 30 May 2001, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Directors

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1070. Kristin Wilson, “Research Aircraft Flies Over 

Center for Last Time,” Lewis News (September 

1997).

1071. “The New USRA Center for Microgravity 

Research,” USRA Researcher (Fall 1997).

1072. Ostrach interview.

1073. “Large-Area Atomic Oxygen Facility Used to Clean 

Fire-Damaged Artwork,” Research & Technology

1999 (Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2000- 

209639, 2000). 

1074. Tori Woods, “Out of Thin Air” (17 February 2011), 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/ 

atomic_oxygen.html (accessed 30 July 2015).

1075. “Large-Area Atomic Oxygen Facility.”

1076. “Large-Area Atomic Oxygen Facility.”

1077. Bruce Banks, “Destructive Power of Atomic Oxygen 

Used to Restore Artwork” (4 January 2005), 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/business/ 

AtomicOxRestoration.html (accessed 23 July 2015).

1078. Thomas Schulz, “NASA Facilities: Challenges to 

Achieving Reductions and Efficiencies,” Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on National Security, 

International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, 

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 

House of Representatives, 11 September 1996.

1079. National Parks Service, National Historic 

Landmarks Program, “Rocket Engine Test Facility” 

(5 September 2014), http://www.nps.gov/nhl/find/

withdrawn/rocket.htm (accessed 23 March 2015).
Reformation 293

John H. Glenn Research Center

1080. Gordon Dressler and Martin Bauer, TRW Pintle 

Engine Heritage and Performance Characteristics 

(Reston, VA: AIAA 2000–3871, 2000).

1081. Virginia Dawson, Ideas Into Hardware: A History 

of the Rocket Engine Test Facility at the NASA 

Glenn Research Center (Washington, DC: NASA, 

2004).

1082. Mark Bowles, Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear 

Program at Plum Brook Station 1955–2005 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2006–4317, 2006). 

1083. Of Ashes and Atoms: The Story of NASA’s Plum 

Brook Reactor Facility (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–2005–4605, 2005).

1084. Donald Campbell to Lewis Employees and On-Site 

Contractors, “Center Name Change,” 1999, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

1085. John Glenn interview, Cleveland, OH, by David 

DeFelice, 6 March 2015, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

1086. James Renner, “Plan 9/11 From Cyberspace the 

Body Snatchers of United 93 and Other Tales of 

Terror From Cleveland,” Cleveland Free Times 14, 

no. 20 (6 September 2006). 

1087. General Accounting Office, “NASA Infrastructure.”

1088. Tony Spear, NASA Faster, Better, Cheaper Task 

Final Report (Washington, DC: NASA, 2000).
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 358: A segment of the Ares I–X development vehicle leaves NASA Glenn on 22 October 2008 for its journey to Cape Kennedy 

(GRC–2008–C–03458).
John H. Glenn Research Center

10. Changing Missions

“There’s a difference between accomplishment and achievement.

An accomplishment is doing your taxes. A true achievement is

a one-of-kind experience for the center, you as an indvidual.”

—Jim Free
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 359: The Ares I–X rocket lifts off from launch Pad 39B at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on 28 October 2009 (KSC–2009–5963).
Changing Missions 297

Changing Missions

Image 360: Administrator O’Keefe visits Glenn in March 2004 

(GRC–2004–C–00453).

At 9 a.m. on 1 February 2003 the Space Shuttle 

Columbia broke apart while reentering the clear skies 

over Texas, killing seven astronauts. In the aftermath, 

the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) 

issued a highly critical report that not only determined 

the cause of the accident, but challenged NASA’s 

goals, management approach, and culture. The board

demanded that NASA institute a number of changes 

before launching another shuttle mission. The CAIB 

also strongly recommended that NASA issue an

unambiguous statement of the long-range goals of its 

human spaceflight endeavors, and noted the critical 

need for the budget to align with that objective.1089

The NASA Glenn Research Center made several contributions to expedite the shuttle’s return to flight and 

played an important role in the Agency’s new exploration plans.

After months of congressional hearings regarding

human spaceflight and behind-the-scenes planning by

NASA and the White House, President George W.

Bush unveiled the Vision for Space Exploration 

(VSE) on 14 January 2004. The VSE was a wideranging space exploration initiative that included 

robotic missions, a base on the Moon, and eventual

human journeys to Mars. It was the first attempt to 

send humans beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo. 

The plan included phasing out the space shuttle to free 

up funds to develop new space vehicles and technologies for these extended missions. NASA would rely on 

foreign nations and commercial rockets for transportation to the International Space Station (ISS).1090

The VSE dramatically affected activities at Glenn 

from 2005 to 2010. NASA assigned the center several

roles, including management of the service module 

that provided critical life support and communications 

systems for the new crew vehicle, and responsibility for manufacturing an upper-stage mass model for 

the first developmental rocket launch—Ares I–X.1091

Unrelated to VSE, NASA also tasked Glenn with the 

development of nuclear-based ion thrusters to send a 

space probe to Jupiter’s moons. The government’s modest funding for the new exploration effort, however, 

forced NASA to move hundreds of millions of dollars 

away from life and microgravity science—and to a lesser

extent, from aeronautics—to help pay for the new 

VSE flight hardware.1092

Despite these steps, the lack of additional needed 

funding prevented NASA from maintaining the VSE’s

intended schedule. After an independent assessment in 

2009, President Barak Obama decided to restructure 

the effort, resulting in changes throughout the Agency, 

including a diminishment of work at most NASA 

centers, including Glenn. President Obama, however, 

also recommended an increase in advanced spaceflight 

technology development. Glenn secured leadership 

roles in several of these new technology programs,

including solar electric propulsion. The center reorganized in 2014 to address the post-VSE environment 

and adjust to new budgetary and staffing realities.1093

Return to Flight

In December 2001, President Bush selected Sean 

O’Keefe to replace Dan Goldin as NASA Administrator. O’Keefe, a Washington, DC, financial administrator with no aerospace experience, sought to improve 

NASA’s fiscal accountability and to unify the centers and directorates under the “One NASA” theme.

In an April 2002 address, he stressed that “NASA’s 

mission...must be driven by the science, not by

destination. And while policy and politics and
298

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 361: Greg Fedor (in white) briefs members of the STS–107 crew on the Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) in the Power 

Systems Facility (PSF). Left to right: Laurel Clark (obscured), Ilan Ramon, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, William McCool, and Mike 

Anderson (GRC–2001–C–00235).

economics are inevitable factors, science must be the 

preeminent factor.”1094 To facilitate the completion 

of the ISS, O’Keefe sought to improve the shuttle,

develop a new space plane, and create a replacement

for the shuttle. The loss of Columbia on 1 February 

2003 scuttled those initial plans.1095

Within hours of the disaster, the independent CAIB 

was established to determine both the root and

systematic causes of the accident. The grounding of the 

shuttle fleet prevented the launching of satellites and 

spacecraft, disrupted space science experiment programs, and delayed construction of the ISS.1096 The 

ability to focus its efforts during times of crisis is one 

of NASA’s best characteristics. The Columbia investigation was NASA’s most pressing issue throughout 

2003, and everything became secondary to the goal of 

returning the shuttle to service.1097

v v v v v v

The loss of Columbia had ramifications on Glenn’s 

microgravity program. The shuttle had been carrying 

six of Glenn’s microgravity experiments and the Combustion Module-2 (CM–2) test rack. The CM–2 was 

the largest and most complex pressurized system ever 

flown on the shuttle.1098,1099 Because the three Glenn 

studies on CM–2 were a significant component of the 

mission, the entire Columbia crew had visited the center 

in late January 2001 to learn how to operate the experiments. Glenn researchers had trained the astronauts 

how to operate the hardware and had demonstrated 

physical adjustments that could be made to improve 

the experiment data. As preparations proceeded during the months leading up to the launch, the crew and 

center personnel formed friendships.1100 

The bond between Glenn researchers and the astronauts was demonstrated while the astronauts were

conducting the Mist experiment, which sought to

investigate ways to extinguish fires using a water 

mist.1101 The experiment developed a small leak that 

could not be stopped. In a scene reminiscent of Apollo 

13, the Glenn ground team developed a solution using 

parts they knew were onboard Columbia. Astronauts 

Mike Anderson and Kalpana (KC) Chawla, who sacrificed her own precious Earth observation time, pulled 

the hardware from the CM–2 and successfully made 

the repair. Despite a significant loss of time, the astronauts and Glenn team were able to complete over

90 percent of the planned Mist experiments. The repair 
Changing Missions 299

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 362: The Glenn Ballistics Laboratory in the Materials and Structures Laboratory (GRC–2000–C–00447).

was one of the highlights of the mission.1102 Although 

the loss of the orbiter impacted the Glenn researchers 

both professionally and personally, most of the test data 

had been transmitted to the center prior to the orbiter’s

destruction.1103

v v v v v v

Glenn immediately began supporting the investigation 

into the cause of the accident. The center’s Materials 

and Processes Failure Analysis team analyzed hightemperature reactions with wing leading-edge materials in simulated reentry and breakup conditions.1104 

Glenn’s Structural Mechanics and Dynamics Branch 

studied the effect of shuttle insulation impacting the 

reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) material in the center’s new Ballistics Impact Laboratory. The facility was 

designed to study projectile aerodynamics and test 

their effect on different materials. It includes three 

guns that can fire objects at more than 2,000 mph in a 

simulated space environment.

Crash investigators were particularly interested in the

effect of a sizeable piece of the insulating foam that

had separated from the external tank during launch 

and struck the RCC panels on the shuttle’s left 

wing.1105 The Glenn team found that the firing of

very small pieces of the foam bent and cracked RCC 

samples.1106-1108

In June the Southwest Research Institute in San

Antonio tested the foam’s impact on full-scale samples 

of an actual shuttle wing. They were surprised to find 

that a lightweight piece of foam (under 2 pounds) produced a 16-inch hole in the wing’s RCC panels.1109 

Glenn’s ballistics studies supported the San Antonio 

work and helped to fine tune the investigation’s computer simulations. Glenn also developed extensive 

computer simulations to help predict damage caused 

by debris and developed models to validate the largescale tests.1110-1112

In addition, Glenn supported the development of 

new technologies for future flights. NASA, which was

reviewing all aspects of the shuttle external tank

insulation, asked the center to study the two large 

foam ramps that were used to improve aerodynamics 

along the tank’s cable trays. There was concern that 
300

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

this foam might break off under certain conditions. In 

late summer 2003 Scott Williamson led aerodynamic 

testing of the ramps in the 8×6.1113 Although the tests 

demonstrated that the ramps were safe, NASA engineers recommended that other alternatives be considered.1114 NASA decided to eliminate the ramps and 

reengineer the tank design after a large piece broke free 

during the next shuttle launch.1115,1116

By early July the CAIB officially announced that the 

piece of foam had damaged the wing’s protective RCC 

panels. During reentry, the resulting breach had admitted the heat that caused the vehicle to disintegrate. The 

board’s recommendations included the development 

of new methods of inspecting the RCC panels prior 

to launch, an inflight repair kit, and new requirements 

for analyzing the vehicle on orbit.1117 The center’s

Ceramics Branch created and tested the Glenn

Refractory Adhesive for Bonding and Exterior Repair

Image 363: Jayanta Panda, Scott Williamson, and Daniel Sutliff examine the shuttle ramp protuberance test setup in the 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic 

Wind Tunnel (8×6) (GRC–2007–C–01848).

Image 364: The CAIB report.
Changing Missions 301

John H. Glenn Research Center

Vision Takes Shape

After the loss of Columbia, O’Keefe and NASA officials examined alternatives for the U.S. space program, 

including a new space plane and new launch vehicles. 

There was no specific mission identified for these

vehicles. Meanwhile some low-level White House 

staffers began informally discussing the future of

human space missions. As the CAIB was finalizing 

its report in the early summer of 2003, the informal 

White House meetings became more official. The

expanding group, which now included higher-level

officials and NASA representatives, began parsing out 

a long-term post-Columbia space mission. In an effort to

respond to the CAIB report, NASA needed to justify 

continued human spaceflight and develop a plan that 

had clear objectives and consistent funding. The interagency committee privately reviewed a full spectrum of

options for future space exploration. By late summer, the group began estimating costs for the various

proposals and transforming ideas into policy. The 

to fix cracks in the RCC panels on future missions, and

the Mechanical Components Branch analyzed the

lubrication and wear of the actuator mechanisms that 

were part of the shuttle’s landing gear system.1118-1120 

At 10:39 a.m., 26 July 2006, the shuttle returned to 

space with the launch of Discovery. The crew and

vehicle safely returned to Earth nearly 14 days later. 

The three-year Return to Flight effort was complete.

Although NASA was able to identify and remedy the 

physical causes of the Columbia accident, it would be 

much more difficult to address the CAIB’s cultural 

and managerial findings. In the weeks leading up to 

the report’s release, Administrator O’Keefe debated 

with other NASA officials regarding the Agency’s

response to what were likely to be harsh determinations. 

In the end, O’Keefe was able to convince his colleagues 

that it would be best for NASA to not only accept but

embrace the findings.1121

Image 365: Human space exploration concepts created by Glenn contractor artist Les Bossinas in 1989 (GRC–1989–C–07306).
302

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 366: Fabrication of a lifesize cutaway model of the Crew Exploration 

Vehicle’s (CEV) service module in December 2005 (GRC–2005–C–01868).
Changing Missions 303

John H. Glenn Research Center

committee eventually recommended that NASA send 

humans to the Moon once again.1122 

Throughout this period congressional committees 

held a spate of hearings on the Columbia accident, 

NASA’s response to the CAIB report, and restructuring of the Agency. For the first time in decades,

Congress questioned whether the nation should continue to engage in human spaceflight. Contemporary 

human spaceflight did not have the political implications of the Apollo Program, predicted financial 

returns from activities such as lunar mining never

materialized, and some argued that robotic missions 

produced more scientific data than crewed missions. 

The costs and dangers associated with human spaceflight needed new justification.1123 

Others, including aerospace and technology consultant Michael Griffin, argued that human spaceflight 

was justified by man’s innate drive to explore. Griffin

predicted that hundreds of years from now our

descendants would remember the current era for the 

Apollo Moon landings much in the same way that we 

remember the Early Modern Period for Columbus’s 

voyages.

1124

Yet Apollo’s legacy efforts, the shuttle and space station, were expensive endeavors that did not inspire the 

public’s thirst for exploration. Dr. Wesley Huntress of 

the Carnegie Institution for Science contended that 

if astronauts were going to risk their lives “it should 

be for extraordinarily challenging reasons...not to 

endlessly circle the block.” He stressed the need for a 

unified national vision consisting of both robotic and 

human spaceflight to systematically achieve specific 

new exploration goals beyond low Earth orbit.1125

v v v v v v

NASA was asking for a significant budget increase 

to fund the new space proposals, but President Bush 

had ordered the restriction of all nonmilitary funding in the coming years.1126 O’Keefe and many within 

NASA felt that it was unrealistic to introduce a new 

Moon exploration plan without increased funding.

In October 2003 Administrator O’Keefe began an

intense lobbying campaign. Eventually the White 

House promised a $1 billion increase for the Agency 

over the next five years. By late November NASA

devised a complex strategy to come up with the

remainder of the required funding. The plan included 

the cancellation of the new space plane and launch

vehicles, and termination of the shuttle program.1127

On 19 December 2003 O’Keefe and other NASA 

officials met with President Bush, Dick Cheney, and 

other high-level advisors to go over the final proposal. The president approved the controversial budget increase but urged the group to devise a more 

significant exploration effort. NASA quickly added 

a crewed mission to Mars—which some had previously advocated—to the plan.1128 On 14 January

2004 President Bush announced the VSE.1129

Exploration—with its potential scientific, security, and 

economical dividends—became NASA’s new focus. In 

what may have been an omen of VSE’s fate, the president did not mention the initiative less than a week 

later in his 2004 State of the Union Address.

The VSE included robotic explorer missions to the 

Moon and Mars that would develop technologies for 

more complex efforts in the future, such as Project 

Constellation—the most ambitious aspect of the plan. 

Constellation would establish a multipurpose lunar 

Image 367: NASA’s VSE.
304

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

base that could serve as a stepping stone to eventual 

human missions to Mars. NASA would restore the 

shuttle for a limited number of flights to complete 

work on the ISS; then it would phase it out. Russia 

and private U.S. companies would supply the required 

vehicles to fill the gap between the shuttle retirement 

and the implementation of a new NASA human-rated 

launch vehicle and crew capsule.1130 O’Keefe created a 

new Exploration Enterprise and began working with a 

host of entities, including scientists, the media, politicians, and the public, for input on the VSE. To expedite the multidecade design process, NASA decided to 

base the new launch vehicles and CEV on Apollo-era 

technology.

In 2003 O’Keefe asked Donald Campbell to head 

NASA’s Special Projects Office for Nuclear Power 

Systems. O’Keefe appointed Glenn veteran Julian 

Earls to the Center Director position that October. 

Earls had joined the center in 1965 as a physicist in 

the Health Physics Office. Three years later he became 

the Head of the Health Physics and Licensing Section of the Nuclear Systems Division. In the 1980s he 

was named Chief of the Health, Safety, and Security

Division, Acting Director of the Administration and 

Computer Services Directorate, and Director for the 

Office of Health Services. Earls progressed through 

a string of upper management positions throughout 

the 1990s that included his appointment as Deputy

Director in 2002.1131

Propelling NASA Across Space

Administrator O’Keefe was an ardent supporter of 

alternative propulsion systems that could accelerate 

the exploration schedule. More than a year before the 

release of the VSE plan, he requested proposals for a 

nuclear-based deep space mission. In early 2003 the 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL) announced plans 

for a new spacecraft that would

use nuclear energy to power ion 

thrusters. NASA would demonstrate the technology by sending 

Prometheus, the largest and most 

powerful electric propulsion vehicle 

to date, on a mission to three of

Jupiter’s moons.1132

The project required the services 

of several centers, the Department 

of Energy, and industry partners. 

Glenn was responsible for the

reactor, the electric propulsion, 

Brayton power conversion, cooling, 

and the communications systems. 

The center also would support the 

program through testing and integration of the spacecraft into the 

launch vehicle. Glenn managed the 

development of four electric propulsion options, including its own 

High Power Electric Propulsion 

(HiPEP) thruster, which surpassed 

contemporary ion engines in efficiency, power, and longevity.1133

HiPEP’s rectangular shape, which 

was different from the circular grids 

utilized on previous thrusters, was 

Image 368: One of the first activities of Earls’s two-year tenure as Glenn Center Director was 

hosting the Realizing the Dream of Flight Symposium on 5 November 2003 at the Great Lakes 

Science Center. A panel of preeminent aerospace historians discussed an array of individuals who 

shaped the development of the nation’s aerospace technology. The symposium was one of a series 

of activities held across the nation in 2003 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Wright 

Brothers’ initial flight in 1903 (GRC–2003–C–02005).
Changing Missions 305

John H. Glenn Research Center

selected to address the requirements of high power 

and long life for this mission.1134 Glenn conducted 

preliminary design work and began performance testing in 2003.1135 The thruster underwent a 2,000-hour 

wear test in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory (EPL) 

vacuum facilities during 2004 and 2005.1136

NASA engineers combined elements from HiPEP

and a JPL-designed thruster to create the final

Prometheus propulsion system, referred to as

“Herakles.” Prometheus also included a gas-cooled

reactor with a Brayton power conversion system. From 

2003 through 2005 Glenn conducted full-system 

Brayton demonstrations, vibration analysis, and a

variety of other tests on the system. In addition, 

Glenn completed a performance test program of a 

commercially manufactured Herakles prototype ion

thruster.1137

Glenn researchers continued to pursue both solarelectric and nuclear-electric propulsion options 

throughout the 2000s for applications ranging from 

primary propulsion for science missions to stationkeeping for communications spacecraft. Two of the 

Image 369: NASA’s Prometheus Project Final Report.

Image 370: A rectangular HiPEP thruster being removed from the EPL vacuum tank in June 2005 after the duration test 

(GRC–2005–C–01061).
306

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

most prominent efforts were the development of

an ion thruster system referred to as “NASA’s

Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT)” and multiple 

Hall thruster systems. 

In August 2002 NASA initiated the NEXT program 

to build upon the NASA Solar Electric Power Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR) thrusters

developed in the 1990s. Although the NSTAR thrusters performed well on the Deep Space 1 and Dawn missions, improvements were necessary to perform longer 

duration flights to the outer solar system. Glenn researchers produced a 40-centimeter-diameter solarpowered thruster design that operates on the same 

principles as NSTAR but has a larger power throttling 

range, higher input power capability, higher efficiency, 

higher specific impulse, and significantly longer lifetime. These capabilities enable more ambitious missions to the outer reaches of our solar system, while 

potentially playing significant propulsion roles for 

military and communications satellites near Earth.1138

Glenn designed and manufactured six engineering 

model NEXT thrusters and a prototype power processor. For over a decade Glenn tested the technology 

extensively in vacuum facilities at the center, JPL, and 

the Aerospace Corporation. 

As a result of the Glenn design and testing, Aerojet 

Rocketdyne developed a prototype thruster and flightlike propellant management system, JPL created a 

breadboard gimbal, and L–3 Communications developed a prototype power processor. Glenn performed 

acceptance testing of these various subsystems both

Image 371: Testing of a prototype NEXT thruster in the EPL during May 2006 

(GRC–2006–C–01260).

Image 372: Ivanovich Anatoli Vassine poses with a Russian T–160E 

Hall thruster being tested at the center in November 1997

(GRC–1997–C–04095).

individually and in integrated assemblies. In 

2013 Glenn completed a long-duration life 

test of an engineering model NEXT thruster.

During the more than 50,000 hours of operation, the thruster processed over 900 kilograms 

of xenon propellant.1139 Glenn recently awarded 

a contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne to fabricate 

two NEXT flight systems (thrusters and power 

processors) for use on a future NASA science 

mission.1140

v v v v v v

An alternative thruster design, referred to as 

a “Hall thruster,” is more applicable to timecritical missions than gridded ion thrusters are. 

Like gridded ion thrusters, Hall thrusters ionize 

inert gases such as xenon or krypton and then

accelerate the ions to produce thrust. The primary difference between these two devices is that Hall thrusters do not utilize grids to accelerate the ions. Instead, 

the ions are accelerated using an axial electric field that 

is created in the presence of a radial magnetic field. 

Hall thrusters are generally less complex and physically smaller than ion thrusters, which often lowers the 

cost of the system.1141

Lewis researchers investigated Hall thrusters in the 

early 1960s but eventually suspended their efforts 
Changing Missions 307

John H. Glenn Research Center

when they were unable to achieve acceptable efficiency. 

Soviet researchers, however, successfully developed 

the technology and began utilizing Hall thrusters in 

the 1970s. In 1991 a team of U.S. researchers, including Lewis personnel, traveled to Russia to learn more 

about the technology. Lewis acquired a Russian SPT–

100 and performed extensive testing in 1992 and 

1993.1142 Lewis continued efforts to transfer Russian 

Hall thruster technology to the U.S. user community 

throughout the 1990s.1143 These efforts culminated 

in the flight system integration of the Electric Propulsion Demonstration Module (EPDM) that was composed of a Russian-produced D–55 Hall thruster and 

U.S. power-processing technology. In 1998, the Space 

Technology Experiments (STEX) spacecraft utilized 

the EPDM system. It was the first flight of a Hall 

thruster on a Western spacecraft.1144,1145

Glenn researchers then pursued the development of 

several other Hall thrusters with input power levels 

ranging from 1 to 50 kilowatts to support a variety of

future NASA missions. One of these devices was the 

High Voltage Hall Accelerator (HiVHAc) thruster 

that Glenn and Aerojet developed in the early 2000s. 

The HiVHAc thruster was developed to satisfy the 

performance and lifetime requirements of cost-capped 

NASA missions such as Discovery-class missions 

at a lower cost than with ion thruster systems.1146

Engineers performed mission analyses which revealed 

that the HiVHAc system could perform a variety 

of space exploration missions more efficiently than 

the NSTAR or NEXT thrusters could.1147 In 2005 

Glenn researchers tested the HiVHAc thruster over a 

wide range of power input levels and then operated it 

for nearly 5,000 hours in an EPL vacuum facility.1148 

Glenn also pursued the development of 50-kW-class 

Hall thrusters including the NASA–457M, which 

was operated at a power level of over 70-kW during tests in 2002. The following year, the researchers

investigated the use of alternative propellants such

as krypton. In 2003 they applied this technology to a

higher fidelity high-power Hall thruster design, 

the NASA–400M, and began incorporating components from both models into a new 300M

design.1149-1151

Image 373: HiVAC thruster installed in tank 5 of the EPL during May 2013 (GRC–2013–C–03742).
308

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Institutional Impacts

O’Keefe, who was appointed Administrator to apply 

his fiscal management background to NASA, closely 

examined NASA’s infrastructure. He considered all 

options, including the closure of some centers and 

the consolidation of all aeronautics work. Although 

O’Keefe did not carry out those ideas, he did expand 

the full-cost accounting effort initiated by Dan Goldin 

in the late 1990s. This allowed the Agency to track, 

manage, and forecast the number of full-time equivalent personnel on each project. NASA had previously 

funded its staff separately from its projects, enabling 

flexibility for assigning people as needed. Now projects would have to predict their needs more closely 

and take into account and budget for their own staffing. The inability to predict precisely and the loss of 

flexibility proved to be problematic. In reality employees were frequently assigned to multiple projects. So 

if funding for one was canceled, a percentage of that 

employee’s salary was “uncovered.” To compensate for 

this gap, NASA charged the projects higher fees for 

staff. Project managers began transferring work outside of NASA to reduce costs. This resulted in more 

uncovered staff and even higher fees.1152

This payroll disconnect was aggravated by NASA’s

intentional transfer of more of its exploration work to 

industry. This raised project staffing fees in other fields 

such as aeronautics, resulting in the cancellation of 

nonspace projects despite otherwise normal budgets. 

The Marshall Space Flight Center and Langley, Ames, 

and Glenn research centers were particularly affected 

as the number of uncovered personnel quickly escalated in 2004. Productivity and morale plummeted as 

the technical staff scrambled to find enough work under

the full-cost system. With layoffs looming, many young 

employees left NASA for industry or academia.1153

Meanwhile, the presidentially appointed Aldridge 

Commission sought to determine the best strategy 

for implementing the VSE. Their primary concern 

was the sustainability of support and funding for the 

long-term effort over multiple administrations and 

congresses. The commission solicited input from scientists, NASA managers, and academics on specific 

activities to incorporate into the VSE. Not surprisingly, conflicting agendas quickly muddled the VSE 

objectives, and the human exploration of Mars began 

to overshadow the Moon goal. After more than a year, 

little concrete progress had been made.1154

It also was becoming clear that funding would be the 

critical issue for the VSE. The Bush Administration 

only contributed an extra $1 billion for the VSE’s

initial five-year period. NASA was responsible for providing the additional $11 billion required for that term

through restructuring and physical downsizing—

the same process that the Agency had painfully 

pursued less than 10 years before during the Zero

Base Review.1155-1157 The situation was exacerbated

by the erosion of NASA’s budget as the Return to 

Flight and ISS construction efforts dragged on longer 

than expected.

After just three years, Administrator O’Keefe tendered 

his resignation in December 2004. The unforeseen

Return to Flight struggle and the widespread criticism 

of his decision not to service the Hubble Space Telescope for safety reasons had drained him.1158 O’Keefe’s 

financial management and workforce planning efforts 

did not produce the desired results for the Agency.

His greatest legacy was establishing the VSE—which 

reinvigorated human spaceflight—and his indefatigable leadership in the days and weeks immediately after 

the loss of Columbia. Image 374: Glenn economic impact document.
Changing Missions 309

John H. Glenn Research Center

Refocusing the Vision

In April 2005 President Bush appointed former 

NASA engineer and aerospace consultant Mike

Griffin as Administrator. Griffin began reshaping 

the VSE initiatives to deal with budgetary realities. 

This included canceling Prometheus and a number of

nonspace programs in an effort to pay for the VSE.

Griffin terminated the Aldridge Commission’s 

ill-defined activities and initiated a new study to

rapidly identify VSE’s human missions and the vehicles necessary to carry them out. NASA released its 

findings on 12 July 2005, just two weeks prior to the 

shuttle’s successful return to flight.1159

Constellation would include two Ares launch

vehicles—Ares I for humans and the larger Ares V

for cargo—as well as the multipurpose CEV, now

renamed Orion. The Orion vehicle—Constellation’s

marquee element—was designed to replace and supersede the shuttle’s crew-carrying capability. Orion was 

Image 375: Michael Griffin visits Glenn on 16 May 2005, one month 

after being confirmed as NASA Administrator (GRC–2005–C–00704).

