Revolutionary

Atmosphere

Revolutionary Atmosphe

The Story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and 

the Space Power Chambers

By Robert S. Arrighi

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA History Division

Office of Communications

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546

SP−2010−4319 

April 2010
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Arrighi, Robert S., 1969-

Revolutionary atmosphere: the story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and the S

Power Chambers / by Robert S. Arrighi.

p. cm. - - (NASA SP-2010-4319) 

“April 2010.”

Includes bibliographical references.

1. Altitude Wind Tunnel (Laboratory)—History. 2. Space Power Chambers 

(Laboratory)—History. 3. Aeronautics—Research—United States—History. 

4. Space vehicles—United States—Testing—History. I. Title.

TL567.W5A77 2010

629.46’8—dc22

 20100188

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–180

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20401–0001

ISBN 978-0-16-085641-9 
Preface..........................................................................................................

Acknowledgments .........................................................................................

Chapter 1

Premonition: The Need for an Engine Tunnel (1936−1940)..................

“I Have Seen Nothing Like Them in America”...............................

Evolution of the Wind Tunnel.........................................................

The NACA Starts Its Tunnel Collection ...........................................

Exile of the Engine...........................................................................

Peace-Time War................................................................................

Engine Research Tunnel ..................................................................

Hello, Cleveland...............................................................................

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

Chapter 2

Building a New Type of Tunnel: Design and Construction (1940−1943

Designing a Wind Tunnel for Engines............................................

The Birth of Cool .............................................................................

Struggling To Build the Laboratory .................................................

Emerging from a Sea of Mud...........................................................

Model Builders Prove Their Worth..................................................

Photo Essay 1: The Altitude Wind Tunnel Stands Up....................

The Final Push..................................................................................

The Most Important Component.....................................................

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

Chapter 3

Dual Wartime Mission: The World War II Years (1944−1945)................

Burning Up in the Sky .....................................................................

“Nobody Was Really Looking Ahead”.............................................

Heads in the Virginia Sand ..............................................................

Secret Delivery for Cleveland ..........................................................

The Turbojet Takes Precedence ......................................................

“Too Much Damn Work”..................................................................

Conte
“It Was So Simple”............................................................................

Forsaken ...........................................................................................

The Americans Get It Right .............................................................

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

Chapter 4

Age of the Axial Flow: Alternate Wartime Mission (1944−1945) ...........

Steam Turbine Experts Heed the Call-Up.......................................

Westinghouse Designs First U.S. Turbojet ......................................

General Electric Takes on the Axial-Flow Engine ..........................

“It Was No Accident”........................................................................

The Afterburner Comes to Life........................................................

Controlling the Thrust......................................................................

The War Is Over...............................................................................

Postwar Snapshot .............................................................................

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

Chapter 5

Will To Power: The Postwar Era (1946−1949)........................................

The Laboratory Takes a Moment To Regroup................................

Project Bumblebee ...........................................................................

Photo Essay 2: How Engines Were Tested in the Altitude Wind 

 Tunnel ...........................................................................................

“We Were All a Part of the Team”...................................................

Westinghouse Hits Its Stride ............................................................

General Electric Takes Its Turn .......................................................

British Engines Visit Cleveland........................................................

The Python .......................................................................................

End of the 1940s...............................................................................

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

Chapter 6

A Period of Transition: Big Engines to Small Rockets (1950−1958)......

Upgrading for Big Engines ..............................................................

Photo Essay 3: The Altitude Wind Tunnel Gets a Boost................

Westinghouse Falters........................................................................

Apprentice School ............................................................................

The Mighty J57 .................................................................................

Project Bee........................................................................................

Getting Jet Engines Ready for Civilians...........................................

Where Do We Go From Here?.........................................................

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

y p

vi
Chapter 7

Space Is the Place: Project Mercury (1959−1960)...................................

Lewis Guides the New Space Agency.............................................

The Altitude Wind Tunnel Applies Itself to the Space Program....

Big Joe’s Attitude Control ................................................................

Lewis Learns To Launch...................................................................

The Infamous Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia Facility (MASTIF)......

Photo Essay 4: The Mercury 7 Come to Town...............................

Verifying the Retrorockets................................................................

Escape Tower Tests..........................................................................

The Altitude Wind Tunnel Completes Another Mission ................

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

Chapter 8

Metamorphosis: Wind Tunnel to Vacuum Chamber (1961−1963).........

Age of the Space Tank.....................................................................

Reconfiguring a Giant for the Space Age........................................

Contractors Get a Bad Name...........................................................

Photo Essay 5: The Altitude Wind Tunnel Is Transformed into 

 the Space Power Chambers .........................................................

Pulling Centaur from the Wreckage ................................................

Accommodating Centaur..................................................................

Centaur Comes to Cleveland ...........................................................

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

Chapter 9

Space Power Chambers Join the Fray: Early Centaur Period

(1963−1964) ..............................................................................................

Lewis Takes Control.........................................................................

Extreme Diligence ............................................................................

Whale-Bone ......................................................................................

Sick Patient Arrives...........................................................................

Learning New Behaviors..................................................................

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

Chapter 10

Ad Astra Per Aspera: The Centaur/Surveyor Missions (1964−1967)......

Pathway to the Moon.......................................................................

Centaur’s Simulated Flight ...............................................................

Photo Essay 6: How Centaur Was Studied in Space Power 

 Chamber No. 1..............................................................................

Electronics in the Space Environment.............................................

Ensuring Surveyor’s Survival............................................................

Centaur’s Long Days ........................................................................
Centaur Turns the Corner................................................................

Another Chance at Two-Burns ........................................................

Managing Liquid Hydrogen .............................................................

Moonshot..........................................................................................

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

Chapter 11

Alter Destiny: Centaur’s Big Payloads (1965−1975)................................

Lewis’s Other Rocket—Agena .........................................................

Observatories in Space.....................................................................

Photo Essay 7: Space Power Chambers’ Busy Schedule................

Centaur Moves Forward...................................................................

Centaur Stumbles..............................................................................

Centaur Goes Modern......................................................................

Going Down Slow............................................................................

Endnotes for Chapter 11 ..................................................................

Chapter 12

Where the Wave Finally Broke: The Idle Years (1975−2005)................

 Space Power Chambers Becomes a Garage ...................................

 A New Propulsion Wind Tunnel .....................................................

 All for Nothing..................................................................................

 Antenna Field ...................................................................................

Endnotes for Chapter 12 ..................................................................

Chapter 13

Death Knell: The Final Days of the Altitude Wind Tunnel/Space 

Power Chambers (2005–2009).................................................................

 Wind Tunnels Become Endangered................................................

 The Die Is Cast.................................................................................

 Photo Essay 8: Farewell Tour ..........................................................

 NASA’s Historic Properties...............................................................

 Historical Mitigation .........................................................................

 Demolition........................................................................................

 Photo Essay 9: The Giant Comes Down.........................................

 Epitaph..............................................................................................

Endnotes for Chapter 13 ..................................................................

Bibliographic Essay ............................................................................................

Interview List ......................................................................................................

Website and CD-ROM ........................................................................................

The NASA History Series....................................................................................

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

Index...................................................................................................................

evolutionay tmosphee

viii
Prefa

The Altitude Wind Tunnel’s (AWT) steel shell loomed, almost threate

over the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Research Center’s main campus in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 60 

The facility had been inactive since 1975, but the hulking tunnel s

conspicuous location between the visitors’ center and the Icing Re

Tunnel and was seen daily by hundreds, if not thousands, of peop

tunnel slowly ebbed from NASA Glenn’s collective consciousness. 

the steel shell, significant contributions had been made in the advan

of the jet engine and the high-profile Project Mercury and Centaur Pr

Yet, the AWT had remained a mystery to most current employees a

public. Not only did the rusting giant have an obscure past, few even 

its name. This book, the accompanying Web site (http://awt.grc.nas

and other documentation have been created to resurrect the est

reputation of this once-vital and historically significant facility.

The AWT’s unrivaled capability to test full-scale engines in simulat

tude conditions advanced the development of the jet engine consid

during its formative period in the 1940s and in its maturity in the 195

AWT was the nation’s first wind tunnel built specifically to study the 

tion of engines. Its ability to consistently re-create flight conditions a

researchers to systematically study engine behavior and perfect inno

such as the afterburner and the variable-area nozzle. 

Between 1959 and 1963 the AWT was slowly transformed into two la

chambers. The tunnel’s simulated high-altitude conditions allowed 

to cancel costly and time-consuming flight testing for Project M

Afterward the tunnel was converted into one of the nation’s firs
vacuum chambers and renamed the “Space Power Chambers” (SPC)

used to quickly remedy a number of problems for the Centaur secon

rocket. The SPC tests allowed the Centaur to sustain its tight schedule 

Surveyor and later orbiting observatory missions. Use of the facility t

off in the 1970s, and an effort to resurrect the wind tunnel failed 

early 1980s. After years of neglect, the tunnel was demolished in la

and spring 2009.

NASA’s historical publications tend to focus on center histories, speci

grams (particularly the human space program), or chronologies an

reference materials. The NASA Glenn Research Center has carved 

niche by writing the histories of several of its research facilities. Th

Research Tunnel, Rocket Engine Test Facility, and Plum Brook React

all been documented in recent years. These three books appear to 

only single-facility studies in NASA’s historical collection.

Image 1: For over 60 years, the massive AWT was a central fixture at what is today t

Glenn Research Center. Despite its prominent location, few current employees were 

its storied past or major contributions to aeronautics and space. (NASA C–2005–016

y p

x
Certainly the center and program histories describe test facilities, b

are mostly portrayed as research tools contributing to a larger com

project. The histories of facilities, therefore, provide a unique persp

In some cases, the facilities have made long-term contributions to a 

program or field, such as the Icing Research Tunnel and the field o

research. Other facilities, however, can serve as a useful lens through 

to view the progression of research, technology, and the larger lab

over a long period of time. The AWT, with its 30-year operational car

its contributions to the turbojet and space revolutions, falls into th

category. 

The story is important for several reasons. First, it demonstrates that t

ity to adapt to technological changes is vital for large test facilities. Lon

investment in test facilities differentiated the National Advisory Com

for Aeronautics (NACA) from manufacturers, the military, and its c

parts in other countries. The constant evolution of the aerospace fi

made it important for facilities to be flexible and strong enough to 

upgrades and repurposing. 

After less than two years of construction, the AWT came online in F

1944. The tunnel itself was 263 feet long on the north and south le

121 feet long on the east and west legs. The larger west end of the 

was 51 feet in diameter throughout. The east side of the tunnel was 

in diameter at the southeast corner and 27 feet in diameter at the no

The test section was 20 feet in diameter, but with the introduction o

jets, the air was ducted directly to the inlet. The complex originally in

five support buildings. A water pump house, additional exhausters, 

exhaust gas cooler were added in 1951. 

The tunnel shell retained its basic dimensions during the conversi

large test chambers in 1961, although its internal components were re

and bulkheads were added to section off the chambers. The add

a 22.5-foot-diameter extension and dome was the largest visible c

This added about 14 feet to the height of the vacuum chamber. A v

pump house was added, and use of the water pump house and 

cooler ceased. Throughout its lifespan, the tunnel grew, adjusted, mo

attempted to return to its original function, and was eventually demo

By constantly changing, the tunnel was able to remain a vital tool f

30 years.
Second, the history of the AWT provides a look at the growth of the 

laboratory1 and the dramatic progression of aerospace technology du

most fertile years. With World War II approaching, the NACA realized it 

a laboratory and wind tunnel to study large piston engines. Althou

operational until early 1944, the AWT did remedy a serious cooling p

for the B-29 bomber’s engines. More importantly, though, from its ve

runs, the AWT was used to study and improve the newly developed t

engines. The tunnel’s altitude capabilities were ideally suited to study

problem of flameout in early jet engines. At the military’s request, 

every type of jet engine during the 1940s and early 1950s in the United 

underwent evaluation in the AWT. By the 1950s the performance of tu

was increasing dramatically.

Although the AWT underwent several modernizations, its capabilitie

eventually superseded in the late 1950s by the laboratory’s newer 

sonic tunnels and altitude test cells. The internal components were re

from a large section of the AWT in 1959. This area was used as an 

chamber for several Project Mercury test programs, including the 

control system for the Big Joe launch. In 1960 all seven of the Mercur

nauts came to the AWT to train in the Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia 

(MASTIF). 

Afterward the tunnel was permanently converted into two test cha

The new SPC contained a large vacuum tank used to simulate the 10

altitude atmosphere of space. When it became operational in Sep

1963, the new 70,000-cubic-foot vacuum tank was rivaled in size only 

Mark I tank at the Arnold Engineering Development Center.* Althou

NASA Lewis Research Center created several smaller vacuum tanks t

ion engines in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory, the SPC contained 

primary altitude chambers throughout the 1960s. 

The two chambers in the SPC were used to remedy several pr

with the Centaur rocket during the lead-up to its missions to soft-la

Surveyor spacecraft on the Moon. The Centaur-Surveyor missions wer

precursor to the Apollo lunar landings. Later, as the Centaur payload

y p

xii

*The Cleveland laboratory began operation in 1942 as the NACA Aircraft Engine 

Laboratory. In 1947 it was renamed the NACA Flight Propulsion Laboratory t

the expansion of the research. Following the death of the NACA’s Director of Aer

George Lewis, the name was changed to the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Labo

September 1948. On 1 October 1958, the lab was incorporated in the new NAS

agency, and it was renamed the NASA Lewis Research Center. Following John Glen

on the space shuttle, the center name was changed again on 1 March 1999 to the NAS

Research Center. 
in size, the SPC was used to qualify new shroud configurations for 

space observatory satellites. 

A third reason why the story of the AWT and its later incarnation 

SPC is important is that it offers a unique view of a facility and a lab

from both sides of the October 1958 Space Act. There are several a

differences between NASA and its predecessor, the NACA, includ

organizational structure, the use of contractors, and the size of the 

The differences most often cited are research versus development a

drift of personnel from applied engineering to management. The 

emphasis on research resulted in the construction of large facilities, 

larly wind tunnels during the committee’s 20 years of greatest achiev

1935 to 1955. The tunnels were used almost entirely for research ac

With the advent of the space program, equally impressive facilitie

built, but they were used primarily to test or verify items already in d

ment. This is illustrated by the AWT, which was primarily used for re

and the SPC, which focused on development.

Image 2: The mechanics and technicians associated with the AWT were a crucial e

the facility’s success. As technology improved and the Agency’s priorities changed, 

improved their skills and knowledge. This was particularly important during the t

from piston engines to turbojets and from aeronautics to space. (NASA C−1949−231
This book emphasizes the importance of the technical staff and the

to the AWT’s success. Operating the facility required the integrate

of a complementary group of individuals. From mechanics and tech

to test engineers and scientists, the group at the Cleveland la

exceptional. The mechanics and technicians, many of whom came t

the Apprentice Program, were often as responsible for the success o

as the researchers. Together the group solved problems affecting e

and developed new methods of improving performance. As the 

shifted to the space program, the staff had to adjust to the precision requ

space hardware. The organization was often pushed to its limits, part

during World War II and the first years of the Centaur Program in th

1960s. Many of the chapters include a section highlighting the p

stories of the AWT staff.

The AWT story demonstrates the importance of leadership to the 

of a facility and a research laboratory. This is exemplified b

Silverstein, one of the true visionaries of both the NACA and NA

was a hands-on manager who was personally involved with the w

individuals and specific projects. His technical expertise not only 

resolutions of difficult problems but gained him the respect of st

the Agency’s leadership. He had the ability to grasp the long view 

identify new fields that would lead to future advances. The AWT’s m

were often directly impacted by Silverstein’s decisions.

Silverstein served as the first head of the Lewis laboratory’s AWT Secti

then as the chief of the Wind Tunnel and Flight Division. He was r

sible for testing the first U.S. jet engines in the AWT and for the const

of the lab’s first supersonic wind tunnels. In 1949 Silverstein became 

tor of all research at the lab, and in 1952 he became Associate Dire

Lewis. In these roles, he made sure that nontraditional areas such as 

hydrogen fuel, rocket engines, electric propulsion, and nuclear pro

were explored. He continued pushing the aeronautics work as we

ticularly on transonic and supersonic compressors for axial-flow t

engines.

Silverstein was transferred to Washington in early 1958 to help Hugh 

create the nation’s new space agency. Afterward Silverstein played a k

in arranging the manned space program, planned numerous satell

interplanetary missions, and led a committee that selected a liquid-hy

upper stage for the Saturn rocket. Silverstein returned to Cleveland 

to serve as Director of the NASA Lewis Research Center. He was resp

for the transfer of the Centaur rocket to Lewis in 1962, and personall

saw the project until it became successful. Silverstein retired in 1969 

y p

xiv
Apollo Program reached its zenith. His career was intertwined with th

of the AWT and is highlighted throughout. 

The AWT’s accomplishments would not be possible without this tr

excellence—the large ever-evolving test facility, the expertise 

researchers and mechanics, and the direction provided by Silverste

AWT story also provides an insightful look at the advancement of t

engines, the early days of the space program, the development 

Centaur second-stage rocket, and the shift from the NACA to NASA.

In the 1970s the facility was again superseded, this time by the world

est vacuum chamber, the Space Power Facility at NASA Glenn’s Plum 

Station. The SPC remained largely vacant during the late 1970s. A 

effort was undertaken in the early 1980s to determine the feasib

converting the facility back into a wind tunnel for a new genera

testing. Congress rejected the proposal in 1985, and the facility re

idle. During the ensuing 30 years of dormancy, the facility began 

ing from the neglect. In 2004 NASA initiated a large effort to ident

demolish underutilized facilities. Because of the AWT’s lack of missio

maintenance costs, and environmental hazards, NASA Glenn began p

for the removal of the facility. Although surveyed in 1996, no det

tion was made on its eligibility for the National Register of Historic 

Nonetheless, Glenn was aware of its significance and began docume

as though it were eligible for listing before demolition began in 20

hoped that this book will preserve the AWT’s considerable legacy.

Image 3: Abe Silverstein prepares for a talk on the AWT’s research. Silverstein was the 

manager of the AWT. As he moved up through the ranks of management, he always r

close to the research work being done at the Cleveland lab. His decisions affected t

research for over 25 years. (NASA C−1946−14511)
Endnotes for Preface

1. R.T. Hollingsworth, A Survey of Large Space Chambers (Washingto

DC: NASA TN D–1673, 1963), p. 12. 

y p

xvi
Acknowledgme

This project was born out of an arrangement coordinated by forme

Glenn History Officer, Kevin Coleman, and former Glenn Historic Pr

tion Officer, Joseph Morris, to document the AWT prior to its dem

Kevin and Joe had previously worked together on the historic mi

work for Glenn’s Rocket Engine Test Facility. That project hired 

contractors to perform much of the work. In an effort to reduce the 

the AWT mitigation and utilize the skills of Glenn’s Logistics and 

cal Information Division (LTID), Kevin Coleman and Wyle Media S

Manager on the TIALS Contract Ralph Bevilacqua put together a prop

handle all the mitigation work in-house. An agreement between LT

the Facilities Division was finalized in May 2005. 

It was just another in a long string of entrepreneurial enterprises tha

had put together during his nine years serving as Glenn’s History 

Kevin retired in September 2008 and is missed as a friend, confida

mentor. Not long after the project began, Leslie Main took over the 

of the center’s Historic Preservation Officer. Les has been extremely 

on all levels. He has provided much needed technical insight, contac

construction and facility managers, and a common sense approach 

mitigation work. I am currently working with Les on a number of 

projects relating to other Glenn facilities.

At Headquarters, Jane Odom, John Hargenrader, and Colin Fries we

helpful during my research in the NASA History Division. Glenn B

the NASA Ames Research Center graciously arranged to interview 

Vincenti for me and reviewed the first two chapters. 

Acknowl
Wyle Information Services employees on the TIALS contract assiste

many different aspects of the work. Suzanne Kelly and Debbie De

were extremely helpful in identifying and retrieving documents and ne

stored in the Glenn Records Management System. Jan Dick located 

hard-to-find technical reports. Mark Grills and Michelle Murphy per

the daunting task of scanning hundreds of negatives, and Quentin S

and Bridget Caswell took excellent photographs at the facility p

and during its demolition. Nancy O’Bryan and Lorraine Feher helpe

copyediting and proofreading, and Kelly Shankland prepared the 

design and the layout of the document.

Mark Bowles, Galen Wilson, Tina Norwood, and anonymou

reviewers took the time to thoroughly review the manuscript

comments, suggestions, and questions improved the material signifi

Mark, Galen, and Tina not only read the text closely, bu

discussed the material with me at length. I really appreciate thei

efforts. Thanks also go to Steve Garber at the NASA History Divisi

Glenn History Officer Anne Power for coordinating the book revie

publication.

Several retirees contributed to the book, but the assistance of Bill H

Frank Holt, and Larry Ross was exceptional. They generously helped 

story, located other retirees and resources, reviewed chapters, and 

fied photographs. More importantly they gave me a real sense of the 

atmosphere at the lab and the underappreciated role of the mechan

technicians. 

I also want to thank Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, who pr

me with my first work as an archivist almost a decade ago and wh

introduced me to NASA. Their professionalism and zeal have inspired 

pursue a career in the history of technology and of NASA in particul

Finally, I want to thank my wife Sarah, who has supported me th

out this project and who has been, for the most part, patient with m

worked on the manuscript in the evenings, on weekends, and whil

on vacation. Thanks go to my family, Bob Sr., Gerri, Michele, Da

Autumn for everything they have done for me over the years.

xviii

y p

Image 4: The Hindenburg airship crossing the Atlantic on 4 April 1936. George Lewis wo

the airship several months later on his epic tour of German research laboratories. (Natio

LC–USZ62–70162)
With only the cabin windows, engine nacelles, and running lights 

nated, the new German luxury airship hung surreally in the darkened 

Dr. George Lewis arrived at the field on the night of Monday, 21 Sep

1936. Dr. Lewis and the other passengers filed up the long gangway 

hovering ship. Upon reaching the top of the stairs leading to the mai

Lewis came face to face with a bust of Field Marshal Paul von Hinde

Shortly afterward, the Hindenburg left its mooring and silently carrie

away from Lakehurst, New Jersey, on a journey that would change t

the United States approached aeronautical research. 

The 54-year-old aviation veteran was impressed by the massive airship

and steadiness, even later when traversing the wake of a passing hu

As Director of Aeronautical Research for the National Advisory Com

for Aeronautics, Lewis was responsible for coordinating the nation’s a

research. The Hindenburg’s silent comfort during the 55-hour passa

have only increased Lewis’s foreboding thoughts on what lay ahead 

across the ocean. 