Image 376: While NASA was still defining the Constellation mission and parameters, Glenn sought ways to participate in the program. In 

2005 Glenn teamed with Marshall to design the Orion service module mock-up. The Glenn Fabrication Shop then created an 18-foot-diameter 

full-scale model with a 180° cutaway highlighting the module’s internal components.1160,1161 Ever since, it has been on display next to the 

Administration Building (GRC–2007–C–00566).
310

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

reduced.1164 Rather than delaying or downsizing 

Constellation, Griffin subtracted 75 percent of that 

deficit from its primary microgravity, life science, and 

aeronautics programs. He also stemmed the growth of 

NASA’s expanding Earth Science’s initiative.1165

v v v v v v

This had significant implications for Glenn. As nearly 

all NASA funds were shifted to exploration, the center 

was faced with the elimination of positions, program 

cancellations, and the threatened closure of large test 

facilities.1166 Paradoxically, Glenn’s shrinking budget and lack of a near-term test program also threatened Plum Brook Station, much of which was built

specifically for advanced post-Apollo space missions 

like the VSE. The center eliminated hundreds of positions through buyouts and layoffs.1167-1169

The nearly 25 percent decrease in NASA’s aeronautics budget between 2005 and 2007 forced 

NASA to terminate its work on the Ultra-Efficient

Engine Technology (UEET) program.1170,1171 In 2005 

NASA reorganized its aeronautics work into four 

large programs—the Fundamental Aeronautics Program to handle basic research, the Airspace Systems 

Program for air traffic, the Aeronautics Test Program 

to maintain fundamental capabilities, and the Aviation 

Safety Program to reduce fatal aircraft accidents.1172 

The VSE restructuring also led to the termination of 

Glenn’s solar cell research effort, the transformation 

of microgravity science programs into engineering

endeavors, and a 20-percent staff reduction at the

National Center for Microgravity Research.1173,1174 

These changes infuriated many in the academic and 

science communities. “Without this research, they 

aren’t going to Mars, period,” Simon Ostrach warned 

at the time. A National Research Council report stated 

that NASA was attempting to do too much with too 

little.1175 Hundreds of researchers at universities and 

research labs who had spent years developing NASAsponsored science programs saw them summarily canceled. Griffin justified these decisions on the basis that 

he was just trying to implement congressionally mandated priorities for the Agency. Again NASA’s budget 

volatility and decreasing research opportunities caused 

some younger researchers to look elsewhere to perform their work.1176,1177

Image 377: Model of the Ares V vehicle built behind the 

Administration Building (GRC–2009–C–01301).

intended to work with either Ares booster and to ferry 

up to six astronauts to the ISS or four to the Moon. It

consists of two main units: (1) the command module 

carrying the crew and (2) the service module containing 

the propulsion, power, and communications systems. 

Orion also includes solar arrays to generate electrical 

power and radiators to dissipate heat.1162 A number of 

vehicle elements would be based on upgraded Apollo 

and shuttle hardware rather than new technology, in 

order to minimize costs and programmatic risk.1163

Just as NASA finally established its Constellation 

plans in 2005, Congress reduced funding for the VSE 

even further as the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina 

drained federal resources. Not only were the promised annual increases eliminated from the fiscal year 

2006 budget, but NASA’s overall appropriation was 
Changing Missions 311

John H. Glenn Research Center

v v v v v v

It was in this context that Administrator Griffin

appointed Woodrow Whitlow to replace retiring

Director Julian Earls in October 2005. Whitlow had 

begun his career as a research scientist at Langley in 

1979, then served in several high-level positions at 

Langley and headquarters before being named Glenn’s 

Director of Research and Technology in 1998. He 

served as Deputy Director at Kennedy Space Center 

from 2003 until he returned to Glenn as director in 

2005.1178

In early 2006 Center Director Whitlow began traveling to headquarters on a weekly basis to stake out a role 

for Glenn in the Constellation Program. Prior to his

retirement, Earls had assembled a team of former 

Glenn managers, including Larry Ross and Lonnie 

Reid, to analyze the center’s ability to manage new space 

programs. Their report, which emerged in 2006, concluded that Glenn’s lack of a space program office and 

capable project managers were the primary reasons for 

the dearth of projects in recent years. It also expressed 

concern that the continual budget reductions, lack of 

new projects, and insufficient support were eroding 

the center’s technical competency. Nonetheless the

authors considered Glenn to be technically superior to 

the Johnson Space Center or Marshall.1179,1180 They 

Image 378: Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Lisa Porter is briefed on Glenn’s 

turbomachinery accomplishments during a visit in April 2006 (GRC–2006–C–00765).

concluded that the center’s experience 

placed it in a better position to manage 

large programs than it had been before 

taking on the Centaur or space station 

power programs.1181

Whitlow and Deputy Director Rich 

Christiansen immediately began to

reorganize the Glenn staff. This process included the creation of the Space 

Flight Systems Directorate to manage the center’s space systems development. They also merged the center’s 

systems engineers and technicians into 

the new Engineering Directorate and 

consolidated the aeronautics management into the Research and Technology

Directorate.1182,1183

In the midst of these activities, Griffin 

decided that NASA should perform 

more of the Constellation work in-house. He introduced the “10 healthy centers” motto and assigned 

key exploration, science, and aeronautics roles for 

each center. In addition he successfully instructed top 

management personnel to focus on improving work 

assignments to minimize the “uncovered” staffing

issue. Griffin also asked that the centers attempt to use 

civil servants at other centers before contracting work 

Image 379: Center Director Woodrow Whitlow and Deputy Director 

Rich Christiansen (GRC–2005–C–01706).
312

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 380: Display in the Research Analysis Center, which housed Glenn’s Constellation staff. The display featured historical photographs and 

artifacts such as a Gemini capsule and Mercury escape tower (GRC–2010–C–0206).

Image 381: Ares I–X engineering team emulates their Apollo predecessors during a review meeting in July 2007 (GRC–2007–C–01580).
Changing Missions 313

John H. Glenn Research Center

out. Issues with the number of NASA employees and 

incorrect work assignments were largely eradicated in 

2007 and 2008.1184

Glenn immensely benefited from Griffin’s decisions. 

On 12 May 2006 headquarters assigned Glenn the

responsibility for the development, budget, staffing, 

and contracting for the Orion service module.1185

Glenn established an Orion project office under

Bryan Smith, and Jim Free managed the service module work. The center also was responsible for the 

adapter that joined the Orion stage to the Ares booster 

and was asked to provide the Johnson crew module

development team with guidance on seals, controls, 

and combustion.1186 Glenn’s fortunes continued to

improve in 2007 as staff reductions ceased, and two 

new Constellation programs were secured—Orion

vibration testing in the Space Power Facility (SPF) and 

the development of a lunar lander and rover. Glenn had 

been awarded over $1 billion in Constellation work, 

and Whitlow announced that the efforts would keep 

the staff occupied for the next decade.1187,1188

Image 382: Testing of a liquid-oxygen/liquid-methane thruster for CEV (GRC–2009–C–01936).

Glenn Orion Module Work 

Despite the concern over Glenn’s science and aeronautic areas, employees quickly embraced and adapted to 

the new VSE work. Many were invigorated by these 

new, large assignments, and people worked with an

enthusiasm that had been absent during the previous decade of decline. They worked countless hours 

to meet the deadlines imposed by human spaceflight, where schedule was a higher priority than in

the research fields. New intercenter collaborations 

emerged during this period that endure to this day.1189

NASA selected Lockheed Martin to construct the

Orion vehicle. Glenn was responsible for designing,

building, and testing the vehicle’s propulsion system,

which consisted of a main thruster surrounded by

eight smaller backup engines and 16 attitudecontrol thrusters. Unlike previous spacecraft designs, 

a single propellant source supplied all of the thrusters.

In addition, NASA sponsored a study into the

applicability of using a liquid-oxygen/liquid-methane

propellant system.1190
314

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Liquid methane is denser than liquid hydrogen and, 

therefore, requires smaller tanks. It also burns well 

with liquid oxygen and theoretically could be manufactured from natural elements in the martian atmosphere.1191 In 2005 Glenn sponsored the development 

of two different methane engines. Just as the effort was 

getting under way, Orion program managers decided 

to replace the methane and oxygen combination with 

hypergolic fuels similar to those used for the shuttle 

thrusters.1192

Glenn decided to continue the oxygen/methane

research for possible future implementation. The center had investigated liquid methane propulsion systems at the Plum Brook Rocket Systems Area in the 

1960s. The current studies were conducted at a new set 

of small test facilities that replaced those destroyed by 

the airport runway expansion. The tests included hot 

firing of the liquid-oxygen/liquid-methane thruster

in simulated altitude conditions at the Altitude Combustion Stand (which included one of the engine test 

stands from the former Rocket Engine Test Facility).1193 Other researchers used the Small Multipurpose Research Facility to test long-duration insulation 

systems for methane tanks in simulated lunar conditions.1194 Researchers successfully demonstrated the 

operation of the engine, thrusters, and propellant feed 

system. The technology is available for future use.1195

Glenn managed the development of the Orion service 

module, which included its engines, control thrusters, 

power system, and cooling system. Glenn also contributed to the development of various subsystems for the 

Ares I launch vehicle, and developed the thrust control 

Image 383: Stacking of two Ares I–X segments in the Fabrication Shop, which was renamed the “Ares Manufacturing Facility” 

(GRC–2008–C–00421).
Changing Missions 315

John H. Glenn Research Center

system, electrical power, the payload shroud for Ares V.

In addition, the center worked on technology for the 

lunar lander, lunar rover, and spacesuits;1196 analyzed 

coatings to discharge static energy from the Orion

solar panels; worked on the radiators used to cool the 

capsule interior; and studied advanced seals.1197 An 

acoustic reverberation facility was added to the SPF’s 

high-bay area for future Orion vibration testing.

Glenn researchers were also very interested in 

lunar soil—both its effects on spacecraft and the 

tools to gather it for use in space. The Simulated

Lunar Operations facility was created in the

Engine Research Building. It included a 60-footlong box filled with a sand/clay mixture that 

resembled lunar soil. Glenn worked with the

Canadian Space Agency to develop computer 

models and physical tools to mine the lunar 

soil.1198

v v v v v v

The Ares launch vehicles, like any new rockets, 

required developmental flights to verify their 

performance before any actual missions were

attempted. Engineers were concerned that Ares’s 

single engine might not be able to control the 

tall, slender rocket. To minimize expenses, these 

test launches usually carry models that simulate 

the mass and shape of the upper stages or payloads. NASA assigned Glenn the responsibility 

for assembling mass models of the second stage, 

service module, and adapter for the Ares I–X 

development launch. The launch was the first of 

five planned flight tests. NASA had usually contracted commercial manufacturers to create flight 

hardware, but with NASA’s new effort to increase 

in-house work, Glenn decided to build these 

models in its own Fabrication Shop.1199,1200 

In June 2007 Glenn began manufacturing the 

11 cylindrical steel sections for the simulated 

Orion stage. After each section was completed, 

it was moved from the Fabrication Shop to the 

PSF. Technicians stacked the segments on top of 

one another in the facility’s clean room to verify 

their integrity.1201 Then, in October 2008 Glenn

employees trucked the large segments to Wellsville, Ohio, to begin their 12-day journey down 

the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, out into the Gulf 

of Mexico, and over to Kennedy. There they were

assembled and added to the Ares booster.1202

Image 384: Constellation Program managers tour the Ares I–X segment 

assembly in the PSF (GRC–2008–C–00836).

Members of Glenn’s Ares I–X launch team were at 

their stations at 4 a.m. on 28 October 2009 at Kennedy. 

An approaching storm forced the team to repeatedly 

recalculate for the winds and threatened to cancel the 

launch altogether. At 11:30 a.m. Ares I–X lifted off, 

and the control room, which had grown quiet during 

the last 4 minutes of the countdown, erupted in cheers. 
316

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Six minutes later the Ares booster parachuted into the 

sea for later recovery while Glenn’s upper-stage simulator plummeted to the ocean floor as intended.1203 

The successful launch not only demonstrated the flight 

dynamics, control, and stage separation of Ares I, but 

Glenn’s ability to construct and deliver spaceflight 

hardware on schedule.

Resetting the Space Program

Despite the success of the Ares I–X development 

flight, Constellation’s days were numbered. In January

2009 President Barack Obama took office and

accepted Administrator Griffin’s resignation. Griffin 

had come under fire from many for his funding of Constellation at the expense of science and aeronautics and 

clashed with the President’s NASA transition team. 

President Obama selected former shuttle astronaut 

Charles Bolden as the new Administrator.1204 The 

president also created an advisory panel led by Norm 

Augustine to review the now five-year old Constellation Program. The vision had again become blurred. 

The VSE’s original incremental mission approach had 

been supplanted by a general push toward developing 

a system to send humans to Mars. Most of NASA’s

energy was now directed at space transportation

Image 385: Glenn employees view the Ares I–X launch on 28 October 2009 from the Visitor Center (GRC–2009–C–03936).

systems, not the activities that actually would be done

on the Moon or Mars. Some claimed that Constellation was no longer supporting the VSE; instead, 

the VSE was being used to advance Constellation.1205 

It would have been difficult to manage such a large

endeavor with proper funding, but NASA’s flat budget made it nearly impossible. In October 2009

Augustine’s panel forecasted that the Moon landing 

schedule would slip by over 10 years, into the 2030s, 

unless the project received an additional $3 billion

annually; and the new Ares 1 launch vehicle would not 

be ready by the time that the shuttle fleet was supposed 

to be retired. This meant that NASA would have to 

divert Constellation funds toward the additional shuttle flights that were needed to complete the ISS. The 

panel offered several options, including substituting

a mission to an asteroid for the Moon landing and

reconfiguring the Ares vehicles.1206 Constellation’s 

prospects did not appear bright, and once again, a 

sense of gloom settled over the program personnel.

The official announcement came on 1 February 2010. 

Based on the panel’s recommendations, President 

Obama decided to cancel the Ares 1 rocket, purchase 
Changing Missions 317

John H. Glenn Research Center

flights to the ISS from the Russians, and 

contract private firms to provide access 

to the ISS in the future. The specific 

goal of sending humans to the Moon 

or Mars was replaced by an effort to

develop technologies for an undetermined destination. Congress eventually 

retained the Ares V heavy lift booster

and Orion, renaming them the Space 

Launch System (SLS) and the MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), 

respectively. NASA transferred all

management responsibilities for the

MPCV to Johnson, but Glenn would

continue work on the service module,

albeit in a smaller capacity.1207,1208

Despite the loss of some funding, the 

reorientation of the space program

realigned Glenn with its traditional 

role of the research and development of

advanced technology. Where Constellation tried to build on the technology 

from the 1960s, NASA now initiated 

a new effort to develop innovative technologies that would expedite the exploration process. Headquarters assigned 

Glenn the responsibility for the Exploration Technology Development and 

Demonstration Office and the Space 

Technology Research Grants Program 

Office. The former sought to develop 

new technologies for space exploration, 

such as solar electric propulsion, nuclear 

surface power, nanotechnology, cryogenic fluid management, and modular 

power systems. The latter office would 

establish a grant program for universities 

to develop new technologies that could 

be applied to human space missions.1209

NASA also increased its aeropropulsion 

and alternative energy research—two of 

Glenn’s fortes.1210

Image 386: MPCV pamphlet.

Image 387: The acoustics chamber in the SPF facility to be used for vehicle vibrational 

and structural dynamics testing (GRC–2011–C–04392).
318

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 388: NASA’s new S–3 Viking cruising along the Lake Erie shoreline in March 2010 (GRC–2010–C–01394).

Image 389: View from the cockpit of Glenn’s S–3 Viking (GRC–2010–C–03192).

After nearly being eliminated in the late 

1990s, Glenn’s Flight Operations group 

reemerged in the 2000s. The group supported several of the Aviation Safety

Program efforts, continued icing flight

research with the Twin Otter and solar 

cell calibration efforts with the Learjet. In March 2004 Flight Operations

acquired a new tool for icing research—

a Lockheed S–3 Viking. The S–3 was 

a former Navy antisubmarine aircraft that surpassed the Twin Otter

in range, speed, and power. The S–3

underwent a two-year transformation

from military fighter to research aircraft.

Its first mission was an icing research 

study near Puerto Rico in fall 2008.1211
Changing Missions 319

John H. Glenn Research Center

Aviation Safety

Despite the deep cuts in NASA’s aeronautics program, Glenn researchers were able to make several 

key contributions during the 2000s—particularly in 

aviation safety. As the aviation industry continued to 

grow in the 1990s, several of its safety standards began 

to gradually erode. The percentage of aircraft crashes

remained low, but the increased number of flights 

meant that overall figure was rising. In 1997 President 

Bill Clinton formed a commission on aircraft safety 

that called for a reduction of fatal accidents by 80 percent over the next 10 years. Glenn, Langley, and Ames 

partnered with the Federal Aviation Administration, 

the Department of Defense, and industry to develop 

new technologies that industry could use to improve 

safety on airliner and general aviation aircraft.1212

The $500-million program focused on preventing 

accidents, reducing accident damage, and improving 

aircraft-monitoring systems. Each one of these topics 

covered a wide array of research areas.1213 The system monitoring included the creation of controls and

Image 390: Don Campbell is briefed on the Honeywell Weather Information Network, which was one of the off-the-shelf technologies tested 

during the first phase of WINCOMM (GRC–1999–C–02205).

diagnostics to detect and remedy the engine problems 

that often caused pilot errors.1214 The accident prevention efforts addressed weather hazards, aircraftmonitoring systems, and development of synthetic 

vision technology that would improve a pilot’s ability to see in inclement weather and darkness. The 

accident mitigation efforts included fire prevention 

and improved crash survivability.1215 Glenn’s legacy 

of flight safety research, which had begun with the

icing research and crash fire programs of the 1940s 

and 1950s, continued into the 1970s with engine control and flight simulation technologies. 

Glenn managed two of the Aviation Safety Program’s efforts—Weather Information Communications (WINCOMM) and a high-altitude ice crystal

research program. The WINCOMM program sought 

to accelerate the transmission of weather and turbulence information between aircraft and ground-based 

stations and from aircraft to aircraft. In the early 2000s 

Glenn researchers analyzed and tested four different 

first-generation commercial systems that transmitted 
320

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

data from the ground to the air. The researchers then 

expanded the size, quality, and speed of the weather 

data transmission and tested those systems. In 2005 

Glenn flight-tested WINCOMM on the Learjet, finding that the data transmission rates were 20 to 100 

times greater than with the system currently in use.1217

NASA extended the Aviation Safety Program to

include new high-altitude engine icing investigations, 

electro-optical sensor studies, and analysis of the

effect of lightning strikes on composite materials. The 

systemwide safety research sought to develop new 

software to anticipate and resolve safety issues, to

Image 391: Mary Reveley and three colleagues were among a team that received the 

prestigious Collier Trophy in 2009 recognizing the Aviation Safety Program’s success 

(Aerospace Frontiers, July 2009).1216

identify the causes of risks and predict 

failure, the interaction of pilots with 

flight equipment and air traffic controls, 

and the lifespan of hardware and software. The vehicle systems safety project 

included efforts to evaluate the health of 

aircraft components and systems, study 

the loss of aircraft control, and develop 

methods for assessing and improving a 

pilot’s ability to recover from failures or 

disturbances.1218

v v v v v v

Glenn undertook a new type of icing 

study involving ice crystals that form 

at high altitudes above the weather.

Typical engine icing occurs with the

accretion of supercooled liquid droplets 

that freeze on engine components and 

disrupt airflow or break off and damage the engine. The new studies focused 

on ice crystals that inexplicably build up

inside the hot engine, causing surge, 

stall, or flameout. Most instances of core 

icing occurred over 22,000 feet, which 

is the upper threshold of supercooled

liquid clouds.1219 

Several aeronautics companies formed 

a working group and built new test

facilities to explore the issue. NASA 

began conducting its own effort, which 

included flight research, altitude engine 

testing, and computer simulations.1220 

Glenn researchers found that ice crystal clouds can 

form near thunderstorms in which the wet air quickly

rises. Despite previous research to the contrary, Glenn

researchers discovered that the crystals melt on hightemperature surfaces, then form ice when those

surfaces get colder. Glenn installed a new ice simulation system in a Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) 

altitude test cell to study this phenomenon. When,

in 2013, Glenn researchers created ice crystals in

simulated altitudes for the first time, the PSL was the 

nation’s only facility with this capability.1221,1222
Changing Missions 321

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 392: PSL’s No. 3 test chamber was modified for high-altitude engine icing tests (GRC–2012–C–04153).

Image 393: The Dr. Edward R. Sharp Alcove of Honor. In 2007 the pick and shovel used for the groundbreaking events at Lewis Field in 1941 

and Plum Brook in the 1956 were found in a storage barn (GRC–2008–C–01791). 
322

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

The Changing Face of Glenn

Since the groundbreaking in 1941 the Glenn campus has been almost constantly in flux. Technology

advanced so quickly that some of the original facilities 

were soon out of date. The center modified several of 

these facilities and built newer ones to address future 

developments. Support buildings and offices were 

modified and upgraded, as well. By the mid-1950s the 

entire 200-acre property was occupied. With the lack 

of space, the center was forced to transform several of 

its facilities to meet the needs of the space program 

in the 1960s. The center’s decreased budget and programmatic shifts in the 1970s resulted in the closure 

of several of its legendary facilities. Glenn began a new 

wave of physical change in the 2000s. 

In 2003, for the first time in its history, NASA Headquarters allocated funds for the demolition of unused 

facilities and asked its centers to submit structures for 

consideration. The annual upkeep of the unused sites 

was expensive, so Glenn proposed the removal of nine 

buildings, including the Altitude Wind Tunnel and 

PSL No. 1 and 2. The two facilities had played significant roles in the advancement of the nation’s propulsion technology, but they had not been used for testing 

since the 1970s. They were demolished in spring and 

summer 2009. In 2010 Glenn also removed the Jet 

Propulsion Static Laboratory and the Plum Brook 

Rocket Systems Area.

Other recent physical changes to the campus include 

the relocation of the Visitor Center to the Great 

Lakes Science Center (where Glenn’s work was seen 

by at least five times more people and school groups 

each year than at the site at Glenn), the demolition 

of the Guerin House and its subsequent replacement 

with a more modern meeting facility, improvement 

of the main gate structures, and the addition of two 

Image 394: PSL wasteland in July 2009. In just over two months, the wrecking crew leveled a facility that had been part of the center’s landscape 

for nearly 60 years (GRC–2009–C–02018).
John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 395: The Altitude Wind Tunnel shell is cut down in February 2009 (GRC–2009–C–00752).
324

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 396: The Apollo capsule used for the Skylab 3 mission is transferred from Glenn to the Great Lakes Science Center in June 2010 

(GRC–2010–C–02647).

Image 397: The Mission Integration Center (MIC) (GRC–2014–C–02988).
Changing Missions 325

John H. Glenn Research Center

new meeting centers. Perhaps the most significant

addition has been the new MIC office building

near the center of the campus. The MIC, located

near the center of the campus, houses hundreds

of engineers and managers working side-by-side on the 

center’s main aerospace projects. The structure incorporates an array of design elements to conserve energy.

Space Research and Technology

NASA established the Human Research Program in 

2005 to develop improved processes and technologies 

to protect humans on the VSE’s long-term space missions. Johnson managed the wide-ranging effort, which 

included everything from a better quality diet and

improved psychological health to mitigation of environmental risks like solar radiation.1223 Glenn has 

been able to use its expertise in areas such as microgravity research, computational modeling, and instrumentation to support the Human Research Program. 

The center’s biomedical engineering work had begun 

in earnest a decade before.

In 1994 Administrator Dan Goldin urged Glenn to

use its microgravity science expertise to support

NASA’s life science program and Cleveland’s expanding

Image 398: Glenn Biomedical Consortium agreement signing event on 7 June 2002 at Glenn’s Zero Gravity Research Facility. From left to right: 

Don Campbell, Mary Kicza, and Howard Ross from Glenn; Huntington Willard (University Hospitals), and Bill Sanford (Bioenterprise 

Corporation) (GRC–2002–C–01425).

medical community. In response, the center created

a taskforce to facilitate technology transfer to this 

community. The local medical industry responded 

with requests for new materials, instrumentation,

software, and telemedicine projects, as well as for items 

for specific medical applications such as lasers for 

cataract treatment and artificial heart actuators. For 

a variety of reasons, it was more difficult to establish 

partnerships with hospitals and research institutions 

than with industry at this time, and NASA terminated 

Lewis’s work in this area during the 1995 Zero Base 

Review.1224 

The center was able to connect with the local medical and research institutions several years later. In 

May 2002 NASA created the John Glenn Biomedical

Engineering Consortium, a partnership between

Glenn, Case Western Reserve University, the

Cleveland Clinic Foundation, University Hospitals

of Cleveland, and the National Center for Space

Exploration Research. Seven three-year collaborative projects were undertaken to mitigate health and

safety risks to the human space crews through research

in fluids physics and sensor technology. Examples

included tools to measure and prevent bone loss,
326

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

implantable medicine release systems, and instruments to detect cardiac, radiation, and metabolism

irregularities.1225 These studies led to Glenn’s work

with NASA’s Human Research Program in 2005.

Glenn has contributed to two primary areas of the 

Human Research Program—Human Health Countermeasures and Exploration Medical Capabilities. 

The former seeks to identify and mitigate a range of 

physiological problems caused by spaceflight. Glenn’s 

focus has been on the development of advanced exercise equipment to prevent bone and muscle atrophy. 

The challenge has been to design this equipment to

fit into a comparatively small spacecraft. Researchers have created computational programs to analyze 

the effect of these devices on bone and muscle. Glenn 

has also been developing computer models to help

determine the cause of visual impairment caused by 

microgravity.1226 

Image 399: The vertical treadmill is demonstrated in Glenn’s Exercise Countermeasures Lab. The treadmill, referred to as the “Standalone Zero 

Gravity Locomotion Simulator,” allows researchers to study the effects of low gravity on astronaut exercise (GRC–2010–C–03733).

The Exploration Medical Capabilities effort develops technology to forecast and prevent health risks

associated with inflight medical conditions. These 

include a system to generate saline from existing

resources, an ultrasound that can identify internal 

health conditions such as bone fractures, a portable 

medical oxygen concentrator, and a medical suction 

device that can operate in microgravity. Glenn also 

manages a computer model that uses medical data 

from previous missions to predict future risks. The 

center’s contributions to the Human Research Program continue today.1227

v v v v v v

The ISS began operating in November 2000, with 

six-person crews typically serving four- to five-month 

terms.1228 The largest space structure ever constructed,

the ISS provides researchers with ample space and 

power to perform extended studies.1229 Glenn

researchers took advantage of this new tool to further 
Changing Missions 327

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 401: Astronaut Nicole Scott installs the FIR on 22 October 2009 (NASA ISS021E011440).

their study of the behavior of fluids and combustion 

in a microgravity environment. Although the shuttle 

had provided the opportunity to perform microgravity 

experiments that were significantly larger and longer 

than those on Earth, the two-week shuttle missions 

did not provide much time to modify an experiment 

on the basis of early results. The ISS not only provided 

an unlimited amount of time for the experiments but 

room for larger setups.1230 

Glenn’s most significant contribution to the station 

has been the Fluids and Combustion Facility (FCF), 

one of six permanent ISS experiments. The FCF

consists of two modular, adaptable racks that house 

multiple experiments. Glenn researchers designed 

these racks—the Combustion Integration Rack (CIR) 

and the Fluids Integration Rack (FIR)—in the mid1990s, basing the design on the Combustion Module-1 

shuttle experiment rack. After several years of ground 

testing, the racks were installed on the station in 2008 

and 2009.1231 The FCF enables researchers to carry out

experiments remotely from Glenn with minor assistance from the astronauts. Image 400: The FCF’s CIR undergoing testing in the Acoustic 1232

Testing Laboratory during April 2005 (GRC–2005–C–00559).
328

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Since beginning operation in 2009, Glenn researchers 

have used the CIR to conduct three long-term liquid 

fuel combustion experiments involving thousands of 

tests.1233 Researchers have used the FIR to investigate 

heat transfer and the characteristics of colloid materials in space.1234

v v v v v v

As the Constellation project was transforming in 2010, 

a Glenn team raced to complete a new space communications program in time to catch a ride on one of the 

few remaining shuttle flights to the ISS. Despite the 

success of the Advanced Communications Technology 

Satellite (ACTS) satellite in the 1990s, NASA management downsized Glenn’s space communications 

program and instructed the group to shift its focus 

from potential commercial technology to applications for NASA. Glenn researcher Richard Reinhart

developed the Space Communications and Navigation 

(SCaN) communication device, which employs computer codes instead of electronics to transmit signals. 

SCaN technology can be used for communications, 

networking, and navigation both in space and on Earth.

The key to SCaN’s technology was its use of software to generate waveforms, which allows repairs or 

upgrades to be performed remotely through software 

upgrades.1235 Researchers integrated three different 

software-defined radios and an antenna-pointing system into a test package to be installed on the ISS. Each 

of these radios operated on a different bandwidth—

including the Ka-band spectrum that had first been 

explored by ACTS.1236

Glenn, which initiated the program in 2006, was

responsible for developing, building, and testing the 

technology. Over the course of just five years, the 

SCaN team converted the theoretical concepts into 

working technology and tested it at length. Glenn 

tested the systems extensively in the center’s vacuum 

chambers and shake facilities. 

Image 402: SCaN’s architecture and services.
John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 403: The SCaN testbed is prepared for shipment to Japan for its launch (GRC–2012–C–00698).
330

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

The program suffered some setbacks, however, and 

missed the opportunity to secure a place on the

remaining shuttle launches. NASA made an alternative arrangement to have a Japanese rocket transport the SCaN hardware to the ISS in July 2012.

Researchers control the SCaN testbed 

from the Glenn Telescience Support Center that was developed to monitor microgravity experiments on the shuttle.1237 

SCaN is being used to demonstrate

software-designed radio systems; conduct 

communications, navigation, and networking experiments; and test capabilities for 

future missions. 

New Day

Days after the Constellation Program

was canceled in 2010, Woodrow Whitlow

accepted the Associate Administrator for 

Mission Support Directorate position 

at headquarters. Administrator Bolden

selected then Deputy Director Ramon Lugo

to fill Glenn’s Center Director vacancy and

promoted Jim Free from Director of Space 

Flight Systems to Deputy Director. Lugo 

had spent most of his career in the construction and launch vehicle areas at 

Kennedy before transferring to Glenn

in 2007.1238

Glenn continued its Constellation assignments for several months while Congress

reviewed President’s Obama’s plans. As

NASA adjusted to its new mission,

Congress refused to pass President

Obama’s budget for 2011. This began a

series of continuing resolutions and threatened government shutdowns. Despite 

the rancor, Congress passed a three-year

NASA authorization bill that stemmed 

impending layoffs.1239

Federal budget arguments continued into 

2011, and a Senate proposal to eliminate 

NASA’s aeronautics work was blocked.1240

In April 2011 Congress approved a budget 

that maintained 2010’s overall spending 

levels. The center ended up receiving $100 

million more than it had in 2010, mostly 

geared toward the new Exploration Technology Development and Demonstration Program. Seven new

space technology projects were initiated, including a

new solar-electric propulsion demonstration and an 

in-space cryogenic fluid management program.1241

Image 404: Ray Lugo (right) and Jih Fen Lei (behind Lugo), Director of the Research 

and Development, take Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (left) on a tour of the PSF 

(GRC–2011–C–03296).

Image 405: Astronaut Michael Foreman speaks at a gala gathering of Ohio astronauts in 

2008. Foreman flew on STS–123 and STS–129. He was one of several astronauts who 

served on one-year details leading Glenn’s External Programs Office

(GRC–2008–C–02464). 
Changing Missions 331

John H. Glenn Research Center

Despite the seeming good news, the center’s general 

operations budget was severely decreased. Forty-five 

members of the operations contract staff were immediately terminated, and center services were reduced.1242

In August 2011 Congress passed a bill that mandated 

indiscriminate cuts across federal agencies in 2013 

if expenditures were not reduced. Glenn took steps 

in 2012 to prepare for this by reducing its spending 

through cuts in the contract staff, consolidation of its 

management, and reduction of its facilities maintenance.

1243 Lugo also brought in consultants to carry 

out a technical review of the center. The reviews concluded that “Glenn has far too many lines of research 

and technology development and needs to focus its

efforts to have the ability to impact the Agency and the 

nation in a credible way.” 

Lugo and his management team began searching for 

ways to focus the center’s recently expanded role in 

research and technology and improve efficiency in

Image 406: Jim Free speaks to the media during a visit to the EPL by Administrator Charlie Bolden and local congressional representatives 

Marcy Kaptur and Sherrod Brown in January 2014 (GRC–2014–C–00269).

applying the smaller number of staff to the many

projects.1244 They initiated a reorganization process, 

but in mid-November 2012 Lugo announced his

impending retirement. 

On 3 January 2013, Administrator Bolden appointed 

Jim Free as Glenn’s Center Director. The 44-year-old 

Free was the first Glenn Director to have grown up in 

the Cleveland area. After graduating from Miami University in Ohio, he had the unique experience of earning his graduate degree in Space Systems Engineering 

at the Delft University in the Netherlands. Free began 

his NASA career in 1990 as a propulsion and systems 

engineer at Goddard Space Flight Center.1245

Free joined Glenn in 1999 as the Fluids and Combustion Facility liaison for the ISS. He went on to lead the 

NEXT electric propulsion effort and to manage the 

Prometheus spacecraft. Free transferred to Johnson in 

2008 where he served as the Orion Test and Verification Manager and the Orion Service Module Manager. 
332

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

He returned to Glenn in September 2009 as Director 

of Space Flight Systems, in which he managed all of 

the center’s space activities, including Orion, the shuttle, and the ISS. Free became Lugo’s Deputy Director 

in November 2010.1246

As Deputy Director, Free understood that the center 

would have to live with the 2010 budget reductions 

for the foreseeable future. Glenn began taking steps to 

operate institutionally in that restrictive scenario.1247 

As part of this effort, management began planning a 

reorganization to focus on the center’s five identified 

core competencies—space power, aeronautics and 

space propulsion systems, advanced materials, physical sciences and biomedical technology, and advanced 

communications technology. 

Free solicited input from the center staff as he continued to pursue this new organization after becoming Director. He was supported by Deputy Director

Greg Robinson (recently replaced by Janet Kavandi) 

and Associate Director Janet Watkins. Free also

guided the center through a series of congressional

budgetary threats including the “fiscal cliff,” sequestration, and ultimately a three-week government

shutdown in October 2013.

Casting a Keen Eye Back

On 25 September 2015 the Glenn Research Center 

inducted the first class into its new Hall of Fame. The 

ceremony was the culmination of a series of events at 

the center to mark the NACA centenary. All nine individuals had begun their careers during the NACA era.

“I find it striking,” commented NASA Chief Historian 

Bill Barry, “that ... as we pursue our many demanding 

goals and we look toward the future, ...we’re not just 

rushing into the future headlong. ...we are casting a 

keen eye back on our accomplishments, relevant role 

models and leaders from the past that built this legacy 

that we continue to build on. ...And what an incredible legacy at Glenn!”1248

Image 407: First class inducted into the Glenn Hall of Fame (PS–01671–3–1015).
Changing Missions 333

John H. Glenn Research Center

Glenn’s inaugural Hall of Fame class was diverse. 

It featured not only seminal leaders, like Ray Sharp, 

Abe Silverstein, and Bruce Lundin, but aviation

safety expert Irv Pinkel, computer programmer Annie

Easley, graphic artist Jim Modarelli, and a trio

of experts nominated as “The Giants of Heat

Transfer”—Simon Ostrach, Robert Siegel, and

Robert Deissler.1249

The event was among the first to officially recognize 

the importance of individuals to the center’s success. 

During his remarks, Center Director Jim Free noted, 

“We can build all the buildings we want, and we can 

have great test facilities, but what matters is the people 

who come to work here every day—and the incredible 

intellect and spirit and caring and devotion that these 

folks had.”1250

Ostrach and Siegel were present, as were families of 

deceased inductees, joined by former colleagues and 

many current employees. For the hour-long ceremony, daily concerns and problems faded into the 

background, and the audience was filled with pride 

and admiration of the people, the center, and all they 

had accomplished for our nation.

Image 408: Simon Ostrach, Elaine Siegel, and Robert Siegel at the 2015 Glenn Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony 

held in the new MIC (GRC–2015–C–06102).

v v v v v v

Glenn’s relentless pursuit of the future has endured 

through massive technological transformations like jet 

propulsion, spaceflight, and computerization; through 

changes in leadership, staffing fluctuations, and

decreasing budgets; and through an evolution from 

military research to managing contracts and collaborating with private corporations. Ultimately Glenn’s 

research has produced a persistent flow of new insights 

and technologies that have improved human activities 

on Earth, in the air, and in space.

The center’s state-of-the-art facilities and equipment 

expedited many of these advancements, but ultimately, 

it was generations of talented and motivated people 

who made the successes reality. Research and development is not easy; there are always wrong turns and 

roadblocks. Thus, success requires not only intellect 

and skills, but patience and fortitude. As exemplified 

by the 2015 Hall of Fame inductees, employees across 

the center have exhibited these qualities for 75 years. 

It is on their shoulders that the legacy of the NASA 

Glenn Research Center rests.
334

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Endnotes for Chapter 10

1089. NASA, “The Columbia Accident Investigation 

Board (CAIB)” (17 September 2009), 

http://history.nasa.gov/columbia/CAIB.html 

(accessed 1 April 2015).

1090. George W. Bush, “The Vision for Space Exploration,” 

14 February 2004 (Washington, DC: NASA NP–

2004–01–334–HQ, 2004).

1091. “Work Assignments for Moon Mission: Ares I and 

Orion,” 5 June 2006, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ 

glenn/moonandmars/work_assignments.html

(accessed 8 December 2015).

1092. Howard Ross to Robert Arrighi, “Changing 

Missions,” 20 November 2015, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1093. Tori Woods, “New Assignments, New

Responsibilities Proposed for Glenn” (15 June 

2010), http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn 

exploration/new_glenn.html (accessed 3 August 

2015).

1094. Sean O’Keefe, “Pioneering the Future” address, 

NASA Facts (12 April 2002), http:// 

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/plans/Pioneer.pdf

1095. W. Henry Lambright, “Leadership and Change at 

NASA: Sean O’Keefe as Administrator,” Public 

Administration Review, March/April 2008.

1096. “NASA’s Implementation Plan for International 

Space Station Continuing Flight” (28 October 

2003), http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/53067main_ 

station_imp_plan.pdf (accessed 1 April 2015).

1097. Ross to Arrighi.

1098. Ann Over, “Combustion Module-2 Achieved 

Scientific Success on Shuttle Mission STS-107” 

Research & Technology 2003 (Washington, DC: 

NASA/TM—2004-212729, 2004), 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1099. “STS-107 To Carry Glenn-Developed 

Experiments,” Aerospace Frontiers ( July 2002).

1100. Doreen Zudell, “STS-107 Crew Train on Glenn 

Hardware,” Aerospace Frontiers (March 2001).

1101. A. Abbud-Madrid, J. T. McKinnon, F. Amon, and 

S. Gokoglu, “Suppression of Premixed Flames by 

Water Mist in Microgravity: Findings From the 

MIST Experiment on STS-107,” Proceedings of 

the Halon Options Technical Working Conference 

(May 2004), http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/ 

upload/R0401173.pdf (accessed 8 December 2015).

1102. Ross to Arrighi.

1103. Over, “Combustion Module-2 Achieved Scientific 

Success,” http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1104. Stephen J. Altemus, Jon N. Cowart, and Warren 

H. Woodworth, “STS-107 Reconstruction

Report” (Washington, DC: NASA NSTS–60501, 

30 June 2003), http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ 

CAIB/docs/STS-107_Columbia_Reconstruction_ 

Report_NSTS-60501_30Jun03.pdf (accessed

8 December 2015).

1105. Brian M. Mayeaux, et al., “Materials Analysis: A Key 

to Unlocking the Mystery of the Columbia Tragedy,” 

Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 

(February 2004). 

1106. “Critical Contributions to the Space Shuttle Returnto-Flight Effort Made by Glenn’s Ballistic Impact 

Team,” Research & Technology 2005 (Washington, 

DC: NASA/TM—2006-214016, 2006), 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1107. Jan Wittry, “Shooting for Safety: Ballistics Team 

Helps Return Shuttle to Flight” (5 July 2005), 

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/ 

Ballistics_RTF_Feature.html (accessed

1 April 2015).

1108. Doreen Zudell, “Glenn Team Made Big Impact on 

Shuttle Investigation,” Aerospace Frontiers

(November 2003). 

1109. Mayeaux, “Materials Analysis.”

1110. “Critical Contributions,” http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1111. Wittry, “Shooting for Safety,” http://www.nasa.gov/

returntoflight/crew/Ballistics_RTF_Feature.html

1112. Zudell, “Glenn Team Made Big Impact.”

1113. Jayanta Panda, Fred Martin, and Daniel Sutliff, 

Estimation of the Unsteady Aerodynamic Load on 

Space Shuttle External Tank Protuberances From 

a Component Wind Tunnel Test (Washington, DC: 

NASA/TM—2008-215155, 2008), 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1114. “External Tank Protuberance Air Load (PAL) 

Ramps,” NASA Facts (Washington, DC: NASA 

FS–2005–04–08–MSFC, Pub 8–40393, April 

2005).

1115. Wayne Hale, et al., Wings in Orbit: Scientific and

Engineering Legacies of the Space Shuttle, 1971– 

2010 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–2010–3409, 

2010), http: ntrs.nasa.gov

1116. Tariq Malik, “NASA Nixes Foam Ramp for Next 

Space Shuttle Flight,” Space.com (15 December 

2005), http://www.space.com/1871-nasa-nixesfoam-ramp-space-shuttle-flight.html (accessed

1 April 2015).

1117. NASA, “The Columbia Accident Investigation 

Board (CAIB),” http://history.nasa.gov/columbia/ 

CAIB.html
Changing Missions 335

John H. Glenn Research Center

1118. Jenise Veris, “Glenn Employees Reflect on RTF 

Efforts, Aerospace Frontiers (August 2005). 

Special Notice, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1119. Mrityunjay Singh and Tara Shpargel, “Glenn 

Refractory Adhesive for Bonding and Exterior 

Repair (GRABER) Developed for Repairing Shuttle 

Damage” (Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2005- 

213419, 2005), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1120. James Zakrajsek, “Return to Flight: Shuttle 

Actuators,” (May 2005), http://www.nasa.gov/ 

centers/glenn/pdf/90864main_M-1587_actuators. 

pdf (accessed 8 December 2015). 

1121. Frank Sietzen and Keith L. Cowing, New Moon 

Rising: The Making of America’s New Space Vision 

and the Remaking of NASA (Burlington, Ontario: 

Apogee Books, 2004).

1122. Sietzen, New Moon Rising.

1123. House Science Committee Hearing Charter, “The 

Future of Human Space Flight” (16 October 2003) 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid= 

10658 (accessed 8 December 2015).

1124. Michael D. Griffin, “Hearing on the Future of 

Human Space Flight Committee on Science” 

testimony (16 October 2003), http:// 

www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10683

(accessed 8 December 2015). 

1125. Wesley Huntress, testimony to Full Committee 

Hearing, “Future of NASA” (29 October 2003), 

http://history.nasa.gov/columbia/Troxell/ 

Columbia%20Web%20Site/Documents/Congress/ 

Senate/OCTOBE~1/huntress_testimony.html

(accessed 8 December 2015). 

1126. Lambright, “Leadership and Change at NASA.”

1127. Sietzen, New Moon Rising.

1128. Lambright, “Leadership and Change at NASA.”

1129. Sietzen, New Moon Rising.

1130. Bush, “The Vision for Space Exploration.”

1131. “Dr. Julian M. Earls Selected To Lead NASA Glenn 

Research Center,” 2008, NASA Headquarters 

1132. Graham Warwick, “Playing With Fire,” Flight

International (3 March 2003).

1133. Randall Taylor, Prometheus Project Final Report 

(Washington, DC: NASA 982–R120461, 

1 October 2005).

1134. John E. Foster, Tom Haag, and Michael Patterson, 

The High Power Electric Propulsion (HiPEP) Ion 

Thruster (Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2004- 

213194, 2004), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1135. “Glenn Successfully Tests Ion Engine,” Aerospace 

Frontiers ( January 2004).

1136. “Electric Propulsion Technology Developed for

Prometheus 1,” Research & Technology 2005

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2006-214016, 

2006), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1137. Lee Mason, “Dynamic Energy Conversion: Vital 

Technology for Space Nuclear Power,” Journal of 

Aerospace Engineering 26 (2013): 352–360.

1138. Steven Oleson, et al., Mission Advantages of 

NEXT: NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster 

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2002-211892, 

2002), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1139. Rohit Shastry, Daniel A. Herman, and George C. 

Soulas, Status of NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon 

Thruster (NEXT) Long-Duration Test as of 

50,000 h and 900 kg Throughput (Washington, 

DC: NASA GRC–E–DAA–TN11548, 

6 October 2013).

1140. “Aerojet Rocketdyne Receives Contract to Continue 

Development of NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon 

Gridded Ion Thruster System” (Sacramento, CA: 

Aerojet Rocketdyne, 6 April 2015) 

http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdynereceives-contract-continue-developmentnasa%E2%80%99s-evolutionary-xenon-gridded

(accessed 2 December 2015).

1141. Dan Herman interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Lindsey Frick, “What’s the Difference Between 

Gridded Ion Thrusters and Hall Effect Thrusters” 

(21 August 2013), http://www.engineeringtv.com/ 

video/Whats-the-Difference-Between-Gr;

Whats-the-Difference-Videos-Ser (accessed

23 July 2015).

1142. John M. Sankovic, John A. Hamley, and Thomas 

W. Haag, Performance Evaluation of the Russian 

SPT-100 Thruster at NASA LeRC (Washington, 

DC: NASA TM−106401, 1993), 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1143. John M. Sankovic, Leonard H. Caveny, and Peter 

R. Lynn, The BMDO Russian Hall Electric 

Thruster Technology (RHETT) Program: From 

Laboratory to Orbit (Reston, VA: AIAA 97–2917, 

1997).

1144. John M. Sankovic, NASA Technology Investments 

in Electric Propulsion: New Directions in the New 

Millennium (Washington, DC: NASA/TM— 

2002-210609, 2002). http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1145. I. G. Mikellides, G. A. Jongeward, B. M. Gardner, 

I. Katz, M. J. Mandell, and V. A. Davis, A HallEffect Thruster Plume and Spacecraft 

Interactions Modeling Package (Pasadena, CA: 

Conference Paper IEPC–01–251, 15 October 

2001). http://erps.spacegrant.org.uploads/ 
336

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

images/images/iepc_articledownload_1988-2007/

2001index/251_2.pdf (accessed 2 December 2015).

1146. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, “Discovery 

Program,” http://discovery.nasa.gov/missions.cfml 

(accessed 4 December 2015).

1147. Hani Kamhawi, et al., Overview of Hall Thruster 

Activities at NASA Glenn Research Center 

(Wiesbaden, Germany: Conference Paper 

IEPC−2011−339, 11 September 2011). 

1148. “New Hall Thruster Passes Performance Testing,” 

Aerospace Frontiers (October 2005). 

1149. Jacobson, NASA’s 2004 Hall Thruster Program.

1150. “Tank 5: Tops in Electrical Propulsion Testing,” 

Aerospace Frontiers ( January 2002).

1151. Kamhawi, Overview of Hall Thruster Activities.

1152. Ross to Arrighi.

1153. Ross to Arrighi.

1154. Paul Spudis, “The Vision for Space Exploration: A 

Brief History (Part 2),” Spudis Lunar Resources 

Blog (26 October 2012), 

http://www.spudislunarre-sources.com/blog/ 

the-vision-for-space-exploration-a-brief-history-part-2

(accessed 18 December 2015).

1155. Jennifer L. Rhatigan, Jeffrey M. Hanley, and Mark S. 

Geyer, “Formulations of NASA’s Constellation

Program,” Constellation Program Lessons Learned,

Volume I (Washington, DC: NASA SP−2011− 

6127−VOL−1, 2011), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1156. “President Bush Offers New Vision for NASA,” 

Aerospace Frontiers (2 February 2004). 

1157. Bush, “The Vision for Space Exploration.”

1158. Lambright, “Leadership and Change at NASA.”

1159. Paul Spudis, “The Vision for Space Exploration: 

A Brief History (Part 3),” Spudis Lunar Resources 

Blog (2 November 2012), 

http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/ 

the-vision-for-space-exploration-a-brief-history-part-3

(accessed 18 December 2015).

1160. Becky Gaylord, “Glenn Could Get Work on Shuttle 

Replacement But Management Needs Improvement, 

Reports Say,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (12 February 

2006).

1161. Doreen Zudell, “Glenn Brings CEV Concept to Life 

Through Full-Scale Model,” Aerospace Frontiers 

(February 2006).

1162. “Constellation Program: America’s Spacecraft for a 

 New Generation of Explorers: The Orion Crew 

Exploration Vehicle,” NASA Facts (Washington, 

DC: NASA FS–2006–08–022–JSC, 2006).

1163. Erik Seedhouse, Lunar Outpost: The Challenges 

of Establishing a Human Settlement on the Moon 

(Berlin, Germany: Springer Science + Business 

Media, 2009).

1164. Daniel Morgan, Future of NASA: Space Policy 

Issues Facing Congress (Washington, DC:

Congressional Research Service, 14 January 2010). 

1165. Bart Gordon, Hearing Before the Committee on 

Science, House of Representatives, One Hundred 

Ninth Congress, First Session (Washington, DC: 

NASA Earth Science, 28 April 2005).

1166. Becky Gaylord and Stephen Koff, “NASA Glenn to 

Lose 700 Jobs as Cleveland Holds Its Breath,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer (8 February 2005).

1167. Gaylord, “NASA Glenn to Lose 300 Jobs by the 

End of 2007,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (7 February 

2006).

1168. Gaylord, “NASA Glenn Bleeding Jobs; Prospects 

Are Poor,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (21 October 

2005).

1169. Gaylord, “NASA Glenn to Lose 300 Jobs.”

1170. Gaylord, “NASA Glenn to Lose 300 Jobs.”

1171. Doreen Zudell, “Glenn’s Evolving Role Within the 

Vision for Space Exploration,” Aerospace Frontiers 

(March 2005). 

1172. Dhanireddy R. Reddy, “Seventy Years of 

Aeropropulsion Research at NASA Glenn 

Research Center,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering 

(April 2013). 

1173. Gaylord, “NASA Glenn Bleeding Jobs.” 

1174. Zudell, “Glenn’s Evolving Role.”

1175. John Mangels, “NASA’s Science Programs in 

Jeopardy Missions To Put Humans in Space Lead to 

Deep Cuts,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (28 May 2006).

1176. Larry Wheeler, “Scientists, Researchers Feel Pain of 

NASA Budget Cuts,” USA Today (3 April 2006). 

1177. Mangels, “NASA’s Science Programs.”

1178. Morrie Goodman, “NASA Administrator Names 

Woodrow Whitlow Associate Administrator for 

Mission Support,” NASA press release 10−032, 

3 February 2010, Press Release Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

1179. Julian Earls interview, Cleveland, OH, by 

Rebecca Wright, 22 February 2006, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

1180. Becky Gaylord, “NASA Glenn Sets Its Sights on 

Space Travel—Director Works to Get New Office 

Off Ground,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (20 April 

2006). 

1181. Gaylord, “Glenn Could Get Work on Shuttle 

Replacement.”

1182. Woodrow Whitlow to Glenn Civil Service 

Employees, “Reorganization of the NASA Glenn 

Research Center-Update,” 5 January 2007, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH. 
Changing Missions 337

John H. Glenn Research Center

1183. Doreen Zudell, “Dr. Whitlow Shares First Step in 

Restructuring Plan,” Aerospace Frontiers

(June 2006). 

1184. Ross to Arrighi.

1185. Zudell, “Dr. Whitlow Shares First Step.”

1186. Doreen Zudell, “Glenn Leads, Supports CEV 

Efforts,” Aerospace Frontiers ( July 2006).

1187. Grant Segall, “Cleveland’s Shot at the Moon Lunar 

Project Ensures Local NASA Jobs for a Decade,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer (31 October 2007). 

1188. Grant Segall, “NASA Denies Flaws, Backs Ares 

Program for Flight to Station,” Cleveland Plain 

Dealer (25 June 2008). 

1189. Ross to Arrighi.

1190. NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2005-214062, 

2005), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1191. Robert Braeunig, “Rocket Propellants,” Rocket & 

Space Technology (2008), http://www.braeunig.us/

space/propel.htm (accessed 23 July 2015). 

1192. Mark Klem, Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Methane 

Propulsion and Cryogenic Advanced Development 

(Paris, France: Conference Paper IAC–11–C4.1.5, 

2011).

1193. Michael L. Meyer, et al., Testing of a Liquid 

Oxygen/Liquid Methane Reaction Control Thruster 

in a New Altitude Rocket Engine Test Facility 

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2012-217643, 

2012), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1194. Helmut H. Bamberger, R. Craig Robinson, and 

John Jurns, Liquid Methane Conditioning

Capabilities Developed at the NASA Glenn Research 

Center’s Small Multi-Purpose Research Facility 

(SMiRF) for Accelerated Lunar Surface Storage 

Thermal Testing (Washington, DC: NASA/ 

CR—2011-216745, 2011), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1195. Klem, Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Methane.

1196. “Introduction,” Research & Technology 2007 

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2008-215054, 

2008), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1197. John Mangels, “Lost in Space: NASA Glenn Work 

in Limbo Shift in Agency Mission Alters Project 

Priorities,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (26 March 2010). 

1198. “Glenn Tests Planetary Excavation Tools and 

Vehicles,” Aerospace Frontiers (February 2011). 

1199. “Constellation Program: Ares I-X Flight Test 

Vehicle,” NASA Facts (Washington, DC: NASA 

FS-2008-04-142-LaRC, 2008).

1200. Doreen Zudell, “Glenn’s In-House Talents Utilized 

for Ares I-1 Flight Test Vehicle,” Aerospace Frontiers 

(December 2006).

1201. “Ares I-X” Press Kit, October 2009, NASA Glenn 

History Collection, Constellation Collection,

Cleveland, OH.

1202. “Ares I-X Segments Leave Center, Bound for Space 

Flight,” Aerospace Frontiers (November 2008).

1203. Tori Woods, “Glenn Helps Ares I-X Soar” 

(17 November 2009), http://www.nasa.gov/ 

centers/glenn/moonandmars/grc_helps_aresIX. 

html# (accessed 6 August 2015).

1204. “Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator 

(July 17, 2009 – present)” ( July 2013), 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/charles-f-bolden-jrnasa-administrator-july-17-2009-present/

(accessed 2 April 2015).

1205. Paul Spudis, “The Vision for Space Exploration: A 

Brief History (Part 4),” Spudis Lunar Resources 

Blog (8 November 2012), http:// 

www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/the-visionfor-space-exploration-a-brief-history-part-4

(accessed 18 December 2015).

1206. Review of Human Spaceflight Plans 

Committee, “Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program 

Worth of a Great Nation” (October 2009), 

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_ 

Cmte_FinalReport.pdf (accessed 3 April 2015).

1207. Office of Inspector General, Status of NASA’s 

Development of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle 

(Washington, DC: Report No. IG–13–022, 

15 August 2013). 

1208. Marcia Smith, “NASA’s Project Constellation and 

the Future of Human Spaceflight,” SpacePolicy 

Online.com Fact Sheet (23 February 2011), 

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/images/stories 

constellation_fact_sheet_jan_2011.pdf

(accessed 2 April 2015).

1209. Woods, “New Assignments,” http://www.nasa.gov/

centers/glenn/exploration/new_glenn.html

1210. Tom Breckenridge, “New Duties Cast NASA Glenn 

as Leader, Chief Says,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(10 April 2010). 

1211. Roger Bloom, “Aviation Safety Research is Alive at 

NASA,” Airline Pilot (November/December 2001).

1212. Jaiwon Shin, “The NASA Aviation Safety Program: 

Overview” (Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2000-

209810, 2000), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1213. Shin, “The NASA Aviation Safety Program.”

1214. Achieving the Extraordinary: NASA Glenn 

Research Center at Lewis Field (Cleveland, OH: 

B–1202, July 2006).

1215. NASA Aviation Safety Program: Initiative Will 

Reduce Aviation Fatalities (Washington, DC: 

NASA FS-2000-02-47-LaRC, 2000).
338

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

1216. “NASA Shares Collier Trophy Award for Aviation 

Safety Technologies,” Langley Research Center press 

release, 29 May 2009.

1217. NASA Glenn Research Center, “WINCOMM 

(Weather Information Communications)”

(31 December 2013), https://acast.grc.nasa.gov/ 

projects-completed/wincomm/ (accessed 30 May 

2014).

1218. “Aviation Safety Program,” NASA Facts

(Washington, DC: NF–2011–04–535–HQ, 2011).

1219. Guy Norris and Michael Mecham, “Icing Thrust 

Loss Mystifies Researchers,” Aviation Week

(23 April 2012).

1220. Harold Addy and Joseph Veres, An Overview of 

NASA Engine Ice-Crystal Icing Research 

(Washington, DC: NASA/TM—2011-217254, 

2011), http://ntrs.nasa.gov

1221. Thomas A. Griffin, Dennis J. Dicki, and Paul J. 

Lizanich, PSL Icing Facility Upgrade Overview 

(Reston, VA: AIAA 2014–2896, 2014). 

1222. Nancy Kilkenny, “Frigid Heat: How Ice Can 

Menace a Hot Engine” (14 May 2013), 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/aeronautics/ 

frigid_heat.html (accessed 6 August 2015).

1223. Timothy Gushanas, “About HRP,” 14 July 2015, 

https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/about (accessed

21 December 2015).

1224. “NASA Cleveland Biomedical Assets,” Section VI, 

1996, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, 

OH. 

1225. “The John Glenn Biomedical Engineering 

Consortium Helping Astronauts, Healing People 

on Earth,” NASA B–1036–01, May 2002, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

1226. Lealem Mulugeta, “Digital Astronaut Project,” 

OpenNASA (25 May 2012), 

http://www.opennasa.org/digital-astronaut-project. 

html (accessed 18 December 2015).

1227. NASA, Exploration Medical Capability” 

(6 February 2013), https://www.nasa.gov/ 

exploration/humanresearch/elements/research_

info_element-exmc.html (accessed 18 December 

2015).

1228. “About the Space Station: Facts and Figures” (2015), 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/ 

onthestation/facts_and_figures.html (accessed

1 May 2015).

1229. “Unlocking Mysteries in Microgravity,” NASA Facts 

(Washington, DC: FS–1999–07–007–GRC, 

July 1999).