Lewis’s journey to Germany and Russia was spurred by an invitatio

the Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei to tour the German aeronautical fa

Despite the dominance of U.S. air manufacturers, Lewis was awa

the Europeans were ahead in the development of high-powered en

A letter from the NACA’s European liaison, John Jay Ide, had 

piqued Lewis’s interest with its description of a large pressurize

Chapter 

The Need for an Engine T

Premonition (1936–1940)
y p

tunnel at Göttingen, and visiting Russian researchers had claimed th

aeronautical research institute had 3,500 employees.4 The NACA co

of a single research laboratory, Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, wi

350 employees. 

Both the economy and aircraft industry had boomed in the United 

following World War I while Europe suffered. By the time of Lew

in 1936, Boeing and Douglas possessed the premier airlines in the 

During this period Europeans were exploring ways to fly higher and 

while Americans were easing up on their research and developmen

result, the United States had greater quantities of aircraft but would fin

lagging behind in regards to propulsion advances such as liquid-coo

turbojet engines.5

“I Have Seen Nothing Like Them in America”

German Chancellor Adolf Hitler had created an air ministry, the De

Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt, and supplied it with ample fundi

extensive research and development. Lewis’s personal guide in Ber

Image 5: Dr. George Lewis managed the aeronautical research conducted 

at the NACA for over 20 years. His most important accomplishment, however, may have been an investigative tour of research facilities in Germany 

in the fall of 1936. A second tour in 1939 included Germany, Britain, and 

France. The visits resulted in the NACA’s physical expansion and the broadening of the scope of its research. (NASA EL−1997−00143)
Dr. Adolf Baeumker, the head of all German aeronautical resear

development projects. When Baeumker told Lewis, “the ordinary 

man is only interested in getting a large number of airplanes and 

aeronautical development and research,” he was praising Air M

Hermann Göring, but he could just as well have been referring to t

of aviation in their respective countries.6

Baeumker explained that Germany had developed a long-term aer

cal research plan that involved three major research laboratories. I

would become a model for the NACA, the Deutsche Versuchsans

Luftfahrt had expanded its primary laboratory near Berlin and creat

new research labs—one for aerodynamics and the other for engine re

Lewis estimated the total employee contingent in the German air m

to be 1,600 to 2,000 and growing. Lewis remarked (about the Germa

ratories), “I have seen nothing like them in America.” Lewis conclu

the United States is to hold its present position in the field of aeron

research, it will be necessary to increase the personnel at Langle

[Langley Aeronautical Laboratory].”7

Lewis was also shown a 22- by 17-foot pressure tunnel at Gö

University. Göttingen had been the site of the first modern wind tun

had helped to forge the basis of the internally supported wing span

referred to the facility, which was capable of creating pressure leve

times that found at sea level while maintaining a useful Reynolds n

as the “first wind tunnel of this type to be constructed in the world.”

later confided that he was likely the first foreigner to ever visit the Gö

facility.9

Evolution of the Wind Tunnel

The concept of trying to re-create flight in Earth-bound facilities had 

oped during the 19th century in Europe. The Wright Brothers cons

a small wind tunnel in 1901 that yielded significant lift information f

early flights. However, it was Albert Zahm’s tunnel at Catholic Un

also constructed in 1901, which became the first significant U.S. tunn

50-foot-long tunnel with its 6- by 6-foot test section dwarfed any of 

temporaries.10 Zahm’s tunnel and those following it benefited from re

steam engines with more efficient electric-powered engines, which r

in greater wind speeds at a lower cost.11 Though Zahm’s tunnel wa

pered by occasional electrical variations and the effect of external w

conditions, the airflow controls and instrumentation would be used b

tunnels for years.12
y p

Despite these early advances, the field of aeronautics in the United 

was led primarily by nonprofessionals, whereas in Europe many sc

and engineers were pushed into the field by their governments. In ad

U.S. military leaders did not appreciate the importance of aircraft. T

of research and government interest led to a deficiency of aircraft 

nation that pioneered aviation. An NACA report states, “When World 

erupted in 1914, it was reported that France had 1400 airplanes, G

1000, Russia 800, Great Britain 400, and the United States 23!”14

Russia, France, and Great Britain all constructed substantial wind 

around the turn of the century. The most influential European facil

Ludwig Prandtl’s tunnel built at the University of Göttingen. With f

from the German Society for Airship Study, Prandtl had his initial 

operating by 1909. It was the first closed-loop tunnel and the first 

turning vanes or “deflectors” to guide the airflow around the corners

the beginning, this facility was seen as a stepping stone to a bigge

complex tunnel. The design of this new tunnel had begun in 191

being delayed by the war, the new facility became operational in the 

of 1917.15

Image 6: Ludwig Prandtl’s 1917 wind tunnel at Göttingen University in Germ

Prandtl’s closed-loop tunnel revolutionized wind tunnel design. It included a t

section, turning vanes, and an airflow straightener. Studies in the Göttingen t

included wing profile examinations, full-scale propeller tests, and studies of the bo

ary layer on a rotating cylinder.13 (1920) (NACA TN No. 66, Fig. 2).
Prandtl’s new tunnel expanded upon the innovations of the first. Its 12

per-hour (mph) speeds made it the most powerful wind tunnel 

period. The tunnel’s diameter was expanded to 20 square meters up

and then narrowed sharply to 4 square meters just before the test se

increase the airspeed. A honeycomb screen was installed across the 

of the tunnel to straighten the airflow without slowing its speed. Th

components of Prandtl’s tunnels were standard on almost all later t

including the AWT.16

The NACA Starts Its Tunnel Collection

Although its formation in 1915 was too late to have much of an in

on World War I, the NACA’s staff and mission were substantially ex

after the war. In 1917 the NACA established its own research lab at L

Field in Hampton, Virginia. Unlike those found in industry, the 

Langley Aeronautical Laboratory’s facilities were to be used primarily t

new aircraft designs and tackle anticipated future aeronautical probl

the civil aviation industry. One of the principal reasons for creating 

was to build wind tunnels. The first was a small insignificant tunn

became operational in 1921. Coincidentally this tunnel, the Atmospher

Tunnel, was also referred to as the “AWT.”17

Langley’s next tunnel, the Variable Density Tunnel, however, was a 

advancement. It was proposed in 1921 by Dr. Max Munk, who had w

under Prandtl at Göttingen before emigrating to the United State

Variable Density Tunnel was the first tunnel to forgo normal airfl

highly compressed air. It included a large steel tank in which the atmo

could be pressurized and a wooden test section that negated the Re

number differential between tunnel tests and actual flight conditio

tunnel, which became operational in 1923, was a highly useful to

temporarily closed the gap between U.S. and European research.18

Langley began putting an entire collection of increasingly comple

tunnels into operation. The next was the Propeller Research Tunnel i

followed by the Vertical Spin Tunnel and Atmospheric Wind Tunnel i

the Full-Scale Tunnel in 1931, the 8-Foot High Speed Tunnel in 19

the 19-Foot Pressure Tunnel in 1939. The 8-Foot High Speed Tunnel

could simulate pressure altitudes of 12,000 feet and speeds of 50

and the 19-Foot Pressure Tunnel, which combined a large test sectio

250-mph speeds, were significant steps forward in flight simulation.1
y p

Image 7: Elton Miller, successor to Max Munk as Langley’s chief of aerodynamics, s

the exit cone of the Propeller Research Tunnel to view the Sperry M-1 Messenger du

tunnel’s first runs. The Propeller Research Tunnel at Langley was used to clean up dra

by aircraft engines but not to study the performance of those engines. The tests wer

atmospheric conditions and at relatively slow speeds. (1927) (NASA EL−01892)

Exile of the Engine 

Early research at Langley dealt almost exclusively with aerodynamic

in its propeller tunnel. The Propeller Research Tunnel could fit an en

craft with an operating engine in its 20-foot-diameter open test secti

could test it at airspeeds up to 110 mph. The tunnel made considerab

tributions to the aerodynamics of propellers and engine nacelles, in

the “NACA Cowl,” but little to the actual operation of the engines.20 La

Powerplants Division, led by Carlton Kemper, had only a handful of 

until 1938, when it increased to 12.21 The group dealt with the fundam

of engine power, efficiency, and fuel consumption, but it did not del

specific problems associated with these elements.22
The NACA’s lack of interest in propulsion seems to have stemme

an early meeting that it held in 1916 with automobile and aviation 

manufacturers. The group agreed that with military funding for re

these manufacturers would possess the needed assets and skills to d

aircraft engines. Initially the NACA did not have facilities to test 

engines, so Samuel Stratton, who headed the National Bureau of Sta

and served as an original NACA committee member, took on the tes

the manufacturers at the National Bureau of Standards laboratories. The 

seemed content with this arrangement even after Langley was estab

As late as 1937, an original NACA member, Dr. Joseph Ames, state

[engine] problem is primarily and almost solely one of development

can best be attacked by the aircraft engine industry under exper

contracts with the War and Navy Departments.”23

In order to stretch limited propulsion funding and manpower, the 

plants Division primarily studied single cylinders and then extrapola

test data to full-scale engines. Abe Silverstein, who was working w

aerodynamicists in the Full-Scale Tunnel at Langley, discovered th

cylinder produced a unique temperature during engine operation. Th

nomenon could not be studied using single cylinders. Individual 

components could operate well in isolation only to fail when integrat

the larger system. Langley was not equipped to test large full-scale e

and Kemper continued to put the engine onus on the manufacturers

The coordinated national research program in Germany pursued 

technology as well as aerodynamics. On his 1936 tour, Lewis was also 

a Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt facility that was able to test 

and air-cooled engines under simulated altitude conditions. The int

and exhaust were kept at pressure and temperature levels that corresp

to altitude conditions. The extensive instrumentation and infrastruct

Lewis to wonder “whether one is in an engine-testing laboratory or 

edition of the Licke observatory.”25

Construction of a larger facility to test engines would begin at Götting

ing World War II. It was a wind tunnel designed to study operating fu

jet engine systems in simulated altitude conditions at speeds up to 29

Its refrigeration system would produce temperatures of –64°F, allow

tunnel to also be used for icing studies.26 Although construction wou

be 80 percent complete because of severe German defeats during th

the tunnel would have been remarkably similar to the AWT in Cleve

Engine testing was taking place in the United States at this time, bu

scattered and uneven. Private companies could not afford to build la
y p

facilities. The National Bureau of Standards, the U.S. Naval Aircraft F

and the U.S. Army Air Corps at McCook Field had successfully de

tanks to test small engines that could simulate the temperatures an

sures associated with altitude, but they were of limited size and co

incorporate the benefits of a wind tunnel.27 On the other hand, th

10-foot Wright Brothers Wind Tunnel at the Massachusetts Institute o

nology and the 19-Foot Pressure Tunnel at NASA Langley, both com

in 1939, could simulate altitudes in a wind tunnel setting but we

capable of running aircraft engines. The AWT and the unfinished Gö

tunnel were intended to solve both sides of the equation. 

Peace-Time War

George Lewis was not the only NACA member visiting Germany in the 

Charles Lindbergh was living abroad to escape the publicity surro

the kidnapping and murder of his son. From this vantage point, he w

to provide unique insight into the European aeronautical industry. I

Lindbergh made the first of five trips to inspect German aeronautics fa

He regularly wrote to Dr. Ames with his findings. 

In a letter dated 28 November 1938, Lindbergh wrote that European 

aircraft were willing to trade range for ever-increasing speed and a

He felt that the United States should concentrate its efforts on imp

its aircraft designs instead of building additional aircraft. He conclud

is more necessary than ever before to give full scope to research if 

to regain the leadership we have lost in some of the fields of militar

tion.”28 Ames responded the following week that General Oscar We

then Chief of the U.S. Army Air Corps, had initiated the NACA’s new 

Research Facilities Special Committee to investigate the possibility o

ing a new NACA laboratory. Ames, added, “There is a new atmosp

Washington. It has been likened to a state of ‘peace-time war.’”29

In response to General Westover’s special committee report a

impending war, the military finally turned to the NACA for assistance. Co

approved funding for the expansion of the NACA in 1939 but felt 

new laboratory was needed to decongest the Langley research com

and disperse the facilities to prevent a catastrophic enemy attack.30 

the NACA sought a single additional facility in which to investigat

speed flight. Lindbergh returned to the United States to lead a 

committee to research sites for the new lab. The group selected Moffe

in Sunnyvale, California, and construction of the NACA Ames Aeron

Laboratory began on 20 December 1939.31
The Lindbergh committee report also stated, “There is a serious 

engine research facilities in the United States, and that it is of the 

importance for the development of aviation in general, and for our d

program in particular, to take immediate steps to remedy this defici

It was evident that the NACA also required a laboratory to specificall

aircraft engines.

On 19 October 1939 the NACA endorsed the new research faci

aircraft propulsion systems. George Mead, former vice president o

Pratt & Whitney and United Aircraft Corporation, was selected to 

Special Committee on New Engine Research Facilities. The team in

George Lewis, Carlton Kemper, the U.S. Army’s Major Edwin Page, a

ers. A committee report issued on 23 January 1940 called for a $10-

laboratory that would include a test stand for engines, a fuels and lub

facility, and—after some debate—a wind tunnel for engines.33, 34

Image 8: Left to right: Charles Lindbergh, U.S. Air Force Vice Admiral Arthur Cook, U

Charles Abbot, and Dr. Joseph Ames. From Europe, Lindbergh wrote to fellow NACA 

Dr. Ames, “I believe we should accept the fact that Germany will continue to be t

ing country in Europe in aviation. She will be the leading country in the world if w

increase our own rate of development. Even now Germany is far ahead of us in 

aviation.” Lindbergh claimed that Germany’s ever-growing research facilities were 

that it would be years before their impact could be determined.35 (NASA GPN–2002–0
y p

NACA Executive Secretary John Victory remembered seeing a new

headline stating “German Army Enters Paris” while sitting in the Sen

lery during the June 1940 appropriation hearings. Although the Bu

the Budget lowered the requested amount to $8.4 million, the figu

eventually increased to $13.3 million to accommodate a larger role fo

was to become the AWT.37

Engine Research Tunnel

During the Alessandro Volta Foundation’s 1935 conference on 

Velocities in Aviation, Jakob Ackeret predicted the use of the gas turb

high-speed, high-altitude aircraft propulsion. He also stated that new 

tunnels capable of simulating altitude were important since high-speed 

would likely take place at high altitudes. Ackeret envisioned a tu

which a vacuum or pressures up to 10 atmospheres could be mainta

Image 9: General Henry Arnold greets fellow NACA committee member Dr. G

Lewis. Arnold served on the main committee from 1938 to 1944 and was a s

advocate for a new engine research facility. Arnold believed in continual research 

development. Some of his most influential advisors were civilians such as The

von Kármán, Robert Millikan, and Charles Lindbergh.36 (NASA C−1944−07495)
Although the NACA participated in the conference, it was not u

impending war in 1939 that the importance of increasing altitudes 

aircraft was thrust to the forefront of the NACA’s consciousness. Im

antiaircraft weaponry would force bombers and fighters to fly hi

order to be effective. Air battles in World War I were generally fo

100 mph and at an altitude around 10,000 feet. By early 1941, new

were reporting that World War II aircraft were already flying 400 

20,000 feet. It was anticipated at the time that aircraft would be exc

500 mph and 30,000 feet in the near future.39

Image 10: A full-scale aircraft is lifted into the AWT’s test section. Although te

full-size versions reduced the cost, time, and effort of developing engines, it 

required a substantial investment in large facilities. Many of the NACA’s achievem

resulted from its willingness to make those investments. (NASA C−1944−06305)
y p

George Mead’s Special Committee on New Engine Research Facilities 

began developing ideas and designs for test facilities at the new eng

Rudolph Gagg, a design consultant from Wright Aeronautical, said 

time, “This aviation research laboratory is being designed for the e

just around the corner. The purpose of the laboratory is to look forw

the engines of the future.”40 Although this would prove not to be tr

facilities would be robust enough to adapt to the new engines that 

be around the corner.

The ability to test power, speed, drag, vibration, and cooling on co

engine systems would provide a faster transition from design to flig

ing while avoiding additional time-consuming flight tests with ris

unproven engines. Performance in the harsh temperature and pressu

ditions of these higher altitudes was vital.41 The design and construc

the Engine Research Tunnel would prove to be a monumental task. It 

combine elements from NACA Langley’s Propeller Research Tunnel, 

High Speed Tunnel, and 19-Foot Pressure Tunnel with a massive re

tion system and the ability to run large engines. 

Not everyone agreed with the concept. Just weeks after the engine l

approved, Mead wrote George Lewis, “I very much doubt whether th

real need for the altitude chamber. In my opinion, a much more usefu

of equipment would be a full-scale tunnel in which we could test e

up to 4000-horsepower at sea-level pressure, the purpose being to 

functional characteristics of multicylinder engines and their installat

speeds up to 500 miles per hour.”42

Image 11: Early drawing of the new AWT, which was originally referred to as the 

Research Tunnel.” It was the nation’s first wind tunnel built to study engines under s

flight conditions. (NASA C−1944−05308).
Others saw the altitude tunnel as a vital research tool. Just days bef

Pearl Harbor attack, William Knudsen, Director General of the War 

ment’s Production Management Office, wrote to the NACA Chairman, 

Hunsaker, “The development of airplane engines of greater perform

high altitudes is absolutely essential.” Referring to the AWT, Knudsen 

ued, “The high-altitude wind tunnel is especially needed to solve pr

in connection with the cooling and power output of engines in 

planes required to fight at altitudes of 40,000 to 50,000 feet.”43

Carlton Kemper said at the time, “AERL [the new engine lab—the 

Engine Research Laboratory] is unique in having the only altitude wi

nel in the world. We can expect that this one research tool will give a

to the military services that will more than offset the cost of the labora

In the end, Mead would get much of what he sought, in addition to 

tude capabilities proposed by others. 

Image 12: Zella Morewitz poses with a model of the NACA Aircraft Engine Research 

tory, currently the NASA Glenn Research Center. The AWT can be seen near the cen

model. The AWT would be the research and geographical center of the lab for years. M

transferred from Langley with the construction team and remained Dr. Ray Sharp’s 

for a number of years after the engine lab became operational. (NASA C−1942−010
y p

Hello, Cleveland

The city of Cleveland put together a detailed proposal to persua

NACA to build its engine lab in Cleveland. Industrial Commissioner 

Gildersleeve and Frederick Crawford, head of both the Chamber o

merce and Thompson Products, Inc., were the city’s principal adv

Thompson Products manufactured aircraft parts locally, and Crawfo

self organized and ran the National Air Races held annually since 193

proposed site for the lab.45 A crowd of 100,000 had attended the rac

the 1939 Labor Day weekend.46

The NACA considered 72 bids in 62 other cities before announc

15 November 1940 that it had selected the 200-acre area north of the Cle

Municipal Airport. The property had been used for parking and grand

for the air races.47 Proximity to an airport and the ability to generate su

Image 13: Clevelanders swarm to watch the annual National Air Races at the C

Municipal Airport on 5 September 1938. The city offered many advantages for th

Clevelanders had long had an avid appreciation of aviation; Thompson Products 

of many aircraft manufacturing companies in the area; the Case Institute of Techn

fered a supply of engineering graduates; and the adjacent airport would allow acce

aircraft. In a little more than two years, construction of the NACA’s engine research l

begin at this site. (NASA C−1991−01875)
electrical power were essential elements. The airport was a given, 

electricity posed a problem. The final hurdle was removed when Cr

negotiated an agreement in which the NACA would operate the AW

other facilities requiring heavier power loads during the night. In exc

the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company promised sufficient po

reasonable rates.48 This practice continues to this day.

During a luncheon at the Hotel Cleveland immediately before the 23 J

1941 groundbreaking for the Cleveland lab, Crawford reminded Cle

manufacturers of their promise to supply the new lab with “any

needs, more promptly, more cheaply, more accurately and more satisf

than it can be produced anywhere else.”49 John Victory, who had b

friends with Gildersleeve by this time, said, “There seems to be some

the spirit of the people in Cleveland that makes effective coop

seem easy.”50

Endnotes for Chapter 1

2. Douglas H. Robinson, LZ 129 “Hindenburg” (Fallbrook, CA: Aero Publ

Inc., 1964), pp. 19−20.

3. U.S. War Department, “Final Report of War Department Special Commit

Army Air Corps” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 18 July 

p. 10.

4. George W. Lewis, “Report on Trip to Germany and Russia: September-O

1936,” Historical Collection File 11059 (Washington, DC: NASA Headqu

1936).

5. Richard P. Hallion, “America and the Air and Space Revolution: Past Pe

tives and Present Challenges” National Aeronautical Systems and Techn

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

6. Lewis, “Report on Trip to Germany and Russia,” p. 16. 

7. Lewis, “Report on Trip to Germany and Russia,” pp. 6 and 11−18.

8. “The New Pressure-Type Wind Tunnel at Göttingen,” File 11059, NASA 

quarters Archives.

9. Lewis, “Report on Trip to Germany and Russia,” pp. 6 and 11.

10. Donald D. Baals and William R. Corliss, Wind Tunnels of NASA, Chap. 

(Washington, DC: NASA Headquarters, 1981). 

11. James R. Hansen, Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronau

Laboratory, 1917–1958 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4305, 1987), 

Chap. 3. 

12. H. Denthloff and H.L. Snaples, Who Was Albert F. Zahm? (Reston, VA: A

A00–16862, 2000), p. 6.
y p

13. Jakob Ackeret, Recent Experiments at Göttingen Aerodynamic Institute 

(Washington, DC: NACA TM–323, 1925), p. 8.

14. Jerome Hunsaker, “Forty Years of Aeronautical Research” Smithsonian R

for Aeronautics (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1956), p. 243

15. Ludwig Prandtl, Göttingen Wind Tunnel for Testing Aircraft Models

(Washington, DC: NACA TN–66, 1920), pp. 1−6.

16. Prandtl, “Göttingen Wind Tunnel,” pp. 2−6.

17. Hunsaker, “Forty Years of Aeronautical Research,” p. 256.

Baals, 18. Wind Tunnels of NASA, Chap. 2.

19. “A Visit to the Langley Field Conference,” Scientific American (August 

Baals, 20. Wind Tunnels of NASA, Chaps. 2 and 3.

21. Interview with Benjamin Pinkel, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 4 Augu

1985, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Clevelan

22. NACA, “Thirty-Second Annual Report of the National Advisory Committ

Aeronautics” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 1

23. Alex Roland, Model Research, Volumes 1 and 2 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–1403, 1985), chap. 7.

24. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by Walter T. Bonney, 21 Octo

1972 and 20 September 1973, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral Hist

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

25. Lewis, “Report on Trip to Germany and Russia,” p. 16. 

26. Theodore Von Karman, H.S. Tsien, Hugh Dryden, et al., “Technical Inte

gence Supplement: A Report for the AAF Scientific Advisory Group” To

New Horizons Supplement (Dayton, OH: Material Air Command, May 19

p. 99. 