1230. Lauren M. Sharp, Daniel L. Dietrich, and Brian J. 

Motil, “Microgravity Fluids and Combustion

Research at NASA Glenn Research Center,” Journal 

of Aerospace Engineering 26 (April 2013): 439–450.

1231. Tim Reckhart, “ISS Fluids & Combustion Facility” 

(20 April 2015), https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa. 

gov/sopo/ihho/psrp/fcf/ (accessed 20 April 2015).

1232. “Unlocking Mysteries.”

1233. Tim Reckart, “ISS Fluids and Combustion Facility” 

(26 June 2014), https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa. 

gov/sopo/ihho/psrp/fcf/print/

(accessed 17 July 2015).

1234. Tim Reckart, “FIR” (27 June 2014), https:// 

spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/sopo/ihho/psrp/

fcf/cir/print/ (accessed 17 July 2015).

1235. Space Operations Project Office, “SCaN Testbed,” 

SpaceNews (25 June 2014), http:/ 

spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SOPO/SCO/

SCaNTestbed/ (accessed 1 February 2015).

1236. John Mangels, “NASA Glenn-Designed Space 

Hardware Will Test New Communication

Technologies,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (11 February 

2012).

1237. Mangels, “NASA Glenn-Designed Space 

Hardware.”

1238. “Ramon Lugo III” (August 2010), https:// 

www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/bios/

lugo_bio.html (accessed 1 April 2015).

1239. Jason Rhian, “President Signs NASA 2010 

Authorization Act,” Universe Today (11 October 

2010), http://www.universetoday.com/75522/ 

president-signs-nasa-2010-authorization-act/

(accessed 1 April 2015).

1240. Sabrina Eaton, “NASA Glenn Anxiously Awaits 

News in Budget Plan,” Cleveland Plain Dealer

(14 February 2011). 

1241. Sabrina Eaton, “NASA Glenn Would Get More 

Funding, But Social Programs Hit,” Cleveland Plain 

Dealer (15 February 2011).

1242. Richard Flaisig memorandum for the record, “LTID 

Service Changes Due to Staffing Reductions,” 

8 April 2011, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1243. Doreen Zudell, “Lugo Outlines Areas Impacted by 

Budget,” Aerospace Frontiers (September 2012).

1244. Ramon Lugo, “Positioning Glenn to Be 

Competitive,” Aerospace Frontiers (April 2012). 

1245. Chuck Soder, “NASA Glenn Research Center 

Director Ramon Lugo III To Exit Post at Year’s 

End,” Crain’s Cleveland Business (16 November 

2012).
Changing Missions 339

John H. Glenn Research Center

1246. “Biography of James M. Free” (3 January 2013), 

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/bios/ 

free_bio.html (accessed 1 April 2015).

1247. Leone, “Profile: James Free.”

1248. Bill Berry, “Comments at the 2015 Glenn Hall of 

Fame Induction Ceremony,” 25 September 2015, 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

1249. “NASA Glenn Inaugurates Hall of Fame to Honor 

Exemplary Employees” (16 September 2015), 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-glenninaugurates-hall-of-fame-to-honor-exemplaryemployees (accessed 18 December 2015).

1250. Jim Free, “Address at the 2015 Glenn Hall of Fame 

Induction Ceremony,” 25 September 2015, NASA 

Glenn History Collection, Directors Collection, 

Cleveland, OH. 
Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

340

NASA John H. Glenn Research Center 

Image 409: Glenn’s S-3 Viking (GRC–2013–C–02281).
The Future 341

What a journey that was through the history and 

achievements of NASA Lewis and NASA Glenn!

Today Glenn remains deeply connected with its roots 

in aircraft propulsion and spacecraft propulsion while 

continuing to lead the nation in increasing the capabilities of our space missions and taking us farther than 

humans have ever gone. Our advancements in materials, electric propulsion, space communications, and 

microgravity science will propel NASA, the country, 

and the world to well beyond the Earth.

We stand here today, poised for the future, based 

on the great minds that came before us during these

75 years. We excel because of the people that embody 

the spirit of NASA and because of our incredible tools 

and facilities.

Thank you for sharing in the experience of our first

75 years through the words and images of this book. 

The NASA Glenn Research Center will always be 

working to Dream Big!

Jim Free

Director, Glenn Research Center

The Future 
Image 410: William “Eb” Gough poses on the lab’s McDonnell F2H‒2B Banshee in February 1958 in front of the hangar. Gough had served as 

the lab’s chief pilot since 1945. In seven months the NACA would transition into NASA. Gough left shortly thereafter as Lewis phased out its 

aeronautics work for nearly a decade (GRC–1958–C–47086).
Acknowledgments 343

Acknowledgments 

This publication would not have been possible without the determined advocacy of Anne Mills with center 

management and the NASA Headquarters History

Office. Anne’s support has been extraordinary throughout this effort. I want to thank Jim Free for backing

this effort and taking time to contribute the Foreword

and Concluding Remarks. Many thanks to Howard

Ross for his input on the growth of Lewis’s

microgravity program in the late 1980s and into its

apex in the 1990s. The efforts of Robyn Gordon and 

Richard Flaisig in this process are also appreciated.

I also want to thank fellow Alcyon Technical

Services employees on the Technical Information, 

Administrative, and Logistics Services 2 (TIALS 2)

contract for their indispensable contributions.

Donald Reams, Caroline Rist, and Jaime Scibelli 

provided oversight for the project. Nancy O’Bryan 

has done an exceptional job editing the text and 

organizing the endnotes. Kelly Shankland was

responsible for the excellent layout of the pages and

cover. Lorraine Feher performed the daunting task of

formatting the citations, proofreading the text, and

checking the index. Deborah Demaline provided access

to important documents prior to their shipment

to the National Archives. Marvin Smith, Mark Grills, 

and Bridget Caswell scanned and catalogued many of

the images. In addition, Teresa Hornbuckle provided

images from the Langley Photograph Collection, and 

Colin Fries at Headquarters assisted with portions of 

the research.

Thanks to Bill Barry and Steve Garber at the NASA 

Headquarters History Office for supporting this 

project and coordinating the peer reviews. I am especially appreciative to Howard Ross, Thomas St. Onge, 

Larry Ross, and the anonymous peer reviewers whose

comments helped transform this work into a more 

cohesive history. Larry Viterna, Simon Ostrach,

Erwin Zaretsky, Michael Patterson, and David

Jacobson graciously reviewed sections of the book and 

offered key insights. 

Finally, I want to thank my wife Sarah. Completion of 

this project could not have been possible without her 

love and encouragement.
Image 411: Technicians prepare a spherical liquid-hydrogen tank in June 1960 to study the fluid’s behavior in low gravity during a flight on the 

center’s AJ–2 Savage aircraft (GRC–1960–C–53861).
Bibliographic Essay 345

Bibliographic Essay 

The materials used to create this publication can 

be broken into five categories—publications, reports, 

newspapers, interviews, and primary documents. The 

majority of these materials come from the Glenn

History Collection. 

Numerous secondary resources from the NASA

History Series and external journals were consulted 

for contextual information. Not surprisingly Virginia

Dawson’s Engines and Innovation and George Gray’s

Frontiers of Flight were used extensively. A 2013

special issue of the Journal of Aerospace Engineering

dedicated to NASA Glenn was particularly useful. Researchers from across the center wrote brief 

histories of their particular field for the issue.

Other key publications were John Sloop’s Liquid 

Hydrogen as Propulsion Fuel, Alex Roland’s Model

Research, Dawson and Mark Bowles’s Taming Liquid

Hydrogen, and the 2011 paper “Role of NASA in

Photovoltaic and Wind Energy” by Sheila Bailey,

Larry Viterna, and K. R. Rao.

Although no interviews were conducted specifically for this publication, transcripts from 45 previous interviews in the Glenn History Collection 

provided many key details and insights. In addition,

transcripts of the technical talks given by researchers

during the NACA Inspections were extremely

valuable in adding context to the technical reports in 

the Aeronautics and Space Database’s massive archive. 

The History Collection, which includes the entire run 

of center newspapers from 1942 to the present, provided many of the details not available in other sources.

The Glenn History Collection also includes past correspondence from the Director’s Office, the personal

papers of a number of key employees, program files, 

and other documents that provided the basis for much

of this publication. The collection contains research

materials from previous book projects, including

Engines and Innovation, Liquid Hydrogen as Propulsion

Fuel, Revolutionary Atmosphere, Taming Liquid

Hydrogen, and Pursuit of Power. In addition I was

able to review a new batch of directors’ materials

that were essential to the final three chapters. 

Of course, the Glenn Imaging Technology Center’s 

extensive photograph collection was essential to this 

book, not just in providing the hundreds of photographs, but also in helping to date activities and identify individuals. 
Image 412: Assembly of experimental wind turbine parts in the Engine Research Building during March 1979 (GRC–1979–C–01034).
Glenn History Resources 347 

Glenn History Resources 

Publications 

(Available at: http://history.nasa.gov/series95.html)

Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation (Washington, 

DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991).

William Leary, We Freeze to Please: A History of NASA’s 

Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for Flight Safety 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2002–4226, 2002).

Mark Bowles and Robert Arrighi, NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: 

The Plum Brook Reactor Facility (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–2004–4533, 2004).

Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, Taming Liquid

Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket 1958–2002 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP 2004–4230, 2004).

Virginia P. Dawson and Mark D. Bowles, editors, Realizing 

the Dream of Flight: Biographical Essays in Honor of 

Centennial of Flight (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–2005–4112, 2005). 

Virginia Dawson, Ideas Into Hardware: A History of the 

Rocket Engine Test Facility at the NASA Glenn Research 

Center (Washington, DC: NASA, 2004).

Mark Bowles, Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear Program at 

Plum Brook Station 1955–2005 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–2006–4317, 2006).

Robert Arrighi, Revolutionary Atmosphere: The Story of the 

Altitude Wind Tunnel and Space Power Chambers

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–2010–4319, 2010).

Robert Arrighi, Pursuit of Power NASA’s Propulsion 

Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–2012–4548, 2012).

Video Documentaries

(Available through the history office)

Of Ashes and Atoms—An Emmy-nominated full-length 

documentary on the Plum Brook Reactor Facility 

Fueling Space Exploration—A documentary on the 

Rocket Engine Test Facility (RETF)

A Tunnel Through Time: The History of NASA’s Altitude 

Wind Tunnel—A history of the Altitude Wind Tunnel 

and Space Power Chambers

Websites and Multimedia 

NASA Glenn History Office—A website gateway to the 

history of Glenn Research Center and Plum Brook Station. 

http://grchistory.grc.nasa.gov/

Rocket Engine Test Facility—A website designed to preserve the legacy of the RETF. Includes photographs and 

videos of RETF and interactive lessons on rocket engine 

testing. http://retf.grc.nasa.gov/

Altitude Wind Tunnel and Space Power Chambers—An 

interactive look at what was one of NASA’s most significant wind tunnels. Includes images, videos, reports, timelines, and materials for students. http://awt.grc.nasa.gov/

Propulsion Systems Laboratory—A website dedicated to 

PSL’s history and facility. Includes related documents and 

reports, an interactive layout, and students’ section. 

http://pslhistory.grc.nasa.gov/

Lessons of a Widowmaker (and Other Aircraft)—An 

interactive history of NASA’s research aircraft, focusing 

primarily on former NASA Glenn vehicles. Includes 

images, histories, and specifications for 17 aircraft, as well 

as educational materials and videos. http://www.nasa.gov/

externalflash/aero/

B1 and B3 Test Stands—A website providing the history 

and physical description of the B1 and B2 Test Stands at 

Plum Brook Station. Includes photographs, documents, 

timelines, and the 100-plus page Historic American 

Engineering Record (HAER) Report. http:/ 

pbhistoryb1b3.grc.nasa.gov/

Glenn—The Early Years—A photographic retrospective 

of the first 40 years of operation at the center (1941–79). 

Drawn from a large collection of archived photographs, this 

gallery of images along with in-depth descriptions offers 

a unique look into the research, people, and activities that 

have generated numerous technological advancements over 

the years. Available for both the Web and iPad 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/multimedia/grchistory.

html

The NACA Inspections—A site serving as a repository for 

images, presentations, media materials, correspondence, 

and other documents from the NACA’s post-war 

Inspections. The materials provide a snapshot of the state 

of the NACA, its aeronautical research, and its major 

personalities during this era. http://grchistory.grc.nasa.gov/ 

inspections/

Glenn’s NACA-Era Aircraft—A website providing 

images, histories, and specifications for 11 aircraft 

used at Glenn between 1943 and 1958. 

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/NACA/
Image 413: A Lewis technician examines a space shuttle model installation in the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (10×10) 

during September 1983 (GRC–1983–C–05385).
List of Images 349

List of Images

Image 1: Glenn Center Director Jim Free (GRC–2013–00197).

Image 2: Two women prepare instruments for data recording. The Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory 

(AERL) significantly increased the number of female employees during World War II 

(GRC–1944–C–05395).

Image 3: Test engineers in the Prop House control room in 1942 (GRC–1942–C–01072).

Image 4: Frontiers of Flight documented Lewis’s achievements during the 1940s.

Image 5: Engines and Innovation provided the first in-depth history of the center (NASA SP–4306).

Image 6: Zella Morowitz views an NACA model (GRC–1942–C–01013).

Image 7: Lockheed F–94B Starfire on the tarmac at the center for a noise-reduction study in December 1959 

(GRC–1959–C–52343).

Image 8: Test engineers prepare an Atlas-Centaur model for separation tests in the Space Power Chambers 

(GRC–1963–C–66358).

Image 9: View of Glenn Research Center from the west in 1956 (GRC–1956–C–43664).

Image 10: A mechanic prepares a General Electric I–40 turbojet for testing (GRC–1946–C–15677).

Image 11: Associate Director Abe Silverstein converses with General Curtis LeMay in 1957 

(GRC–1957–C–45199).

Image 12: Lewis employees gather at the original picnic grounds in summer 1969 (GRC–2015–C–06537).

Image 13: A Hall thruster is fired in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory (GRC–2000–C–01122).

Image 14: A technician prepares a test article in the Icing Research Tunnel (GRC–1985–C–09350).

Image 15: Construction of the Flight Research Building in summer 1941. The hangar was the first 

structure at the new Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (GRC–2001–C–00334).

Image 16: Visitors view the hangar construction in 1941 (GRC–2011–C–00331).

Image 17: Crowds swarm to the edge of present-day NASA Glenn to view the 1932 National Air Races. 

The intensely popular event was the most evident sign of Cleveland’s ties to aviation, but the city also 

possessed a strong aircraft manufacturing industry and the nation’s largest and most innovative airport 

(The Cleveland Press Collection, Michael Schwartz Library, Cleveland State University).

Image 18: Cleveland Chamber of Commerce invitation to the NACA for what would become the Ames lab.

Image 19: Aerial view of the National Air Races and parking lot in September 1938 (GRC–1991–C–01875).

Image 20: Groundbreaking ceremony for the AERL in January 1941. Left to right: William Hopkins, John 

Berry, Ray Sharp, Frederick Crawford, S. Paul Johnston, George Brett, Edward Warner, Sidney 

Kraus, Edward Blythin, and George Lewis (GRC–1982–C–06410).

Image 21: Surveyors taking measurements for the NACA’s engine lab in August 1941 (GRC–2011–C–00347).

Image 22: Helen Ford (center) and Charles Herrmann (right) in front of the lab’s first administrative 

building, the Farm House, in October 1941 (GRC–2006–C–01209).

Image 23: The radio shack office was located along Brookpark Road just east of the lab’s entrance 

(GRC–2011–C–00346).

Image 24: The AERL design team works in an office above Langley’s Structural Research Laboratory during 

April 1941 (GRC–2007–C–02563).

Image 25: View northward toward the lab’s entrance at Brookpark Road in August 1941. The Farm House is 

on the left (GRC–2011–C–00350).

Image 26: A barn along the perimeter of the Plum Brook Ordnance Works (PBOW) in 1941. The area had 

been home to some of the most fertile land in the state (GRC–2015–C–06562).

Image 27: Crews remove a farmhouse from the PBOW site in summer 1941 (GRC–2015–C–06561).

Image 28: PBOW staff raise the flag in front of the PBOW Administration Building in 1941 

(GRC–2015–C–06812).

Image 29: Construction of one of the 99 concrete bunkers used to store explosives, 

c1941 (GRC–2015–C–06817).

Image 30: Workers erect an elevated guard tower around the perimeter of the PBOW in 1941 

(GRC–2015–C–06816).
350

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 31: Westward view of the Steam Plant and general AERL construction area in 1942 (GRC–2007–C–02309).

Image 32: Ray Sharp at his desk in 1942 (GRC–2015–C–06568).

Image 33: NACA contract with the Emerson Company.

Image 34. In May 1942 the Prop House became the first operating facility at the AERL. It contained four 

test cells designed to study large reciprocating engines. Researchers tested the performance of 

fuels, turbochargers, water-injection, and cooling systems here during World War II. The facility 

was also used to investigate a captured German V–I buzz bomb during the war 

(GRC–1942–C–01134).

Image 35. The laboratory established its own fire department while the lab was being constructed in the early 

1940s. The group, which was based at the Utilities Building, not only responded to emergencies 

but conducted safety inspections, checked fuel storage areas, and supervised evacuation drills and 

training. In addition, they frequently assisted local fire departments and responded to accidents at 

the adjacent Cleveland Municipal Airport (GRC–1943–C–04291).

Image 36: Drafting staff members at work in the temporary hangar offices during 1942 

(GRC–2015–C–06545).

Image 37: Temporary offices constructed inside the hangar to house the architectural and drafting personnel 

as well the machine shops (GRC–2015–C–06557).

Image 38: Program for the initiation of research of the AERL.

Image 39: AERL mechanics work on an engine installation on one of the Prop House’s test stands in 1943 

(GRC–1943–C–03349).

Image 40: Receptionist Mary Louise Gosney enjoys the new Administration Building in July 1943. She 

started at the lab in November 1941 and spent an entire year in the hangar. She also served as the 

lab’s clearance officer and would later head the Administrative Services Division 

(GRC–1943–C–01842).

Image 41: Wing Tips kept the staff updated on the progress of the construction.

Image 42: Construction of the AWT in April 1943. The facility would be up and running in eight months 

(GRC–2008–C–00817).

Image 43: Cartoon showing AWT’s ability to simulate altitude conditions (Wing Tips). 

Image 44: Aerial view of the AERL in June 1945 (GRC–1945–C–10493).

Image 45: General Henry Arnold addressing Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory personnel in the hangar 

on 9 November 1944. Arnold was only at the lab for a few hours, but he managed to take a 

comprehensive tour that included the Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory, a turbojet engine run in the 

Altitude Wind Tunnel, and the testing of a carburetor for the B–29 Superfortress in the Engine 

Research Building (GRC–1944–C–07493).

Image 46: A Fuels and Lubrication Division researcher at work in August 1943 (GRC–1943–C–02124).

Image 47: AERL recruiting pamphlet.

Image 48: AERL staff members wish Ray Sharp happy holidays in December 1945 

(GRC–1945–C–13948).

Image 49: Addison Rothrock’s speech to AERL staff in December 1942. 

Image 50: P–39 Mustang fuselage being tested in the IRT in October 1944 (GRC–1944–C–7062).

Image 51: View from the control room during a June 1944 engine cooling investigation in an Engine 

Research Building test cell (GRC–1944–C–05498).

Image 52: PBOW staff gather for an October 1941 ceremony in front of the PBOW Administration 

Building (GRC–2015–C–06563).

Image 53: One of three acid-producing facilities at the PBOW. The acid was used to manufacture TNT and 

DNT, c1941 (GRC–2015–C–06540).

Image 54: PBOW fire station located near Taylor and Columbus avenues, c1941 (GRC–2015–C–06564).

Image 55: PBOW News feature showing safety ceremony on a stage constructed with empty powder crates 

in May 1943.

Image 56: “Service Stars” was a regular wartime column in the Wing Tips newsletter.

Image 57: Women working alongside male colleagues in the AERL’s Fabrication Shop (GRC–1944–C–05380).
List of Images 351

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 58: Zella Morowitz worked in the AERL design office at Langley prior to her transfer to Cleveland in 

1941, where she served as Ray Sharp’s secretary for six years (GRC–2015–C–06555).

Image 59: Memphis Belle crew Robert Hanson, Vincent Evans, and Charles Leighton; AERL Manager 

Raymond Sharp; Robert Morgan; William Holliday of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce; 

Army Liaison Officer Colonel Edwin Page; Airport Commissioner John Berry; Cecil Scott; 

John Quinlan; and James Verinis. Kneeling are Harold Loch, Casimer Nastal, and Charles Winchell 

(GRC–1943–C–01870).

Image 60: Researchers work with test setups in a Fuels and Lubrication Building lab room during March 1943 

(GRC–1943–C–01370).

Image 61: Bisson with physicist and mathematician Lucien C. Malavard (GRC–1949–C–24300).

Image 62: Reprint of “Fuels Talk” by Bisson.

Image 63: A representative from the Allison Engine Company instructs AERL mechanics on the operation 

of a basic Allison powerplant. The staff was taught how to completely disassemble and reassemble 

the engine components and systems (GRC–1943–C–03045).

Image 64: An AERL researcher demonstrates the improved fuel injection system for the R–3350 engine at a 

tour stop in the Engine Research Building in June 1945 (GRC–1945–C–10678).

Image 65: Wright R–3350 installed in the AWT test section on 4 July 1944 (GRC–1944–C–05554).

Image 66: NACA Wartime Reports were classified until after the war.

Image 67: A B–29 bomber on display in the hangar during June 1945 (GRC–1944–C–10587).

Image 68: P–38 Lightning fuselage in the IRT during March 1945 (GRC–1945–C–8832).

Image 69: On 13 September 1944 an AERL technician prepares for the initial test run in the IRT 

(GRC–1944–C–06552).

Image 70: A P–38J Lightning in front of the blower on the hangar apron that was utilized as a crude rainsimulating device. The blower was used extensively during the 1940s to supplement wind tunnel and 

flight research data (GRC–1945–C–09650).

Image 71: The Jet Static Propulsion Laboratory as it nears completion in August 1943. The secret facility was 

officially called the Supercharger Laboratory to disguise its true nature (GRC–2015–06544).

Image 72: The secret test of the Bell YP–59A Airacomet in the spring of 1944 was the first investigation in 

the new AWT. The Airacomet, which was powered by two General Electric I–A centrifugal 

turbojets, was the first U.S. jet aircraft (GRC–1944–C–04830).

Image 73: Abe Silverstein, Head of the AWT, discusses the tunnel’s research during the war, concentrating 

on the several General Electric and Westinghouse jet engines that were studied 

(GRC–1945–C–10661).

Image 74: Lockheed’s YP–80A, powered by two General Electric I–40 turbojets, in the AWT test section in 

March 1945. The P–80 was the first U.S. aircraft to fly faster than 500 mph (GRC–1945–C–09576).

Image 75: AWT wartime test schedule.

Image 76: On 8 May 1945 the staff awoke to news that Germany had surrendered. A mid-morning 

ceremony was held at the Administration Building, but work at the lab continued on 

(GRC–1945–C–09905).

Image 77: Final issue of the Plum Brook News from August 1945.

Image 78: An AERL metallurgist examines a supercharger in January 1944 (GRC–1944–C–03814).

Image 79: Mechanics lower an inlet duct for a Westinghouse J40 engine into the Altitude Wind Tunnel’s 

20-foot-diameter test section (GRC–1951–C–28463).

Image 80: A mechanic inspects a General Electric I–40 turbojet engine. The lab had begun investigating jet 

engines during the war, but the “big switch” to jet propulsion began in October 1945 

(GRC–1946–C–15674).

Image 81: Kathryn “Nicki” Crawford demonstrates that there are sufficient coins in the bucket to match her 

weight in 1946. The group of mechanics contributed the money to celebrate Crawford’s upcoming 

marriage to their colleague Bill Harrison, who had recently returned from the Army Air Corps. 

The Harrisons spent the next 66 years together (GRC–2015–C–06814).

Image 82: 1949 advertisement seeking to sell the Plum Brook Ordnance Works. 
352

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 83: Interior of 1 of the 99 Plum Brook bunkers that were used to store crates of trinitrotoluene (TNT) 

and dinitrotoluene (DNT) during the war, c1941 (GRC–2015–C–06565).

Image 84: The lab’s new management team—Addison Rothrock (left) and Raymond Sharp (center)—with 

NACA Director of Research George Lewis (GRC–1945–C–12029).

Image 85: Wing Tips article about AERL’s reorganization. 

Image 86: NACA Secretary John Victory (left) and Ray Sharp (right) lead General Dwight Eisenhower on a 

tour of the Cleveland lab on 11 April 1946. The former supreme commander of Allied 

Expeditionary Forces in Europe was visiting several U.S. cities at the time (GRC–1946–C–14688).

Image 87: Page from a photo album of visitors to the Administration Building in the postwar years 

(GRC–1951–C–27147).

Image 88: Tour stop schedule for the 1947 Inspection.

Image 89: George W. Lewis (GRC–2015–C–06556). 

Image 90: Myrtle Lewis with her sons George, Jr., and Harvey during an October 1951 visit to the laboratory 

(GRC–1951–C–28570).

Image 91: A mechanic examinines compressor blades on a General Electric J47 engine (GRC–1949–C–22850).

Image 92: A failure of a Westinghouse J34 engine in the AWT test section (GRC–1950–C–26294).

Image 93: A mechanic with a fire extinguisher watches the firing of twin afterburners (GRC–1949–C–23744).

Image 94: Mechanics install a turbojet engine in a Four Burner Area test cell (GRC–1950–C–25120).

Image 95: Aircraft mechanics work on an early jet aircraft in the hangar (GRC–1946–C–14739).

Image 96: Page from a compiled apprentice roster.

Image 97: Some apprentices take a break from their studies to pose for a photograph. Only 150 of the 

2,000 hours of annual training were spent in the classroom (GRC–1956–C–43227).

Image 98: A Consolidated B–24D Liberator (left), Boeing B–29 Superfortress (background), and Lockheed 

RA–29 Hudson (foreground) parked inside the hangar. A P–47G Thunderbolt and P–63A King 

Cobra are visible in the background (GRC–1944–C–05413).

Image 99: Lewis pilot Howard Lilly poses with his P–63 King Cobra, which he flew in the 1946 National 

Air Races (GRC–2015–C–06813).

Image 100: AERL pilots during the final days of World War II: from left to right, Joseph Vensel, Howard Lilly, 

William Swann, and Joseph Walker. William “Eb” Gough joined the group months after this 

photograph. Vensel, a veteran pilot from Langley, was the Chief of Flight Operations and a voice of 

reason at the laboratory. In April 1947 Vensel was transferred to lead the new Muroc Flight Tests Unit 

in California until 1966 (GRC–1945–C–11397).

Image 101: A flight research member examines instrumentation in the B–24D during a 1945 icing flight 

(GRC–1945–C–10377).

Image 102: NACA memo authorizing icing flight tests of jet engines.

Image 103: Abe Silverstein measures ice buildup on the Westinghouse J34 engine (GRC–1948–C–20836).

Image 104: The XB–25E Mitchell searches for icing clouds in January 1947. The aircraft dubbed “Flamin Mamie,” 

includes nose art depicting a fiery woman chasing off icing researchers (GRC–1947–C–17763).

Image 105: The wooded picnic grounds as it appeared in August 1945. The area was improved in the ensuing 

years (GRC–1945–C–12065).

Image 106: Harold Mergler with his differential analyzer (GRC–1951–C–27875).

Image 107: A computer at work in one of the three offices on the second story of the 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic 

Wind Tunnel (8×6) office building. The largest room housed approximately 35 women with advanced 

mathematical skills (GRC–1954–C–35057).

Image 108: The Farm House as it appeared shortly after the NACA took over in 1941 (GRC–2011–C–00345). 

Image 109: The Administrative Services Building after the modifications (GRC–1946–C–15355). 

Image 110: The Administrative Services Building after it was moved behind the Administration Building 

(GRC–1967–C–01234).

Image 111: Harold Friedman with an 8-inch-diameter ramjet model (GRC–1949–C–23083).

Image 112: Construction of the lab’s first supersonic tunnel. Eventually the building would house three small 

supersonic tunnels (GRC–1945–C–10764).
List of Images 353

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 113: A technician operates a Schlieren camera to view the airflow dynamics inside the 24- by 24-inch 

test section of one of the Stack Tunnels (GRC–1949–C–24977).

Image 114: John Evvard with a missile model in February 1957 (GRC–1957–C–44223).

Image 115: A B–29 bomber that was modified to serve as a ramjet testbed for Lewis researchers. The 

experimental ramjet was lowered from the bomb bay and fired (GRC–1948–C–21990).

Image 116: A North American XF–82 Twin Mustang prepares for flight with a ramjet missile under its right 

wing (GRC–1949–C–23330).

Image 117: The seven-stage axial compressor that powers the 8×6. The compressor was driven by three 

electric motors with a total output of 87,000 horsepower, resulting in airspeeds from Mach 0.36 to 

2.0 (GRC–1949–C–23277).

Image 118: A researcher inspects a 16-inch-diameter ramjet engine in the 8×6 test section. Researchers studied 

the ramjet’s performance at different speeds and varying angles of attack. The engine performed 

well, and the findings correlated with nonfueled studies in the smaller wind tunnels 

(GRC–1950–C–25776).