27. National Park Service, “Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Area B Building

and 24: Photographs, Written Historical and Descriptive Data, Reduced 

of Drawings,” Historic American Engineering Record No. OH–79–AP, p

28. Charles Lindbergh to Joseph Ames, 28 November 1938, File 1308, NASA 

Headquarters Historical Collection, Washington, DC.

29. Joseph Ames to Charles Lindbergh, 7 December 1938, File 1308, NASA 

Headquarters Historical Collection, Washington, DC.

30. Roland, Model Research.

31. John F. Victory, “Remarks at Cleveland Chamber of Commerce Luncheo

Commemorating the Tenth Anniversary of Foundation of the Lewis Flig

Propulsion Laboratory,” 23 January 1951, NASA Glenn History Collectio

Cleveland, OH.

32. NACA, “Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the National Advisory Committe

Aeronautics” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1940), p. 4

33. “Report of the Special Committee on New Engine-Research Facilities” 

(24 January 1940), File 11059, NASA Headquarters Historical Collection

Washington, DC. 

34. “NACA Executive Committee Minutes” (7 February 1940), File 11059, N

Headquarters Historical Collection, Washington, DC.

35. Charles Lindburgh to Joseph Ames, 4 November 1938, File 1308, NASA 

Headquarters Historical Collection, Washington, D.C.
36. Dik Daso, “Origins of Air Power: Hap Arnold’s Command Years and Av

Technology, 1936–1945,” Aerospace Power Journal (Fall 1997): 99 and 

37. John Victory to Jerome Hunsaker, “Origin and Status of the Aircraft Eng

Research Laboratory,” 7 October 1941, File 11059, NASA Headquarters 

cal Collection, Washington, DC.

38. Jakob Ackeret, High Speed Wind Tunnels (Washington, DC: NACA Rep

1925), p. 2.

39. Lawrence Hawkins, “New Aircraft Laboratory Here Will Tackle Knotty 

Problems Now Baffling Research Engineers,” Cleveland Plain Dealer 

(23 February 1941).

40. Ed Clarke, “Engine Laboratory in Hands of Man Who Does Job Well,” 

Cleveland Press (27 November 1940). 

41. “NACA Wind Tunnel Is In Operation,” Electrical Production Magazine 

1944).

42. George Mead to George Lewis, 13 November 1939, File 1292, NASA He

quarters Historical Collection, Washington, DC.

43. William S. Knudsen to Jerome Hunsaker, 2 December 1941, File 11059

Headquarters Historical Collection, Washington, DC.

44. “Stresses Need for Speed in Research,” Wing Tips (25 March 1944).

45. John D. Holmfeld, “The Site Selection for the NACA Engine Research L

tory: A Meeting of Science and Politics” (Bachelor’s thesis, Case Institut

Technology, 1967), 40.

46. Tom Huntington, “Racetracks in the Sky,” Invention and Technology (S

2007): 51.

47. “City Gets $8,400,000 Plane Lab,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (25 Novembe

48. Interview with Frederick Crawford, conducted by Tom Farmer, This Wa

Voices Climbing the Wind WVIZ Documentary, 1991, NASA Glenn Hist

Office, History Collection. 

49. “Obligations on Cleveland,” Cleveland Press (24 January 1941).

50. “Credits Winning of Plane Lab to City’s Cooperative Spirit,” Cleveland N

(2 December 1940).
Image 14: The Altitude Wind Tunnel as its shell is constructed by the Pittsburgh-Des Mo

Company in April 1943. (NASA C–2008−00817)
g ypf 

Design work for the new Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AER

well under way at NACA Langley by the time of the 23 January 1941 g

breaking ceremony in Cleveland. Under the guidance of Ernest Whitn

men hunched intently over drawings and calculations in a room ab

new Structural Research Laboratory. They labored, sometimes two o

to a single desk, with the difficult task of designing complex eng

facilities. Initially the engineers did not know the location of the new 

research lab, let alone other important criteria, such as where the 

would tie in.51

The new lab would have six principal buildings: the Engine Research B

a hangar, the Fuels and Lubricants Building, the Administration B

the Propeller Test Stand, and the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT), fo

referred to as the Engine Research Tunnel. U.S. involvement in World 

was becoming increasingly unavoidable, and there was tremendous p

to get the AERL operating. Both the army and navy had a backlog of 

engine problems that needed to be resolved. Ironically, it was the w

slowed the construction progress down. Extraordinary measures wou

to be implemented to get the lab up and running in time.

The massive wind tunnel was the key component in the overall de

the new lab and would be its greatest engineering challenge. The Cle

Plain Dealer reported that the AWT would require more engi

man-hours than the Boulder Dam.52 The 263-foot-long by 120-fo

Chapter 

Design and Constru

(1940–1943)

Building a New

Type of Tunnel
y p

AWT would include six auxiliary buildings. The AWT’s altitude enviro

required enormous refrigeration and exhaust systems and a structure 

enough to withstand the associated strain. The tunnel would be cap

testing engines twice the horsepower of any engine in operation at th

In order to run the engines within the closed-loop tunnel, an exhaus

would have to be developed to pump the polluted air out of the tunn

lost airflow would have to be simultaneously replenished, and the e

would have to be operated, measured, and fueled. 

Designing a Wind Tunnel for Engines

The main AERL design group at Langley consisted of approxima

engineers and draftsmen, but there were smaller groups working sep

on specific facilities. Among these was a group led by Larry Marc

Al Young that planned the AWT’s exhaust and makeup air sy

refrigeration, control room, test chamber, and support buildings.5

elements of the plans had been used for the most recent Langley t

but others—such as the air scoop and cooling system—were new. 

Image 15: The AERL design team works in an office above the Structural Research 

tory at NACA Langley in April 1941. Less than eight months later, they would be tra

to Cleveland with other Langley personnel to complete the design work on site. Th

included future Cleveland leaders, including Addison Rothrock, George Darchuck

Friedman, and Nick Nahigyan. (1941) (NASA C−2007−02563)
g ypf 

Another group, which had been transferred to the new NACA 

Aeronautical Laboratory, undertook the task of designing the AWT

and electrical drive system. Carlton Bioletti led the team, which in

Walter Vincenti, John Macomber, and Manfred Massa. Bioletti had r

put Langley’s 19-Foot Pressure Tunnel into operation and was in the 

of designing the drive system for the new 40- by 80-foot tunnel at Am

AWT engineers were harried since they were also working on the ne

tunnels at NACA Ames.54

The overall layout of the AWT was similar to that of other NACA wind t

such as Langley’s 8-Foot High Speed Tunnel and 19-Foot Pressure T

but the temperature and pressure fluctuations due to the altitude sim

made the design of the shell more difficult than for previous tunne

simultaneous decrease in both pressure and temperature inside th

would produce uneven stress loads, particularly on the support ring

this was an entirely new type of engineering problem, Vincenti to

best guess at how to calculate for it and then consulted with his 

professor at Stanford, Stephen Timoshenko. Timoshenko, a leading ex

Image 16: The 1-inch-thick inner shell of the AWT is visible in this photograph of th

being erected. The shell was made from a special steel alloy similar to current AS

Grade A3 steel plate. It was significantly stronger than normal carbon steel. (1943

C−2007−02314)
y p

structural dynamics, developed some calculations that address

problem, and Vincenti forwarded the calculations to the main design 

Although they found them incomprehensible at first, it was not long 

they grasped Timoshenko’s insightful method of analysis.55

The AWT’s shell would be forged from a steel alloy capable of withst

low temperatures. The steel was 1 inch thick to ensure that the sh

not collapse as the internal air pressure was dropped to simulate hi

tudes. It was a massive amount of steel considering the wartime sho

The shell was to be covered with several inches of fiberglass insula

retain the refrigerated air and a thinner outer steel layer to protect 

the weather. A unique system of rollers was used between the shell 

support piers. These rollers allowed for movement as the shell expan

contracted during the altitude simulations. The section near the refrig

system would move as much as 5 inches during operation.56

The Birth of Cool

One of the AWT’s most daunting engineering requirements was 

the millions of cubic feet of airflow per minute. The refrigeration 

would have to cool the airstream and remove the substantial amount 

being produced by the tunnel’s drive fan and the engine being t

The Langley team devised a refrigeration system that employed a ne

of cooling coil with streamlined tubes. By November 1941 it was cle

Langley’s development of the refrigeration system was lagging behi

of the AWT’s other components. The NACA decided to consult with 

Carrier, whose Carrier Corporation had pioneered the field of air con

ing and refrigeration. 

AERL leaders, including Al Young, Lou Monroe, Dr. Edward “Ray” 

and Rudolph Gagg, met with Willis Carrier and his representati

6 November 1941 to discuss the project. The NACA contingent left 

“impressed by the confidence with which Carrier approached this pr

[the Carrier representatives] seem entirely capable of carrying out a 

such as ours.”58 Willis Carrier agreed to bid on the job. He later claim

he informed George Lewis that “the [Langley] boys conducting the te

not know what it was all about, and that too much money, and o

importance, too much time had been wasted already.”59

Willis Carrier created several teams at his Buffalo, New York, plant t

on different aspects of the project. Maurice Wilson managed the eng
g ypf 

Samuel Anderson designed the cooling coils, and Adolph Zulinke 

the special refrigerant controls, but it was Carrier himself who w

driving force on the project.60 Once the contract was signed, Carrier h

to three months to complete the design work. Anderson recalled t

team often put in 16 to 18 hours per day on the project.61

Anderson and Everett Palmatier initially attempted to use a standa

exchanger setup. When all of the cooling coil tube designs failed t

the pressure drop called for by the NACA, a new design was attemp

overcome the lack of adequate surface area for the heat exchang

Carrier engineers decided to install the cooling coils in a folded 

ionlike arrangement that provided 8,000 square feet of surface are

would build a full-size version of one-half of a heat exchanger to 

design.62 A tunnel section was erected over the exchanger so that ai

Image 17: Side view of the heat exchanger setup in the Icing Research Tun

arrangement was almost identical to that for the larger heat exchangers in the A

accordionlike design was created by the Carrier Corporation to increase the surfac

the cooling coils eight times. (NASA C−1956−41911)
y p

be passed through the device at the proper temperature and scale. Th

would allow Carrier’s engineers to determine not only the optimal siz

exchanger, but also the amount of force required to push the wind t

the coils.63

Rather than risk failure with standard equipment, Carrier engineers de

many of the pumps, valves, flexible joints, and other apparatus spec

for the AWT project. Carrier engineers also decided to use Freon-12 

refrigerant. Although Freon-12 would be common in the coming 

the use of large quantities of it had not been attempted previously. 

developed a method of circulating the Freon at quantities and pr

large enough to ensure complete distribution throughout the coils

engineers were having difficulty with the decrease in speed after the 

exited the coils. This was resolved by installing turning vanes acr

back end of the coils to make the cold airflow slightly faster than the t

normal airflow.65

Image 18: Interior of the Refrigeration Building showing the 14 Carrier Corporatio

horsepower centrifugal compressors that were the backbone of the AWT’s complex 

system. The system was used to cool the airflow in both the AWT and the Icing Resea

nel. The building also contained York compressors, which were used to refrigerate t

makeup air and provide institutional chilled water for the laboratory. (NASA C−194
g ypf 

The success of the AWT’s cooling system was one of Willis Carrier’

est accomplishments. He had kept a close eye on the project and ha

several key suggestions himself, including the turning vanes.66 The 

was powerful enough to also cool the Icing Research Tunnel—a 

atmospheric tunnel located just behind the AWT—and provide insti

chilled water for the lab. After over 60 years of operation, the system r

in use today.

Struggling To Build the Laboratory 

The creation of the NACA Ames lab had progressed on schedule and 

its budget. The first Ames technical report was issued in April 19

15 months after ground had been broken.67 The nation had changed 

deal during the 13-month interlude between the groundbreaking ev

Sunnyvale and Cleveland. Resources and funding became more diffi

Image 19: Center and right: The AERL’s first two employees—Construction Engineer-

Charles Herrmann and administrative assistant Helen Ford—arrived in Clevela

Langley in early February 1941, setting up offices in a “radio house.” On 30 July they 

to the farm house, seen in this photograph, which had been acquired with the prop

farm house served as the original administrative building as the AERL was being con

(1941) (NASA C−2006−01209)
y p

obtain as war approached.68 In addition, Langley engineers had less 

ence with the AERL’s engine research facilities than with the aerod

facilities built at Ames. This meant that consultants from Wright Field, 

manufacturing companies, and other companies, such as Carrier, ha

brought in to assist. 

The first Langley personnel began arriving in Cleveland in Februar

There were still no buildings completed when Dr. Ray Sharp tran

from Langley six months later to personally oversee the construction

was soon versed on almost every construction project at the lab. The 

would enter the war before the end of the year, and wartime prod

needs were in direct competition with the AERL for limited resourc

war, therefore, was the cause of many of the construction delays. M

were difficult to obtain, contractors were overburdened, and fundi

tight.69 A glimmer of progress appeared with the signing of the const

contract for the AWT just as the year ended.

Late in the day on 31 December, Sharp traveled to Washington, 

discuss the Sam W. Emerson Company construction contract with 

Secretary John Victory. After the details were finalized, the two 

the $95,000 contract over to the White House, where it was appro

President Franklin Roosevelt at 6:30 p.m.70 Emerson was now the p

construction contractor, in charge of building the AWT’s foundatio

Shop and Office Building, and the support buildings.71

Image 20: Dr. Ray Sharp had briskly 

through the ranks at Langley before bein

as the AERL’s Officer and Construction M

In March 1940, Sharp was detailed from 

to supervise the construction at Ames un

DeFrance assumed control in August. Af

Sharp and construction engineer Ernest 

traveled to Cleveland to perform a proper

as part of the site-selection process for 

engine lab.72 Shortly thereafter, Sharp was 

to Langley and named Chief of the Con

Division. In August 1941, he was de

Cleveland to oversee the construction. H

spend the next 20 years leading the C

lab.73,74 (NASA C−1943−01534)
g ypf 

Emerging from a Sea of Mud

A large contingent of Langley personnel led by Construction Sup

Beverly Gulick and supervising engineer Ernest Whitney arrived in D

ber 1942. A month later the hangar became the first building com

When the Engine Propeller Research Building was completed in 

ceremony was held to initiate research at the lab. The media and 

officials were on hand when George Lewis activated a 14-cylinder 

Wright Cyclone engine.75

Most of the lab was still a sea of mud, however. Excavation for the 

foundations had begun only recently. Just three days after the cere

General Henry “Hap” Arnold requested that the NACA’s priority ra

elevated to Class 1 to expedite the allocation of resources. George 

Image 21: This photograph from late spring 1942 shows the construction of the AWT’s 

Office Building. The tunnel’s steel and concrete piers can be seen behind the crane. 

W. Emerson Company would complete this task by late December. The hangar, the fi

building completed, is in the background. Retiree Frank Holt recalled that during th

the surveyors were “out everyday in their high-top boots with their tripods and scop

mud laying out the new lab.76 (1942) (NASA C−2007−02306).
3

y p

began arriving from Washington every Monday to oversee the lab’

ress.77 He stated at the time, “Originally planned for completion 

period of two and one-half years, this new NACA laboratory is being 

to completion at least one year ahead of schedule because of its imp

in [the] present war effort.”78, 79

In September 1942, U.S. Army Air Force Major General Oliver 

wrote, “The work of the NACA is a vital and inseparable part of the 

production program. Much depends upon its ability to be fully re

Image 22: Left to right: Ray Sharp and George Lewis speak to AERL employees in M

Construction was progressing but would be expedited in the coming months in an 

have the lab operational by the end of the year. Lewis began visiting the site weekly to p

assess its progress. Work on the AWT’s support buildings and tunnel foundation had 

but the majority of its construction would take place in 1943. (NASA C−1942−08287
g ypf 

December 31, 1942, to meet growing demands of the military ser

must therefore urge that the NACA be given the highest prefere

obtaining needed materials and equipment.”80

Drastic measures were undertaken to accelerate the lab’s const

schedule. The military provided special supplies, contractors were 

new agreements and pressured to meet deadlines, and Congress ap

additional funds.81 Entire sections of NACA Langley engineers and resea

including the Powerplants Division, were transferred to the AERL.82

Image 23: Left to right: NACA Secretary John Victory, U.S. Navy Fleet Admiral Erwin K

AERL Manager Ray Sharp. In a 14 July 1942 letter to the Army and Navy Munition

King wrote, “The present A-1-A priority rating is not high enough to assure its rea

time. Whatever higher priority rating or special directive may be necessary to avoid de

completion is justified and recommended.”83 (NASA C−1945−11620)
3

y p

Model Builders Prove Their Worth

“Hurry boys and girls, make your hobby pay you back in money and sat

tion of helping to do your part. Help our planes fly higher, better and f

than those of the Axis by aiding the research engineers,” beckoned a 

1944 “Junior Aviators” column in the Cleveland Press. 84

A large contingent of Langley construction personnel arrived at the AE

December 1942. These veteran engineers would be the foundation fo

new lab’s research and management staffs. Most of the mechanics and 

nicians, however, were journeymen from the Cleveland area. There w

need for additional workers, and the AERL appealed to young people in 

school. 

Frank Holt, a retired technician, recalled in 2005 that the NACA and A

Construction Manager Ray Sharp were particularly interested in m

builders. Beginning at Langley 

and carrying over to Cleveland, 

Sharp sought model builders to 

craft the large wooden propellers 

for the wind tunnels. After overcoming initial opposition from 

veteran NACA craftsmen, the 

young model builders demonstrated their skill and were soon 

hired for a variety of permanent 

positions.85

The nation had just entered the 

war when Holt, then just 16 years 

old, read about the new engine 

laboratory in one of the “Junior 

Aviators” columns. He was an 

avid model builder who had won 

several prizes, so he decided 

to send in an application. “I was 

amazed when they called me,” he 

remembered. 

He recalled going to the AERL 

employment office in a small radio shack at the edge of the constru

site on a blistery January morning. “I came into the room, and 

was a bunch of guys I recognized as top model builders. I felt 

inferior. I didn’t have a chance.” During the interview, Holt’s mo

Image 24: Hired at the age of 16, Frank 

was likely the youngest employee to ever 

at the lab. He was one of the many te

cians hired in the lab’s initial years be

of his model-building skills. After the 

he crewed a team that won two troph

the National Air Races held annual

Cleveland. (NASA C−1943−01331)
g ypf 

who had been shivering outside in the car, came inside to warm 

mortifying the young applicant in front of his peers. Despite his 

consciousness, the interview went well and Holt began work on 9 Febr

1942. He would spend the next 38 years working in the lab’s wind tunne

Model builders had two roles: building scaled versions of facilities 

creating aircraft test articles that could be studied in the wind tunnels. S

the AERL would have no tunnels in operation until 1944, the early m

builders worked on teams, creating the elaborate facility models piec

piece, or were reassigned to new positions as mechanics in the hangar.

The AERL’s recruiting campaign continued throughout the war. NACA 

erature told prospective employees that following World War I and thro

the Depression the NACA had not laid off a single employee because 

lack of funds. “Unlike industry, the laboratory has no products to sell. Its 

pose is not to make money. Research on aircraft engines will go on whe

industry turns out one or one million planes.”87 Compensation was not 

greatest, however. In 1942 AERL beginning model builders earned less t

$1,300 annually, with increases as they worked their way up the ranks.88

Image 25: This wooden scale model of the Bell YP-59A Airacomet was 

created by the AERL’s model shop in 1944. It was used as part of the first test 

in the new AWT. For the test, an actual full-scale fuselage with its two jet 

engines was installed in the tunnel test section. (NASA C−1945−11554)
3

y p

Image 26: NACA construction engineers Lou Hermann and Jack Aust assemble 

AWT drive fan inside the hangar at the AERL. This 12-bladed, 31-foot-diam

spruce wood fan was designed at NACA Langley. John Breisch, a Langley techni

with several years of wind tunnel installation experience, was brought up in Ju

supervise the fan assembly. He would return several weeks later to oversee the ac

installation in the tunnel.89 (NASA C−1943−01849)

Image 27: On 7 July 1943 the Memphis Belle and its crew visited the AERL as par

publicity tour. The B-17 Flying Fortress and its crew were returning after 25 succe

bombing missions over Germany. Inside the hangar in the background, the larg

for the AWT was being assembled at the time. (NASA C−1943−1867)
g ypf 

Photo Essay 1: 

The Altitude Wind Tunnel Stands Up

Image 28: Corner rings for the AWT are raised into place on 9 January 1943 dur

early phases of the shell’s construction. The Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Corporatio

structed most of the enormous 263-foot-long, 120-foot-wide rectangular tunnel. T

in the foreground had a 51-foot interior diameter. (9 Jan. 1943) (NASA C−1944−
3

y p

Image 29: Steel framework for the Shop and Office Building is at the left, with one 

tunnel’s corner rings standing vertically. The completed aircraft hangar is in the 

ground, and the tunnel’s foundations are in the foreground (viewed from the sout

(1942) (NASA C−2007−02294)

Image 30: Construction of the AWT with its test chamber visible in the center. Con

tion of the tunnel shell began in early 1943 and was completed in January 1944. 

photograph, the outer layer of the shell had yet to be installed (viewed from the s

(NASA C−1943−01521)
g ypf 

Image 31: Interior of the Refrigeration Building with the flash cooler in the cent

the photograph. The flash cooler would be connected to the distributing headers 

the Carrier compressors along both the left and right. (NASA C−2007−02318)

Image 32: During July 1943 the AWT’s drive motor was installed in the nort

corner of the Exhauster Building. The motor, whose support frame is seen in this 

tograph, connected to the drive shaft that extended from the building, throug

tunnel shell and into the AWT’s fan assembly. The 18,000-horsepower General El

Company induction motor was installed, and the corner of the building was 

around it afterward. (1943) (NASA C−1943−01962)
3

y p

Image 33: Construction of the viewing platform in the AWT’s Shop and Office Buildi

platform is in the rear of the high bay. The shop can be seen below to the right. Th

half of the tunnel’s test section, out of view to the left in this photograph, was sunken 

the platform so that the test articles were near the floor level. (NASA C−2007−0229

Image 34: Interior of the shop area inside the western wing of the AWT’s Shop and 

Building as it was being constructed. (NASA C−1943−02186)
g ypf 

Image 35: Interior of the AWT’s southern leg during construction. The propeller 

ing supports are in place, and the bearing box propeller hub and drive shaft are 

installed at the far end. (1943) (NASA C−1944−04710)
y p

The Final Push 

The frame of the AWT’s Shop and Office Building was complete, an

vations had begun for the Exhauster and Refrigeration buildings. Th

staff worked 48-hour weeks throughout 1942, but construction of the 

tunnel was only beginning when the lab closed for its only holiday th

Christmas Day.90 As the AERL opened for business in 1943, construc

the AWT went into high gear. The Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co

was responsible for building the tunnel structure. They would er

remainder of the support rings and tunnel shell and would ins

exhaust scoop, turning vanes, and intake air vents during 1943.91

The support buildings were largely completed by September 1943, b

ments of the refrigeration and exhaust systems required additional 

install.92 Work proceeded on the balance chamber and test section, in

the test section’s hinged door. Work on the tunnel, test section, ba

scales, and fan continued into the new year. 