Image 119: A researcher prepares a jet-assisted take off ( JATO) rocket for a combustion study at the Rocket 

Lab (GRC–1945–C–10724).

Image 120: Firing of a nitric acid aniline JATO rocket at the Rocket Lab in March 1946. The Rocket Lab was 

expanded over the next 10 years and eventually included its own hydrogen liquefier 

(GRC–1946–C–14478).

Image 121: John Sloop demonstrates a small rocket setup in Cell 4 of the Rocket Lab (GRC–1947–C–19769).

Image 122: Proceedings from the NACA Conference on Fuels.

Image 123: A ramjet installation in the 8×6 in May 1949 (GRC–1949–C–23522).

Image 124: A 5,000-pound-thrust rocket engine is fired from the Rocket Lab’s Cell 22 in January 1955. The 

series of tests proved to be Lewis’s first successful liquid-hydrogen/liquid-oxygen runs 

(GRC–1955–C–37428).

Image 125: Technicians install an experimental hypersonic test missile on the NACA’s McDonnell F2H–2B 

Banshee in August 1957. Lewis pilots launched the missiles over the Atlantic Ocean at Wallops 

Island (GRC–2015–C–06812).

Image 126: Sharp and Silverstein share a moment in 1958 (GRC–2015–C–06570).

Image 127: Memo announcing Silverstein’s promotion.

Image 128: Lewis researchers Harold Mirels, Franklin Moore, Stephen Maslen, and Simon Ostrach in 

September 1987 celebrating Maslen’s induction into the National Academy of Engineering 

(GRC–2015–C–06552).

Image 129: Robert Deissler receives an NACA Exceptional Service Award from NACA Director Hugh Dryden 

in October 1957. Deissler was cited for “achieving significant scientific results in the solution of fluid 

flow and heat-transfer problems associated with aircraft nuclear propulsion” (GRC–1957–C–46286).

Image 130: Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer. Bob Siegel and John Howell started putting together notes for 

in-house classes to teach fellow employees about heat transfer in the early 1960s. The researchers 

fleshed out the information and published it in 1968 as NASA SP–164. Siegel and Howell 

updated the Special Publication (SP) three times, then published it as a textbook in the mid-1970s. 

The textbook has become the standard heat transfer textbook. It has been translated into 

numerous languages and was recently issued in its sixth edition.

Image 131: Frank Rom was one of Lewis’s chief nuclear propulsion researchers. He designed nuclear aircraft, 

pursued tungsten-based reactors for the nuclear rocket program, and helped design the Plum 

Brook Reactor Facility (GRC–1957–C–43739).

Image 132: A c1956 roster of participants in Lewis’s in-house “nuclear school” and the branches from which 

they came.

Image 133: The General Electric-designed cyclotron in the extended basement of the Materials and Stresses 

Building (GRC–1957–C–45988).

Image 134: Ray Sharp and Congressman Albert Baumhart break ground for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility 

in September 1956. The pick and shovel were the same as those used for the AERL groundbreaking in January 1941 (GRC–1956–C–43033).
354

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 135: The Plum Brook Ordnance Works site as it appeared in April 1956 (GRC–1956–C–41679).

Image 136: Tornado damage included a collapsed roof on the Trunnion Building (GRC–1953–C–32966).

Image 137: After years of experimentation, Lewis engineers finally perfected the IRT’s spray bar system in 

1949 (GRC–1949–C–24017).

Image 138: Irving Pinkel examines a crash from a camera tower along the track (GRC–2015–C–06548).

Image 139: Lewis researchers crash a transport aircraft through barriers at the Ravenna Arsenal. Incandescent 

particles are visible from the explosion (GRC–1957–C–43929).

Image 140: A 1955 example of Bill Wynne’s innovative visual timekeeping method for the Crash Fire Program 

(GRC–C–1955–38196).

Image 141: Members of the Flight Research Section investigate the crash wreckage of an aircraft in the late 1940s 

(GRC–2015–C–06542).

Image 142: Bill Wynne filming the flame speed in a combustion experiment at the Fuels and Lubrication Building 

in May 1949. Photo cells above the tube measure the rate of the flame travel (GRC–1949–C–23407).

Image 143: A group of visitors views an Engine Research Building shop area crowded with jet engines that have 

been tested in the Four Burner Area (GRC–1957–C–45046).

Image 144: The overhead air-handling line between the PSL and the 8×6 is installed in 1954 

(GRC–2007–C–25662).

Image 145: A Wright Aeronautical XRJ–47–W–5 ramjet installed in a PSL test chamber for the Navaho 

program (GRC–1952–C–30961).

Image 146: A researcher measures the turbine blades on a 12-stage axial-flow compressor in February 1955 

(GRC–1955–C–37659).

Image 147: Irv Johnsen, Seymour Lieblein, and Robert Bullock receive the 1967 American Institute of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Goddard Award for their compressor research at Lewis in 

the 1940s and 1950s (GRC–2015–C–06551).

Image 148: The high-speed, high-temperature test rig in the Fuels and Lubrication Building 

(GRC–1953–C–32722).

Image 149: Erwin Zaretsky, Bill Anderson, and Richard Parker receive awards from the NASA Inventions 

and Contributions Board for developing a method to improve the life and reliability of contact 

bearings (GRC–1966–C–02713).

Image 150: Diagram of the 10×10.

Image 151: A 16-inch-diameter ramjet being installed in the 10×10 test section during May 1956 

(GRC–1956–C–42032).

Image 152: An engineer examines the main compressor for the 10×10 tunnel. The stainless steel compressor 

had 584 blades ranging in length from 1.8 to 3.25 feet (GRC–1955–C–39724).

Image 153: Lewis engineers operate the CADDE system in the 10×10 (GRC–1956–C–42021).

Image 154: Abe Silverstein (GRC–1957–C–45195).

Image 155: Silverstein memo announcing the reorganization of research divisions.

Image 156: A photographer films the operation of a liquid-hydrogen/liquid-oxygen rocket engine in Cell 22 of 

the Rocket Lab. Tests were run in the evening when most of the lab was relatively vacant 

(GRC–1955–C–37427).

Image 157: Scan of the Cell 22 logbook with Lewis’s first hydrogen-oxygen run highlighted.

Image 158: As a converted B–57B prepares for a liquid-hydrogen flight over Lake Erie, black smoke 

emanates from the jet-fuel-powered engine. The hydrogen engine left a pronounced white contrail 

(GRC–1993–C–05546).

Image 159: The new Rocket Engine Test Facility (RETF) is displayed at the 1957 Inspection 

(GRC–1957–C–45869). 

Image 160: Harrison Allen explains the benefits of high-energy aircraft fuels at the 1957 Inspection 

(GRC–C–1957–46151).

Image 161: Brochure from the 1957 NACA Inspection.

Image 162: Proceedings from the NACA’s 1957 Flight Propulsion Conference held at Lewis.

Image 163: Future Center Director (1982–1986) Andy Stofan views a small-scale tank built to study the 

sloshing characteristics of liquid hydrogen (GRC–1961–C–58299).
List of Images 355

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 164: Nuclear propulsion display at the Parade of Progress Event at the Cleveland Public Auditorium in 

August 1964. There is a model of a nuclear spacecraft in the foreground and a Plum Brook Reactor 

Facility display behind (GRC–1964–C–71686).

Image 165: Lewis technicians examine a Centaur rocket in the Space Power Chambers shop 

(GRC–1964–C–71100).

Image 166: Bruce Lundin (left) and Walter Olson in May 1956 (GRC–1956–C–42155).

Image 167: Lundin’s paper on the NACA’s role in space, as marked up by Silverstein.

Image 168: During the last few months of the NACA’s existence, its leadership made a final tour of its three 

research laboratories. The group arrived in Cleveland on 24 June 1958. At one of the stops Lewis 

mechanic Leonard Tesar demonstrated the machining of a 20,000-pound-thrust rocket engine 

for the group in the Fabrication Shop. From left to right, Associate Director Eugene Manganiello, 

researcher Edward Baehr, NACA Chairman James Doolittle, NACA Executive Secretary John 

Victory, NACA Committee member Frederick Crawford, Tesar, Lewis Director Ray Sharp, and 

mechanic Curtis Strawn (GRC–1958–C–48117).

Image 169: The official NASA seal.

Image 170: Jim Modarelli (GRC–1956–C–43683).

Image 171: The NASA logo, often referred to as the “meatball.”

Image 172: Silverstein represents the new space agency on CBS’s “Face the Nation” television program on 

8 March 1959 (GRC–2015–C–06538).

Image 173: Orbit announcement of Lewis transfers to NASA Headquarters. During the transition to NASA, 

Wing Tips was designed and renamed Orbit. The name was changed the Lewis News in February 1964.

Image 174: Gale Butler examines the Mercury capsule’s retrograde rockets prior to a test run inside the AWT 

(GRC–1960–C–53146).

Image 175: Technicians in the Fabrication Shop align the Mercury capsule afterbody with its pressure chamber in 

May 1959 (GRC–1959–C–50759).

Image 176: Lewis technicians and engineers prepare the Big Joe capsule for launch from Cape Canaveral 

(GRC–2009–C–02180).

Image 177: A mock-up Mercury capsule and escape tower rockets mounted in the AWT for testing in July 

1960 (GRC–1960–C–53287).

Image 178: Lewis pilot Joe Algranti explains the MASTIF operation to Alan Shepard in February 1960. 

Shepard was the first astronaut to operate the MASTIF (GRC–1960–C–52706).

Image 179: The MASTIF was erected in the wide end of the AWT, where the nitrogen thrusters generated a 

series of loud hisses as they were fired (GRC–1959–C–51723).

Image 180: Displays at the November 1962 Space Science Fair at the Cleveland Public Auditorium 

(GRC–1962–C–62704).

Image 181: Lewis staff with one of the Spacemobile vehicles in October 1964 (GRC–C–1964–72829).

Image 182: Gene Manganiello (right) welcomes Wernher von Braun to Lewis in December 1959 

(GRC–1959–C–52148).

Image 183: Recommendations of the Silverstein Committee regarding the use of liquid hydrogen in the 

Saturn upper stages.

Image 184: Saturn model installation in the 8×6 in September 1960 (GRC–1960–C–54466).

Image 185: Silverstein holds a 3 November 1961 press conference announcing additional recruiting efforts 

Over the previous months, the center had hired 135 new staff members, interviewed over 700 

prospects, and had over 300 applications on file (GRC–1961–C–58359).

Image 186: Interior of the 20-foot-diameter vacuum tank in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory. The circular 

covers on the floor sealed the displacement pumps located beneath the chamber 

(GRC–1961–C–57748).

Image 187: The Guerin House (GRC–1964–C–72264).

Image 188: The J Site crew on the “portable” rig on 13 August 1960 before the first test at Plum Brook Station 

(GRC–2015–C–06550).
356

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 189: Initially, NASA let the PBOW structures stand. As more and more acres were acquired, however, 

workers began to destroy a large number of the buildings. In 1961 a local company was hired to 

raze all unusable structures and to dismantle three acid plants. However, a number of the 

nonmanufacturing structures were retained (GRC–2015–C–06565). 

Image 190: B Complex with the B–1 and B–3 test stands (GRC–1965–C–03012).

Image 191: Three bulkheads were placed inside the AWT to create the SPC. The largest is seen here being 

inserted approximately where the wind tunnel fan was located (NASA C–1961–58551).

Image 192: Interior of the SPC’s 51-foot-diameter high-altitude test area inside the former AWT 

(GRC–1963–C–67001).

Image 193: Lewis report from 1962 describing the history of electric propulsion and requirements for longduration interplanetary missions.

Image 194: Space Electric Rocket Test I (SERT–I) spacecraft and thrusters tested in EPL’s Tank No. 3 in June 

1964 (GRC–1964–C–70258).

Image 195: Kaufman with his electron bombardment thruster in the early 1960s (GRC–2001–C–01603).

Image 196: Technicians prepare the SERT I spacecraft in an EPL cleanroom in February 1964 

(GRC–1964–C–68553).

Image 197: An unfueled Kiwi B–1–B reactor and its Aerojet Mark IX turbopump being prepared for 

installation in the B–3 test stand (GRC–1967–P–01289).

Image 198: The B–1 and B–3 test stands, 135 and 210 feet tall, could test different components of 

high-energy rocket engines under flight conditions (GRC–1964–C–01310).

Image 199: Ron Roskilly demonstrates the testing of a hydrogen turbopump (right) at the Rocket Systems 

Area’s A Site (left) (GRC–1962–C–61077).

Image 200: Bob Siegel with a test rig for high-speed filming of liquid behavior in microgravity in the 8×6 tunnel 

(GRC–1960–C–54149).

Image 201: Fred Haise, Lewis pilot and future Apollo astronaut, monitors the cameras and instrumentation

for the experimental liquid-hydrogen container in the bomb bay of the AJ–2 aircraft 

(GRC–1960–C–54979).

Image 202: An Aerobee rocket being prepared for launch in January 1961 (GRC–1961–C–55686).

Image 203: Orbit article on the recovery of an Aerobee telemetry unit from the Atlantic Ocean.

Image 204: A NASA AJ–2 Savage makes a pass for cameramen at the Cleveland Municipal Airport in 

November 1960. The AJ–2 was a Navy-carrier-based bomber in the 1950s (GRC–1960–C–54979).

Image 205: Memo authorizing the transfer of Centaur to Lewis in 1962.

Image 206: Atlas booster being hoisted into the Dynamics Stand at Plum Brook Station. The Atlas and 

Centaur were tested individually, as a pair, and with a simulated Surveyor payload

(GRC–1963–P–01700).

Image 207: A Centaur stage is lowered through the dome and into the SPC vacuum tank (GRC–1964–C–68846).

Image 208: AC–2 on a launch pad at Cape Canaveral in November 1963. It was the first successful launch of 

a liquid-hydrogen rocket. The Centaur upper stage from the AC–2 launch remains in orbit today 

(GRC–2015–C–06539).

Image 209: Researchers prepare a Centaur-Surveyor nose cone shroud for a separation test in the SPC 

vacuum tank (GRC–1964–C–71091).

Image 210: Lewis’s new DEB.

Image 211: Lewis launch team monitors the Thor-Agena launch of an Orbiting Geophysical Observatory satellite 

in 1965 (GRC–2015–C–60541).

Image 212: Bill Harrison films a test analyzing the effect of a lander’s jets on simulated Moon dust. This 

experimental tank was located in the 8×6 complex (GRC–1960–C–53768).

Image 213: The new Space Power Facility opened in late 1969. It was one of three world-class facilities brought 

online at Plum Brook Station (GRC–1969–C–03156).

Image 214: A test capsule is suspended over the mouth of the Zero Gravity Research Facility (Zero-G) prior 

to the first drop test on 6 June 1966 (GRC–1966–C–02290).

Image 215: Zero-G drop preparations in September 1966 (GRC–1966–C–03685).
List of Images 357

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 216: Construction of the 50-foot-diameter cooler for PSL No. 3 and 4. The cooler contained 5,500 

water-fed cooling tubes and three banks of spray nozzles to reduce the engine exhaust temperature 

from 3,500 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit (GRC–1969–C–03898).

Image 217: Pilots Clifford Crabs and Byron Batthaer with Lewis’s F–106B Delta Dart. The modified fighter 

aircraft could record 480 pressure measurements and nearly 100 other flight characteristics every 

11 seconds (GRC–1971–C–00847).

Image 218: Lewis researchers take ground-based noise measurements from the F–106B (GRC–1971–C–00775).

Image 219: A General Electric Quiet Engine tested with Lewis’s acoustically treated nacelle on the hangar apron 

(GRC–1972–C–01486).

Image 220: Pouring of a nickel alloy at Lewis’s Technical Services Building in April 1966 (GRC–1966–C–01563).

Image 221: Plum Brook Station manager Alan “Hap” Johnson and reactor chief Brock Barkley examine Moon 

dust that had been irradiated in the PBRF to identify its composition. The 25 milligrams of lunar soil 

had been retrieved by the Soviet Luna XVI spacecraft in September 1970 (GRC–1970–C–00950).

Image 222: The reactor was submerged in deionized water to assist with the cooling, and its core emitted a 

blue glow known as Cherenkov radiation, c1962 (GRC–1996–C–03983).

Image 223: Betty Jo Armstead [nee Moore] monitors an IBM 1403 high-speed printer in February 1964. This 

was linked to the IBM 7094/7044 Direct Couple System (GRC–1964–C–68508).

Image 224: Patricia Coles, center, is named Miss NASA Lewis at the 1971 annual picnic. Coles, the daughter 

of renowned Lewis magnetism researcher Willard Coles, worked in the center’s Personnel Division 

(GRC–2015–C–06554).

Image 225: Lewis employees enjoying themselves at the 1971 annual picnic at the picnic grounds 

(GRC–2015–C–06567).

Image 226: Young men at Lewis participating in the Neighborhood Youth Corps in January 1967 

(GRC–1967–C–00640).

Image 227: Members of the Boy Scout Explorer Post in the cockpit of Lewis’s North American AJ–2 Savage 

(GRC–2015–C–06569).

Image 228: Over 500 people attended Lewis’s Conference on Aerospace Related Technology for Industry in 

Commerce in May 1967 (GRC–1967–C–01813).

Image 229: Pamphlet from a Lewis conference for the power industry.

Image 230: Atlas-Centaur launch of the OAO–2 satellite (GRC–2015–C–06558).

Image 231: Three successful SPC tests of the unique OAO–2 shroud jettison system, half of which lies on 

the net in the foreground, verified its flight performance and led to Centaur’s first post-Surveyor 

success (GRC–1968–C–01258).

Image 232: A 25-mile-diameter Martian volcano photographed by Mariner 9 in November 1971. Mariner 9 

revealed that the complex Martian terrain included channels, polar-layered materials, mammoth 

volcanos, sand dunes, and a vast canyon system ( JPL–PIA04003).

Image 233: Press kit for the Atlas-Centaur launch of the Mariner Mars spacecraft.

Image 234: SERT–II spacecraft in the foreground after testing in the EPL in December 1969 

(GRC–1970–C–00112).

Image 235: Termination of SERT–II thruster operations in June 1981 from the control room in the 8×6 

building (GRC–1981–C–02861). 

Image 236: High-voltage solar array test in the Engine Research Building during July 1965 

(GRC–1965–C–01839).

Image 237: A model of the SNAP–8 power system created by the Lewis Fabrication Shop prior to a 

September 1966 Space Power Conference at the center (GRC–1966–C–03304).

Image 238: Brayton system setup in the SPF prior to the installation of the space radiator. The tests, which 

began in September 1969, were the first ever conducted in the new vacuum tank at Plum Brook 

Station (GRC–1970–C–01966).

Image 239: Notebook kept by Irv Pinkel during the Apollo 1 investigation.

Image 240: Pinkel, foreground, along with Homer Carhart, Alan Krupnick, and Robert Van Dolan, inspect 

the Apollo 1 review capsule on 10 March 1967 (NASA 265–577C–4).
358

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 241: Damage to the PSL Equipment Building (GRC–1971–C–01422).

Image 242: Wrecked F–8 with Pinkel, seen to the right, who led the ensuing investigation 

(GRC–1969–C–02422).

Image 243: A Centaur D1–A rocket is readied for a test firing inside the B–2 vacuum chamber. The test chamber, 

55 feet high by 33 feet in diameter, can handle rockets up to 22 feet long (GRC–1969–C–02596).

Image 244: The shroud for Skylab installed inside the SPF vacuum chamber for a jettison test. The shroud 

enclosed the multiple docking adapter, the top of the airlock, and the Apollo telescope mount. Problems 

with the ejection system were found during two tests in winter 1970. The issues were remedied, and 

the shroud was successfully jettisoned at a simulated 330,000-foot altitude in June 1971 

(GRC–1969–C–03690).

Image 245: Irving Pinkel’s retirement mat signed by the Silversteins, Bruce Lundin, Bernie Lubarsky, and 

others (NASA Pinkel Collection).

Image 246: Silverstein bids Christine Truax farewell as she retires as head of the Computing Section in July 

1967. She had joined the NACA in the early 1940s (GRC–2015–C–06573).

Image 247: Silverstein badge for Apollo 11 launch.

Image 248: Lewis’s front entrance reflects the center’s new focus (GRC–1980–C–04980).

Image 249: A 5,000-pound-thrust rocket engine is fired at the Rocket Engine Test Facility as part of a thermal 

fatigue investigation in September 1975 (GRC–1975–C–03125).

Image 250: Lundin memo announcing the termination of the nuclear program.

Image 251: The staff gathers in the control room on 5 January 1973 as the Plum Brook Reactor is shut down 

one final time (GRC–2003–C–00847).

Image 252: Silverstein and Lundin talk at a 1968 reception for Lundin at the Guerin House 

(GRC–2015–C–06553).

Image 253: NASA’s F–106B Delta Dart was acquired as the chase plane for the center’s first F–106B. After 

that program ended, the chase plane was equipped with air-sampling and ocean-scanning 

equipment and performed remote sensing throughout the 1970s. The ocean-scanning equipment 

was stored in the nose section of the F–106B (GRC–1979–C–02423).

Image 254: A NASA OV–10 aircraft participates in the Project Icewarn program during March 1973 

(GRC–1973–C–00948).

Image 255: Two-way ship traffic through Neebish Channel, Michigan, in January 1976 (GRC–1976–C–00365).

Image 256: A J–58 engine in a new test chamber in the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) with a 

swirl-can combustor on display (GRC–1973–C–03376).

Image 257: Lundin with Gerald Soffen, Cleveland native and Chief Scientist for the Viking missions, at an 

ALERT event in the Developmental Engineering Building auditorium in February 1977 

(GRC–1977–C–02740).

Image 258: Acting Director Bernard Lubarsky takes questions from staff members during a 13 April 1978 

AWARENESS forum (GRC–1978–C–01278).

Image 259: Display for the Big Boost From Rockets presentation at the 1973 Inspection, which discussed the 

applications of rocket technology for everyday life (GRC–1973–C–3372).

Image 260: Bruce Lundin watches as NASA Administrator James Fletcher and ERDA Administrator Robert 

Seamans start the Plum Brook wind turbine for the first time (GRC–1975–C–03866).

Image 261: Lewis engineers set up a Mod–0A–2 wind turbine in Culebra, Puerto Rico (GRC–1978–C–02389).

Image 262: Wind energy program pamphlet.

Image 263: Installation of 2–MW wind turbine in Goldendale, Washington, in November 1980 

(GRC–1980–C–05886).

Image 264: The Boeing 7.2-MW wind turbine began operation in Oahu in July 1987 (GRC–1987–C–05991).

Image 265: Robert Ragsdale briefs Senator Howard Metzenbaum on the Solar Simulation Laboratory during 

a visit to Lewis on 13 February 1974 (GRC–1974–C–00599).

Image 266: Residents of Schuchuli, Arizona, attend the dedication ceremony for the solar village project 

(GRC–1978–C–05107).

Image 267: Medical personnel treat patients in the cyclotron area (GRC–1978–C–04709).

Image 268: American Motors Pacer vehicle modified to run on twenty 6-volt batteries (GRC–1977–C–02096).
List of Images 359

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 269: A V/STOL engine with a zero-length inlet installed in the 9×15 (GRC–1980–C–04513).

Image 270: Diagram showing the 9×15 section in the return leg of the 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 

(CD–1202–09).

Image 271: Pratt & Whitney F100 engine in PSL No. 4 during September 1981 (GRC–1981–C–04382).

Image 272: A Refan engine installed on a DC–9 for a ground test in January 1975 (GRC–1975–C–00104).

Image 273: Salvatore Grisaffe (left) and Oral Mehmed with a Hamilton Standard SR–6 propfan in the 8×6 

test section (GRC–1980–C–04620).

Image 274: General Electric E3 (GRC–1983–C–03109).

Image 275: Display for November 1982 Propfan Acoustics Workshop at Lewis (GRC–1982–C–6372).

Image 276: Atlas-Centaur decal highlighting its interplanetary missions.

Image 277: Centaur rocket control room in the Development Engineering Building during the preparations 

for the Titan-Centaur-Helios launch on 10 December 1974. From here the Lewis staff in 

Cleveland could monitor and back up the Lewis launch team in the actual control room at Cape 

Canaveral (GRC–1974–C–04007).

Image 278: Saturn and its moon Titan as seen from Pioneer 11 on 26 August 1979 (NASA GPN–2002–0006).

Image 279: Titan-Centaur carrying Viking 1 (GRC–1975–C–07178).

Image 280: Ken Baskin checks a complete 2.25-scale model of the shuttle in the 10×10 test section during July 

1975 (GRC–1975–C–02011).

Image 281: Aircraft models hang in the Visitors Center foyer (GRC–1977–C–04170).

Image 282: Lewis News article about CTS receiving an Emmy.

Image 283: Lewis-designed CTS transmitting vehicle (GRC–1977–C–01038).

Image 284: The CTS satellite is prepped for testing in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory vacuum tanks during 

November 1974 (GRC–1974–C–03902).

Image 285: Work stations in the RAC building (GRC–1981–C–03752).

Image 286: Cray computer system in the RAC building (GRC–1982–C–05464).

Image 287: Lewis’s first attempt at annual self-assessment and planning.

Image 288: Director John McCarthy (left) former Acting Director Bernie Lubarsky (center), and future Director 

Andy Stofan (GRC–1978–C–04732).

Image 289: The Lewis hangar in November 1981 (GRC–1981–C–05731).

Image 290: Andy Stofan speaks at the Shuttle/Centaur rollout ceremony on 23 August, 1985 at General 

Dynamic’s San Diego headquarters (GRC–1985–C–06212).

Image 291: The Icing Research Tunnel’s drive fan as it appeared in July 1982. The IRT had been recently restored 

to support Lewis’s reinstituted icing research program (GRC–1982–C–04302).

Image 292: Strategic planning cartoon.

Image 293: Stofan talks with managers during a “Meet the Director” event at the picnic grounds in October 

1986 (GRC–1982–C–06266).

Image 294: Lewis’s 1983 Strategic Plan.

Image 295: Collier Trophy awarded for Lewis’s ATP work.

Image 296: The Gulfstream II and Learjet, both flown by Lewis pilots, conduct inflight noise measurements 

(GRC–1987–C–10756).

Image 297: A Propfan Test Assessment model is tested for flutter in the 9×15 wind tunnel during October 1985 

(GRC–1985–C–07896).

Image 298: A prototype turning vane for the new AWT installed in the IRT during December 1985 

(GRC–1985–C–09342).

Image 299: Rotorcraft model installed in the IRT (GRC–1993–C–03670).

Image 300: Lewis’s Twin Otter during a wing icing study in Duluth, Minnesota (GRC–1988–C–01725).

Image 301: The Twin Otter performs an inflight icing test in Duluth, Minnesota, while a Sikorsky helicopter 

trails water vapor to simulate icing clouds (GRC–1988–C–01727).

Image 302: Helicopter Transmission Rig in the Engine Research Building (GRC–1978–C–4355).

Image 303: Space station solar array being set up in the PSF cleanroom in July 1990 (GRC–1989–C–00115).

Image 304: Space station report prepared for Andy Stofan in his new role as Associate Administrator.
360

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Image 305: Atlas-Centaur 1 shroud jettison test at the newly reactivated Space Power Facility (SPF) for the 

upcoming Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) launch. It was the first major 

hardware test at the SPF in over 15 years (GRC–1990–C–00216).

Image 306: Shuttle/Centaur Program report.

Image 307: Centaur G on a work stand being prepared for the Ulysses mission at the Vertical Processing 

Center on 6 February 1986 (NASA KSC–86PC–0088).

Image 308: Artist’s rendering of the ACTS deployment from Discovery (GRC–1987–C–01695).

Image 309: ACTS antennas mounted on the 8- by 6-Foot (8×6) Supersonic Wind Tunnel 

(GRC–1996–C–03369).

Image 310: OAI (GRC–1991–C–01824).

Image 311: John Klineberg (GRC–1987–C–75023).

Image 312: Plum Brook status report.

Image 313: Interior of the B–2 test chamber with the lid removed in April 1987 (GRC–1987–C–02665). 

Image 314: Ross instituted a regular column in the Lewis News.

Image 315: Larry Ross (right) meets with Bob Angus in the Administration Building during August 1993 

(GRC–1993–C–06422).

Image 316: Ross as a Centaur test engineer in the early 1960s (GRC–2008–C–01424).

Image 317: Conceptual drawing of a lunar-oxygen-augmented nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) 

(GRC–1997–C–00827).

Image 318: NASA Technical Memorandum about NTR.

Image 319: William Klein examines settings for the slush hydrogen test rig in the K Site vacuum chamber during 

June 1991 (GRC–1991–C–07458).

Image 320: 13-foot-diameter propellant tank installed in K Site’s 25-foot-diameter vacuum chamber 

(GRC–1967–C–03315).

Image 321: Historian Virginia Dawson conducting research in 1984 for her history of the center, Engines and

Innovation (GRC–1984–C–03885).

Image 322: Time capsule installed in front of the Administration Building in 1991 (GRC–1991–C–08985).

Image 323: Fluids and Combustion Facility during testing at the Structural Dynamics Laboratory 

(GRC–2004–C–01827).

Image 324: Technician analyzes a NASA Solar Electric Power Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR) 

thruster in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory (EPL) during December 1993 

(GRC–1993–08855).

Image 325: Dan Goldin began his professional career in 1962 working on electric propulsion systems at Lewis. 

He left NASA for TRW in 1967 and worked his way up to be the firm’s vice president 

(GRC–1962–C–60944).

Image 326: Artist’s rendering of Space Station Freedom’s Alpha design (GRC–1994–C–00566).

Image 327: Goldin and Campbell converse in the Lewis hangar in August 1998 (GRC–1998–C–01638).

Image 328: Space Experiments Division’s internal review for NASA’s Zero Base Review.

Image 329: ISS solar array testing in the Space Power Facility (SPF) (GRC–2000–C–00279).

Image 330: Testing for the Mir Cooperative Solar Array (GRC–1995–C–00994).

Image 331: Titan-Centaur launch of the Cassini/Huygens spacecraft on 15 October 1997 

(NASA KSC–97PC–1543).

Image 332: Twin peaks on the martian surface as seen by Sojourner (NASA).

Image 333: Pathfinder airbag drop in the SPF (GRC–1995–C–01614).

Image 334: Lewis News article about Lewis’s experiments on Pathfinder.

Image 335: NSTAR thruster test (GRC–2015–C–06537). 

Image 336: A researcher prepares the NSTAR thruster for a 2000-hour wear test in the EPL during November 

1994 (GRC–1994–C–05234).

Image 337: Flight Operations veterans Kurt Blankenship and Bill Rieke flying the center’s Learjet 

(GRC–2001–C–003108).

Image 338: Aircraft consolidation plan.
List of Images 361

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 339: Icing researcher Judy Van Zandt with pilots Rich Ranaudo and Tom Ratvasky beside the Twin Otter 

(GRC–1997–C–03962).

Image 340: Bill Darby prepares an HSR inlet duct model in the Engine Research Building 

(GRC–1995–C–02109).

Image 341: Advanced Subsonic Combustion Rig in the Engine Research Building (GRC–1999–C–00249).

Image 342: The UEET logo.

Image 343: Burner rig heating a titanium-aluminide alloy sample (GRC–1999–C–01995).

Image 344: Pratt & Whitney combustor test setup in an Engine Research Building test cell during September 

1998 (GRC–1998–C–01955)

Image 345: GEnx engine with a chevron nozzle on an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner. By Oliver Cleynen 

(own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia 

Commons.

Image 346: Cessna 206 general aviation aircraft (GRC–1980–C–05641).

Image 347: Lewis’s DC–9 on the downward slope of a microgravity-inducing parabola (GRC–2001–C–00615).

Image 348: View down the 2.2-Second Drop Tower (GRC–1994–C–05830).

Image 349: Simon Ostrach floats in the KC–135 as Renato Colantonio monitors a microgravity experiment 

(GRC–1996–C–02847).

Image 350: A candle flame in a microgravity environment (GRC–1998–C–00486).

Image 351: Liquid-Phase Sintering brochure.

Image 352: Lewis News article by Don Campbell about the National Center for Microgravity Research.

Image 353: Demonstration of the restoration of a fire-damaged painting from Saint Alban’s church 

(GRC–2011–C–00516).

Image 354: Rocket engine firing at the RETF in July 1995 (GRC–1995–C–02448).

Image 355: The gutted remains of the reactor’s Hot Lab, which was used to remotely examine irradiated test 

specimens (NASA SPF 1697).

Image 356: John and Annie Glenn were feted during the center’s renaming ceremony on 7 May 1999. 

The activities included an F–16 flyby, a parade, a picnic, and a renaming ceremony in the hangar 

(GRC–1999–C–01153).

Image 357: Don Campbell addresses the audience at NASA Day in Dayton, Ohio (GRC–2003–C–02406).

Image 358: A segment of the Ares I–X development vehicle leaves NASA Glenn on 22 October 2008 for its 

journey to Cape Kennedy (GRC–2008–C–03458).

Image 359: The Ares I–X rocket lifts off from launch Pad 39B at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on 28 October 

2009 (KSC–2009–5963).

Image 360: Administrator O’Keefe visits Glenn in March 2004 (GRC–2004–C–00453).

Image 361: Greg Fedor (in white) briefs members of the STS–107 crew on the Space Acceleration 

Measurement System (SAMS) in the Power Systems Facility (PSF). Left to right: Laurel Clark 

(obscured), Ilan Ramon, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, William McCool, and Mike Anderson 

(GRC–2001–C–00235).

Image 362: The Glenn Ballistics Laboratory in the Materials and Structures Laboratory (GRC–2000–C–00447).

Image 363: Jayanta Panda, Scott Williamson, and Daniel Sutliff examine the shuttle ramp protuberance test setup 

in the 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (8×6) (GRC–2007–C–01848).

Image 364: The CAIB report.

Image 365: Human space exploration concepts created by Glenn contractor artist Les Bossinas in 1989 

(GRC–1989–C–07306)

Image 366: Fabrication of a lifesize cutaway model of the Crew Exploration Vehicle’s (CEV) service module in 

December 2005 (GRC–2005–C–01868).

Image 367: NASA’s VSE.

Image 368: One of the first activities of Earl’s two-year tenure as Glenn Center Director was hosting the 

Realizing the Dream of Flight Symposium on 5 November 2003 at the Great Lakes Science 

Center. A panel of preeminent aerospace historians discussed an array of individuals who shaped 
362

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

the development of the nation’s aerospace technology. The symposium was one of a series of 

activities held across the nation in 2003 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Wright 

Brothers’ initial flight in 1903 (GRC-2003–C–02005).

Image 369: NASA’s Prometheus Project Final Report.

Image 370: A rectangular HiPEP thruster being removed from the EPL vacuum tank in June 2005 after the 

duration test (GRC–2005–C–01061).

Image 371: Testing of a prototype NEXT in the EPL during May 2006 (GRC–2006–C–01260).

Image 372: Ivanovich Anatoli Vassine poses with a Russian T–160E Hall thruster being tested at the center in 

November 1997 (GRC–1997–C–04095).

Image 373: HiVAC thruster installed in tank 5 of the EPL during May 2013 (GRC–2013–C–03742).

Image 374: Glenn economic impact document.

Image 375: Michael Griffin visits Glenn on 16 May 2005, one month after being confirmed as NASA 

Administrator (GRC–2005–C–00704).

Image 376: While NASA was still defining the Constellation mission and parameters, Glenn sought ways to 

participate in the program. In 2005 Glenn teamed with Marshall to design the Orion service module 

mock-up. The Glenn Fabrication Shop then created an 18-foot-diameter full-scale model with a 

180° cutaway highlighting the module’s internal components. Ever since, it has been on display next 

to the Administration Building (GRC–2007–C–00566).

Image 377: Model of the Ares V vehicle built behind the Administration Building (GRC–2009–C–01301).

Image 378: Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Lisa Porter is briefed on Glenn’s turbomachinery 

accomplishments during a visit in April 2006 (GRC–2006–C–00765).

Image 379: Center Director Woodrow Whitlow and Deputy Director Rich Christiansen (GRC–2005–C–01706).

Image 380: Display in the Research Analysis Center, which housed Glenn’s Constellation staff. The display featured 

historical photographs and artifacts such as a Gemini capsule and Mercury escape tower 

(GRC–2010–C–0206).

Image 381: Ares I–X engineering team emulates their Apollo predecessors during a review meeting in July 

2007 (GRC–2007–C–01580).

Image 382: Testing of liquid oxygen/liquid-methane thruster for CEV (GRC–2009–C–01936).

Image 383: Stacking of two Ares I–X segments in the Fabrication Shop, which was renamed the “Ares 

Manufacturing Facility” (GRC–2008–C–00421).

Image 384: Constellation Program managers tour the Ares I–X segment assembly in the PSF 

(GRC–2008–C–00836).

Image 385: Glenn employees view the Ares I–X launch on 28 October 2009 from the Visitor Center 

(GRC–2009–C–03936).

Image 386: MPCV pamphlet.

Image 387: The acoustics chamber in the SPF facility to be used for vehicle vibrational and structural dynamics 

testing (GRC–2011–C–04392).

Image 388: NASA’s new S–3 Viking cruising along the Lake Erie shoreline in March 2010 

(GRC–2010–C–01394).

Image 389: View from the cockpit of Glenn’s S–3 Viking (GRC–2010–C–03192).

Image 390: Don Campbell is briefed on the Honeywell Weather Information Network, which was one of the 

off-the-shelf technologies tested during the first phase of WINCOMM (GRC–1999–C–02205).

Image 391: Mary Reveley and three colleagues were among a team that received the prestigious Collier Trophy in 

2009 recognizing the Aviation Safety Program’s success (Aerospace Frontiers, July 2009).

Image 392: PSL’s No. 3 test chamber was modified for high-altitude engine icing tests (GRC–2012–C–04153).

Image 393: The Dr. Edward R. Sharp Alcove of Honor. In 2007 the pick and shovel used for the groundbreaking 

events at Lewis Field in 1941 and Plum Brook in the 1956 were found in a storage barn 

(GRC–2008–C–01791). 
List of Images 363

John H. Glenn Research Center

Image 394: PSL wasteland in July 2009. In just over two months, the wrecking crew leveled a facility that had 

been part of the center’s landscape for nearly 60 years (GRC–2009–C–02018).

Image 395: The Altitude Wind Tunnel shell is cut down in February 2009 (GRC–2009–C–00752).

Image 396: The Apollo capsule used for the Skylab 3 mission is transferred from Glenn to the Great Lakes 

Science Center in June 2010 (GRC–2010–C–02647).

Image 397: The MIC (GRC–2014–C–02988).

Image 398: Glenn Biomedical Consortium agreement signing event on 7 June 2002 at Glenn’s Zero Gravity 

Research Facility. From left to right: Don Campbell, Mary Kicza, and Howard Ross from Glenn; 

Huntington Willard (University Hospitals), and Bill Sanford (Bioenterprise Corporation) 

(GRC–2002–C–01425).

Image 399: The vertical treadmill is demonstrated in Glenn’s Exercise Countermeasures Lab. The treadmill, 

referred to as the “Standalone Zero Gravity Locomotion Simulator,” allows researchers to study the 

effects of low gravity on astronaut exercise (GRC–2010–C–03733).

Image 400: FCF’s CIR undergoing testing in the Acoustics Testing Laboratory during April 2005 

(GRC–2005–C–00559).

Image 401: Astronaut Nicole Scott installs the FIR on 22 October 2009 (NASA ISS021E011440).

Image 402: SCaN's architecture and services.

Image 403: The SCaN testbed is prepared for shipment to Japan for its launch (GRC–2012–C–00698).

Image 404: Ray Lugo (right) and Jih Fen Lei (behind Lugo), Director of the Research and Development 

Directorate, take Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (left) on a tour of the PSF 

(GRC–2011–C–03296).

Image 405: Astronaut Michael Foreman speaks at a gala gathering of Ohio astronauts in 2008. Foreman flew 

on STS–123 and STS–129. He was one of several astronauts who served on one-year details 

leading Glenn’s External Programs Office (GRC–2008–C–02464). 

Image 406: Jim Free speaks to the media during a visit to the EPL by Administrator Charlie Bolden and local 

congressional representatives Marcy Kaptur and Sherrod Brown in January 2014

(GRC–2014–C–00269).

Image 407: First class inducted into the Glenn Hall of Fame (PS–01671–3–1015) 

Image 408: Simon Ostrach, Elaine Siegel, and Robert Siegel at the 2015 Glenn Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony 

held in the new MIC (GRC–2015–C–06102).

Image 409: Glenn’s S–3 Viking (GRC–C–02281).

Image 410: William “Eb” Gough poses on the lab’s McDonnell F2H‒2B Banshee in February 1958 in front of the 

hangar. Gough had served as the lab’s chief pilot since 1945. In seven months the NACA would 

transition into NASA. Gough left shortly thereafter as Lewis phased out its aeronautics work for 

nearly a decade (GRC–1958–C–47086).

Image 411: Technicians prepare a spherical liquid-hydrogen tank in June 1960 to study the fluid’s behavior in low 

gravity during a flight on the center’s AJ–2 Savage aircraft (GRC–1960–C–53861).

Image 412: Assembly of experimental wind turbine parts in the Engine Research Building during March 1979 

(GRC–1979–C–01034).

Image 413: A Lewis technician examines a space shuttle model installation in the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind 

Tunnel (10×10) during September 1983 (GRC–1983–C–05385).

Image 414: Maureen Umstead with a Sonic Boom Model in the Abe Silverstein 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind 

Tunnel (10×10) (GRC–2005–C–00926).

Image 415: Delivery of the European Service Module for the Orion spacecraft to the Space Power Facility in 

November 2015. The module, built by the European Space Agency, will undergo a battery of tests at 

the facility in 2016 (GRC–2015–C–07166).
Image 414: Maureen Umstead with a Sonic Boom Model in the Abe Silverstein 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (10×10) 

(GRC–2005–C–00926).
Acronym List 365

Acronym List

8×6 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel

9×15 9- by 15-Foot Low-Speed Wind Tunnel

10×10 Abe Silverstein 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel

AC Atlas-Centaur

ACEE Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program

ACTS Advanced Communications Technology Satellite

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

AEDC Arnold Engineering Development Center

AERL Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory

AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

ALERT Alerting Lewis Employees on Relevant Topics

AMG AM General

ANP Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion

ASE Automotive Stirling Engine

ASRDI Aerospace Safety Research and Data Institute

AST Advanced Subsonic Technology

ATP Advanced Turboprop

ATS Applications Technology Satellite

AWARENESS Acquainting Wage Board, Administrative and Research Employees with New Endeavors of 

Special Significance

AWT Altitude Wind Tunnel

B–1 High Energy Rocket Engine Research Facility

B–2 Space Propulsion Research Facility

B–3 Nuclear Rocket Dynamics and Control Facility

CADDE Computer Automated Digital Encoder

CAIB Columbia Accident Investigation Board

CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle

CIR Combustion Integration Rack

CM–2 Combustion Module-2

COLD–SAT Cryogenic On-Orbit Liquid Depot Storage, Acquisition, and Transfer Satellite

CPC IBM Card Programmed Electronic Calculator

CPU central processing unit

CRRES Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite

CSD Computer Services Division

CTS Communications Technology Satellite

DEB Development Engineering Building

DNT Dinitrotoluene

DOE Department of Energy

DOS disk operating system

ECI Engine Component Improvement

ECL Energy Conversion Laboratory

E3 Energy Efficient Engine

EIDI Electro-Impulse Deicing System

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPDM Electric Propulsion Demonstration Module

EPL Electric Propulsion Laboratory

EPRB Electric Propulsion Research Building
366

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration

ESA European Space Agency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FADEC Full Authority Digital Engine Control

FCF Fluids and Combustion Facility

FIR Fluids Integration Rack

FLTSATCOM Fleet Satellite Communications

GAP General Aviation Propulsion

GASP Global Air Sampling Program

GEnx next-generation General Electric engine

HiPEP High Power Electric Propulsion

HISS Helicopter Icing Spray System

HiVAC High Voltage Hall Accelerator

HSR High Speed Research

HTF Hypersonic Tunnel Facility

IRT Icing Research Tunnel

ISS International Space Station

JATO jet-assisted take off

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

K Site Cryogenic Tank Storage Site

LDI lean direct injection

LeSAC Lewis Social Activities Committee

LEWICE LEWis ICE accretion program

LIMS Lewis Information Management System

LINK Lewis Information Network

MASTIF Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia Facility

MIC Mission Integration Center

MPCV Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

MSL Microgravity Science Laboratory

MTI Mechanical Technology Incorporated

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASP National Aerospace Plane

NEPA Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft

NERVA Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application

NEXT NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxide

NSF National Science Foundation

NSTAR NASA Solar Electric Power Technology Application Readiness

NTR nuclear thermal rockets

OAI Ohio Aerospace Institute

OAO Orbiting Astronomical Observatory

OART Office of Advanced Research and Technology

OAST Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PBOW Plum Brook Ordnance Works

PBRF Plum Brook Reactor Facility

PSF Power Systems Facility

PSL Propulsion Systems Laboratory
Acronym List 367

John H. Glenn Research Center

QCSEE Quiet Clean Short Haul Experimental Engine

RAC Research Analysis Center

RAM random access memory

RCC reinforced carbon-carbon

RETF Rocket Engine Test Facility

RQL Rich-burn/Quick-mix/Lean-burn

SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System

SCaN Space Communications and Navigation

SEI Space Exploration Initiative

SERT–I Space Electric Rocket Test

SERT–II Space Electric Rocket Test II

S–IB Saturn IB

S–IC Saturn IC (Saturn V second stage)

SLAR Side Looking Airborne Radar

SLS Space Launch System

SNAP Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power

SNPO Space Nuclear Propulsion Office

SOHO Solar Heliospheric Observatory

SPC Space Power Chambers

SPF Space Power Facility

SPHINX Space Plasma, High Voltage Interaction Experiment

SST supersonic transport vehicle

STDCE Surface-Tension-Driven Convection Experiment

STEX Space Technology Experiments

STG Space Task Group

STS space transportation system

TALON Technology for Advanced LOw NOx

TAPS twin-annular pre-mixing swirler

TIALS Technical Information, Administrative, and Logistics Services 

TNT trinitrotoluene

UDF Unducted Fan

UEET Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology

U.S. United States

USML–1 U.S. Microgravity Laboratory 1

USML–2 U.S. Microgravity Laboratory 2

VIP very important person

VSE Vision for Space Exploration

VSP Vehicle Systems Program

V/STOL vertical or short-takeoff and landing

WAA War Assets Administration

WINCOMM Weather Information Communications

Zero-G Zero Gravity Research Facility
Image 415: Delivery of the European Service Module for the Orion spacecraft to the 

Space Power Facility in November 2015. The module, built by the European Space 

Agency, will undergo a battery of tests at the facility in 2016 (GRC–2015–C–07166) . 
Index 369

Index

Bold numbers indicate that the topic is depicted in an image. 

2.2-Second Drop Tower 163, 280

Physical description 148

Testing 149

8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 91, 208

Drive motor 81

Noise problem 81, 82

Office building 76, 92, 148, 176

Physical description 81, 107, 209

Planning/construction 78

Satellite antenna 244

Testing 79, 81, 84, 135, 136, 166, 212, 213, 214, 217, 253, 300

9- by 15-Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel 163, 207

Physical description 208, 209

Testing 209, 234, 235, 163, 207

A

Abe Silverstein 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 97

Central Computer Facility 109, 110

Physical description 107, 108, 167

Planning/construction 107

Testing 107, 135, 208, 216, 217, 253, 274, 364

Abram Creek 138

Accidents (Lewis) 181, 182

Acquainting Wage Board, Administrative and Research Employees with New Endeavors of Special Significance 

(AWARENESS), see Employees, Personnel issues, Morale 

Administration Building 16, 18, 25, 54, 64, 65, 137, 220, 309, 310

Planning/construction 24

Time capsule 253, 254

Administrative Services Building, see Farm House

Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) 5, 231, 244, 245, 248, 253, 328

Lewis management 232, 245

Multi-beam Communications Package 245

Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) Program 273–277

Lewis testing 274, 275

Advanced Turboprop Program (ATP) 211, 213, 231, 232, 245

Lewis testing 212, 213, 234, 235

Program initiation 212, 233

Propfan Test Assessment 235

Advent satellite 150

Aero-Acoustic Propulsion Laboratory (AAPL) 274, 275

Aerodynamics Research 79, 80, 92, 200

Aerojet Corporation 306

Aerobee rocket 148, 149, 150

M–1 engine 154
370

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Mark IX Turbopump 145

SNAP–8 178, 179

Aerojet General, see Aerojet Corporation

Aeronautics Test Program 310

Aeropropulsion (Lewis) 261, 264, 317

Aerospace Corporation 94, 306

Aerospace Frontiers, see Newspaper (center)

Aerospace Safety Research and Data Institute (ASRDI) 180, 182

Agena rocket 123, 154, 173

Thor-Agena 154, 175

Agency for International Development (AID) 205

Air Engineering Development Center, see Arnold Engineering Development Center

Air Force Research Laboratory 245

Air India 277

Airbus Aerospace Company 274

A320 276

Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program (ACEE) 211–213, 233

See also Advanced Turboprop Program, Engine Component Improvement, and Energy Efficient Engine

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) 95

Airline industry (U.S.) 12, 101, 102, 164, 167, 195, 197, 207, 208, 211, 212, 273, 274, 277, 278, 319, 320

Airport congestion 165, 167, 207

Airspace Systems Program 310

ALERT, see Employees, Nonprofessional activities, Social activity

Algranti, Joseph 131, 132

Allen, Harrison 114

Allison Engine Company

Advanced Turboprop 233

V–1710 45, 46

Altitude Combustion Stand 313, 314

Altitude Wind Tunnel 12, 16, 34, 58, 64, 65, 68

Demolition 322, 323

Modifications 102, 128, 131, 140, 141

Physical description 78, 79

Planning/construction 20, 26, 27

Project Mercury testing 128, 129, 130, 131, 132

Proposed restoration 231, 235, 236

Testing 31, 47, 48, 51–53, 67, 73, 74, 103, 112, 212

See also Space Power Chambers (SPC)

AM General 206

American Motors Corporation

Pacer 207

Spirit 206

Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, see Ames Research Center

Ames Research Center 126, 245, 308

11- by 11-Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel 217

Design and construction 4, 12, 20

Funding and support 194, 221

Research 33, 49, 61, 73, 137, 165, 208, 274, 319

“Anatomy of an Organizational Change” xi
Index 371

John H. Glenn Research Center

Anderson, Michael 298

Anderson, William 106

Angus, Robert 248

Apollo Program 5, 123, 127, 137, 150, 152 153, 155, 163, 180, 186, 200, 297, 303, 312

Apollo 1 163, 180, 279

Apollo 8 163, 194

Apollo 11 163, 186, 249

Apollo 13 182, 298

Influence on Constellation 304, 310

Post-Apollo 154, 193, 199, 215, 250

Skylab 3 Capsule 324

See also Surveyor program, Centaur program, and Skylab

Applications Technology Satellite (ATS) 173, 218

Apprentice Program 70, 134, 137

Arab Oil Embargo, see Energy Crisis

Ares Manufacturing Facility, see Fabrication Shop

Ares rocket 310, 313, 315

Ares I–X 294, 296, 309, 312, 314, 315

Glenn management 297, 315

Launch 315, 316

Ares I 316

Ares V 309, 310 (model), 317

See also Constellation Program and Vision for Space Exploration

Ariane rocket family 241, 246

Armstead, Betty Jo 170

Armstrong Flight Research Center

Aircraft consolidation proposal 263, 264, 271, 272

Controls research 209, 211

NACA High-Speed Flight Research Station 71, 72, 78, 180

Armstrong, Neil 222

Army Corps of Engineering 285

Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) 106, 107

Arnold, Henry H. 24, 47, 48, 51

Visit to AERL 31, 33, 42

Astronauts

Apollo Program 148, 180

ISS 327

Project Mercury 131, 128, 133, 150, 286

Space Shuttle Program 228, 243, 282, 286, 298, 299, 330

Atlas missile, see General Dynamics, Atlas

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 125, 246

Los Alamos National Laboratory 145, 146

Nevada Test Facility 146, 147

Nuclear aircraft development 94, 95

Nuclear rocket development 145–147

Nuclear space power 178, 179

Plum Brook Reactor Facility 96, 285

Atomic oxygen 284

Terrestrial applications 284
372

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Atomic weapons

Hydrogen bomb 91, 112

Soviet atomic bomb 91

World War II 54

See also Missiles and Manhattan Project

Augustine, Norman 316

Ault, Merwin 233

Automotive Stirling Engine 200, 206

Aviation safety 180, 319

Lewis program 4, 97

See also Crash Fire Program, Icing research, and Aviation Safety Program

Aviation Safety Program 310, 318, 319, 320

Awards (Glenn) 94, 237

Collier Trophy vii, 3, 234, 235, 320

Distinguished Service 186

Emmy vii, 3, 218, 219

Exceptional Service 93

Goddard Award 105

Government Invention of the Year 251

Group Achievement 173, 179

Inventions and Contributions Board 106

R&D 100 vii, 3

Rockefeller Public Service 186

AWARENESS, see Employees, Personnel issues, Morale

B

B–1, see High Energy Rocket Engine Research Facility

B–2, see Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility

B–3, see Nuclear Rocket Dynamics and Control Facility

Baehr, Edward 115, 125

Ballistics Impact Laboratory 299

Banks, Bruce 284

Barkley, H. Brock 169

Barrel Storage Building 97

Barry, William 332

Baskin, Ken 216

Batteries 200, 207

Batthauer, Byron 165

Baumhart, Albert 96

Bearings 200, 240

Rolling Element Bearings 106

Beechcraft

T–34 Mentor 271

Beggs, James 222, 232, 233

Bell Aircraft Corporation

OH–58 Kiowa 237, 239, 240

P–39 Airacobra 35, 46, 49

P–63 King Cobra 46, 71

XS–1 61
Index 373

John H. Glenn Research Center

YP–59A Airacomet 51, 52

Bell Helicopter, see Bell Aircraft Corporation

Berger, Amuil 185

Berry, John 14, 42

Bioenterprise Corporation 325

Bisplinghoff, Raymond 138

Bisson, Edmund 44, 45

Blaha, Ronald x

Blankenship, Kurt 271

Blue, James 205, 206

Blythin, Edward 14

Boeing Company 262

27007 Supersonic Transport 165 

707 167

727 211, 234

737 211

747 195

787 Dreamliner 276, 277 B–17 Flying Fortress 42 B–29 Superfortress 26 AERL testing 31, 46, 47, 48 Research testbed 71, 80 World War II usage 23, 49 C–40 Clipper 50 High Speed Research (HSR) 274 KC–135 Stratotanker 272, 281, 284

V/STOL aircraft 208 Wind turbine 203, 204

X–20 Dyna-Soar 251

Bolden, Charles 316, 330, 331

Bombardier Learjet 234, 235, 271, 272, 273, 279

Boone, Robert 139

Boron 110See also Pentaborane

Borowski, Stanley 250

Borrelly comet 270

Bossinas, Les 301

Boy Scout Explorer Post 171, 186

Braig, James 16, 185

Braille asteroid belt 270

Brandhorst, Henry 178

Brayton cycle engine 6, 177, 182, 206, 304 Brayton rotating unit 179 Lewis testing 179, 180 Brett, George 14

Brown, David 298

Brown, Sherrod 331

Brown University 93

Buchwald, Richard 185

Bullock, Robert 104, 105
374

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Burns, Conrad 273

Bush, President George H. 231, 249

Bush, President George W. 297, 303, 308, 309

State of the Union 303

C

California Institute of Technology 78

See also Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Campbell, Donald 261, 263, 264, 283, 288, 304, 319, 325

Canadian Department of Communications 218

Canadian National Research Council 272

Canadian Space Agency 315

Cancer treatment 205, 206

Carhart, Homer 180

Carnegie Institution for Science 303

Carpenter, Scott 150

Carrier Corporation 20, 26

Carrier, Willis 27

Carter, Jimmy 200, 219

Case Institute of Technology, see Case Western Reserve University

Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) 94, 133, 171, 282, 284, 325

Cassini/Huygens 266, 267

Celeste, Richard 246

Centaur rocket program vii, 155, 163, 173, 199

Commercialization 232, 241, 267

Development flights 150, 152, 153

Lewis management 5, 123, 140, 150, 152, 153, 173, 186, 194, 214, 215, 232, 241, 243, 248, 267, 311

Lewis testing 2, 123, 141, 150, 151, 152, 153, 173, 174, 182, 183, 214, 242, 267

Missions

Advanced Test Satellite 173

 Cassini/Huygens 266, 267

Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) 242, 248

COMSAT 175

 Helios 214–216

Intelsat 173

 Mariner (6 to 8) 173, (9) 173, 175, (10) 214

Orbiting Astronomical Observatory 173

 Pioneer (11) 173, 214, 215 (12 and 13) 216

Solar Heliospheric Observatory 267

 Surveyor 153, 163, 241

 See also Surveyor, Centaur role

 Viking 214, 215

 Voyager 214, 216

Pumps 147, 153, 215

Shroud 153, 173, 174, 182, 242, 246, 267

Centaur Standard Shroud 214, 215

Vehicle models

Atlas-Centaur 185, 214

 Titan-Centaur 214, 215

See also General Dynamics, Shuttle/Centaur, and General Dynamics, Atlas
Index 375

John H. Glenn Research Center

Ceres 270

Cesium 270

Cessna Aircraft Company

206 Skywagon 278

Chaffee, Roger 180

Chance Vought

F–8 Crusader 181, 182

FG–1 Corsair 53

Chawla, Kalpana (KC) 298

Chemistry Building, see Fuels and Lubrication Building

Cheney, Dick 303

Chester, Arthur 11

Childs, Howard 142

Christiansen, Richard 311

Ciepluch, Carl 167

Civil Aeronautics Board, see Federal Aviation Administration

Clark, Laurel 298

Cleveland Clinic Foundation 205, 206, 325

Cleveland Municipal Airport, see Hopkins International Airport

Cleveland, Ohio 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 22, 42, 51, 77, 149, 285, 288, 314

Airport, see Hopkins International Airport 

Bid for NACA Lab 12, 13

Chamber of Commerce 12, 13

City government 285

Hotel Cleveland 14, 26

Medical community 325

Metroparks 138

Pollution 195

Public Auditorium 122, 133

St. Alban’s Church 284

Terminal Tower 164

Tornado 97

Clinton, Bill 261–263, 286, 319

Coast Guard, U.S. 196, 197

Colantonio, Renato 281

Cold War 91, 135

End 249, 253, 261

Space Race 115, 123, 135, 163

Coles, Patricia 170

Coles, Willard 170

Collins, John 63

Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) 297, 298, 303

Findings 300, 301

Columbus, Christopher 303

Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES), see Centaur rocket program, Missions

Combustion (aircraft engines) 33, 35, 36, 195

Emissions 196, 197, 274, 275

High-altitude combustion 65–67

Lewis testing 63, 73, 103, 197

See also Combustors
376

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Combustion (rocket engines) 82, 83, 110, 111, 115

RL–10 150

Combustion chamber, see Combustors

Combustion Module-1 282

Combustion Module-2 298

Combustors 35, 44, 68, 274

Experimental Clean Combustor 197

Lean direct injection 274

Lean dual annular design 275

Premixed prevaporized fuel 274

Rich-burn/Quick-mix/Lean-burn (RQL) 275, 276

Swirl can 197

Technology for Advanced LOw NOx (TALON) 275, 276

Twin-annular pre-mixing swirler (TAPS) 275, 276

Commercial launch vehicles 297, 304

Commercial Space Launch Act 241

Communications satellites 127, 175, 200, 214, 217, 219, 244, 244 

See also Communications Technology Satellite (CTS), Advanced Communications Technology

Satellite (ACTS), Intelsat, Telstar, and Applications Technology Satellite (ATS)

Communications systems

Lewis program 245, 264, 304, 319, 320, 328, 330

See also Communications Technology Satellite (CTS), Advanced Communications Technology

Satellite (ACTS), and Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN)

Communications Technology Satellite (CTS) 218, 219, 245

Transmitting vehicle 218, 219

Compressors (space power systems)

Brayton system 179

Compressors (wind tunnel component)

10×10 107, 108

8×6 81

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) 217

Compressors and turbines

Compressors 53, 66, 91, 92, 104, 105

Axial flow 53, 66, 67, 104

Flutter 209

Lewis program 4, 7, 34, 63, 65–68, 114, 208, 211, 264, 275, 276, 277

Materials 75, 276

Turbines (cooling) 67, 93, 104

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), see Computer modeling

Computer modeling 209, 253, 269, 299, 320, 326

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) 219

Icing research 235, 237, 239

Computer systems (Lewis) 219

Computer Automated Digital Encoder (CADDE) I and II 109, 170

Desktop computing 220

Differential analyzer 75, 76

Electronic computing 109

FORTRAN 110

Interactive computing 169, 170

Lewis Information Management System (LIMS) 220
Index 377

John H. Glenn Research Center

Lewis Information Network (LINK) 220

See also Employees, Positions; Engineering Research Associates; International Business 

Machines (IBM); and Cray, Inc.