Image 36: The test section lid, seen raised in this photograph, was 40 feet long, 20 f

and 10 feet high. A motor-driven system using large counterweights, pulleys, and cab

open and close the lid in approximately 10 minutes. The lid contained a number of 

windows and a portal for a periscope camera. Handwheels were used to seal the lid on

lowered in place. (NASA C−1950−26294)
g ypf 

Harold Friedman, a young engineer who had recently finished a 

approached the construction supervisor, Ernest Whitney. He recalled 

“‘Mr. Whitney, I don’t have a goddamned thing to do. What should 

Ernest told me that I should go over to the Altitude Wind Tunnel

was under construction, and talk to Al Young and Lou Monroe b

they needed somebody to design a door.” “I said, ‘Sure.’ What the h

hard about designing a door?” Friedman’s “door” was a massive mec

clamshell-shaped lid that sealed the tunnel’s test section. It used larg

terweights, pulleys, and cables to open, close, and lock in place.93 

The Most Important Component

In January 1943, the AWT and the Icing Research Tunnel joined the 

Analysis, Engineering Drafting, and Unconventional Aircraft Engine R

groups in the Engine Installation Division.94 Abe Silverstein, the 35-y

Chief of Langley’s Full-Scale Tunnel, was selected by George Lewis t

age the AWT. Silverstein was in the aerodynamics group but had 

had a strong interest in aircraft engines. Silverstein later recalled 

informing him of the reassignment, “I can see that you want to be 

Image 37: Left to right: Abe Silverstein and Smith DeFrance. Silverstein 

transferred to Cleveland after 14 years at Langley. He had played a key role 

assisting deFrance with the design of the Full-Scale Tunnel. He served as 

chief of the facility from 1940 to 1943. Although he mainly cleaned up drag 

problems on fighter aircraft, he did sneak in two engine tests during this 

period. (NASA C−2009−02181) 
y p

Image 38: Al Young was involved with the AWT from its design at Langley 

to his retirement in 1970. For most of that time, he managed the tunnel’s 

operation. Silverstein remembered him as “a superb mechanical engineer, 

absolutely able.” The two shared an office in the AWT for almost four years

Silverstein recalled, “[Young] never spoke unless he was very sure wha

he was going to say...he was very good and I enjoyed working with 

him.” 98 (NASA C–2008–00629)

engine business, and I want to give you the chance.”95 Most of the L

personnel previously transferred to Cleveland were from the const

and powerplants groups. At Langley, Silverstein did not have the be

tionship with the powerplant people, so there was some tension w

arrived just in time to manage the new world-class facility. Lewis e

Silverstein to Cleveland in the fall of 1943 to make a formal introduct

smooth things over. After that initial meeting, Silverstein claimed that 

never had any serious problems with the original Langley crew.96

Silverstein immediately began assembling the 90-person AWT sectio

surprisingly, he chose individuals such as Al Young, Lou Monro

Harold Friedman, who had been involved in the design and const

of the tunnel. The original AWT organization consisted of 40 eng

25 mechanics, 15 analysts, and 10 computers.97 “Computers” were 

employees hired to record raw test data and perform mathematical 

tions in order to make the data useful.
g ypf 

Silverstein shared room 103 in the Shop and Office Building with h

uty, Young; Friedman; and Monroe, an ex-Carrier employee who o

the installation of the refrigeration system. Other members of the 

team, including John Macomber and Manfred Massa, were located u

With the exception of Young, these men would go on to design th

6-foot and 10- by 10-foot supersonic wind tunnels in Cleveland. Othe

nal AWT staff members included future leaders such as G. Merritt P

Robert Godman, Myron Pollyea, DeMarquis Wyatt, and Austin Reade

The core members of the AWT’s long-term research staff were assem

early 1944. The original team included future manager Al Young, p

AWT engineers such as William Fleming, Robert Dietz,†

 and Martin S

well as James Quinn, the head of the AWT mechanics, and Clifford 

who managed the AWT’s electrical supply.100

Image 39: The AWT complex as it originally appeared. The Shop and Office Build

the center, the Refrigeration Building is to the right, and the Exhauster Building to 

When completed in early 1944, it became the first wind tunnel in the nation designe

cally to study engine behavior and capable of creating a high-altitude environmen

C−1945−13045).

†

Years later, Dietz would be a key advocate of NASA’s most recent wind tunnel, the 

Transonic Facility at Langley.
y p

After almost two years of construction, the AWT was finally compl

January 1944. Willis Carrier and his team were on hand for the AW

tial trial runs to ensure that the refrigeration system worked proper

first official test took place on 4 February 1944.101 For the next yea

half, the AWT would contribute to not only the current war effort, bu

importantly to the future development of aircraft engines. Although 

ress seemed to lag because of the urgency of the war, the const

of the AWT in less than two years was a remarkable feat. In the e

new NACA lab was completed ahead of schedule but at nearly tw

estimated cost.102

Endnotes for Chapter 2

51. Interview with Harold Friedman, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 Novemb

NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH

52. “City Gets $8,400,000 Plane Lab,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (25 Novembe

53. Ernest G. Whitney, “Lecture 22—Altitude Wind Tunnel at AERL,” 23 Jun

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

54. Friedman interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 November 2005.

55. Interview (notes) with Walter Vincenti, conducted by Glenn Bugos, 11 

2007, Moffett Field, CA. 

56. Everett P. Palmatier, “Notes on Refrigeration System for Cleveland Wind 

nels” (c1993), NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

57. Carlyle Ashley, “Cooling the NACA (NASA) Wind Tunnels at Cleveland 

WWII,” NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

58. Russell G. Robinson to George Lewis, “Conference With Representative

Carrier Corporation, Langley Field, November 6, 1941” 7 November 194

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

59. Margaret Ingels, Willis Haviland Carrier: Father of Air Conditioning 

(Garden City, NY: Country Life Press, 1952), pp. 97–101. 

60. Ashley, “Cooling the NACA (NASA) Wind Tunnels.”

61. Samuel Anderson, “Personal Comments of Samuel W. Anderson Engine

Program,” NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

Ingels, 62. Willis Haviland Carrier.

63. Robinson, “Conference with Representatives of Carrier Corporation.”

Ingels, 64. Willis Haviland Carrier.

65. Ashley, “Cooling the NACA (NASA) Wind Tunnels.”

66. Anderson, “Personal Comments of Samuel W. Anderson Engineering Pr

67. Erwin P. Hartman, Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research 

1940–65 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4302, 1970), chap. 6.

68. Ed Clarke, “US Selects Airport Site,” The Cleveland Press (25 November 
g ypf 

69. Alex Roland, Model Research, Volumes 1 and 2 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP–1403, 1985), chap. 7.

70. Edward R. Sharp, “Excerpt From Chronological Record of Events Relati

Cost-Plus-a-Fixed-Fee Contract Naw-1425,” NASA Glenn History Collec

Cleveland, OH.

71. “Contract Between the NACA and the Sam W. Emerson Co. for Constru

of Several Units of the AERL. NA–1425,” NASA Glenn History Collection

Cleveland, OH.

72. “Work on Plane Lab to Start Tomorrow,” The Cleveland Press, 28 Novem

1940.

73. Henry Reid to staff, “Reorganization of the Construction Division,” 20 S

ber 1940, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

74. Henry Reid to staff, “Jet Propulsion Power Plants 1943–48,” 20 Septemb

1940, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

75. “Initiation of Research” (8 May 1942), press packet, NASA Glenn Histor

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

76. Interview with Frank Holt, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 9 August 2005, N

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

77. Interview with Jesse Hall, conducted by Bonnie Smith, 28 August 2002

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

78. Henry H. Arnold and J.H. Towers to Director, Bureau of the Budget, 11 

1942, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

79. Wayne Coy to Henry Arnold, 16 May 1942, NASA Glenn History Collec

Cleveland, OH.

80. Oliver P. Echols to H.E. Talbott, 28 September 1942, NASA Glenn Histo

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

81. James R. Hansen, Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronau

Laboratory, 1917–1958 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4305, 1987), 

chap. 8.

82. Helen Ford, “Highlights From Wing Tips,” NASA Glenn History Collect

Cleveland, OH.

83. Erwin J. King and G.C. Marshall to Army and Navy Munitions Board, 1

1942, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

84. Ed Clarke, “Junior Aviators,” Cleveland Press (22 May 1944). 

85. Robert S. Munson, “Pathways Within Model Aviation and Beyond,” cha

(2002): http://www.gryffinaero.com/pathways/ (accessed 29 July 2009).

86. Holt interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 9 August 2005.

87. NACA, “NACA Looks to the Future” pamphlet, NASA Glenn History Co

Cleveland, OH.

88. “Bill Harrison Service Record” NASA Glenn History Collection, Clevelan

89. George Darchuck, “J. Breisch Aids on AWT Installation, Makes Many Fr

Here,” Wing Tips (30 July 1943).

90. “Highest Priority Work,” Lewis News 25th Anniversary Issue (23 January 

p. 4.
y p

91. “Construction Report No. 145” (November 8, 1943 through November 1

1943), NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

92. Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory Construction Report Nos. 66, 100, 

145, and 149 (1942–1943), NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, O

93. Friedman interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 November 2005.

94. “See Many Changes in Lab Research Divisions,” Wing Tips (5 February 

95. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by Walter T. Bonney, 

21 October 1972 and 20 September 1973, NASA Glenn History Collectio

History Collection.

96. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Mauer, 10 March 198

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

97. NACA Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory, Telephone Directory, 1 Sep

1944, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

98. Silverstein interview, conducted by Walter T. Bonney, 21 October 1972 

20 September 1973.

99. NACA Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory, Telephone Directory.

100. NACA Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory, Telephone Directory.

101. Ingels, Willis Haviland Carrier.

102. Roland, Model Research, chap. 8.

Image 40: The secret test of the Bell YP-59A Airacomet was the first investigation in the n

Wind Tunnel. The Airacomet was the first aircraft in the United States powered by a jet 

General Electric I-16. (February 1944). (NASA C−1944−04830)
“Will the solution of this problem be of assistance to us in time to be 

to the men on the fighting front?” That was the question Acting Ex

Engineer, Addison Rothrock, asked the Aircraft Engine Research Labo

(AERL’s) new research staff on 20 December 1942 to consider whe

ducting their investigations.103 Earlier that day, an engine fire had w

the flight test of a Boeing B-29 prototype and grounded the progr

seven weeks. The U.S. Army Air Corps had already ordered 1,500 

long-range bombers and was relying on it to serve as the exclusive w

for the bombing of Japan.104 The next flight would end in disast

another engine fire caused a crash in Seattle that killed 8 crew m

and 20 civilians on the ground.105

The overheating of the B-29’s 18-cylinder radial engines was precis

type of problem that the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) was inten

resolve. Unfortunately, in December 1942 the tunnel’s corner ring

just being put in place. It would be another year before the facility 

become operational. Unknown to Rothrock and the audience was th

months before, a Bell XP-59A fighter had flown using the first jet engin

in the United States. This advanced technology would threaten to m

new AERL facilities obsolete unless they adapted and returned to res

The dichotomy of the AERL’s mission was later emphasized during 

by General Henry Arnold. Arnold told the assembled staff, “You’v

dual task. You’ve got a job ahead of you to keep the army and the n

forces equipped with the finest equipment that you can for this w

Chapter 

The World War II 

(1944–1945)

Dual Wartime

Mission
y p

also have the job of looking forward into the future and starting now 

developments, those experiments, that are going to keep us in our 

situation—ahead of the world in the air. And that is quite a large ord

I leave it right in your laps.”106

The NACA’s traditional mission of basic research was to be mothba

the duration of the war. The army and navy relied on the NACA to sol

specific problems with existing military aircraft and their piston engin

NACA Langley and NACA Ames aeronautical laboratories used the

wind tunnels to reduce the drag of military aircraft and also impro

prevention and dive bombing. The AERL initially concentrated its eff

propulsion problems such as engine knock and turbocharger perfor

Once the AWT and its sister facility, the Icing Research Tunnel, b

operational in 1944, the AERL was able to considerably expand its 

The two tunnels were used for military applications 93 percent of th

during the last year and a half of the war. The Langley and Ames t

which had been active for the entire war, spent 57 percent of their op

time on military tests.107

Image 41: General Arnold addresses AERL employees. As Commander of the U.S. A

Forces during World War II, he almost single-handedly dragged the nation’s aviatio

into the era of the jet engine, while simultaneously trying to squeeze all of the power 

nation’s largest piston engine for his B-29 program. (NASA C−1944−07493)
Burning Up in the Sky

One of the most pressing problems facing the air force was the over

of the Wright R-3350 engines that were used to power Boeing’s new 

range bomber, the B-29 Superfortress. Although twice as heavy and 

ful as its predecessor—the B-17—the B-29 was designed to fly signi

faster, longer, and higher. It was one of the most formidable and v

aircraft ever designed and the top priority of the air force. The B-

plagued with problems, though, most notably the overheating of the 

as the aircraft reached its higher altitudes.108

Missouri Senator Harry Truman led a legislative investigation into the 

1942 crash that had resulted in 29 deaths. The committee concluded 

B-29 crisis stemmed from Wright’s poor quality control and the rush 

air force’s development schedule.109 Over a year before the first te

had taken place, the War Department had outfitted the nation’s fact

mass-produce the bombers.110

The most significant problem was the engines. The fuel-injection syst

quently caught fire, and the combination of poor airflow and engin

caused the engines to overheat during the B-29’s climb to its 30,0

cruising altitude. The overheating was exacerbated by the use of mag

crankcases, which were strong and lightweight but highly flammable

crew had less than a minute to bail out once the crankcase ignite

nation’s most modern flying machine seemed more like a death trap

Image 42: A Boeing B-29 participates in the AERL’s intensive wartime study of i

R-3350 engines. (NASA C−1944−05883)
y p

The bombers were hurried into service in the Pacific and receive

testing in combat. The R-3350s would require over 2,000 modificati

1944 alone, 54 key revisions had to be implemented on every new B-

was not uncommon for the R-3350 to have to be overhauled after le

100 hours of operation. Yet pilots were still reporting that their e

were overheating and losing power at higher altitudes.113

Frank Bechtel recalled in 2004, “They were flying these planes ove

and back nonstop. They weren’t losing any of them to ground 

Japanese fighter planes, but the planes were going in the drink beca

engines were burning up. They [would] get overheated and just quit, 

planes were going in.”114

Despite the pressure to complete the AWT in order to analyze the 

cooling problems, it was the General Electric (GE) I-16 jet engines 

Bell XP-59A Airacomet that were tested first when the facility was 

ready in early 1944. This decision would prove significant for both th

and the AWT’s future focus on the turbojet.

“Nobody Was Really Looking Ahead”

Upon assuming control of the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1938, General 

called a meeting to identify vital aeronautical research and develo

areas. One of the items on the table was the jet-assisted takeoff dev

by Frank Malina and Jack Parsons at the California Institute of T

ogy. Committee members Jerome Hunsaker and Vannevar Bush revea

NACA’s closed-mindedness at the time by deriding the proposal.11

years later Arnold became aware of the turbojet developments in 

and ordered the NACA to explore the possibilities. Many in the air 

including NACA member Major General Oliver Echols, urged con

concentration on reciprocating engines.116

The success of the turbocharger—which was perfected at GE’s Wes

Massachusetts, plant—caused U.S. aircraft manufacturers to become c

cent. The turbocharger used the engine’s hot exhaust gases to spin a 

that powered a compressor. Because it supplied the engine with ad

air, the turbocharger resulted in significantly greater speeds and altitu

piston aircraft. The Lockheed P-38 and Republic P-47 were considere

the fastest fighters in the world, but the Boeing B-17 and Consolidate

were the only 30,000-foot-altitude heavy bombers.117
The Langley Powerplants Division was just beginning to delve i

turbojet field, even though its staff had been aware of the gas 

for years. They had felt that, with existing materials and technolo

engines would not be any more efficient than piston engines. All thre

NACA’s studies on the turbojet in the 1930s were farmed out to the N

Bureau of Standards.118 Abe Silverstein later explained that the NACA w

primarily an aerodynamics-based agency and that when it came to pro

“nobody was really looking ahead.”119

Other nations were not only looking ahead, but moving ahead. Germ

British engineers had not mastered the turbocharger, so they had 

other ways to improve engine performance. Engineers in both co

were drawn to the gas turbine. By late 1939, the German governme

funded two jet engine design programs and contracted with its two 

aircraft manufacturers to develop fighters that would incorporate th

Image 43: Left to right: Colonel Edwin Page, Dr. William Durand, Orville Wright, and 

Rothrock tour the AERL in Cleveland, Ohio, on the lab’s May 1943 Dedication Day. 

former chairman of the NACA, had been called out of retirement to head the NACA 

Committee on Jet Propulsion. Prior to becoming the AERL’s Air Technical Service C

Liaison Officer in May 1943, Colonel Page had spent most of the previous 18 years de

designing, constructing, and overseeing the research for the engine test facilities a

Field. (NASA C−1943−01562)
y p

turbojets.120 Although they lacked Germany’s coordination, the Briti

were pursuing the jet engine. After a visit to the United Kingdom, N

Aircraft’s Joseph Phelan related how impressed he was by “the esta

air of something which had definitely arrived, so to speak. Nowh

there appear to be anything but a profound belief and faith in the fu

the gas turbine in some form or another.”121

As the Langley engineers were in the initial stages of designing the A

piston engine testing, the Europeans were beginning to fly turboje

cessfully. In late August 1940 the Italians flew a ducted-fan jet eng

early 1941 the first rocket-propelled aircraft was flown in Germany, 

15 May 1941 the British flew their first jet aircraft. While the AWT’s f

tions were being installed in July 1942, the German Messerschmitt 

Schwalbe, which could fly 540 mph, became the world’s first oper

fighter jet.122

Image 44: Left to right: Henry Reid, NACA Langley Engineer-in-Charge; Carlton Kemp

of the Powerplants Division; and Elton Miller, Chief of the Aerodynamics Division, in 

1929 division meeting. Neither the Langley powerplants group nor Kemper thought 

the jet engine. Kemper agreed with a 1923 National Bureau of Standards study sta

fuel consumption and weight made jet propulsion impossible. Kemper, who would 

Executive Engineer at the AERL, did not reconsider the jet engine until April 1940, a

only in a limited fashion. (1929) (NASA EL−1997−00141)
Although the decision had been made to fight the war with piston air

was obvious to Arnold and his closest advisors that aviation’s future l

the turbojet. At Arnold’s request, the NACA called Dr. William Dura

of retirement in March 1941 to head a Special Committee on Jet Prop

The committee—which included members of the NACA com

scientists such as Hugh Dryden, and industry leaders includin

Sanford Moss—was tasked with coordinating the nation’s secret devel

of the turbojet.

Heads in the Virginia Sand

Edgar Buckingham of the National Bureau of Standards had conducte

ies of a gas turbine in 1923 and concluded in his report for the NA

the jet engine would never surpass the reciprocating engine’s perfor

The Langley engine group, headed by Carlton Kemper, accepted B

ham’s findings and showed no interest in the possibilities of gas tu

Although the conclusions were true at the time, the NACA did not 

the turbojet’s potential for high-speed flight. Silverstein said later, 

you visualize airplanes going at 400 to 500 mph, you can’t make a p

the gas turbine. And airplanes weren’t flying that fast at the time.”123

Unaware of the German and British advances made during the 

Langley engineer Albert Sherman replicated the Buckingham stu

produced an April 1940 report which concluded that the gas turbi

indeed viable. Sherman’s findings convinced Kemper and Langley En

in-Charge Henry Reid that the gas turbine was now worthy of furthe

tigation. Sherman and Eastman Jacobs were tasked with the construct

ducted fan static test cell, referred to as the “Jeep.”Before the Jeep w

completed, Durand’s new subcommittee ordered the pair to convert t

setup into a true turbojet capable of being integrated with an airfram

was a daunting task that lasted the remainder of 1941.124

The Jeep’s first fiery runs occurred over a year later in February 1942. 

series of improvements, the system was considered to be operational 

In October, Durand’s special committee visited Langley for an exhib

the new Jeep powerplant. The engine’s failure during the big demon

for all intents killed the program. It was officially ended with the tran

the Powerplants Division to Cleveland in December.125 NACA work o

flow compressors during the war did influence the manufacturers, 

NACA was left out of the design work for the first wave of turbojets.
y p

Secret Delivery for Cleveland

In April 1941 General Arnold had witnessed the first jet-powered fl

Britain, the Gloucester E-28/39 with its Whittle W-1B engine. Throu

Lend-Lease agreement, plans for the Whittle centrifugal engine were s

brought to the United States so that engineers at GE’s West Lynn plan

replicate it. 

Work on the new engine, called the I-A, was difficult with only W

drawings as a guide. Colonel Donald Keirn, who oversaw the ear

turbojet work, and three British engineers then accompanied the sh

of a Whittle W-1X engine to the United States. The development prog

but the first attempt to operate the engine in March 1942 was disappo

After several modifications the 1,250-pound-thrust engine was succ

run on 18 April 1942.126

Bell Aircraft Corporation had been contracted the previous October 

struct an aircraft that would incorporate the new GE I-A engines. Th

was the Bell XP-59A Airacomet.127 During June of 1942 Whittle himse

several weeks in Massachusetts assisting with the integration of the 

into the airframe. After a secret cross-country railroad delivery an

eral days of preparations, the XP-59A made its first flight over Muro

California, on 2 October 1942.128

Image 45: Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory at the AERL. GE’s West Lynn team had desi

nondescript two-cell test bed to be built at the AERL to test their new Whittle-based jet 

An I-A, the first turbojet built in the United States, was secretly brought onto the lab d

as a supercharger and tested in the Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory in the fall of 1943

had been superseded by the I-16 by this point. The I-16 would be tested in the AWT just 

of months afterward. (NASA C−1945−12097)
Although the Airacomet flew, it did not perform well and provide

performance enhancement over the piston version of the aircraft. It

of 290 mph was a little over half of what the Messerschmitt Me-2

achieved several months before.129 General Arnold, who had been aw

the engine for over a year, expressed his concerns over the slow d

ment of jet aircraft. In a 14 October 1942 letter to NACA Chairman 

Hunsaker, Arnold stated that it would be easier to improve the ove

craft design rather than the engine because the overhaul process r

less time. More importantly, he realized that jet propulsion enginee

still rare in the United States and that the I-A engines were not d

specifically for fighter planes.130

By January 1943 the West Lynn group had begun work on a 1,650-

thrust successor, the I-16. The new engine was more powerful than 

but it added additional weight to the already heavy aircraft. Its sp

409 mph and altitude of 35,000 feet during a July 1943 test fligh

considered to be only moderately better than the original prototype.