COMSAT Corporation 175, 217

Conferences 172

Aircraft Noise Reduction Conference 167

Conference for Power Industry 172

Conference on Aerospace Related Technology for Industry in Commerce 172

Conference on Fuels 83

Flight Propulsion Conference 114, 115, 116, 124, 142

International Workshop on Aircraft Icing 235

Propfan Acoustics Workshop 213

Rotor Icing Consortium 236

Space Power Conference 178

Wind Energy Workshop 200

See also Inspections

Congress, U.S. 17, 124, 272, 310, 317, 330

Acts

Authorization Act of 1974 200

Clean Air Act 197

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 126

Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Act 107

Veterans Administration—Housing and Urban Development Appropriation 286

Establishment of AERL 11, 12, 24

Establishment of NASA 5, 123, 125

Establishment of the NACA 4

Federal downsizing 261–263, 330–332

Funding and support 115, 133, 137, 193, 194, 199, 222, 235, 243, 261–264, 275, 277, 310, 330

Hearings 206

Centaur 152

NASA Appropriations 273

Space station 241, 262

Human spaceflight 297, 303

Ohio Delegates 96, 222, 249, 286, 317, 330, 331

Consolidated Aircraft Corporation

B–24D Liberator 44, 71, 72, 73, 74, 97

PBY Catalina 72

Constellation Program 5, 303, 304, 309, 310

Glenn contributions 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317

Program restructure 311, 316, 328, 330

See also Ares rocket, Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), and Vision for Space Exploration (VSE)

Construction (Glenn) 8, 10, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27

Dedication 24, 26

Design 12, 16, 26, 27

Groundbreaking 14, 253, 321, 322

Site selection 13, 21

Convair Corporation

B–58 Hustler 107, 116

F–106B Delta Dart 165, 166, 195, 196
378

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Cortright, Edgar 127, 182

Crabs, Clifford 165

Crash Fire Program 4, 91, 98, 99, 101, 180

Ignition sources 99, 100

Structural effects 100, 101

Crawford, Frederick 13, 14, 125

Cray, Inc.

S/2200 219

Cray, Seymour 109

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) 5, 302, 304, 317, 331

Service Module

Glenn management 297, 313, 314

Thruster system 313, 314

Model 301, 309

Vehicle description 310

Cryogenic Components Laboratory 253

Cryogenic fuel, long-term storage 147, 249, 250, 252, 317

Cryogenic On-Orbit Liquid Depot Storage, Acquisition, and Transfer Satellite (COLD–SAT) 250

Cryogenic Tank Storage Site (K Site) 139, 147, 246

Slush hydrogen studies 250, 251, 252, 253

Curtiss-Wright Corporation

C–46 Commando 50, 99

P–40 Warhawk 46

Cyclotron 94, 95, 205, 206

D

Darby, William 273

Data acquisition 69, 75, 219

Manometers 42, 76, 109

See also Employees, Positions, “Computers” and Computer systems

Dawn (space probe) 6, 270, 306

Dawson, Virginia xi, 3, 253

de Groh, Kim 284

Deep Space 1 6, 270, 288, 306

Ion propulsion system 270

DeHavilland Aircraft Company

Twin Otter 235, 237, 238, 271, 272, 273, 318

Deissler, Robert 93, 94, 332, 333

Denmark

Wind energy 204

Department of Defense 222, 250, 319

See also Military sponsorship of research

Department of Energy 205, 206, 221, 250, 304

See also Wind Energy Program

Department of Interior 203

Department of Labor 70

Department of Transportation

Supersonic Transport Program 166

Development and Engineering Building (DEB) 138, 154, 172, 214
Index 379

John H. Glenn Research Center

Development programs (Lewis)

Lewis management 123, 138, 150, 154

See also Centaur rocket program; Aerojet Corporation, M–1 engine; and Agena rocket

DeVoto, Harold 126

DeWine, Michael 286

Dietrich, Daniel 282

Dietrich, John 82

Diffusion Factor 105

Disher, John 80

Divisions

Administrative Services Division 25, 77

Computing Section 41, 42

Publishing Section 41

Aeronautics Directorate

Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis, and Optimization Branch 320

Aerospace Environment Branch 279

Airbreathing Engine Division 165, 195

Combustion and Pollution Research Branch 195

Chemical Rocket Division 150, 171

Chemistry and Energy Conversion Division 142, 177

Communications and External Relations

External Programs Office 330

Compressor and Turbine Division 63, 66, 67, 68, 91, 92, 104, 114

Computer Services Division 110, 220, 304

Construction Division

Drafting Section 21, 23, 41, 70 

Cryogenic Fluids Technology Office 250

Educational Services Division 134

Electromagnetic Propulsion Division 142, 143

Engine Components Research Division 44

Engine Installation Division 35, 46

Engine Performance and Materials Division 63

Engine Research Division 35, 36, 47, 92

 Engine Analysis Section 24

Engineering Services Division (directorate) 311

Drafting and Illustration Branch 70

Exploration Technology Development and Demonstration Office 317, 330

Flight Operations Branch 35, 73, 150, 271, 280, 318

Fluid System Components Division 114

Gearing and Transmission Section 239

Fuels and Combustion Division 92, 115

Rockets Branch 92, 111, 115 

Fuels and Lubrication Division 24, 32, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46

Fuels and Thermodynamics Division

Combustion Branch 82

Fuels Branch 82

High Pressure Combustion Section 82, 92

Fuels and Thermodynamics Division 63, 82, 91, 93

Health, Safety, and Security Division 304

Instrument and Computing Division 169
380

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Launch Vehicles Division 154, 173, 214–216, 232, 248, 264, 267

Materials and Structures Division

Ceramics Branch 300

Mechanical Components Branch 301

Structural Mechanics and Dynamics Branch 299

Materials and Thermodynamics Division 92

Microgravity Experiments Division 284

Microgravity Science Division 284

Nuclear Propulsion Office 250

Nuclear Reactor Division 93, 95, 114

Heat Transfer Branch 93

Nuclear school 95

Nuclear Systems Division

Health Physics and Licensing Section 304

Personnel Division 170, 171

Physics Division 92, 97

Icing Branch 97

Instrument Research Section 75

Power Technology Division

Electro-Physics Branch 284

Photovoltaic Research Branch 269

Power Systems Project Office 265

Procurement Division 171

Propulsion Systems Division 124

Public Affairs 134, 172

Research and Technology Directorate 311

Safety Office 182

Solar Dynamic Power Module Division 241

Space Experiments Division 264, 279, 284

Space Flight Laboratory Committee 125

Space Flight Systems Directorate 311, 315, 330, 331, 332 

Space Power System Division 177, 178

Space Propulsion Division 92

Space Vehicle Propulsion Branch 253

Space Station Freedom Directorate 241, 261, 262, 264

Space Technology Directorate 232

Space Technology Research Grants Program Office 317

Special Research Panel 79, 80

Supercharger Division 35, 36, 46, 66

Supersonic Propulsion Division 93

Applied Mechanics Branch 92

Technical Reports Division 126

Technical Services Division 134

Test Installations Division 6, 69

Thermodynamics Division 35, 36, 46, 92, 94

Transportation Propulsion Division 207

Wind Tunnels and Flight Division 63, 79, 91, 92

Donnelly, John 199

Doolittle, James 42, 125

Douglass, Howard 115
Index 381

John H. Glenn Research Center

Dryden Flight Research Center, see Armstrong Flight Research Center

Dryden, Hugh 93, 125

Duct Lab 79

Durand, William 24

Dust research (lunar) 155

E

Earls, Julian 7, 304, 311

Earth programs

Lewis programs 194–197, 199, 221, 232

See also Wind Energy Program, Solar cells (Earth), Atomic oxygen, and Automotive Stirling Engine

Easley, Annie 333

Echols, Oliver 24, 46

Eckert, Ernst 93, 94

Eclipse Aviation Corporation

Eclipse 500 278, 279

Educational Services Program 134, 171, 172, 217, 246, 322

Eisenhower, Dwight

General 42, 64

President 124–126

Elder, Ruth 185

Electric automobiles 207

Electric propulsion 142, 143, 155, 173, 175–177, 305, 306, 317

Lewis program 3, 6, 123, 138, 142, 143, 232, 261, 306

Electric Propulsion Demonstration Module (EPDM) 307

Electric Propulsion Laboratory 271, 331

Clean room 144

Design and construction 138, 142

Facility description 143

Testing 7, 143, 175, 176, 177, 218, 219, 260, 305–307

Electric Propulsion Research Building 142

See also Engine Propeller Research Building

Electro-Impulse Deicing System (EIDI), see Icing research

Electron bombardment thruster 6, 143, 270

Emissions reduction (aircraft) 165, 167, 208

Lewis program 5, 167, 195, 197, 274–276

Emissions reduction, see Combustion and Combustors

Employee Center 233, 245, 253, 321

Employees 

Nonprofessional activities ix, 6, 31, 34, 312, 316, 333

 Morale 198, 199, 221, 232, 233, 249, 308, 313, 316

Social activities 25, 170, 171

Personnel issues

Contractors 233, 248

Female employees viii, 40, 41, 42, 75, 76

Recruitment and hiring 21, 40–42, 61, 137, 170, 233

Reductions 5, 193, 310, 331
382

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Reorganizations 4–6

1943 35

1945 61, 63, 82

1949 92, 93, 110

1958 123, 155

1966 163, 165, 186

1983 232

1996 264

2006 311

2014 297, 331, 332

Retirement and departures 92, 97, 185, 186, 233, 263, 308

Staff levels 137, 163, 194, 248

Positions

Clerical staff xi, 25, 41, 77

“Computers” 41, 75, 76

Center Directors 34, 137, 194, 220, 245, 248, 261, 263, 304, 331

Graphic artists 126, 302, 332

Library staff 6, 171

Management staff 34, 91, 155, 240

 Mechanics 4, 6, 24, 45, 46, 50, 58, 60, 61, 66, 68, 69, 70, 84, 90, 113, 123, 125, 139

Photographers x, 6, 99, 100, 101, 102, 111, 149

 Pilots 71, 72, 73, 74, 80, 131, 148, 165, 180, 182, 237, 271, 272, 342

Protective Services staff 22, 182, 288

Publishing staff 6

Researchers 32, 36, 46, 55, 69, 73, 104, 130, 239, 281, 282, 313

Technicians 6, 7, 50, 79, 123, 128, 129, 136, 144, 183, 218, 260, 329, 344, 348

Energy conversion (earth resources) 190, 200, 205, 207, 240

See also Wind Energy Program and “Solar cells

Energy Conversion Laboratory 142, 143

Energy Crisis 200, 204, 207, 211, 233, 235, 273

Energy Efficient Engine Program 211, 213

Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), see Department of Energy

Engine Component Improvement 211

See also Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program (ACEE)

Engine Control Systems 63, 66, 207, 276, 319, 320

Digital Fly by Wire 209, 211

Engine cooling (piston engines) 23, 26, 33, 35, 36, 45, 68, 92

Air-cooled engines 45–48

Fuel injection 46

Lewis testing 46–48

Liquid-cooled engines 45, 46

Engine efficiency (aircraft) 

General 5, 34, 67, 68, 85, 104, 163, 165, 167, 211, 212, 233, 274–276

Engine manufacturers (aircraft) 33, 64, 67, 68, 85, 106, 165, 167, 197, 320

See also General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Wright Aeronautical, Allison Engine Company, and 

 Rolls Royce

Engine Noise Test Facility 208

Engine Propeller Research Building ix, 22, 34, 142

Design and construction 16, 20, 23, 24

Testing 47
Index 383

John H. Glenn Research Center

Engine Research Building 16, 24, 34, 61, 68, 102, 276

1- by 1-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 79

Advanced Subsonic Combustion Rig 274, 275

Helicopter Transmission Rig 239

Testing 31, 36, 44, 46, 47, 66, 177, 178, 208, 239, 273, 274

Water tunnel 147

See also Four Burner Area

Engineering Research Associates

UNIVAC 1103 109, 110

Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology 253

Environmental Movement 194, 200

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 169, 194

European aerospace technology 142

Aircraft manufacturing 273, 274

Ariane rocket 241

German rocket development 22, 78, 83

Pre-war advancements 4, 11, 12

Supersonic transport 165, 166

Wind energy 203, 204

World War II 51, 52, 63, 78

See also European Space Agency (ESA)

European Space Agency (ESA) 241, 267, 280, 281, 368

See also Ariane rocket family

Evvard, John 79, 93

Exercise Countermeasures Lab 326

Experimental Aircraft Association

AirVenture Oshkosh 278

Explorer I 125

F

Fabrication Shop 41, 69, 70, 83, 97, 125, 128, 129, 178, 309, 315

Facilities (Glenn) 5, 6, 54, 66, 322

Air-handling equipment 70, 78, 103, 209

Closures and demolitions 77, 264, 273, 277, 285, 310, 322, 323

New facilities 16, 24, 61, 94, 123, 138–140, 152, 163, 168, 322

Fairchild Aircraft

C–82 Packet 99, 100

Fan Noise Test Facility 167

Farm House 15, 16, 77

Administrative Services Building 77

Fecych, William 193

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 75, 98, 164–166, 211, 236, 277, 279, 319

Fedor, Greg 298

Fergus, Louise 126

Finger, Harold 95, 127, 145

Fleet Satellite Communications (FLTSATCOM) 243

Fletcher, James 200

Flight research, see Employees, Positions
384

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Flight research (Lewis) 71, 72, 92, 271–273, 320

Advanced Turboprop 234, 235

Aircraft consolidation proposal 263, 271–273, 288

Environmental monitoring 165, 166, 178, 195

Icing flights 50, 64, 71, 73–75, 97, 196, 237, 238, 318 

Microgravity 149, 279, 280

Missiles drops 79, 80

Project Bee 112

World War II 43, 45, 49

Flight Research Building (hangar) xii, 7, 8–10, 16, 20, 42, 69, 71, 123, 138, 190, 222, 271, 294, 310

Events 31, 48, 163

Temporary offices 21, 23, 24, 154

Flight safety, see Aviation safety

Fluid dynamics 7

Fluids and Combustion Facility (FCF) 258, 327, 331

Combustion Integration Rack (CIR) 327, 328

Fluids Integration Rack (FIR) 327, 328

Fluorine (liquid) 92, 112, 114

Ford Motor Company

Model T 207

Ford, Gerald 200

Ford, Helen x, 15, 21

Foreman, Michael 330

Four Burner Area 68, 69, 102, 112, 140

Frontiers of Flight x, xi

Free, James vii, 313, 330, 331, 333, 341

Friedman, Harold 78

Fuel tanks (rockets) 112, 139, 145, 147

Centaur 135

Insulation 147, 199, 314

Pressurization 147

Sloshing 120, 153

See also Cryogenic Tank Storage Site (K Site) and Space shuttle program

Fuels and Lubrication Building 16, 24, 34, 43, 105

Fuels research (aircraft) 43, 65, 82

Blending 34, 36, 43, 44

Engine knock 36, 43, 46

Lubrication 43

Pentaborane 103

See also Project Bee

Full Scale Engine Program 209

Fundamental Aeronautics Program 310

Fuqua, Donald 222

G

Gagarin, Yuri 137

Gagg, Rudolph 13

Galileo 243, 244

Garrett Corporation 246

Gedney, Richard 245
Index 385

John H. Glenn Research Center

Gemini Program 163

General Aviation Aircraft 277, 278

General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) program 277, 278, 279

Lewis testing 278

General Dynamics 228, 243

Atlas 104, 128, 129, 134, 135, 150, 151, 152, 154

Centaur 173, 214, 215, 241

Vehicle design 134, 147, 150

General Electric 51, 106, 208, 211, 274, 277

CF6–80E 212

CFM56 engine 197

Cyclotron 94, 95, 205

Dual annular combustor 197

Energy Efficient Engine (E3

) 213

See also Energy Efficient Engine Program

GE 90 197, 212

GE4 165, 166

GEnx 276, 277

I–16 51–53, 73

I–40 4, 52, 53, 60

I–A 51

J47 66, 67, 68

J79 102, 107

J85 105, 209

Mercury heatshield 128

Quiet Engine 167

Twin-annular pre-mixing swirler (TAPS) 275, 276

Unducted Fan 234

Wind turbine 203, 204

Germany

Wind energy 204

See European aerospace technology

Gibbon, Louis 82

Gildersleeve, Clifford 13

Glenn L. Martin Company

B–26 Marauder 71

B–57 Canberra 112, 114, 178

Glenn Research Center vii, ix, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 33

Aerial view 3, 13, 27

Events

25th Anniversary 163

50th Anniversary 253, 254

 See also Construction (Glenn); Inspections; and Outreach events, Open houses

Full-cost accounting 264, 308, 311

Hall of Fame 332, 333

See also Divisions; Construction (Glenn); Facilities (Glenn); Plum Brook Station; and Employees, 

Positions and Personnel issues 

Glenn, Annie 287
386

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Glenn, John 3, 286, 287

See also Astronauts

Glennan, T. Keith 126

Global Air Sampling Program (GASP) 195, 196

Gloster Meteor 51, 52

Goddard Space Flight Center 137, 243, 248, 267, 331

Goddard, Robert 83, 142

Goldin, Dan 259, 261, 263, 264, 268, 284, 308, 325

Gorbachev, Mikhail 249

Gore, Al 263

Gosney, Mary Lou 25, 185

Gough, William “Eb” 71, 72, 342

Gray, George xi

Great Lakes 196, 197

Great Lakes Science Center 304, 322, 324

Griffin, Michael 303, 309, 310, 311, 316

Grisaffe, Salvatore 212

Grissom, Virgil Gus 131, 180

See also Astronauts, Project Mercury 

Grumman Aerospace Corporation, see Northrup Grumman Corporation

Guerin House 138, 139, 322

Gulf of Mexico 315

H

Haise, Fred 148

See also Astronauts, Apollo Program

Hall thrusters 7, 306, 307

D–55 (Russia) 307

NASA–300M 307

NASA–400M 307

NASA–457M 307

SPT–100 (Russia) 307

T–160E (Russia) 306

See also High Voltage Hall Accelerator and Electric Propulsion Demonstration (EPDM)

Hall, Eldon 112

Hall, Jesse 161

Hamilton Standard

Turboprops 212, 213

Wind turbine 203

Hangar, see Flight Research Building and Flight research

Harrison, Bill 61, 155

Harrison, Kathryn Nicki 61

Harrison, Melvin 185

Hawker, Harrier 208

Hawker, James xi

Heat transfer, see Thermodynamics

Heating Plant 61

Helicopter Icing Spray System (HISS) 238

Helicopter Transmission Rig 239
Index 387

John H. Glenn Research Center

Helicopters 72, 238

Icing 235–237

Transmissions 238

See also Bell Aircraft Corporation and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

Helios 214–216

Hennings, Glen 115

Heritage Foundation 221

Herrmann, Charles 15, 21, 54, 185

High Energy Fuels Laboratory (HEFL)177

High Energy Rocket Engine Research Facility (B–1) 139, 140, 146, 185

High Power Electric Propulsion (HiPEP) 304, 305

High Speed Research (HSR) Program 273, 274, 277

Lewis testing 273, 274

Propulsion system 274

High Temperature Composites Laboratory

Solar Simulator 205

High Voltage Hall Accelerator (HiVHAc) 307

High-energy fuels 

General 4, 63, 78, 83, 85, 111–115, 134, 135, 139, 145

See also Hydrogen (liquid), Fluorine (liquid), Oxygen (liquid), Fuels research (aircraft), and 

 Pentaborane

High-Speed Flight Research Station, see Armstrong Flight Research Center

Himmel, Seymour 154, 221, 233

Holliday, William 42

Holmfeld, John xi

Hopkins International Airport 4, 11, 12, 42, 149, 288

Relation to the NACA 13, 22, 51, 77, 314

Runway extension 285

Hopkins, John 126

Hopkins, William 14

Horvath, Terry 134

Howell, John 94

Hubble Space Telescope 308

Hughes Research Laboratory 142

Human Research Program 325, 326

Exploration Medical Capabilities 326

Human Health Countermeasures 326

Hunter, Wilson 73

Huntress, Wesley 303

Hurricane Katrina 310

Hydrogen Heat Transfer Facility 139

Hydrogen (liquid) 5, 7, 91, 111, 112, 115, 135, 314

Lewis research vii, ix, 88, 92, 112, 114, 139, 147, 155, 194, 216

Project Bee 113

Microgravity effects 148, 149, 150, 164

Nuclear rocket program 145, 146, 169

Pumping 146

 Sloshing 120, 153, 231

 Slush hydrogen 250, 251, 253

Use in space program 134, 147, 150, 153, 154
388

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Hypersonic Tunnel Facility (HTF) 246, 248

Hypersonics 264

I

Icewarn 196, 197

Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) 196

Icing rate meter 74

Icing research 49, 235

Cloud physics research 73–75, 98

Electro-Impulse Deicing System (EIDI) 238

Helicopter Icing Spray System (HISS) 238

High altitude icing 321

LEWICE software 237

Lewis program 4, 7, 64, 72, 92, 97, 231, 235, 272, 318

Lewis testing 236, 237

World War II 26, 33, 49, 50, 98

Turbojet icing 73, 74

See also Icing Research Tunnel (IRT), Flight research, and Helicopters 

Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) 7, 16, 26, 34, 35, 49, 72, 79, 98, 140, 235, 238

Drive fan 230

Physical description 49

Spray bars 73, 98

Testing 49, 50, 74, 91, 236, 237

Inspections 64, 65

1947 Inspection 64, 65, 66

1948 Inspection 66

1956 Inspection 107

1957 Inspection 113, 114, 115

1966 Inspection 163, 164

1973 Inspection 197, 199

Ames 1958 Inspection 126

Inspector General’s Office 272, 273, 285, 288

Instrument Shop 41

Instrumentation 42, 66, 69, 76, 99, 100, 148, 150, 169, 178, 182, 235, 237, 238, 325

Staff 70

Intelsat 173, 175, 217

International Business Machines (IBM)

Card Programmed Electronic Calculator 76, 109

360 170

370 219, 370

701 110

704 110

1044 170

1401 170

7090 170

7094 170

604 Electronic Calculating Punch 76, 109

650 Magnetic Drum Calculator 109, 110

1403 printer 170
Index 389

John H. Glenn Research Center

International Microgravity Laboratory, see Space Shuttle Program, Microgravity experiments

International Space Station 262, 297, 304, 310, 327, 328

Construction 265, 298, 304, 308, 316

Electrical power system 5, 265–267, 311

Experiments 284, 330

Microgravity experiments 283, 284, 327, 328

Ion thruster, see Electron bombardment thruster, NASA Solar Electric Power Technology Applications 

Readiness (NSTAR), NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT), and High Power Electric 

Propulsion (HiPEP)

Iraq War 310

J

Japan 330

Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL) 126, 137, 205, 267

Rocket testing 78, 82

Spacecraft development 152, 216, 268–270, 304, 306

Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory 31, 51, 322

John Glenn Biomedical Engineering Consortium 325

Johnsen, Irving 104, 105

Johnson Space Center 137, 194, 243, 262, 272, 284, 311, 317, 325

Johnson, Alan 169

Johnson, Lyndon 124, 167

Johnson, Robert 45, 106

Johnson, Susan 205

Johnston, S. Paul 14

Jonash, Edmund 111

Jupiter (planet) 175, 214, 216, 243, 297

K

K Site, see Cryogenic Tank Storage Site

Kaptur, Marcy 1, 331

Kaufman, Harold 6, 143, 175, 270

Kavandi, Janet 332

Kemper, Carlton 34, 63, 91

Kennedy Space Center 137, 173, 180, 215, 217, 243, 244, 264, 266, 267, 294, 296, 311, 315, 330

Orbiter Processing Facility 243

Kennedy, John F. 135, 137, 145, 165

Kicza, Mary 325

Klein, William 251

Klineberg, John 231, 245, 246, 248

Korean War 91, 109, 115, 238

Korolev, Sergei 163

Kosmahl, Henry 219

Kozar, Robert 246

Kraus, Sidney 14

Krupnick, Alan 180

Krypton 306

Kucinich, Dennis 330
390

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

L

L–3 Communications 306

Landis, Geoffrey 269

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, see Langley Research Center

Langley Research Center 12, 16, 48, 64, 78, 126, 137, 165, 194, 208, 221, 308

Establishment 4, 11

Full Scale Tunnel 48

Project Mercury 127, 128

Research 49, 61, 211, 274

Transfers to Lewis 12, 16, 20, 21, 33–35, 41, 44, 48, 72, 92, 97, 319

Laufman, Arthur 101

Lei, Jih Fen 330

LeMay, Curtis 5, 42

Lewis Ice Accretion Program (LEWICE) 237

Lewis News, see Newspaper (center)

Lewis Social Activities Committee (LeSAC) 171

Lewis, George 34, 35, 63, 65, 286

AERL construction activities 11, 12, 14, 24

Dedication of center to Lewis 3, 66

Lewis, George Jr., 65, 66

Lewis, Harvey 65, 66

Lewis, Myrtle 65

Lichtenstein, Roy 284

Lieblein, Seymour 104, 105

Life prediction (aircraft engines) 274, 319, 320

Lilly, Howard 7, 71, 72

Lindbergh, Charles 12

Lockheed Agena rocket, see Agena rocket

Lockheed Corporation 234, 241, 313

Communications satellites 245

F–104 Starfighter 180

F–94B Starfire xii

Nuclear rocket program 169

P–38 Lightning 46, 49, 50

P–80 Shooting Star 52, 53

RA–29 Hudson 71

F–22 Raptor 282

S–3 Viking 318, 324

Lockheed Martin, see Lockheed Corporation

Los Alamos National Laboratory, see Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