Image 46: Benjamin Pinkel uses a GE I-16 engine to explain thrust augmentation s

members of the Aviation Writer’s Association touring the AERL. The GE I-16 and 

Westinghouse 19B engines on display were tested in the AWT during the war year

had worked on the Jeep engine project at Langley before being transferred to Clev

December 1942. (NASA C−1945−10634)
y p

The Turbojet Takes Precedence

By the end of the year it had been decided that the GE I-16, not th

waiting Wright R-3350, would be the first engine investigated in the 

new AWT. Colonel Keirn summoned Silverstein, the head of the A

GE’s West Lynn facility to discuss testing the I-16 in altitude con

When asked later about the trip, Silverstein replied, “We had th

altitude tunnel. That’s the reason I went.” Silverstein had been aw

the Jeep project, but the meeting with Keirn was his first real expo

the turbojet. After viewing the work at West Lynn, arrangements wer

“to get the engine going.”132

Although the AWT was not designed for jet engines, Silverstein leap

chance to examine the new technology in his brand new wind tunn

of the I-16’s most troublesome problems was the uneven airflow t

Image 47: The AWT’s first test: the Bell YP-59A with its two GE I-16 turbojet engines. 

ments from the AWT tests included a boundary-layer removal duct, which d

the fuselage’s boundary layer by 60 percent; a new nacelle inlet, which in combina

the boundary-layer removal duct resulted in an additional 16-percent average 

recovery near the compressor inlets; and new engine cooling seals, which reduced the 

cooling airflow by 75 percent.133 (NASA C−1944−04825)
its intakes. Silverstein had already investigated engine airflow in La

Full-Scale Tunnel and felt confident that studies in the AWT would r

increased thrust for the I-16.134

After the logistics were worked out, Bell pilot Bob Stanley flew a YP

Cleveland for the tests.135 Harold Friedman remembered the aircraft’s 

“[Colonel Page, the U.S. Army Air Force liaison] was all dressed up 

air force uniform and was carrying a sidearm like he was going to 

it.”136 The wing tips and tail were cut from the aircraft so that the 

fuselage and engines would fit into the AWT’s test section. The tests 

on 4 February 1944.

Image 48: Bell YP-59A, a production version of the prototype XP-59A, was flown from 

plant in Buffalo, New York, to the AERL by Bob Stanley. Stanley piloted the first succes

of the XP-59A at Muroc Army Air Field (now Edwards Air Force Base) on 1 Octob

The secret AWT tests led by Merritt Preston improved the performance of the engine

enhancements could not overcome the engine’s many design flaws. (NASA C−1944−
y p

The study, led by Merritt Preston, first analyzed the engines in their o

configuration and then implemented a boundary layer removal duct

nacelle inlet, and new cooling seals. Tests of the modified version s

that the improved distribution of airflow increased the I-16’s performa

25 percent.137 Despite the improved speed, the aircraft was not stable e

to be used in combat, and the design was soon abandoned. GE crea

of the engines for the U.S. Army Air Force, but only 20 productio

comets were built by Bell. These were used primarily for pilot trainin

Image 49: The Bell YP-59A Airacomet with nacelle cover removed to reveal one of it

I-16 jet engines. GE’s West Lynn plant had developed the turbocharger, which incre

capabilities of piston engines and allowed the first over-weather flight in July 1937. 

of the demand for the turbochargers, the West Lynn plant expanded its facilities an

working closely with the air corps. This relationship led to its selection to build the 

first jet engine, the I-A. Turbocharger guru Sanford Moss was called out of retire

1943 to assist with the next generation of centrifugal jets—the I-14, I-16, and I-20.1

C−1945−10686)
Image 50: Mechanics attend a class on jet propulsion. The introduction of turbo

ing the war required crash studies for mechanics and engineers alike. In this pho

Gesa Major demonstrates a centrifugal compressor used on the Whittle-based engine

C−1945−13464)
y p

“Too Much Damn Work”

The nation made countless sacrifices during the war, and the AERL w

exception. The January 1943 Overtime Act resulted in a six-day, 48

work-week without overtime pay for the duration of the war. Those ea

under $2,900 were given a 22 percent salary increase, but the 5 pe

“Victory Tax” remained in place.140 The AWT crew worked around the clo

keep the facility going.

There were many tests in its queue when the AWT became operatio

February 1944. As soon as one investigation was complete, the engine 

quickly removed and replaced with another. For example, mechanics 

prepping the Douglas XTB2D and Westinghouse 19B engines in the 

as the B-29’s R-3350 engine was being tested. After the R-3350 fail

3 a.m. on 14 September 1944, it was quickly removed from the test se

By 16 September, a 19B had taken its place. After adding a lengthy l

tasks completed on 5 September 1944 to the AWT logbook, mecha

supervisor, Austin Reader, noted, “Too much damn work.”141

Image 51: The AWT seen during its overnight operation. The tunnel was usually r

night when the electric company had sufficient electricity for the massive power 

(NASA C−1945−09513)
Operating the AWT was a demanding job, even without the pressu

the war. For the mechanics, the work was often dirty and tedious. Fo

engineers, the days were long and stressful. Generally the first and se

shifts set up or broke down the test articles. The tests were run by the 

shift at night when electricity was available. Engineers would often ha

work all day, then operate the tunnel and run their test overnight. 

NASA retiree Bob Walker described it: “First and second shift [w

designed to get the work done for the day, all the squawks on your squ

sheet, just like you’d have an aircraft operation someplace. The engin

would put down the work they wanted done and things you’d burned u

night before or whatever. So, you’d get it all back together on the first 

second shift, then [the overnight crew] would come in and crank it up at 

and run it.”142

Image 52: Crowded conditions inside the Fabrication Shop. The lab was unde

sure to meet the military’s demand for wartime testing. This resulted in 48-hour 

and three shifts per day. The AWT’s late entry into the war left no time to spare. 

who were frequently absent or arrived late were transferred or discharged.143 

C−1945−10396)
y p

Harold Friedman added, “We were running the Altitude Wind Tunnel 

10:00 at night until 4:00 in the morning because that’s when the elect

was available. When that was finished, we’d go home and go to bed an

up and come back to work.”144

“Because there were fewer and fewer engineers who wanted third 

after working all day at their desks,” recalled former technician Ho

Wine, “they came up with a theory that, well, maybe the technicians, the 

chiefs, could operate the facility.” The operation of the tunnel w

sophisticated process that required communication with the ele

company and the support buildings. According to Wine, the crew chiefs 

trained to operate the tunnels, even though some of the mechanics h

better understanding of the system.145
Image 53: Lockheed YP-80A with its GE I-40 engines being tested in the AWT. One of t

fications required to test jet engines in the AWT was the ducting of conditioned airflow 

to the engine inlets. This method effectively reduced the tunnel size but allowed grea

and altitude conditions for the engine. The direct-connect method was used for a

turbojet and ramjet tests in the AWT. (NASA C−1945−09446)
y p

“It Was So Simple”

In May 1944, a wing section with the right inboard nacelle and its 18-c

R-3350 engine was finally installed in the AWT. Components of the 

had been investigated the previous fall in the Engine Research B

resulting in an improved fuel-injection system, but the AWT wo

needed to study the entire engine under the normal high-altitude e

ment, particularly the airflow around the engine.

Abe Silverstein played a key role in the studies. Not long before hi

fer from NACA Langley, he began studying engine cooling in the Fu

Tunnel. He used his acquired aerodynamics knowledge to improve t

of air through the engines.146 The AERL engineers found that there 

Image 54: The AWT was used to study the engine cooling problems for the Boe

Superfortress for the Pacific phase of World War II. The B-29’s right inboard na

wing section were installed in the AWT test section from May to September 1944. A

this series of tests, several different flap designs were studied on the Wright R-3350 

43-inch-diameter cowl inlet. The logbook notes that the day shift “washed model for 

prior to this midday 4 July photograph.147 (NASA C−1944−05554)
Image 55: The massive Wright R-3350 18-cylinder piston engine is prepared for testi

AWT. In 1935, Curtiss-Wright Corporation began developing bigger and more powe

craft engines that were based on the principles of their existing Cyclone engine. One of 

engines was the 2,200-horsepower R-3350, which was plagued by problems from th

ning. Although first run in May 1937, it was not successfully flown until 21 Septemb

When proposals were drawn for the B-29 bomber in 1940, the design included the us

of the unproven R-3350s. (NASA C−1944−04488)
y p

cooling airflow where the exhaust was ejected, which was the hott

tion of the engine. After a relatively short period of analysis, they fou

by elongating fins within the engine the airflow would be directed 

the cylinders to the problem areas. This resulted in a 50°F reduction 

operating temperature. Silverstein, who was gaining more and more 

ence with engine cooling, later explained, “It was so simple.”148

The AWT also was used to study the R-3350’s cowl inlets, particula

flap design. Cooling-air pressure levels, distribution, and drag were an

for a variety of cowl flap configurations. The researchers found that 

flaps required 60 to 80 less horsepower than did the original chord 

This would produce an extra 190 mph at an altitude of 15,000 feet.14

The design of the R-3350 still had problems, but the AERL enhanc

could get the bomber through the war. The 18 percent increase 

efficiency could broaden the B-29’s flight range or increase its arm

capabilities.150 This improvement was calculated to be either an 

increase of 10,000 feet, a gross-weight increase of 10,000 pounds 

level, or a gross weight increase of 35,000 pounds above 10,000 feet

The final run of the R-3350 in the AWT had an inauspicious conclus

15 September 1944. “At approx[imately] 3:02AM this morning the B-29 

#14 cylinder of the engine during operation the cyl[inder], passed th

the cowling[,] hit tunnel under wing, hit base of exh[a]ust inlet & 

way up turning vanes putting large dent in vane. The piston was fo

the second vane. Most of piston was stopped by screen at this van

tunnel was locked up awaiting inspection of U.S. Army. Took pictures

[Royce] Moore & Silverstein ordered B29 removed from tunnel.”152 

theless, the studies had been successful, and some felt that just 10 

R-3350 testing had paid for the NACA’s investment in the AWT.153

Forsaken

Harold Friedman and others from the AERL flew to Boeing headq

in Renton, Washington, to present the findings from the AERL tes

group remained in Washington for six weeks while Boeing verified th

conclusions with their own tests. Friedman claimed that the sug

modifications were not implemented. He surmised that it was beca

fuel-injection system would have increased fuel consumption.154 It a

however, that the findings arrived just a little too late for the modifi

to be used for the war. 
In late August 1944, just as the AWT tests were wrapping up, Major G

Curtis LeMay was placed in charge of the XXIst Bomber Command

controlled all B-29 aircraft in the Pacific. The first phase of the B-29 

ing campaign, beginning three months later in November 1944, cons

high-altitude precision strikes on specific targets during daylight.

In addition to the engine difficulties, the winds at high altitudes were 

navigation problems. General Thomas Power, who led the B-29 m

and LeMay decided to switch their strategy to low-level missions to av

weather problems and keep the engines from burning up. There wo

no need to bolster the R-3350s for high-altitude flight, and the reduc

engine overhauls would provide additional bombers for the sorties. I

tion, the aircraft could carry a larger quantity of bombs, hit their targe

accurately, and use less fuel.155

The second phase of bombing was at low-altitude at nighttime. It 

during the night of 9 March 1945. General Power led three-hundred f

B-29s on an assault of Tokyo using napalmlike incendiary bombs. Th

killed 84,000 Japanese and destroyed 16 square miles of the city. P

studies indicated that the fires on this night produced more heat th

Dresden bombing or either of the subsequent atomic bombs.156 The 

tating low-level nighttime fire-bomb raids and medium-altitude d

attacks continued through the end of the war.157

Image 56: B-29 Superfortress in the AERL hangar for a postwar open house event with 

R-3350 engine on display. The AERL had remedied the engine’s cooling problems, but 

the modifications would not be implemented until after the war. (NASA C−1945−105
y p

It is difficult to say for certain, but if the R-3350 testing in the AWT h

been delayed for several months, the U.S. Army Air Force may hav

able to accomplish its goals by using the B-29’s high-altitude cap

to bomb Japanese industrial and transportation targets, and the inc

bombing—which resulted in so many casualties—may have been a

After the war the R-3350 went on to a successful career, powering bo

ian and military aircraft using the baffling and fuel-injection modifi

made at the AERL. The precedence given to the turbojet would pay 

the AWT, though. By the time of the March raid on Tokyo, the AW

investigated three jet engines, including the nation’s first succes

fighter, the Lockheed Shooting Star. 

The Americans Get It Right

Although the AWT investigations significantly increased the I-16’s thr

military needed an engine twice as powerful. The Messerschmitt Me-2

begun making its mark in Europe, and the air force sought a new 5

fighter.158 In June 1943, GE engineers began work on a 4,200-poun

engine. The new I-40 engine was first tested at West Lynn, Massac

the following January, just as the AWT was preparing to test the I-16

Image 57: Lockheed’s YP-80A Shooting Star on display in the AWT shop. The Shooting 

the first jet aircraft manufactured in the United States and the first U.S. Air Force airc

faster than 500 mph. (NASA C−1945−10600)
After the disappointment of Bell’s XP-59A, in June 1943 the ai

had tapped Lockheed to design a new jet fighter to incorpor

I-40s. Lockheed’s drawings for the XP-80 Shooting Star were appro

16 October, and the first aircraft, which used Halford H-1 engine

completed 150 days later. The Shooting Star’s initial flight took p

January 1944 as construction of the AWT was being finalized.160

The flight was a success, but almost immediately the airframe was m

for use with the I-40. Two new XP-80As were produced and 

tested during the summer of 1944. On the basis of their perfor

Lockheed produced the first eighteen YP-80A Shooting Star product

craft in September. The air force dispatched two to Britain and two 

to try to neutralize the Me-262’s successes. The Shooting Star contin

experience operational problems, though, and crashes resulted in the 

of several pilots.161

Image 58: GE I-40 engines for Lockheed’s YP-80A Shooting Star were tested in the A

March to May 1945. The tunnel’s 20-foot-diameter test section allowed the entire fuse

installed. (NASA C−1945−09576)
y p

The I-40 engine underwent a thorough analysis in the AWT during the 

of 1945. Like the Airacomet, the entire YP-80A fuselage was installed 

test section. The tunnel airflow was directly connected to the inlets i

to increase the altitude and speed of the air as it entered the engin

of the primary areas of research was the engine’s thrust performance 

tudes up to 50,000 feet. An attempt to forecast altitude thrust levels ba

sea-level measurements was successful, and a curve was created to 

the I-40’s thrust at all altitudes.162

Follow-up studies on a Lockheed TP80S, a Shooting Star modi

accommodate a second pilot, revealed that the I-40’s turbine and com

efficiency and fuel consumption were not affected by altitude b

combustion efficiency and thrust diminished as altitude increased.1

analyzing different tailpipes, researchers found that a short nozzle 

uniform diameter tailpipe was most efficient.164

The resulting P-80 fighter and the I-40 engines would be great success

not in time for the war effort. Thousands of the I-40 engines were eve

built, including 300 during the last year of the war. As a result of the I

the first time British engineers were traveling to the United States to 

jet engine.165 In 1947 the P-80 set the world’s speed record with a 62

flight at the Cleveland Air Races. The second generation, the F-80, wa

weapon in the Korean War.166
103. Ruth Baker, “Research Staff Meetings Inaugurated,” Wing Tip (8 Janua

1943).

104. John Curatola, “No Quarter Give: The Change in the Strategic Bombin

Application in the Pacific Theater During World War II” (Thesis, U.S. A

Command and General Staff College, 2002), 57.

105. Robert F. Dorr, Superfortress Units of World War 2 (Osceola, WI: Ospr

Publishing, 2002), p. 9.

106. Henry H. Arnold, “Transcript of General H.H. Arnold’s Speech to AER

9 November 1944, File 4849, Historical Collection, NASA Headquarter

Washington, DC.

107. “Utilization of Wind Tunnels From January 1939 to June 1945,” File 11

Historical Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

108. Kimble McCutheon, “OX-5s to Turbo-Compounds: A Brief Overview o

Aircraft Engine Development,” 1999, p. 1. 

109. Dorr, Superfortress Units of WWII.

110. Curatola, “No Quarter Give,” pp. 59−60.

111. Dorr, Superfortress Units of WWII.

112. Curatola, “No Quarter Give,” pp. 61−63.

113. McCutheon, “OX-5s to Turbo-Compounds,” p. 10.

114. Interview with Frank Bechtel, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 19 July 2004

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

115. Dik Daso, “Origins of Air Power: Hap Arnold’s Command Years and A

Technology, 1936–1945,” Aerospace Power Journal (Fall 1997): 99 and 

116. Jerome Hunsaker to George Lewis, “Memorandum of Conference Wit

General Echols Regarding Suggestion Contained in General Arnold’s L

of October 14, 1942, to Dr. Hunsaker, Relating to Engine Design Impr

ments Especially for Fighters,” 23 January 1943, File 11059, Historical 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

117. T.A. Heppenheimer, “The Jet Plane Is Born,” American Heritage: Inve

and Technology Magazine I, no. 2 (Fall 1993).

118. James R. Hansen, Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aerona

Laboratory, 1917–1958 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4305, 1987), chap

119. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 5 Octo

1984, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

120. Heppenheimer, “The Jet Plane Is Born.”

121. “Jet Propulsion in England: Report of a Conference Attended by Offic

the Army and Navy and Representatives of American Industrial Organ

Visiting England During the Summer and Fall of 1943,” 18 December 

File 11059, Historical Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC

122. M. Neufeld and R. Lee, Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a (Washington, DC: N

Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 2 April 2001), 

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/me262.htm (accessed 

29 July 2009).

123. Silverstein interview, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 5 October 1984.

Endnotes for Chapter 3
y p

124. Hansen, Engineer in Charge.

125. Hansen, Engineer in Charge.

126. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress: A Heritage of A

Turbine Technology (Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1979

127. Jos Heyman and Andreas Parsch, “Duplications in U.S. Military Aircraf

Designation Series,” Designation-Systems.net (2004), http://www.desig

systems.net/usmilav/duplications.html (accessed 29 July 2009). 

128. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress.

129. David M. Carpenter, Flame Powered: The Bell XP-59A Airacomet and 

General Electric I-A Engine (Jet Pioneers of America, 1992), pp. 38−39

130. Henry H. Arnold to Jerome Hunsaker, 14 October 1942, File 11059, N

Headquarters Historical Collection, Washington, DC.

131. Arnold to Hunsaker, “Letter of 14 October 1942.”

132. Merritt Preston, Fred O. Black, and James M. Jagger, Altitude-Wind-Tu

Tests of Power-Plant Installation in Jet-Propelled Fighter (Washington, 

NACA MR–E5L17, 1946), p. 1.

133. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress, p. 52.

134. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Sloop, 29 May 1974

135. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by Walter T. Bonney, 21 Oc

1972 and 20 September 1973, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral Hi

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

136. Silverstein interview, conducted by Walter T. Bonney, 21 October 197

20 September 1973.

137. Interview with Harold Friedman, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 Novem

2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Clevela

OH.

138. Preston, “Altitude-Wind-Tunnel Tests.”

139. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress, p. 52.

140. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress, p. 52.

141. “It’s Now Six-Day, 48-Hour Week,” Wing Tips (22 January 1943).

142. “Day Shift,” AWT Logbook Record: June 26, 1944 to February 28, 1945 

(Cleveland, OH: NASA Glenn History Collection, 5 September 1944). 

143. Interview with Howard Wine, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 4 September 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

144. Interview with Bob Walker, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 August 2005

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

145. Friedman Interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 November 2005.

146. Silverstein interview, conducted by Walter T. Bonney, 21 October 197

20 September 1973.

147. “Day Shift,” AWT Log Record: June 26, 1944 to February 28, 1945.

148. Silverstein interview, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 5 October 1984.

149. DeMarquis Wyatt and William Conrad, An Investigation of Cowl-Flap a

Cowl-Outlet Designs for the B–29 Power Plant Installation (Washington

NACA Wartime Report E–205, 1946), p. 27.

150. “Center Marks Thirty Years Progress,” Lewis News (16 July 1971).
151. Frank Marble, Mahlon Miller, and Barton Bell, “Analysis of Cooling Lim

tions and Effect of Engine Cooling Improvements on Level Flight Crui

Performance of Four Engine Heavy Bomber” (Washington, DC: NACA 

860, 1948).

152. “Day Shift,” AWT Log Record: June 26, 1944 to February 28, 1945.

153. L.L. Lewis memo, “Carrier in World War II Wind Tunnel Air Condition

United Technologies Archives, as referenced in Virginia P. Dawson, En

and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American Propulsion Technolo

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991), chap. 2. 

154. Friedman interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 November 2005.

155. Dorr, Superfortress Units of WWII, pp. 23 and 36.

156. Dorr, Superfortress Units of WWII, pp. 2 and 38.

157. Curatola, “No Quarter Give,” 58.

158. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress, p. 52.

159. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress, p. 53.

160. Laurence K. Loftkin, Jr., Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Mode

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).

161. Marcelle Size Knaack, Encyclopedia of U.S. Air Force Aircraft and Miss

System, Volume I (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1978), 

pp. 1−3. 

162. Abe Silverstein, “Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigations of Jet-Propulsion 

Engines,” General Electric Gas Turbine Conference (31 May 1945), pp

163. Stanley Gendler and William Koffel, Investigation of the I-40 Jet Propu

Engine in the Cleveland Altitude Wind Tunnel I—Performance and W

milling Drag Characteristics (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E8G02, 1948

p. 16.

164. Richard Krebs and Frederick Foshag, Investigation of the I-40 Jet Propu

Engine in the Cleveland Altitude Wind Tunnel III—Analysis of Turbine 

Performance and Effect of Tail-Pipe Design on Engine Performance

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E8G02b, 1948), p. 3. 

165. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress, p. 55.

166. Knaack, Encyclopedia of U.S. Air Force Aircraft, p. 1–3.
Image 59: A researcher examines the stator blades on a Westinghouse 24C axial-flow tur

in the shop area. Axial-flow engines, with multiple stages or rows of compressor blad

here, were studied extensively in the Altitude Wind Tunnel. (NASA C−1950−26086)
gf 

The new turbojet reorganization at the NACA’s Aircraft Engine R

Laboratory (AERL), known as “the Big Switch,” would not official

place until the end of the war. The emphasis on jet engines, howeve

ficially began two years earlier with the acquisition of the General 

(GE) centrifugal engines for studies in the Jet Propulsion Static Lab an

the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT). The sudden emergence of the t

affected the AERL far more than the NACA’s two aerodynamics-base

ratories. The staff had to quickly learn the new technology and modi

test facilities to accommodate more powerful engines. 

One of the most significant problems with the early turbojets was c

tion at high altitudes. The AWT was the nation’s only facility in wh

combustion and performance characteristics of a turbojet could be 

under altitude conditions.167 During the final year of the war, the AW

used almost exclusively to address this problem. In addition to test

Whittle-based series of centrifugal engines, the tunnel was used to stu

improve almost every early model of the axial-flow compressor engi

axial-flow engine powered the successful Messerschmitt Me-262 and 

prove to be the enduring version of the turbojet. 

Chapter 

Alternate Wartime M

(1944–1945)

Age of the 

Axial Flow
y p

Image 60: Cutaway drawings. Top: Centrifugal compressor engine. Center: Axial-flow 

Bottom: Ducted-fan engine. Growth of the centrifugal engine was limited by the 

expansion of the single compressor. At a certain point, the tradeoff between power 

would be inefficient. Axial-flow engines could gain additional power by adding set

pressor blades in a line. The length of the engine would increase but not the diamete

C−1946−15565, C−1945−13707, and C−1946−15563)
gf 

Steam Turbine Experts Heed the Call-Up

Although the military had considered as many as 15 different jet engin

a number of different companies between 1942 and 1945, the two 

enced steam turbine manufacturers—Westinghouse, and GE’s Schen

New York, plant—produced the most significant results. William D

Special Committee on Jet Propulsion included Westinghouse’s L. W. 

Schenectady’s Alan Howard, and Allis-Chalmers’s R. C. Allen. The larg

craft engine manufacturers, Pratt & Whitney and Wright Aeronautica

omitted so that they could focus their efforts on producing piston eng

the war.168 Westinghouse contracted with the navy’s Bureau of Aero

and GE with the U.S. Army Air Corps. During the 1940s, both of the 

nies created three increasingly powerful generations of axial-flow tu

In July 1941, months before GE’s West Lynn group began recreating W

engine, Durand’s committee asked three engine companies to each d

jet engine for possible military production. Allis-Chalmers proposed a 

fan that remained mired in the design process, GE suggested the 

Image 61: NACA leaders accompany General Henry Arnold on his tour of the 

9 November 1944. Here the group is on the tunnel’s viewing platform peering 

20-foot-diameter test section. The refrigerated air in the tunnel is vaporizing as it m

the warmer exterior air. Arnold pushed the development of jet engines during the 

included the testing of nearly every early model in the AWT. (NASA C−1944−07499)
y p

turboprop, and Westinghouse offered the 19A turbojet. All were ba

the axial-flow compressor model.169 The initial designs quickly led t

powerful incarnations. The AWT would conduct extensive studies on 

every one of the early axial-flow engines. Each of these studies in

an analysis of general operating characteristics over a range of spee

altitudes, as well as analysis of specific performance enhancements 

tailpipe burning, windmilling, and high-altitude flameouts. 

Westinghouse Designs First U.S. Turbojet 

In November 1941 the navy requested that Westinghouse put togethe

posal to design a turbojet engine capable of reaching 500 mph. The d

the Pearl Harbor attack, despite not having a contract, Westinghouse 

work on what would be the 19A engine. Official work began the fo

August, and the 19A was first run on 19 March 1943. Following a 10

endurance test on 5 July, the 19A became the first operational jet 

designed in the United States.170 When it was used on 21 January 19

jet-assisted-takeoff-like booster on a Chance-Vought FG-1 Corsair, t

became the first and only of the original U.S. turbojets to be flown 

the war in Europe.

Image 62: Westinghouse 19B six-stage axial-flow turbojet in the AWT. The 1,400-pou

19B improved on Westinghouse’s original 1,100-pound-thrust 19A engine. Instrum

can be seen in the engine’s inlet. The engines were relatively small, with a length 

8.5 inches, with a maximum diameter of 20.75 inches, and a weight of 825 pounds.

C−1944−06735)
gf 

Image 63: The Westinghouse 19XB seen from the side in the AWT. Two 19XBs a

6 November 1944 and were promptly installed in the tunnel. The 19XB-1 and 

produced 1,400 and 1,600 pounds of thrust, respectively. The AWT tests revealed the su

of the 19XB over the 19B and led to its success. (NASA C−1944−07564)

In March 1943, just over a week before the first run of the 19A, Westin

agreed to create an improved six-stage version, the 19B. Unlike it

ecessor, the 19B could serve as either a booster or primary propulsio

The engine underwent its first test run a year later in March 1944. 

immediately the navy agreed to Westinghouse’s proposal for the eve

10-stage, 1,600-pound-thrust 19XB prototype.172 By July the navy ha

tracted with the NACA for the testing of both engines in the AWT. 

The AWT investigations began on 9 September, one week after t

underwent its first flight test. The AWT runs revealed the superiority 

previously untested 19XB over the 19B. The 19B engines failed to 

consistently and suffered combustion blowouts above 17,000 feet. Th

however, performed well and restarted routinely at twice that alti

Two months later on 26 January 1945, two 19Bs powered a McD

XFD-1 Phantom, the U.S. Navy’s first fighter jet, on its initial flight. Fo

its exceptional performance in the AWT, the 19XB engines soon repla

19Bs in the Phantom.174
y p

General Electric Takes on the Axial-Flow Engine

When asked to participate in the Special Committee on Jet Propul

March 1942, GE was still trying to build the Whittle engine at its Wes

Massachusetts, plant. Another GE group in Schenectady, New York, ho

had been working on the TG-100 axial-flow turboprop engine for 

years. Turboprops could move a large volume of air and thus requir

engine speed. The turboprop was progressing slowly, so in May 19

army requested the development of an axial-flow turbojet, the TG

was accepted that the TG-180 would not be ready in time for the wa

but its long-term potential was considered to be more promising th

of the Whittle engines.175

Like the turboprop, the development of the TG-180 was sluggish. Al

the engine was bench tested in April 1944, it was not flight teste

February 1946.176 During the interim, the engine was brought to th

Image 64: The McDonnell Phantom XFD-1 became the U.S. Navy’s first completely jet-p

aircraft. Its development began in August 1943. The Phantom was originally design

two Westinghouse 19B jet engines. After successful tests in the AWT, these were rep

19XBs. The 19XBs were also used for the experimental Douglas XB-42A Mixmaster 

Northrop XP-79 “flying wing” aircraft. (U.S. Navy/Department of Defense) 
gf 

Image 65: Douglas D-558-I Skystreak powered by the TG-180 engine. On 20 Aug

U.S. Navy Commander T. Caldwell flew the Skystreak to a new world’s speed r

640.7 mph. A second D-558-I flown by U.S. Marine Pilot Major Marion Carl soon bet

record by 10 mph. Unlike the X-planes, the Skystreaks took off from the ground un

own power and had straight wings and tails.178 (NASA E−713)

for the first of four rounds of testing in the AWT. The studies, which 

continue intermittently into 1948, subjected the engine to an array o

Modifications were made that steadily improved the TG-180’s perfor

including the first successful use of an afterburner. 

To GE’s chagrin, the army contracted with Allison to manufactu

TG-180s for use on the Bell X-5, Republic F-84 Thunderjet, and N

F-89 Scorpion. Although the TG-180 was not the breakthrough engi

the military had hoped for, it did power the Douglas D-558-I Skystre

world speed record on 20 August 1947.177
y p

Image 66: Eleven-stage axial-flow GE TG-180 installed in the AWT test section. Th

tests focused on the benefits of tailpipe burners, or afterburners, to improve thrust. O

of research determined the performance of a 29-inch-diameter tailpipe burner over 

of altitude conditions using several different flameholders and fuel systems. AERL 

ers determined that the optimal design was a three-stage flameholder with its larg

upstream.179 (NASA C−1945−08687)
gf 

“It Was No Accident”

Once the decision was made to proceed, the development of tur

engines was given precedence and heavy financial support by the mil

Numerous sea-level facilities for testing piston engine endurance ex

and others were created specifically for the turbojet. One of the difficu

in developing turbojets, however, was the lack of altitude test fac

capable of handling the jet engines. The army’s Wright Field and the n

Aeronautical Engine Laboratory had a number of test stands, including 

tude simulators, but the range of conditions and the size of the eng

were restricted. The same was true for the altitude stands at the Nat

Bureau of Standards and GE. Flight tests were complicated because it 

extremely difficult to fly a test aircraft with elaborate instrumentation inst

on the jet engines. The AWT was the only facility the nation had to stud

performance of large turbojets at altitude conditions.180

Image 67: Left to right: Roger Weining and Bob Godman operate an engine fro

AWT’s control room. The tunnel’s ability to repeatedly study a full-size engine 

flight conditions and engine parameters of their choosing allowed the research

make modifications and test them quickly without the expense and uncontrolled 

ables of flight testing. (NASA C−1945−10365)
y p

This ability permitted the AERL engineers to try different modificatio

improve performance without redesigning the entire engine. Former A

engineer Bruce Lundin recalled, “We had the facilities and the opport

to create new kinds of compressors, to create afterburners, to create var

area nozzles, to create high-altitude combustors and all this stuff...let’s tr

altitude, and let’s see if this will work. If it doesn’t work, we’ll fix it so it does

then we can go to Boeing or Lockheed or General Dynamics or some of t

places, show them what we’ve done and they can put the marketing skill

that, and the production skills, and the reliability, and the maintenance s

and sell them. And that’s why American aviation has led the world. It wa

accident. It was this partnership where you each contribute to the buildi

the whole.”181

During typical AWT investigations, the operational and performance 

for the entire engine were determined at various altitude flight condit

as well as that of the various engine components. The operating range o

Image 68: Test engineers lower an NACA inlet duct into the 20-foot-diameter test s

for installation on a Westinghouse J40 engine. Engines could easily be tested in 

conditions with modified components, alternatve throttling methods, or different 

(NASA C−1951−28464)
gf 

engine was established at various altitudes, and it was determined wh

the operating range was limited by high turbine temperature, faulty com

tion, or other factors.182 Once the range was established, the AWT researc

sought to make general improvements that could be used on any jet en

Three of the most significant advances dealt with restarting at high altitu

windmilling, and the afterburner. 

Early versions of the turbojet suffered from combustion blowouts and 

difficult to restart as the airspeed or altitude increased. As the mixture o

and air became colder and less dense at higher altitudes, ignition prob

increased. The AWT was used to determine the maximum altitude at w

a particular engine could be started. AWT testing of the GE TG-180 in 

showed that relatively small modifications such as spark plug adjustm

resulted in considerable improvements. The engine started consistently 

altitude of 40,000 feet if the engine was properly throttled.183

Windmilling, or the rotation of compressor blades during flight while 

engine is inoperative, causes serious aerodynamic drag on an air

Reciprocating engines combat this by feathering the engines. In jet eng

the increased airflow from windmilling alters fuel-spray patterns, ham

ignition, and sharply increases the drag. AWT studies of both centrifuga

axial-flow engines revealed that windmilling was directly linked to airs

but had no relation to altitude. At speeds of 600 mph the resulting 

exceeded the normal engine thrust for both the I-40 and TG-180.184 

closures and compressor brakes would be used in ensuing generations 

engines to prevent this phenomenon. 
y p

The Afterburner Comes to Life

The advantages of the afterburner were agreed on almost immediate

the introduction of turbojet engines. The concept was not invented b

researchers, but they were the first to make it operational. Afterb

operate by heating the engine’s exhaust before it fully expands. Th

duces additional thrust without increasing temperatures or stresses 

engines.185

The AWT was used extensively throughout the mid-1940s to study 

afterburner configurations for several different engines. Each compo

the tailpipe, flameholder, combustion chambers, and variable-area no

was studied independently over a variety of altitudes and speed

researchers would have to weigh the tradeoffs between contradicting el

such as the need for cooling systems and the resulting extra weight.

Abe Silverstein claimed that a 29-inch-diameter tailpipe installed in 1

a TG-180 in the AWT was the first operating afterburner. In a 1974 int

Silverstein explained to John Sloop, “I recall very clearly the first ni

ran that afterburner. I was sitting by one of [the AWT test section v

Image 69: Republic F-94 interceptor tests its afterburner prior to takeoff during the 

War. The AWT was used to systematically study afterburner configurations on several 

engines. Desired elements included maximum thrust, maximum operable range, h

bustion efficiency, minimum weight, minimum size, low internal pressure losses, a

cooling, and good control.187 (27 July 1953) (National Archives)
gf 

portals] when we turned that afterburner on for the first time. And of 

they turned it on and immediately the thing combusted and ignited

flame 50 feet long, deep purple, came right out of the back end of 

full flame, with a noise that was unbelievable. You wouldn’t believe 

continued, “We designed it for low velocity, a big area, and we got 

efficient afterburner, which was a good place to start.” After the initi

ies, the engineers began reducing the diameter to increase the v

Silverstein claimed that it took 10 years for NACA researchers to 

the more powerful smaller-diameter designs with the combustion effi

achieved on that first run.188

The AERL worked closely with engine companies in the mid-19

improving the afterburner.189 Although NACA researchers analyzed th

ers for specific engines, they were able to accumulate a wide array o

data that was applicable to most engines. By 1946 the lab had publish

on the operation of afterburners, and the AWT would be used the fo

Image 70: A technician adjusts the large afterburner on a GE TG-180 engine in the 

section. The 29-inch diameter of the burner resulted in a low-velocity, but highly 

thrust. The three main sections of tailpipe burners are the diffuser section, the co

chamber, and nozzle section. The engine underwent thrust augmentation tests in th

using a variety of tailpipe burners. (NASA C−1946−14938)
y p

year to study a variety of components. These included the burner in

fusers, fuel-injection systems, flameholders, combustion space, com

instability, starting performance, diluents, and burner shell cooling.190 

a decade, afterburners were incorporated into nearly all turbojet eng

addition, their role had expanded from brief thrust augmentation to 

element of supersonic flight.191

Controlling the Thrust 

Afterburner research produced several related innovations, includ

cooling liner, V-gutter flameholder, fuel-spray bar system, and v

area nozzle.192 To combat the slow response time in early turbojets

engineers developed an adjustable nozzle. This device was part

important for takeoffs and landings. Bruce Lundin explained, “Yo

have an afterburner if you don’t have a variable-area exhaust nozzl

was obvious from the beginning. The nozzle has to get larger wh

afterburner’s on; and when you turn it off, the nozzle’s got to get sm

keep the rest of engine operating properly.”193

Image 71: A variable-area nozzle is installed on a GE TG-180 engine with an afterb

in the AWT. AERL created a clam-shell design because it was easier for the mecha

build. The AERL studies led engine manufacturers to later develop an iris-type nozz

was lighter and more efficient. 194 (NASA C−1945−8708)
gf 

Image 72: The Douglas XTB2D-1 Skypirate, an experimental torpedo bomber pow

by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major engine. The XTB2D-1 was too large 

used on pre-Midway carriers, and multiseat torpedo bombers were falling from 

by the time that the Midway carriers were put into action in late 1945. Carburet

scoops and the effect of the R-4360’s long propellers were investigated in the AW

November and December 1944.197 The propeller caused low-pressure recoveries 

engine inlet, particularly at high angles of attack.198 (NASA C−1944−08060)

After one of the AWT’s overnight runs of an early afterburner, th

informed Silverstein that the burner’s shell was getting hot spots tha

prove dangerous. Silverstein and Al Young met in the morning and 

a corrugated metal cooling liner that would fit inside the tailpipe. T

airflow between the burner shell and liner kept the liner from burnin

Silverstein recalled, “And you know, that cooling liner has been us

since. That liner we probably knocked out in one day and stuck in th

ran it the next night. That was really a time of great creative develo

We really moved ahead.”196

The War Is Over

Following the last run of the GE I-40 on 3 August 1945, the AWT w

down for two weeks of cleaning. During that period B-29 bombers d

atomic bombs on two Japanese cities. The resulting destruction force

to surrender and accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The w
y p

Image 73: A mechanic installs instrumentation on the Lockheed XR-60’s R-4360-1

inside the closed AWT test section during a test for the navy. The October 1945 studi

that engine temperature did not exceed 450°F at takeoff or at cruising altitudes 

10,000, or 15,000 feet. In this photograph, the four-bladed Curtiss propeller has been 

(NASA C−1945−13598)

over. Despite German technological advancements, it was the piston

Allied air power that had been the decisive element in both Euro

Japan. The German Me-262 fighters were in the air in 1944, but the

was minimized by a lack of strategic metals needed for both the 

and airframe.By the time that engineers had created alternative desig

Allies had inflicted heavy damage on German manufacturers.199

In spite of the NACA’s desire to deal exclusively with existing recipr

engines, only two of AWT’s eight wartime tests involved piston engin

Wright R-3350 and the experimental torpedo bomber—the Douglas XT

Skypirate. The Skypirate was powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-436

Major engine, the country’s largest mass-produced engine.200 Imme

after Victory over Japan Day (V-J Day), the Republic YP-47M Thun
gf 

Image 74: After a two-week break in early August to clean up the tunnel and 

Victory over Japan Day (V-J Day), the AWT resumed testing on 17 August 1945 

Republic YP-47M. The YP-47M, a faster variation of the P-47, was intended to co

Messerschmitt jet fighters and defend against the V-2 bombs. Propellers from four 

manufacturers were studied at altitudes up to 40,000 feet. The researchers develope

to determine maximum efficiency and the distribution of the maximum thrust loadi

the propeller blades during operation.201 (NASA C−1945−13445).
y p

and the R-4360 engine for Lockheed’s XR-60 Constitution underwe

analysis in the tunnel. Neither the Skypirate nor Constitution ever m

beyond the prototype stage. The YP-47Ms had seen some action in 

in 1945 but continued to have problems when the war ended. 

In the end, the AWT had little effect on the outcome of the war. I

applicable contribution, the baffling for the B-29 engines, was not 

mented until later. Although U.S. development of the turbojet would 

fast enough to make any significant impact on the outcome of the wa

have long-term effects. The AWT demonstrated remarkable flexibil

became a significant contributor in developing the nation’s first jet e

both centrifugal and axial-flow. The AWT had not only survived the t

revolution, it had embraced it. During its first 18 months of service, t

nel was modified to test jet engines, the staff showed that it could 

the new facility, a methodology of analysis was established that wo

applied repeatedly over the next decade, and the emerging AERL lea

showed that it could change course with almost no warning.
gf 

Postwar Snapshot

After not taking a day of leave between the Pearl Harbor attack and 

Armistice, the NACA Director of Aeronautical Research, George Le

would suffer two heart attacks during the first week of November 1945 

be forced into retirement two years later. From April to September 1

Carlton Kemper participated in a team that followed in the wake of adv

ing Allied troops in Germany, collecting research papers, examining f

ties, and interviewing researchers.202 Kemper lost his position as Execu

Engineer in the postwar reorganization, but he remained at the AERL 

consultant. Although Ray Sharp came to Cleveland to oversee the cons

tion of the laboratory, his administrative skills were such that he would m

age the lab until 1961. A former NACA Langley engineer, Jesse Hall, w

serve as a technical liaison between Sharp and the research staff. 

Abe Silverstein had been instrumental in testing the first jet engines and 

already designing the lab’s first supersonic wind tunnels. On 31 May 1

Silverstein presented a summary of the recent engine studies condu

in the AWT at the GE Gas Turbine Conference. Despite having been aw

of the turbojet for only a year and a half, the paper shows Silverst

remarkable understanding of the gas turbine technology. He was ab

summarize and integrate information from tests on GE’s axial-flow TG

and centrifugal I-40 and on Westinghouse’s 19B and 19XB engine

Silverstein would spearhead the lab’s research for the next 12 years. 

Image 75: NACA representatives pose in front of the AWT. Below left to right: Geo

Lewis, Carlton Kemper, and Ray Sharp. Above left to right: Abe Silverstein a

Jesse Hall. (NASA C−1944−04955)
y p

167. Carlton Kemper, “Dr. Kemper’s Talk at Morning Session of First Annua

Inspection,” Annual Inspection at NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Labo

8–10 October 1947, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

168. Jeremy R. Kinney, “Starting From Scratch?: The American Aero Engine 

Industry, the Air Force, and the Jet, 1940–1960” (Reston, VA: American 

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003).

169. Richard Leyes II and William A. Fleming, The History of North America

Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines (Reston, VA: American Institute of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics and Smithsonian Institution, 1999), p. 32

170. Eugene Emme, Aeronautics and Astronautics: An American Chronolo

Science and Technology in the Exploration of Space, 1915–1960 (Wash

DC: NASA Headquarters, 1961), pp. 39−49.

171. William Fleming, Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigation of Westinghouse 

19B-2, 19B-8, and 19XB-1 Jet Propulsion Engines, I: Operational Cha

tics (Washington, DC: NACA RM–e8J28, 1948), pp. 1−2. 

172. Leyes, The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engi

pp. 36−39.

173. Fleming, “Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigation of Westinghouse Engine

174. Leyes, The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engi

p. 39.

175. E.F.C. Somerscales and R.L. Hendrickson, “3500 kW Gas Turbine at th

Schenectady Plant of the General Electric Company” (New York, NY: 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1984), p. 6.

176. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress: A Heritage of A

Turbine Technology (Fallbrook, CA: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1979), p. 56

177. Emme, Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 49−63.

178. Emme, Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 39−63.

179. Richard Golladay and Harry Bloomer, Altitude Performance and Oper

Characteristics of 29-Inch Diameter Tail-Pipe Burner With Several Fue

Systems and Fuel-Cooled Stage-Type Flame Holders on J35-A-5 Turboje

Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E50A19, 1950), p. 1.

180. Leyes, The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engi

p. 30.

181. Interview with Bruce Lundin, conducted by Tom Farmer, This Way Up

Voices Climbing the Wind, WVIZ Documentary, 1991, NASA Glenn Hi

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

182. Kemper, “Dr. Kemper’s Talk.”

183. Abe Silverstein, “Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigations of Jet-Propulsion 

Engines,” General Electric Gas Turbine Conference (31 May 1945), p. 

184. Silverstein, “Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigations of Jet-Propulsion Eng

p. 10.

185. “The Afterburner Story,” Ryan Reporter 15, no. 2 (1 April 1954): 2.

Endnotes for Chapter 4
gf 

186. William A. Fleming, E.W. Conrad, and Alfred W. Young, Experimenta

Investigation of Tailpipe Burner Design Variables (Washington, DC: N

RM–E50K22, 1950). 

187. Fleming, “Experimental Investigation of Tailpipe Burner.”

188. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Sloop, 29 May 197

189. “The Afterburner Story,” Ryan Reporter.

190. Bruce Lundin, David Gabriel, and William Fleming, Summary of NACA 

Research on Afterburners for Turbojet Engines (Washington, DC: NAC

RM–E55L12, 1956). 