Low, George 127, 199

Lubarsky, Bernard 177, 185, 198, 220, 221

Lugo, Ramon 330, 331, 332

Lunar Orbiter 154

Lundin, Bruce 138, 185, 191, 232, 333

Center Director 193, 194, 198, 200, 220, 221

NACA role in space 124, 125

Lunney, Glynn 127
Index 391

John H. Glenn Research Center

M

Main gate 190 

Malavard, Lucien 44

Mandelkorn, John 177

Manganiello, Eugene x, 125, 135, 137, 138

Manhattan Project 94, 200

Mariner (3 and 4) 127, 154, (4) 177, (6 to 8) 173, (9) 173, 175, (10) 214

Mars

Human exploration 5, 137, 147, 154, 249, 250, 297, 303, 308, 309

Landers

 Pathfinder 268, 269

 Viking 214, 215

Space probes 154, 173, 175, 214

Terrain and atmosphere 173, 175, 194, 250, 267, 269, 314

See also Viking, Mars Pathfinder

Mars Pathfinder 269

Airbags 268, 269

Lewis testing 268, 269

Sojourner 267–269

Marshall Space Flight Center 137, 154, 194, 240, 264, 308, 309, 311

Centaur Program 150, 152, 243

Electric propulsion 142

Microgravity program 282, 283

Transfer of programs 263, 284, 285

Martin Marietta Corporation 94, 241

Maslen, Stephen 92–94

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 221

Materials and Stresses Building 94, 95, 168, 205

Materials Processing Laboratory 168

Materials research 172, 180, 200, 239, 325

Ceramics 168

Composites 274, 276, 277, 320

Effect of radiation 94–96, 146, 168, 169

Heat transfer 92

Lewis program 3, 63, 65, 66, 168, 182, 199, 206, 264

Lubricants 45, 105, 106

Steel alloys 67, 106, 168, 251, 276, 277

Materials and Structures Laboratory 94, 168, 299

McCarthy, John 194, 221, 222, 231, 232, 243, 245

McCool, William 298

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, see McDonnell Douglas Corporation

McDonnell Douglas Corporation

Delta (rocket) 219, 241, 243, 270

DC–8 167

DC–9 (microgravity research) 271, 272, 279, 280, 284

DC–9 210, 211

F–15 Eagle 211

F2H–2B Banshee 90, 342

MD–80 211, 234
392

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Mercury capsule 128

XFD–1 Phantom 53

Mechanical Technology Incorporated 206

Medical technology (Glenn) 282

Cancer therapy 205, 206

Implants 284, 325

Telemedicine 245, 325

Mehmed, Oral 212

Mercury (element) 270

Mergler, Harold 75, 76

Messerschmitt AG

Me-262 51

Methane (liquid) 313, 314

Metzenbaum, Howard 204

Mickelsen, William 142

Microgravity Emissions Laboratory 258

Microgravity

Shuttle experiments 5, 7, 232, 279, 281–284, 327, 298, 299

Combustion Module-1 282, 327

Combustion Module-2 298, 299

Liquid-Phase Sintering Experiment 283

Mist 298, 299

Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) 283, 284, 298

Microgravity Materials Science Laboratory 279

Combustion research 164, 279–284, 327

 Apollo 1 279

 Apollo 13 182

Fuels studies 134, 164, 279, 282

Lewis program vii, 6, 248, 261, 264, 279–284, 298, 310

Liquid hydrogen research 147–150, 152, 163, 164, 279

Physics research 282

See also Space shuttle program and International Space Station

Microgravity Science Laboratory (MSL), see Space shuttle program

Mikkelson, Daniel 212

Military role in creation of NASA 125

Military sponsorship of research 64, 80

Helicopter icing 238

High-energy fuels 83, 85, 91, 112

Nuclear aircraft 91, 94, 95

Nuclear rocket program 145

Turbofan engines 209

World War II 33, 35, 46, 47, 53

Miller, Sharon 284

Minnesota 237

Mir space station 264, 265

Electrical power system 264, 265

U.S.-Russian Mir Cooperative Solar Array 264

Microgravity experiments 282

Mirels, Harold 92, 93, 94

Miss NASA Competition 170, 171
Index 393

John H. Glenn Research Center

Missiles

Lark 85

Lewis program 79, 82, 91

Lewis testing 78–81, 103, 107

Missile development 78, 94, 110, 116, 124, 145

Navaho 103, 116

Snark 116

Talos 107

Typhoon 107

Mission Integration Center (MIC) 322, 324, 325

Mississippi River 315

Mitchell House 138

Modarelli, James 126, 332, 333

Moeckel, Wolfgang 142

Moore, Betty Jo, see Armstead, Betty Jo

Moore, Charles 35

Moore, Franklin 92, 93, 94

Morgan, Robert 42

Morowitz, Zella xi 41

Muroc Dry Lake, see Armstrong Flight Research Center

Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPVC), see Crew Exploration Vehicle

N

NASA, see Project Mercury, Gemini Program, Apollo Program, Space shuttle program and

International Space Station

NASA Solar Electric Power Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR) 260, 270, 271, 306, 307

National Academy of Engineering 93, 94

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 3, 6, 21, 34, 133, 138, 199, 253

Centenary 332

Committees and subcommittees

Future Research Facilities Special Committee 12, 13

Special Committee on Self-Propelled Guided Missiles 78, 110

Special Subcommittee on Rocket Engines 111

Establishment 4, 11, 12

Executive Committee 11, 12, 24, 26, 66, 125

Management 11, 13, 14, 24, 51, 66, 78, 81, 82, 94, 106, 112, 115, 124–127

Relationship with military 42, 61

Research activities 61, 64, 73, 98

Technical advancements 11, 75, 103, 137

Transition to NASA 5, 123, 124–126

World War II research 23, 33, 35, 54, 131

Nanotechnology 317

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 3, 5, 126, 127, 137, 182, 221, 241, 264, 273

Aldridge Commission 308, 309

Budget and funding 133, 138, 147, 154, 164, 193, 194, 211, 214, 220–222, 241, 246, 248–250, 261, 

263, 264, 268, 297, 303, 308, 310, 311, 316, 319, 322, 330, 332

Creation of agency 123–125, 127, 155

Downsizing 194, 285

Exploration Enterprise 304
394

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Faster Better Cheaper 261, 268, 288

Logo and seal development 126

Low Speed Aircraft Branch 245

Mission Support Directorate 330

One NASA 297

Planetary exploration 268, 270, 288

New Millennium Program 270

Reorganizations 297, 308, 310

Saturn Vehicle Team 135

Special Projects Office for Nuclear Power Systems 304

Zero Base Review 261, 264, 267, 271–273, 283, 286, 288, 308, 325

See also Return to Flight, Apollo Program, Project Mercury and Gemini Program

NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) 306, 307, 331

National Aerospace Plane (NASP) 251, 253, 261

National Air Races 11, 13, 71

National Bureau of Standards (National Institute of Standards and Technology) 251

National Cancer Institute 206

National Center for Microgravity Research 283, 284, 310

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 196, 197

Nimbus 7 196

National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places 285

National Center for Space Exploration Research 325

National Science Foundation 126, 200

National Supersonic Transport Program 165, 166

Neighborhood Youth Corps 171

Neptune 216

NERVA, see Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA)

Nevada Test Facility, see Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

Newspaper (center)

Lewis News 127, 171, 198, 215, 218, 248, 249, 269

Orbit 127, 149

Wing Tips x, 25, 27, 40, 44, 61, 63

Aerospace Frontiers 320

Nixon, Richard 199, 200

Noise reduction (aircraft engines) 5, 102, 164, 207, 211

General aviation 278

Lewis research 103, 167, 199, 208, 211, 275, 276

Supersonic transport 166, 273

Lewis testing 166, 274

Turboprops 212, 234

See also Helicopters

North American Aviation

AJ–2 Savage 148, 149, 171, 279, 344

F–82 Twin Mustang 80

Navaho Missile 91, 103

OV–10A 271

X–15 180

XB–25E Mitchell 50, 73, 74, 97

XB-70 Valkyrie 180
Index 395

John H. Glenn Research Center

North American Aviation Rocketdyne

AJ–2 135, 148, 149, 171, 279, 345

Northrop Corporation, see Northrup Grumman Corporation

Northrup Grumman Corporation

Gulfstream I (NASA 5) 271

Gulfstream II 234, 235

P–61 Black Widow 65

T–38 Talon 180

V/STOL engines 208

Nozzles (aircraft engine) 67, 97, 197, 274

Chevron 275, 276, 277

Noise reduction 103, 166

Variable-area nozzles 68

Nozzles (rocket engines) 83, 146, 216

Base heating 135

Regenerative cooling 115, 145, 251

Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) 94, 95, 135, 145

Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) 146, 147, 250

Lewis management 123, 146

Lewis testing 146, 169

Nuclear propulsion 91, 93, 94, 142, 145, 155

Nuclear-powered aircraft 92, 94, 135, 145

See also Nuclear Energy for Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) and Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion 

 (ANP)

Nuclear-powered rocket 122, 145, 146, 249

Nuclear thermal rockets 249, 250

See also Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) and Project Rover 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, see Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

Nuclear Rocket Dynamics and Control Facility (B–3) 139, 140, 146

Testing 145, 146, 164, 214

O

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 94

Oakar, Mary Rose 222, 249

Obama, Barak 297, 316

Oberth, Herman 142

Ocean scanning 195, 196

Office of Advanced Research and Technology, see Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) 137, 138, 194, 199

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 246

Ohio 70

Ohio River 315

See also Cleveland and Great Lakes

Ohio Aerospace Institute (OAI) 245, 246

O’Keefe, Sean 297, 298, 301, 303, 304, 308

Olson, Sandra 283

Olson, Walter T. 44, 82, 83, 134, 142, 194, 233

NACA role in space 115, 124

Technology utilization 172, 199
396

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Operation Paperclip 63, 78, 83, 93

Orbit, see Newspaper (center)

Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO)

OAO–II 173, 174

Orbiting Geophysical Observatory 154

Ordin, Paul 83

Orion, see Crew Exploration Vehicle

Oshkosh Airshow, see Experimental Aircraft Association

Ostrach, Simon 89, 92, 93, 94, 281, 284, 310, 332, 333

Outreach events

Open houses (employees) 65, 163

Open houses (public) 133, 199

Parade of Progress 122, 133

Space Science Fair 133

See also Inspections and Visitors Center

Oxidizer 111, 145

See also Oxygen (liquid) and Fluorine (liquid)

Oxygen (liquid) 88, 92, 111, 113, 134, 135, 150, 215, 250, 313, 314

P

Page, Edwin 42

Panda, Jayanta 300

Papago people 205

Parker, Richard 106

Perkins, Porter 74, 195

Pfanner, Henry 201

Photovoltaics (space), see Space power, Space Station Freedom and Electric propulsion

Photovoltaic Systems Test Facility 205

Picnic grounds 6, 75, 171, 219, 232

Pilotless Aircraft Research Station, see Wallops Island

Pinkel, Benjamin 35, 63, 91–94, 97, 121

Pinkel, Irving 97, 185, 332, 333

Apollo investigations 180, 182

Crash Fire Program 98, 99

Pioneer (10) 173, 175, (11) 214, 215, (12 and 13) 216

Piston engines 35

General aviation 278

Lewis program 33, 54, 63, 66, 73

Operating problems (WWII) 43–50

See also Wright Aeronautical, Allison Engine Company, Pratt & Whitney 

Plum Brook Ordnance Works (PBOW) 38

Bunkers 18, 36, 62

Construction 16, 18–20

Demolition of facilities 140

NACA lease of land 96

Newspaper 39, 54

Operation 36, 40

Post-War activities 62, 63
Index 397

John H. Glenn Research Center

Site selection 17, 20

Staff 18, 36, 37, 39, 40

Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF) 122, 146

Decommissioning 285, 286

Operation 139, 145

Physical description 168

Planning and construction 95, 96

Shutdown 193, 246

Testing 168, 169

Plum Brook Station 5, 11, 62, 160, 264, 267, 285, 288, 310

Aerial view 96, 140

Facilities 139, 152, 182

NACA lease of land 96

NASA acquisition of property 140

Reactivation 231, 245, 246, 248

Shutdown 193

Staff 114, 139

Testing 146, 147, 201

See also Plum Brook Ordnance Works (PBOW), Rocket Systems Area, Plum Brook Reactor Facility, 

Space Power Facility (SPF), Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility B–2), Cryogenic Tank 

 Storage Site (K Site), and Hypersonic Tunnel Facility (HTF)

Pollack, Jackson 284

Pollution monitoring 169, 194–197

See also Global Air Sampling Program (GASP)

Porter, Lisa 311

Power Systems Facility (PSF) 240, 241, 298, 315, 329, 330

Powers, Edward 42

Pratt & Whitney 211, 241, 274, 277

304 Engine 114, 134, 135

Advanced Turboprop Program 233, 234

F100 209, 210, 211

Facilities 150

Geared Turbofan 212

J57 102, 103

JT8D 211

R–2800 35, 71

RL–10 114, 134, 135, 150, 152

V2500 197

Vorbix combustor 197

PW100G 276

Technology for Advanced LOw NOx (TALON) 275, 276

Presentations, see Inspections, Conferences, Smoker talks, and Technology transfer

Preston, Merritt 51, 127

Price, Harold 115

Project Bee 112, 114

Project Mercury 123, 127, 128, 133, 155, 243

Big Joe 128, 129, 131

Flight experiments 150

Lewis testing 128–132

MASTIF 131, 132
398

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Space Task Group 127–129, 150

See also Astronauts

Project Prometheus 297, 304, 305, 309, 331

Glenn program 304, 305

Herakles propulsion system 305

Project Rover 145, 146

Kiwi 145, 146

See also Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA)

Project Suntan 114, 134

Prop House, see Engine Propeller Research Building

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) No. 1 and 2 91, 92, 209

Equipment Building 181, 182, 209

Testing 102, 103, 150, 165–167

Demolition 322

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) No. 3 and 4 165, 197, 198, 207, 264, 320, 321

Planning and construction 163, 164

Testing 208, 209, 210, 211, 278, 320

Puerto Rico

Wind turbine 200, 201

Icing research 318

Puthoff, Richard 200

Q

Quiet Clean Short Haul Experimental Engine (QCSEE) 208

Quiet Engine Program 167

Quiet Engine Test Stand 167

R

R.P. Carbone Company 20

Radio shack 15

Ragsdale, Robert 204

Ramjet engines 4, 5, 51, 79

Lewis program 4, 63, 65, 85, 91, 116

Lewis testing 71, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 90, 107

See also Wright Aeronautical and Missiles 

Ramon, Ilan 298

Ranaudo, Richard 272

Ranger 127, 154

Rankine cycle engine 177–179

Ratvasky, Thomas 272

Ravenna Arsenal 36, 63, 98, 99, 100

Reagan, Ronald 194, 221, 233, 241, 251

Realizing the Dream of Flight Symposium 304

Redstone missile 129

Refan Program 210, 211

Regenerative cooling, see Nozzles

Reid, Henry 24

Reid, Lonnie 311
Index 399

John H. Glenn Research Center

Reinhart, Richard 328

Renaming of the center 3, 5, 64, 66, 123, 261, 286, 287

Renewable energy Lewis program 194, 199, 200, 317 See also Solar cells and Wind Energy Program

Republic Aviation Corporation F–84 Thunderjet 100 P–47 Thunderbolt 71

Research Analysis Center (RAC) 75, 219, 220

Research Equipment Building 97

Research Planning Council 114, 124

Return to Flight 297–301, 303, 308 Glenn contributions Ballistics testing 299 Glenn Adhesive for Bonding and Exterior Repair 300 Landing gear actuators 301 Shuttle cable trays 299, 300

Reveley, Mary 320

Rieke, William 234, 235, 271

Robbins, William Red 231, 243, 244

Robinson, Greg 332

Rocket development (U.S.), see Missiles

Rocket Engine Test Facility (RETF) 111, 113, 139, 192, 264, 314 Physical description 111 Testing 285 Demolition 285 Rocket Lab 65, 82, 111, 139 Cell 22 83, 88, 111, 112 Physical description 83 Testing 112, 115

Rocket Systems Area 139, 146, 147, 246, 314 Boiling Fluids Rig 251

E Stand 151, 152

J Site 139 Demoliton 322

Rocketdyne, see North American Aviation Rocketdyne

Rockwell International 217

Rodert, Lewis 49

Rohrbach, Carl 212

Rolls Royce Nene 68, 102

Rom, Frank 95, 145, 250

Roosevelt, Franklin 21

Roskilly, Ronald 147

Ross, Howard 282, 325

Ross, Larry 228, 231, 232, 244, 248, 249, 263, 311

Rothenberg, Edward 111

Rothrock, Addison 34, 35, 63, 91

Rulis, Raymond 175

Russia, see Soviet Union
400

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

S

Salkind, Michael 246

Sam W. Emerson Company 21, 26

Sanders, Newel 185

Sandusky, Ohio 5, 16, 36, 96

Sanford, William 325

Saturn (planet) 215, 216, 267

Saturn (rocket) 5, 7, 154, 155

Design 134, 135

Lewis testing 135, 136

Upper stages 135, 147, 150, 155

S–IB 135

S–IC 135

Saturn Vehicle Team 135

Save the Center Committee 222, 231

Savino, Joseph 200

Schey, Oscar 35, 63, 66, 91, 104, 185

Schiebley, Dean 169

Schulke, Richard 126

Scott, Nicole 327

Seals 105, 200, 251, 253, 284, 315

Seamans, Robert 200

Semiconductors 199

September 11 attacks 288

Shaltens, Richard 265

Sharp, Raymond 9, 14, 32, 33, 34, 42, 63, 64, 91, 96, 106, 125, 137, 321, 332, 333

Construction manager 20, 21, 26

Employee Center 253

Sharp, Vera 20, 34

Shepard, Alan 131

Shuttle/Centaur Program 228

Cancellation 244

Design 243

Launch vehicle 244

Lewis management 231, 232, 240, 243

Siegel, Elaine 333

Siegel, Robert 93, 94, 148, 332, 333

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

Chinook 238

UH–60 Black Hawk 236, 237, 239

Silverstein Committee, see Saturn Vehicle Team

Silverstein, Abe 3, 5, 59, 64, 73, 78, 232, 333

Altitude Wind Tunnel manager 48, 51, 52

Associate Director 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 110, 112, 114, 142

Center Director 134, 137, 138, 152, 165, 171, 185, 186, 194

Creation of NASA 124, 125, 127, 134, 135

Wind Tunnel and Flight Division Cheif 63, 98

Simulated Lunar Operations facility 315

Site Selection for the NACA Engine Research Laboratory xi
Index 401

John H. Glenn Research Center

Skylab 135, 182, 184, 324

Sloan, Henry 178

Sloop, John 83, 110

Slush hydrogen, see Hydrogen (liquid)

Smith, Bryan 313

Smithsonian Institution 283

Smoker talks 34

Soffen, Gerald 198

Solar arrays, see Space power, Solar cells, and Electric propulsion

Solar cells (Earth)

Calibration 178, 318

Development 177

Earth programs 204, 205

Solar electric villages 205

Solar cells (space)

Degradation 269, 284

Superblue 177

Solar Energy Research Institute 204

Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) 267

Solar Simulation Laboratory 204

Sound barrier 61, 72

Southwest Research Institute 299

Soviet Anti-Semitism Council 186

Soviet Union 

Collapse 249, 262

International Space Station 262, 264

Nuclear weapons 91

Space race 123, 124, 137, 163

Sputnik 5, 115, 124

Supersonic transport 165, 166

Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) 328, 329, 330

Space Electric Rocket Test (SERT–I) 143, 144, 175

Space Electric Rocket Test (SERT–II) 173, 175, 176, 270

Space Experiments Laboratory, see Zero Gravity Research Facility (Zero-G)

Space Launch System (SLS), See Ares rocket

Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) 145, 146

Space Plasma, High Voltage Interaction Experiment (SPHINX) 214, 215

Space power 123, 163, 179, 180

Lewis program 200, 206, 232

Space power (nuclear) 177, 178, 179, 182, 317

Lewis program 5

See also Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP–8), Brayton cycle engine, Rankine cycle engine, 

 and Space station power system

Space power (solar) 177

Lewis program 5

Mars Pathfinder 269

Mir 264, 265

Space station power system 240, 253, 262, 265

Space Power Chambers (SPC) 14
402

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Conversion 140, 141

Exhauster Building 217

Shop 123

Testing 2, 152, 153, 164, 173, 174

See also Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT)

Space Power Experiments Aboard Rockets (SPEAR) 248

Space Power Facility (SPF) 140, 160, 214, 313, 315, 317

Physical description 182

Planning and construction 163

Reactivation 246

Testing 179, 182, 184, 242, 246, 265, 267, 268

Space Race, see Cold War and Soviet Union

Space Shuttle Program 5, 186, 241, 244, 250, 310

Fuel cells 216, 217

Launch vehicle usage 216, 241, 243, 245, 268

Lewis testing 216, 217

Main engines 194

Microgravity experiments 7, 232, 279–282, 283, 284

International Microgravity Laboratory 281

Microgravity Science Laboratory (MSL) 282

Spacelab 281, 282

Surface-Tension-Driven Convection Experiment (STDCE) 281

U.S. Microgravity Laboratory 1 (USML–1) 281, 282

U.S. Microgravity Laboratory 2 (USML–2) 282

Orbiters

 Atlantis 265

 Challenger 241, 244, 250

 Columbia 217, 297, 298, 301, 303, 308

 Discovery 244, 245, 286, 301 302

Development and Planning 5, 164, 186, 193, 194, 241

Insulation 216, 217, 299, 300

Retirement 297, 303, 304, 316

Space Station Freedom

Development 240, 241, 249, 262

Electrical Power System 240

Lewis program 231, 232, 240, 241, 253

Restructuring of program 241, 261, 262

See also International Space Station and Mir space station

Space Task Group, see Project Mercury

Space Technology Experiments (STEX) 307

Space Transportation System (STS), see Space shuttle program

Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B–2) 140, 163, 269

Physical description 182, 247

Reactivation 242, 246

Testing 183, 185, 248

Spacelab, see Space shuttle program, microgravity experiments

Spacemobile 134

Sparrow, Emphraim 93, 94

Speakers Bureau 134, 172, 217

Sputnik, see Soviet Union
Index 403

John H. Glenn Research Center

Stack Tunnels 79

Standalone Zero Gravity Locomotion Simulator 326

Steinetz, Bruce 251

Stennis Space Center 285

Stirling 7, 177

See also Automotive Stirling Engine

Stockman, David 221, 222

Stofan, Andy 120, 216, 221, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 241, 243, 245, 248

Strawn, Curtis 125

Structural Dynamics Laboratory 258

Stuhlinger, Ernst 142, 143

Superchargers 34–36, 45, 46, 50, 55, 63

Turbosuperchargers 35, 54

Supersonic transport vehicles 5, 163, 165, 166, 273, 274

Concorde 165, 273

Lewis testing 166

National Supersonic Transport Program 165, 166, 273

See also High Speed Research (HSR)

Surveyor spacecraft 127, 150, 151, 152

Centaur role 151, 248

Post-Surveyor missions 154, 173, 174, 241

Lewis testing 152, 153

Surveyor 1 153, 163

Sutliff, Daniel 300

Swann, William 71, 72

Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP–8) 169, 178, 179, 182

See also Aerojet Corporation

T

Technical reports 41, 47, 64, 66, 83, 94, 115, 166, 248, 250

Aerodynamic Design of Axial Flow Compressors 105

Tech Briefs 172

Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer 94

Technical Services Building 24, 168

Technology transfer 134, 172, 246, 325

Teledyne Continental Motors 278

Telescience Support Center 282, 330

Telstar 217

Tempo A Building 77

Tesar, Leonard 125

Theodore von Karman Lecture 186

Thermodynamics 200

Buoyancy Driven Flow 92, 281–283

Heat transfer 63, 92, 93, 94, 110, 142, 164

Giants of Heat Transfer 93, 94, 332, 333

Nuclear propulsion 92, 93, 95

SNAP–8 178

Thomas, Ronald 200, 241

Thrust augmentation 66, 68
404

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Afterburner 68, 209

Variable-area nozzle 68

T’ien, James 282

Traveling-wave tube 218

Multistage Depressed Collector 219

Treadmills, see Human Research Program

Tribology 44, 45, 105

See also Bearings and Wear

Trojan Powder Company 36, 62

See also Plum Brook Ordnance Works (PBOW)

Truman, Harry 42, 54, 91, 98

Trunnion Building 97

Tsiolkovsky, Konstantin 142

Turbofan engines 167, 235, 273

General aviation 278

Lewis program 274–276, 277

Lewis testing 167, 208, 210, 211, 212

See also Quiet Engine Program, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Quiet Clean Short Haul 

Experimental Engine (QCSEE), Refan Program, Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program (ACEE), 

Williams International, Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) Program, Ultra Efficient 

Engine Technology (UEET), and High Speed Research (HST)

Turbojet engines 31, 51, 102, 105, 106, 164, 165, 195

Lewis program ix, 4, 5, 6, 33, 54, 63, 64, 66, 85, 91, 123, 165

Lewis testing 51, 52, 53, 58, 60, 66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 74, 98, 100, 102, 103–105, 111

See also General Electric, Westinghouse, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, and Supersonic transport 

 vehicles

Turbomachinery, see Compressors and turbines

Turboprop engines 212, 234, 235

See also Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program (ACEE) and Advanced Turboprop Program (ATP)

Turbopumps 83, 145, 147, 215

Lewis testing 112, 116, 135, 139, 146, 147, 185, 216

Turbosuperchargers, see Superchargers

Turner, Roscoe 11

U

U.S. Microgravity Laboratory 1 and 2, see Space shuttle program, Microgravity experiments

U.S. Microgravity Payload Missions, see Space shuttle program, Microgravity experiments

Ultra Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) 273, 275, 276, 277, 310

Ulysses 243, 244

Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act, see Congress

United Stirling 206

University Hospitals 325

University of Minnesota 93, 94

Uranus 216

Utilities Building 22, 233
Index 405

John H. Glenn Research Center

V

Vacuum chambers, see Electric Propulsion Laboratory, Cryogenic Tank Storage Site (K Site), Space Power 

Facility (SPF), Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B–2), Space Power Chambers (SPC), and 

Electric Propulsion Research Building

Van Dolan, Robert 180

Van Zandt, Judith 272

Vanguard 124, 177

Vassine, Ivanovich Anatoni 306

Vehicle Systems Program 276

Vensel, Joseph 35, 72

Venus 154

Vertical or Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) 163, 165, 207, 208

Vesta 270

Vibration and structural dynamics (rockets) 147, 152, 313, 315, 317

Victory, John 21, 31, 34, 64, 125

Viking 198, 214, 215, 216, 268, 309, 310, 312, 313, 316

Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) 5, 297, 303, 304, 308, 325 

Planning 303, 304

Restructure and cancellation 316, 317

Visitors (Lewis) 10, 24–26, 31, 33, 34, 42, 64, 65, 102, 131, 163, 164, 198, 204, 311

See also Inspections and Outreach events, Open houses

Visitors Center 217, 288, 316, 322, 324

Viterna, Larry 204

Von Braun, Wernher 83, 134, 135, 142, 198

Vought, see Chance Vought

Voyager 127, 214, 216

W

Waite, William 15

Walker, Joseph 7, 71, 72, 180

Wallops Island (Wallops Flight Facility) 78, 80, 90, 91, 143, 150

Warhol, Andy 284

Warner, Edward 14

Watkins, Janet 332

Wear

Piston rings 44, 45

Solid Lubricants 105, 106

Weather satellites 127, 154

Weather Information Communications (WINCOMM) 319, 320

Webb, James 180

Webb, Josepheus 185

Weinberger, Caspar 222

Weiss, Calvin 134

Weiss, Solomon 182

Wellsville, Ohio 315

Wessel, William 288

West Area 75, 138, 143, 246
406

Bringing the Future Within Reach—Celebrating 75 Years 

Westinghouse

19A 153

19B 53

J34 67, 73, 74

J40 58

Nuclear propulsion 169

Wind turbine 201, 203

White Sands Missile Range 61, 78

White, Edward 180

White, Michael 288

Whitlow, Woodrow 311, 313, 330

Whitney, Ernest 20, 35

Whittle, Frank 42

Wichita State University 238

Wilcox, Fred 166

Willard, Huntington 325

Williamson, Scott 300

Williams International

FJX–2 278

V–Jet II 278

Wind Energy Program 200, 201, 202, 203, 204

European wind energy 203, 204

Federal Wind Energy Program 203

Lewis advancements 201, 203, 204

Technology 204

Wind turbines

 Colorado 203

Hawaii 201, 203, 204

New Mexico 201

North Carolina 203

Plum Brook 200, 201

Puerto Rico 201

Rhode Island 201

Smith Putnam 200

Washington State 202, 203

Wyoming 203

Wing Tips, see Newspaper (center)

World Trade Center 288

World War I 11, 12, 16, 20, 33

World War II xiii, x, 4, 14, 40, 66

Battles 11, 13, 21, 23, 26, 34, 48, 49, 54

End 54, 61, 62, 145

Lewis servicemen 40, 42, 70, 72

Mobilization 16, 17, 36

Role of aviation 4, 33, 35, 45–48, 51, 52

See also Plum Brook Ordnance Works (PBOW), NACA wartime research, Atomic weapons, 

Manhattan Project, and Operation Paperclip
Index 407

John H. Glenn Research Center

Wright Aeronautical 13

J65 69, 112

R–2600 24, 35

R–3350 35, 45, 46, 47

XRJ–47 103

Wright Field, see Wright-Patterson Air Force Base 92, 263

Wright, Orville 24

Wyatt, DeMarquis 127

Wynne, William 99, 100, 101, 102

X

X–30, see National Aerospace Plane (NASP)

Xenon 270, 306

Y

Youth Science Congress 171

Z

Zaretsky, Erwin 106, 239

Zero Gravity Research Facility (Zero-G) 162, 163, 164, 182, 279, 280, 325

Space Experiments Laboratory 279
PS–01301–0216
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

1941 – 2016

OUR PAST•OUR PRESENT•YOUR FUTURE