191. Lundin, Summary of NACA Research on Afterburners.

192. “The Afterburner Story,” Ryan Reporter.

193. Lundin interview, conducted by Tom Farmer, 1991.

194. Lundin interview, conducted by Tom Farmer, 1991.

195. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Mauer, 10 March 

1989, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

196. Silverstein interview, conducted by Sloop, 29 May 1974.

197. John Kuenzig and Herman Palter, Aerodynamics of the Carburetor Ai

and the Engine Cowling on a Single-Engine Torpedo Bomber-Type Airp

(Washington, DC: NACA MR E6E27, 1946). 

198. NACA, “Thirty-Second Annual Report of the National Advisory Commi

Aeronautics” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 

199. T.A. Heppenheimer, “The Jet Plane Is Born,” American Heritage: Inve

and Technology Magazine I, no. 2 (Fall 1993).

200. Kuenzig, Aerodynamics of the Carburetor Air Scoop. 

201. Martin Saari and Lewis Wallner, Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigation of 

Performance of Several Propellers on YP–47M Airplane at High Blade 

Loadings: V—Curtiss 836-14C2-18R1 Four Blade Propeller (Washingto

NACA RM–E6J31, 1946), p. 9. 

202. “Kemper Returns,” Wing Tips (19 October 1945).

203. Silverstein, “Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigations of Jet-Propulsion Eng
Image 76: Two men work on top of the 51-foot-diameter section of the Altitude Wind T

facility emerged from the secrecy of the war and began a highly productive 10-yea

advancing turbojet technology. (NASA C−1945−10525)
“Trying to be a patriotic American I have refrained from taking this m

with you during the war,” wrote Robert Boone, owner of a nearby res

“... almost every day except Sundays during the past year or mo

noise from your laboratory has been almost unbearable.”204 This 29 

1945 complaint was one of the first indications that the respite fo

Victory over Japan Day (V-J Day) would be short lived. Although the

many sources of noise at the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory 

it was the inaudible low-frequency vibrations generated by the A

Wind Tunnel’s (AWT) exhausters, which ran during the late night an

morning hours, that seemed to “have the greatest range of annoyan

the surrounding community. By November the NACA had taken a n

of steps to appease the neighbors, including the installation of muffle

the vent pipes exiting the Exhauster Building.205

It was these AWT exhausters that were used to create the lab’s tw

supersonic wind tunnels. Now that the war had ended, the lab would 

grapple with the new field of high-speed flight, the return to basic re

and the reorganization of its staff. The rapid advancement in pro

technology during the war years was unrivaled in the history of aviati

AERL and AWT had tackled the changes on the fly and were poised 

the way now that peace had settled. The AWT would continue the t

work it had started in 1944 while also studying ramjets, turboprop

British engines. The benefit of the AWT’s steady analysis of newly em

jet engines such as the GE TG-190 and Westinghouse 24C would b

evident with the powerful turbojets of the 1950s.

Chapter 

The Postw

Will to Power (1946–1949
y p

Image 78: During the final months of the war, the AERL began opening its doors to g

of writers, servicemen, aviation industry leaders, and others. Stands were built for 

photos outside the lab’s centerpiece, the AWT. On 5 July 1945, Fleet Admiral Erwin 

headed a group of high-ranking officers who participated in an NACA and U.S

research conference at the AERL. The group posed with NACA hosts George Lewi

Sharp, John Victory, Jerome Hunsaker, and Addison Rothrock. (NASA C−1945−111

Image 77: The residence of Robert Boone, owner of the Store News Company, was 

in the 1930s as a bucolic home in an undeveloped area along the Rocky River. Foll

the construction of the AERL just to the southeast in the early 1940s, Boone’s hom

besieged by noise from the test facilities, particularly the Propeller Research Test Fa

and the AWT, which was less than a half mile away. The house was sold to the G

family in the 1950s but was acquired by NASA soon after as the lab expanded. 

demolished the home in 2008. (1940s) (NASA C−1995−03926)
The Laboratory Takes a Moment To Regroup

The AERL staff was expanding quickly during this period. After d

in 1944, the number of employees crested at 2,600 in early 1946. T

would remain near that level until the early 1960s.206 In October 19

after the end of the war, the staff was reorganized into four divis

tackle its turbojet research efforts. Abe Silverstein was promoted t

of the new Wind Tunnels and Flight Division, and Al Young assum

oversight of the AWT. The two would continue to share the same o

the AWT’s Shop and Office Building for several years.207 Silverstein’s d

formed a study group that met in the evenings and on weekends to 

new technology and areas of research. For each session, one ind

would study the literature on a specific area and teach the others. 

Virginia Dawson’s Engines and Innovations details the heated p

debate regarding the influence of development on the lab. Some felt 

AERL was distancing itself from research, particularly with the use of f

engines. The hurried nature of the wartime testing left little time to 

basic data.208 Silverstein, however, stressed that the NACA should s

not provide just academic research but also to “keep it useful.” Both 

force and the navy would remain active at the lab. Military represe

would meet frequently with the AERL staff to identify potential projec

military would then submit a formal request to the NACA Headquarte

test on a specific engine. Although the NACA acted as a service organ

for the military and industry, Silverstein pushed AERL staff members 

their knowledge and experience to guide them into the best areas.20

The emergence of the jet engine required changes not only from t

but also the test facilities. Not long after it came online, the AWT ha

reconfigured to accommodate jet engines. Facility engineers fou

by taking advantage of the pressure differences between the out

environment and the pressures created by altitude simulation, they 

provide enough pressure to simulate speeds that were one and tw

the speed of sound. The ducting of the airflow directly to the in

allowed entire engines to be studied, but it effectively reduced the 

the test section so that fuselages and nacelle engine covers could 

included in the studies.210 Although the AWT was adapted for the t

Silverstein and other engineers were already designing other facili

high-speed flight and larger engines.
y p

Image 80: Early drawing of the Small Supersonic Tunnels behind the AWT

control room was in the basement. Half a story above was Tunnel No. 1, which 

an 18- by 18-inch test section and could reach Mach 1.91. Tunnel No. 2 was a M

3.96 tunnel with a 24- by 24-inch test section. Tunnel No. 3, a Mach 3.05 tunnel

had an 18- by 18-inch test section.211 (NASA C−1946−14156)

Image 79: Construction of the Small Supersonic Tunnel behind the AWT in 

1945. This would be the lab’s first supersonic tunnel. Eventually the building w

house three small supersonic tunnels, referred to as the “stack tunnels” because o

vertical alignment. The two other tunnels were added to this structure in 1949 

1951. (NASA C−1945−10764)
Because the AWT only ran during the night, its exhausters sat idle 

the day. In the spring of 1945 Silverstein designed a small supersoni

that utilized the AWT exhausters. The 2.25-square-foot-diameter ope

tunnel was built in just 90 days.212 It was the first of three “stack” 

built just outside the AWT’s southwest corner. Another small sup

tunnel, referred to as the “Duct Lab,” was created in the AWT’s b

passage. These tunnels were small in size but yielded valuable data o

speed aerodynamics. Bill Harrison, whom Silverstein pressured into 

the stack tunnels, recalled, “We ran the living hell out of that th

really cranked them up.”213 Once these tunnels were working, Si

immediately took key members of the AWT design team aside to beg

on the large 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel. The 8×6, wh

completed in 1948, would be the most significant of the NACA’s 

supersonic wind tunnels.

The AWT’s unique ability to test full-size turbojets in altitude co

resulted in an 8- to 12-month backlog of requests. To alleviate this p

construction was begun on two altitude test cells in the Engine R

Building. This facility, referred to as the “Four Burner Area,” contain

chambers into which full-size engines could be installed and run at 

up to 50,000 feet and temperatures ranging from 200 to −70°F. When 

online in 1947, it not only took some of the burden off of the AWT

compressors helped increase the capabilities of the AWT’s exhaust sy

Work on a second, even larger, pair of engine test cells began almos

diately. When completed in 1952, this Propulsion Systems Laborator

further reduce the AWT’s workload. 

Project Bumblebee

In 1944 the U.S. Navy’s Office of Scientific Research and Developmen

developing a surface-to-air missile to combat Japanese Kamikaze atta

program, referred to as “Project Bumblebee,” was based on the sup

and long-range capabilities of the ramjet engine. The project was ass

the Applied Astrophysics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University. A

not used in the war, test flights continued throughout 1945.215

The ramjet system was extremely efficient at high speeds. Silverstein 

in a 1951 interview, “The ramjet engine is more economical t

automobile engine in its use of fuel when flying at high supersonic sp

It was also the simplest type of propulsion engine. Like other engine

powered by combustion gases that were heated to high temperature

pressure then exhausted. Compared with other engines, though, th
y p

was an extremely simple concept. It was basically a tube with no m

parts. Fixed grated devices, referred to as “flameholders,” prod

constant flame to ignite the air passing through the ramjet. 

The ramjet’s major problem was that it could not operate until a 

airspeed was achieved, so either a turbojet or rocket had to be u

launch the vehicle.Another problem was fuel storage. The ramjet req

large quantity of fuel, but the aerodynamic design of supersonic mis

aircraft generally do not provide much storage space.217

The idea of the ramjet had been around for years prior to Project Bum

but component research and complete engine systems had yet 

completed. Industry did not have the massive quantities of proc

needed to test full-scale ramjets, so the testing was taken on by the 

An NACA-designed 20-inch-diameter ramjet was installed in the AWT 

1945. Thrust figures from these runs were compared with drag da

tests of scale models in small supersonic tunnels to verify the feasib

Image 81: The ramjet’s potential for high-speed flight was unmatched by recip

turbojet, or turboprop engines. The reciprocating engine handled air poorly, and the 

the turbojet and turboprop engines was limited by the temperature fatigue of the com

The advantage of the ramjet was its ability to process large volumes of combus

resulting in burning fuel at the optimal stoichiometric temperatures, which was no

with turbojets. The higher the Mach number, the more efficient the ramjet op

(NASA C−1946−15566)
the ramjet.219 The researchers found that an increase in altitude ca

reduction in the engine’s horsepower. Optimal flameholder configu

were also determined for high-speed and high-altitude flights.220

The war ended before the Bumblebee missile was operational, 

development continued, and the scope of the project grew. By 19

ramjet diameter had been increased to 18 inches. The missile was no 

intended for just antiaircraft operations but also for long-range atta

ground targets.221

In March 1947 Brigadier General Samuel Brentnall, Assistant 

Commanding General for Research and Development at Wright 

requested that the NACA undertake a systematic study of the fundam

of ramjets. He wrote, “The analytical problems of ‘Why’ and ‘How’

than ‘What’ is the important point.”222 The 8- by 6-Foot Supersoni

Image 82: Mechanics working on the 20-inch NACA ramjet in the AWT test section. 

to the ramjet tests in the AWT, Bill Harrison said, “Back in those days, about the only 

needed was an inch and a quarter wrench to take the copper tubing apart. All this 

a pipe with angle irons and fuel injectors.”223 The tunnel’s refrigerated airflow wa

directly into the ramjet’s inlet (as seen in this photograph) to create the desired spe

pressure, and temperature to simulate high-speed flight. The tunnel was used to 

the ramjet’s overall performance up to altitudes of 47,000 feet and speeds to Mach 

(NASA C−1946−14733)
y p

Tunnel would not be completed for another year, so researchers 

Cleveland lab resorted to flight-testing the ramjets. The ramjets were 

dropped from aircraft so that gravity would accelerate them to a sp

which the engines could operate.226

The combustion performance of the ramjet was difficult to study 

the high-altitude drop tests, so an 18-inch-diameter version was te

the AWT during the winter of 1947/48. The studies focused on varia

the flameholder and fuel mixtures. Because the tunnel’s airflow was 

directly to the inlet, the AWT was once again able to simulate sup

speeds at an altitude of 30,000 feet. The optimal configuration was fo

be a can-type flameholder with a kerosene-propylene oxide fuel mix

The free-flight investigations showed that a variable-area nozzle wo

required for the ramjet to operate efficiently at different speeds an

conditions. The AWT tests confirmed the increase in performance w

variable-area nozzle plug.228

Image 83: A 16-inch ramjet is installed in the AWT to study inlet shocks for the Proj

blebee missile. The free jet air allowed the supersonic ramjet to be studied in the 

wind tunnel. The 18-foot-long ramjet was tested in the AWT from January through M

Initially there was some concern with the number of contractors to be given cleara

allowed to witness the tests. A request from United Aircraft Corporation to have a rep

tive present was declined.225 (NASA C−1949−23409)
The Bumblebee tests resumed in the AWT the following January un

guidance of Dr. Wilbur Goss. Dr. Goss had developed the combustion 

for the missile at Johns Hopkins.229 This time the tests were on a 1

diameter, 18-foot-long ramjet. The tests were similar to those fr

previous year—the air was ducted through a supersonic diffuser, a

focus was on flameholder and fuel configurations. The combustion effi

for three flameholder designs was verified, and it was found that g

provided better efficiency than kerosene.230

Though its development was protracted, Project Bumblebee resu

several important navy missiles. The first and largest was Talos, 

became operational in 1958 just as the Cold War was heating u

missile, with its 300-pound warhead, was used extensively in the V

War before it was retired in 1979. Smaller Bumblebee missiles, such 

Tartar and Terrier, came into service shortly thereafter and continu

used by the navy today.231

Image 84: “A Talos missile roars off the fantail of the Guided Missile Cruiser USS G

(CLG-3) in the Caribbean Sea. The deadly Talos, which has been in the testing stag

past three years, was again proven operational last month when the Galveston, the 

first fired the missile in 1958, made history again by completing the longest range Ta

at sea.” (Quoted from the original photo caption, released by the ship’s Public Info

Office on 17 March 1961.) (U.S. Navy NH 98846)
y p

Image 85: Diagram of the AWT showing the many internal components of both the tunnel and its support buildings. (NASA 

Photo Essay 2: 

How Engines Were Tested in the Altitude Wind Tun

OFFICE WING SHOP HIGH-BAY THROAT CONTROL ROOM EXHAUST SCOOP TEST SECTION AIR DRYER BUILDING MAKE-UP AIR COOLING COILS MAKE-UP AIR LINE DRIVE MOTOR GENERATORS EXHAUSTER BUILDING 1953 EXHAUSTER BUILDING ADDITION REFRIGERATION BUILDING SETTLING PONDS COOLING WATER SUPPLY AND RETURN LINES CARRIERS COOLING TOWER NO. 1

SUBSTATION

TAIL FAIRING NOSE FAIRING

REMOVABLE DOME

TUNNEL

EXHAUST LINE

AIR HEATER

COOLING TANK

18 000 H.P. FAN

NACA Lewis Altitude Wind Tunnel

CD-07-83009a

AIR FLOW

AIR FLOW

y p

Image 87: Research engineers developed ideas for tests that were often in respon

requests from the military to improve a specific engine. Many of the researchers 

located in the office wing of the Shop and Office Building. (NASA C−1956−4353

Image 88: Arrangements were made to obtain an engine to test and to transp

to the Cleveland lab. The engine was brought into the AWT shop area, where 

readied for the tunnel. It was common for several different engines to be work

simultaneously in the shop. (NASA C−1947−18019)
Image 90: Upon completion of the previous test, the engine was removed. 

The next engine was lifted by an overhead crane and transported from 

the shop, up into the second story test chamber room, and finally into the 

20-foot-diameter test section. The crane ran along the high bay from the 

shop to the test chamber. (NASA C−1951−28463)

Image 89: The researcher would discuss the engine and the test objectives with the Test Installation Division and the AWT technicians. The 

operations team would handle the installation of the instrumentation 

and fitting the test into the tunnel’s schedule. Bill Harrison said, “Some of 

the engineers didn’t particularly like to talk to us. They felt like ‘You give 

me the mechanics and I’ll get the work done.’ I said, ‘No, it doesn’t work 

that way. You give me the work and I’ll get it done.’”232 Left to right: Bill 

Reiwaldt, Jack Wagner, and Dick Golladay. (NASA C–1956–43540)
y p

Image 92: Harold Friedman inspects the Toledo scales in the balance chamber. The balances were located in the balance chamber below the test section. 

Toledo scales recorded the movements of the balances caused by the engine 

being tested. The maximum thrust capacity was 12,000 pounds, and the 

maximum lift was 20,000 pounds.233 (NASA C−1945−09635)

Image 91: The engine was mounted to a wing span that was fixed to trunions 

on the tunnel walls. The wing was connected to the measurement devices in 

the balance chamber. The tunnel mechanics connected the instrumentation 

to data output lines, installed the fuel and oil supply lines, and hooked up the 

engine’s operating controls. (NASA C−1946−14244)
Image 93: The tunnel’s clamshell lid was then lowered and fastened into 

place using hand-turned locking wheels. Windows along the side of the lid 

allowed photographers to film the test and observers to watch for engine 

failures. (NASA C−1951−28499)

Image 94: To start a test, a tunnel operator would activate the tunnel’s drive 

motor, refrigeration system, and exhausters from inside the AWT contro

room. The operator worked in coordination with colleagues in the Engine 

Research, Exhauster, and Refrigeration buildings. (NASA C−1945−10346)
y p

Image 95: The Carrier refrigeration equipment in the Refrigeration Buildi

was activated to reduce the tunnel’s air temperature to levels found at hi

altitudes. The building had its own control room and operators. It was t

largest cooling system in the world when it was built and remains in use toda

(NASA C−1944−06714)

Image 96: The massive exhausters in the AWT Exhauster Building interco

nected with the Engine Research Building’s exhaust system and also, after 195

to the Propulsion Systems Laboratory’s exhaust system. Originally the tunne

atmosphere could be reduced to simulate a pressure altitude of 50,000 feet. Th

was later improved to 100,000 feet. (NASA C−1944−06710)
Image 97: The 31-foot-diameter, 12-bladed spruce fan in the southeast corne

of the tunnel could generate wind speeds up to 500 mph depending on th

pressure levels. The large tail fairing at the center of the fan helped to even th

airflow. (NASA C−1944−03993)

Image 98: An 18,000-horsepower General Electric induction motor was use

to rotate the AWT fan assembly. The motor was housed in the third stor

of the Exhauster Building. Its drive shaft exited the building then pene

trated the tunnel wall and coupled into the fan assembly. Two large genera

tors on the first floor were activated first to supply power to the drive moto

(NASA C−1947−18325)
y p

Image 99: Turning vanes were located in each corner to straighten the airflo

and direct it around the tunnel’s square corners. The fan’s drive shaft can 

seen penetrating this set of vanes. (NASA C−1944−03991) 

Image 100: The airflow passed through a bank of accordion-shaped cooling co

specially designed to reduce the AWT’s temperature to −47°F. As the air pass

through the banks of coils, heat was transferred to liquid Freon in the coils a

carried away. (NASA C−1950−25465)
Image 101: This makeup air system pipe replenished the airflow with coo

dry air just upstream from the test section. This was atmospheric air that ha

been dehumidified and cooled in the Air Dryer Building outside the south

west corner of the tunnel. To increase the tunnel’s capacity, the pipe was late

ducted directly to the engine inlets. (NASA C−1951−27823)

Image 102: The tunnel contracted just prior to the test section to increase the 

velocity of the airflow. This “throat” section narrowed from 51 to 20 feet in 

diameter. (NASA C−1979−04019)
y p

Image 103: The engine was operated and tested inside the 20-foot-diameter 

section. There were numerous viewing windows in both the lid and the bottom 

the tunnel. (NASA C−1953−33230)

Image 104: An air scoop, seen here at the left, was located just downstream fr

the test section to collect the combustion air exhausted by the engine. This 40-in

diameter scoop stood statically in line with the engine’s exhaust nozzle. The sco

was able to remove most of the engine’s byproducts, thus preventing contamin

tion of the airstream. (NASA C−1945−08709)
Image 105: The researcher at this station in the control room controlled t

engine in the test section. The soundproof control room was located in t

balance chamber next to the lower portion of the test section. From here t

researcher could run the engine at various power levels and monitor numero

aspects of the engine’s behavior. (NASA C−1946−14241)

Image 106: Occasionally engines failed during tests, like the GE I-40 in t

photograph. A failure could significantly damage not only the engine but also t

wind tunnel. (NASA C−1945−11214)
y p

Image 107: Female computers obtained test data from the manometers and 

instruments and made the computations. Analysts then converted the data 

meaningful figures. The “computers” and analysts were located in the Shop 

Office Building office wing until being relocated to the 8- by 6-Foot Super

Wind Tunnel in 1948. Al Young’s wife, Mercedes, served as the computers’ supe

.for years. (NASA C−1944−04238)
Image 108: Researchers analyzed the test results and compared them with the ex

engine behavior or results from previous runs. Engines were tested over numerou

under varying conditions and with variations on the configuration. The findings a

procedure were then described in research or technical memorandums and distrib

industry. (NACA RM No. E7A15)
y p

“We Were All a Part of the Team”

Every test in the AWT required the coordinated effort of several diff

groups of people with complementary skill sets. The success of the 

would have been impossible without this integrated team. The mainten

engineers or mechanics assembled and installed the test articles, opera

engineers ran the tunnel, and researchers devised the tests and often ope

the engines. “Computers” and analysts converted the raw data into u

form for the researchers. From the data and the physical observation o

previous tests, the researchers and technicians would make adjustments 

to the next set of runs. Abe Silverstein recalled, “To coordinate our nex

activity, we’d have a meeting in the morning with the night crew, who wo

from midnight on, would stay over, and we’d have a meeting with them 

we came in. And then we’d decide what to do for the day.”234

The research engineers played a vital role, but the contributions o

mechanics and technical staff were often unsung. During the NACA’s 

fruitful years, the mechanics and technicians not only operated the AWT 

other large facilities but contributed to the research. Bill Harrison said in 

“You’ll never see it happen again that way. Abe [Silverstein] felt we were 

of the team and it took us all to design it, build it, install it, run it, and tak

data.”235

Mechanics could provide a different perspective on a problem. Howard 

explained, “You had many, many instances where the engineers will co

with a proposal to run some tests that night and they didn’t get the results 

wanted [the previous night] for one reason or another. They say, ‘well, w

to...change this through this nozzle area or do something. I really don’t 

exactly how to do this or what we ought to do in order to accomplish 

And we [mechanics] would always say, ‘well, why don’t you go back t

office and come back at five and maybe we’ll come up with something

they would go back to their office and we would start getting the hammer

cutting torches, welding machines and everything cranked up and mak

modifications. They would come back and say, ‘that’s great, now wait a m

let me copy that down so I could put that on a drawing.’ You know some

the drawing came after the fact.”236

Harrison described the skill of a former technician, Bill Schwab, “This g

the greatest inventor you’ve ever seen in your life.” He recalled the M

als and Stress Division “had a bunch of physicists over there that knew 

they wanted, but didn’t know how to build it. They said, ‘I want something 

does this, this, and this.’ This guy’s a mechanic and [the physicist has] eig

degrees, but he doesn’t know how to do anything because they don
taught any engineering courses. It’s all physics, thinking, going to the M

how fast is the speed of light, and all that jazz. I don’t care as long as the 

turns on.”237

There was some level of competition between the groups, but the one-o

relationships were normally friendly, especially in the early days at the lab

lab’s management appreciated the fact that the groups needed one an

to succeed and promoted comradery. Harrison recalled, “It [the early A

was a big family. We used to go to hockey games together. [Ray] Sharp an

wife, the whole gang. All the engineers, all the mechanics, everybody ble

together.”238

Image 109: A mechanic installs instrumentation on a 20-inch-diameter ramjet 

AWT test section. The technical staff was often able to troubleshoot testing problem

provide solutions for the research engineers. (NASA C-1946-14246)
y p

Image 110: Researchers examine drawings and reports in an office in the Sho

Office Building. They worked closely with the technical staff to run tests in the 

(NASA C−1956−43539)
Westinghouse Hits Its Stride

Westinghouse and GE had made strides with their 19B and TG-

engines, but it was their successors—the Westinghouse 24C (J34) a

GE TG-190 (J47)—that brought the success that the companies had 

for when they jumped into the turbojet business. There was a goo

riding on these two new models, and between January 1947 and Ma

they were studied for a combined 33 months in the AWT.

The 24C’s 3,000-plus pounds of thrust doubled the power of th

Variations were used on numerous aircraft from the late 1940s to the 

including McDonnell’s XF-85 Goblin, Douglas’s D-558-II Skyrocket, 

NACA’s X-3 Stiletto.

Although the navy had requested as early as February 1945 that th

study the 24C’s performance characteristics, Westinghouse could not 

an engine until the war was over in the fall.239, 240 After the reorganiz

October, there was intense 

debate at the AERL about whether 

or not the lab should distance 

itself from commercial engines 

and concentrate on fundamental 

research. Kemper felt that the 

lab would also have to purchase 

additional expensive equipment 

to properly test the 24C. In March 

1946 AERL Executive Engineer 

Carlton Kemper recommended 

that the pending Westinghouse 

24C tests be cancelled.241 When 

Wellington Hines, Director of 

the U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics, formerly requested the 

cancellation of AERL testing 

on 15 April, he stated that the 

previous studies of the 19XB 

engine in the AWT combined 

with Westinghouse’s own tests 

were sufficient to forecast the 

24C’s performance.242

Image 111: William Fleming was one of 

most significant researchers. He had been 

facility from the beginning and headed o

tunnel’s two research sections. He led inve

on every axial-flow jet engine studied in 

during the 1940s. (NASA C−1958−48622
y p

Less than a year later, however, a Westinghouse X24C-4B engine 

an extensive nine-month examination in the AWT. It was among th

detailed investigations ever conducted in the facility. Overall engin

formance, operating range, acceleration, deceleration, starting, an

consumption were studied. Specific problems such as wind

combustion blowouts, and afterburner configurations were also inves

at simulated flight Mach numbers and altitudes up to 50,000 feet.243

The test runs began in January 1947. By March, the engine had 

replaced because of two turbine failures. Westinghouse had design

engine to operate with uneven temperatures and pressures so that th

stressed portion of the compressor blades bore the highest tempe

The AERL requested that Westinghouse provide these specifications 

second engine with a modified compressor and combustion chamber 

Image 112: A camera is set up in the AWT to film the combustion process in the aft

of the Westinghouse 24C-WE-22 engine. Bob Walker recalled that, as a collea

leaning onto the test section lid to monitor one of the Westinghouse runs through 

the engine seized—causing the turbine wheel to fly off, “We tended to doze up the

midnight shift. He said, ‘man, I thought I was going to jump right off the lid, that wh

right past the window.’ He was truly excited about that. It really wrecked that en

(NASA C−1951−27657)
proceeding with the tests. To avoid another failure, the AERL would n

ject the new X24C-4B to maximum engine speeds, altitude, or acce

during ensuing runs.245

For the first time, icing tests were run in the AWT during the analysi

X24C-4B. The primary concern was the overheating of the tailpipe 

because of ice buildup on the engine’s inlet. William Fleming led an e

draw some of the engine’s high-temperature gas from the turbine in

to exhaust it just ahead of the compressor inlet. A stanchion with fiv

nozzles was placed in the test section to create the icing conditions. F

and the mechanics could not get the spray system to create use

droplets, and the tests were inconclusive. Even though the Icing R

Tunnel was experiencing the same difficulties with its droplets at th

all future icing tests would be conducted there.246

Image 113: A jet engine ice-protection system for the Westinghouse 24C-4B was s

altitudes from 5,000 to 20,000 feet over a range of speeds in the AWT. Since icing t

not usually conducted in the tunnel, this five-nozzle spray tower was installed just 

from the inlet. The spray system turned out to be inadequate, so future hot-gas bleed 

conducted in the Icing Research Tunnel. (NASA C−1947−18308)
y p

In June 1950 the 24C (J34) returned for more than another year 

ing in the AWT. The XJ34-WE-32 was the standard 11-stage, axial-flo

equipped with an afterburner and automatically controlled clamsh

variable-area nozzle. The navy’s Vought F7U Cutlass fighter jet, whi

powered by two of these engines, had been suffering thrust prob

Different variable-area nozzle configurations were tried, and a system 

air to flush out the fuel-injection holes as the afterburner shut off see

improve the engine performance.248–251 The AWT studies also addres

new automatic thrust controller. This device consolidated many ope

mechanisms used by the pilot into a single lever. It would also au

cally control the afterburner. The interaction of the many paramete

extremely complicated. The AWT allowed the system to be checked 

a full-scale engine.252

Image 114: The Vought Cutlass was powered by two Westinghouse J34-WE-32 (24C) 

In 1945 the navy had requested that a new fighter jet be designed around the 24C 

The Cutlass was the first tailless military fighter, the navy’s first swept-wing aircraft, 

first production aircraft to use afterburners. The first Cutlass is seen here at the NACA 

Aeronautical Laboratory in December 1948. In just over a year, these engines would 

a thorough investigation in the AWT. (NASA EL−2000−00267)
General Electric Takes Its Turn

GE had also reorganized after the war and decided to close its turbo

and centrifugal compressor division in order to concentrate on thei

flow engines. In March 1946 a team of young engineers began th

undertaking, a new 5,000-pound-thrust axial-flow engine. This TG-19

engine was to have the same physical size as the TG-180, but th

compressor, turbine, and lubrication system would produce an extr

pounds of thrust.253

The engine had not yet entered production when NACA Assistant D

of Aeronautical Research Russell Robinson requested that the TG-

installed in the AWT to study inlet-air efficiencies.254 Between May 19

June 1950 the engine was tested three different times for a total of 15 

in the AWT. The studies were similar in nature to those being run 

Westinghouse 24C. The engine underwent an overall evaluation at 

Image 115: A technician measures one of the TG-190 engine’s stator blades. The GE 

(J47) was a successor to the TG-180. A different 12-stage axial-flow compressor and 

stage turbine were installed in the TG-180 frame.255 The TG-190 went through n

studies in the AWT during 1948 and 1949. (NASA C−1949−22850)
3y p

speeds and altitudes up to 50,000 feet. Combustion chamber perfor

high-altitude restarting, spark plug behavior, fuel distribution, and afte

configurations were studied. The effect on variable inlet-air velocity 

use of alternative jet fuel also were tested.

The TG-190 was GE’s most successful jet engine to date. Seventeen 

ent models and over 30,000 engines were manufactured. They were 

power major military aircraft such as the Boeing B-47 and B-45, the 

American F-86A, the Canadair Sabre, and the Convair B-36. In additi

TG-190 would become the first axial-flow jet engine approved for co

cial aircraft in the United States.257

The transition from reciprocating engines to turbojets took several d

paths. One used a gas turbine to power a propeller. Several of these tur

engines were studied in the AWT. The nation’s first turboprop, the T

Image 116: Left to right: John McAuley and William Prince install a 32-inch-diamete

on the GE TG-190 engine. McAuley and Prince determined that the airflow veloci

excessive at high speeds. They modified the engine’s converging burner to reduce th

inlet velocity and total pressure loss by 20 percent. They used a fixed conical exhaus

and the setup was at altitudes of 15,000 to 45,000 feet and speeds of Mach 0.22 t

(NASA C−1948−22168)
Image 117: GE’s 14-stage axial-flow TG-100, the nation’s first turboprop aircraf

underwent two months of testing in the AWT starting in late 1946. A 12-foot, 7-inch H

Standard propeller was fitted to the engine. The TG-100 was run at 8,000 to 13,000 re

per minute (rpm) and at altitudes from 5,000 to 35,000 feet.258 (NASA C−1946−1738

had actually been developed before the turbojet. GE’s steam turbin

in Schenectady, New York, had been working on the turboprop for 

years when it received the 1941 army contract to design an engine u

axial-flow compressor.259

The military was interested in an engine that would use less fuel th

early jets but would keep up performance-wise. The turboprop see

be the answer. Development of the engine was slow, however. It wa

tually flown on a Convair XP-81 in December 1945, but engine pr

persisted. 260

A year later the TG-100 was tested for two months in the AWT 

air force. AERL researchers Lewis Wallner and Martin Saari put the 

through the usual AWT analysis and determined that its compressor

bustion chamber, and turbine were impervious to altitude variation

were able to establish the optimal engine speed and propeller angle 
3y p

calculate performance figures at altitudes up to 35,000 feet based on 

tion of the engine at sea level.261 Despite these findings, developmen

TG-100 was cancelled in May 1947. Twenty-eight of the engines we

duced, but they were never incorporated into production aircraft. 262

British Engines Visit Cleveland

As the result of an informal March 1947 conference between represen

of the NACA and the British Ministry of Supply, NACA Lewis’s Dr. 

Olsen and several military and university representatives traveled to 

Britain in May. Almost exactly six years after the initial flight of the 

engine, this eight-person U.S. Gas Turbine Mission began a two

survey of the British turbojet industry. Upon their return in July, the 

visited the principal U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers, the U.S. 

Wright Field facility, and the 

NACA lab in Cleveland. Olsen 

and the others briefed the staff at 

these facilities and incorporated 

their feedback into the final report 

comparing turbojet progress in 

Britain and the United States.263

Olsen and his group concluded 

that British engines were still 

more advanced than their U.S. 

counterparts, largely the result 

of Whittle’s head start. The mission found that Britain’s lack of 

large engine test facilities was 

starting to hamper their progress, though. Following Olsen’s 

report, the NACA approached 

the U.S. Air Force for their 

assistance in obtaining British 

turbojet and turboprop engines 

to study in Lewis’s facilities.264

The air force was especially 

interested in data comparing 

turboprop engine performance 

at sea level and altitude. The AWT 

and the two test cells in the Four 

Image 118: Walter Olsen of Lewis’s F

Lubrication Division led a group of civil

tary, and NACA representatives on a 1

finding mission to investigate the progress 

turbojet manufacturers. Afterward sever

engines were brought to Cleveland for 

Lewis’s altitude facilities. (NASA C−1956−
Image 119: In response to a request from the NACA, Britain supplied an Armstrong

contrarotating turboprop engine to study in the AWT. The tests ran from July 1949 

January 1950; it was the first time that the tunnel had been used to study an engine 

sole purpose of learning about, not improving, the engine. (NASA C−1949−23957)
3y p

Burner Area were the NACA’s only facilities capable of conductin

studies.265 A deal was reached that allowed several British engine

examined at Lewis so long as it did not impede the testing of d

engines and the resulting data could be shared with U.S. manufactur

The Python

British automobile engine manufacturers began producing aircraft 

during World War I. This continued through the interwar period a

World War II. One of the most promising turbojets developed dur

war was Rolls-Royce’s Nene. After the war, the United States selec

Nene to be incorporated into its aircraft carrier fighters.267 A Nene 

was brought to NACA Lewis in February 1948 for an intensive inves

in the Four Burner Area test cells.‡

The NACA had also requested several turboprop engines from the 

Originally they sought the Mamba, but by that time the engine was 

ered to be outdated. The next to be considered was the Proteus, but 

in its availability led the NACA to select the Armstrong-Syddeley 

instead.268 By January 1948, the U.S. Air Materiel Command inform

NACA that the British were phasing out their turboprop engines, so r

ment parts for the Python might be in short supply during the NAC

The details were worked out, however, and the British began prep

Python for shipment in April.269

The Python was a 14-stage axial-flow compressor turboprop with a 

area nozzle and contrarotating propellers.270 Armstrong-Syddele

another British automaker that expanded to aircraft engines dur

interwar years. The Python was most successfully used on the W

torpedo bomber, but the engine had been problematic. Although firs

in 1946, the Wyvern suffered numerous problems with its twin pro

A redesigned version was flight tested in 1950, and the Wyvern eve

served the Royal Air Force from 1953 to 1959.271

Testing of the Python in the AWT finally began in July 1949. It was 

time that the tunnel was used for the sole purpose of learning ab

engine, not trying to improve it. The Python’s reverse-flow combustor 

the compressor blades with carbon and soot. If not removed, the soo

contaminate the tunnel’s airflow. NACA retiree, Bob Walker, recal

‡

Details of the Nene tests at Lewis are described in Dawson’s Engines and In

(Ref. 208, Chapter 7).
Python, his first post-apprentice 

assignment. “I remember that first 

day when I went on the job. They 

gave us a bucket of barsol, which 

is a kind of kerosene derivative 

[and] some steel wool, really fine 

steel wool. [Another mechanic] 

and I were there cleaning this. 

We’re cleaning all the blades 

and it’s like a porcupine, you 

know. You had to be real careful 

that you wouldn’t nick your self 

on it.”272

The engine’s dynamic response 

was studied using a frequencyresponse method at altitudes 

between 10,000 to 30,000 feet. 

Dynamic response is the way 

the engine performs while transiting from one steady unchanging condition to another. Determinin

characteristics was a key element in perfecting engine designs. S

Himmel and Eugene Krebs led the team that discovered in the AW

they could predict the dynamic response characteristics at any altitud

the data obtained from any other specific altitude. The dynamic re

of the propeller and propeller/engine pairing were obtained during 

test run.273

End of the 1940s

As the 1940s drew to a close, the AWT completed its first sprint. T

nel had been in almost constant operation for six years. It had pla

important role in the steady development of the jet engine and was 

study ramjets and turboprops. Although the wartime investigations 

later Project Mercury and Centaur tests had higher profiles, the stu

improvement of the axial-flow engine from 1945 to 1949 was the AWT

enduring contribution to the aerospace field. The improvements dev

in the 1940s would manifest themselves with drastic increases in 

performance and thrust in the early 1950s. Both the lab itself (whi

renamed the “NACA Flight Propulsion Laboratory” in 1947 and the 

Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory” in September 1948) and the AWT 

pause at this point to adjust themselves for the next era of propulsio

Image 120: Left to right: Abe Silverstein an

Saari. Saari headed the AWT’s second 

section for most of the 1940s and 1950s

among the original staff taken on when S

arrived in 1943. Saari’s studies focuse

World War II piston engines, including t

R-3350, and the TG-100 and Python t

engines. (NASA C−1958−47728)
3y p

Endnotes for Chapter 5

204. Robert L. Boone to Dr. George Lewis, 29 August 1945, NASA Glenn H

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

205. Daniel Williams to Chief Engineer, Service Branch, 11 October 1945, N

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

206. “A Brief Picture of the Flight Propulsion Research Laboratory,” 24 Sep

1947, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

207. “Research Reorganized,” Wing Tips (19 October 1945).

208. Virginia P. Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and Am

Propulsion Technology (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991), chap. 

209. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 5 Octo

1984, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

210. “History of a Wind Tunnel,” Film C–216 (Cleveland, OH: NASA Lewis 

Research Center, 1961), NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, O

211. “Major Research Facilities of the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, N

Cleveland, Ohio, Wind Tunnels—Small Supersonic Wind Tunnels,” 24 

1956, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

212. “NACA Announces New Supersonic Wind Tunnel for Jet Propulsion R

Wing Tips (11 August 1945).

213. Interview with Bill Harrison, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 14 October 20

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

214. Carlton Kemper, “Dr. Kemper’s Talk at Morning Session of First Annua

Inspection,” Annual Inspection at NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Labo

8–10 October 1947, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

215. National Air and Space Museum Collections Database, Space History D

Smithsonian, “Rockets and Missiles: Bumblebee,” Inventory Number: 

A19510009000, 18 August 1999, http://collections.nasm.si.edu/code/ 

emuseum.asp (accessed 8 August 2007)

216. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by J.J. Haggerty, 21 Octobe

for American Aviation Magazine, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

217. Abe Silverstein, “Ramjet Propulsion,” c later 1940s, NASA Glenn Histo

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

218. Silverstein, “Ramjet Propulsion.”

219. NACA, “Thirty-Second Annual Report of the National Advisory Comm

Aeronautics” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 

220. Silverstein, “Ramjet Propulsion.”

221. National Air and Space Museum, “Rockets and Missiles: Bumblebee.”

222. S.R. Brentall to George Lewis, 13 March 1947, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

223. Harrison interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 14 October 2005.

224. NACA, “Thirty-Second Annual Report.”

225. J.W. Crowley to Edward Sharp, “Attendance of Contractor’s Represent

During Tests of the Bumblebee Ramjet in the Altitude Wind Tunnel,” 

16 October 1945, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.
226. Jesse Hall to Carlton Kemper, “Cleveland Laboratory Test Program for 

Investigating Ramjet Engines in Free Flight,” 18 August 1947, NASA G

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

227. W.H. Sterbentz and T.J. Nussdorfer, Investigation of Performance of B

bee 18-Inch Ramjet With a Can-Type Flameholder (Washington, DC: 

RM–E8E21, 1948).

228. Robert McLarren, “NACA Lowers High-Speed Flight Hurdles,” Aviation 

(9 May 1950). 

229. Crowley to Sharp, “Attendance of Contractors.”

230. T.J. Nussdorfer, D.C. Sederstrom, and E. Perchonok, Investigation of C

tion in 16-Inch Ram Jet Under Simulated Conditions of High Altitude a

Mach Number (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E50D04, 1948), p. 1.

231. Mark Wade, “Talos” (2001–2007), http://www.astronautix.com/ (access

27 August 2009). 

232. Interview with Bill Harrison, conducted by Bob Arrighi and Anne Bur

9 August 2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

233. Arnold Biermann, “Technical Orientation Program for Engine Researc

Division Lecture No. VIII Facilities and Equipment,” 1952, NASA Glen

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

234. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Sloop, 29 May 197

235. Harrison interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 14 October 2005.

236. Interview with Howard Wine, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 4 Septembe

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

237. Harrison interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi and Anne Burke, 9 Aug

238. Harrison interview, conducted by Bob Arrighi and Anne Burke, 9 Aug

239. George Lewis, “Investigation of the Performance Characteristics of the 

Component of the Westinghouse 24–C Jet Propulsion Unit” (research 

17 February 1945. 

240. George Lewis, “Request for Research Authorization to Test Westingho

24–C Turbine,” 15 June 1945.

241. Carlton Kemper, “Proposed Cancellation of Westinghouse 24C Turbin

6 March 1946.

242. W.T. Hines, “Project TED–NACA–0421 24C Turbine—Cancellation of R

for Test On” 15 April 1946, “NASA Glenn History Collection, Clevelan

243. W. Kent Hawkins and Carl L. Meyer, Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigati

Operational Characteristics of Westinghouse X24C–4B Axial-Flow Tur

Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E8J25, 1948).

244. Interview with Bob Walker, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 August 2005

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

245. H. Sosnoski (Chief of Bureau of Aeronautics) to Bureau of Aeronautic

Resident Representative, Essington, Pennsylvania, “Contract NOa(s) 39

Turbojet Engine Calibration at AERL,” 6 March 1947, NASA Glenn His

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

246. William Fleming, “Hot-Gas Bleedback for Jet Engine Ice Protection,” N

Conference on Aircraft Ice Protection (1947), pp. 86–92.
3y p

247. Lewis Wallner and William Prince, Investigation of Afterburner Perfor

and Afterburner Fuel System Coking of the Westinghouse XJ34–WE–32 

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E51H28, 1953).

248. Wallner, “Investigation of Afterburner Performance.” 

249. John McAuley, Adam Sobolewski, and Ivan Smith, Performance of the 

ponents of the XJ34–We–32 Turbojet Engine Over a Range of Engine 

Flight Conditions (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E51L10, 1952). 

250. Harry Bloomer, William Walker, and George Pantages, Altitude Wind 

Investigation of XJ3–WE–32 Engine Performance Without Electronic C

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E51L12, 1952). 

251. William Prince and J.T. Wintler, Investigation of Turbine-Outlet Temp

Distribution of XJ34–WE–32 Turbojet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA 

RM–E51K06, 1952).

252. David Novik and James Ketchum, “Controls Research,” Triennial Insp

at NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, 9–11 October 1951, NAS

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

253. General Electric Company, Seven Decades of Progress: A Heritage of A

Turbine Technology (Fallbrook, CA: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1979), pp. 

254. R.G. Robinson (Assistant Director of NACA Aeronautical Research) to 

Cleveland [AERL], “Effects of Velocity Distribution at Intake of Jet-Prop

Engines,” 21 May 1948, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, O

255. Carl Meyer, Altitude Wind Tunnel Investigation of AN–F–58 Fuel in Ex

mental Version of J47 Turbojet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E

1949). 

256. William Prince and John McAuley, Altitude Performance Characterist

Tailpipe Burner With Converging Conical Burner Section on J47 Turb

Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E50G13, 1950).

257. “General Electric J47 Turbojet Engine,” National Museum of the Unite

States Air Force, http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factshe

asp?id=6472 (accessed 27 August 2009).

258. Robert Geisenheyner and Joseph Berdysz, Preliminary Results of an A

Wind Tunnel Investigation of an Axial Flow Gas Turbine Propeller En

III—Pressure and Temperature Distributions (Washington, DC: NACA 

RM–E8F10b, 1948), p. 2.

259. E.F.C. Somerscales and R.L. Hendrickson, “3500 kW Gas Turbine at th

Schenectady Plant of the General Electric Company” (New York, NY: 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1984), p. 6.

260. National Museum of the United States Air Force, “General Electric T–3

Turboprop,” http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet. 

asp?id=877 (accessed 27 August 2009).

261. Lewis Wallner and Martin Saari, Altitude Investigation of Performance 

Turbine-Propeller Engine and Its Components (Washington, DC: NACA 

RM–E50H30, 1950), p. 14.

262. “General Electric T–31 Turboprop.” 
263. Walter T. Olsen to Carlton Kemper, “Tour of Aircraft Gas Turbine Indu

England by Walter Olsen,” 22 August 1947, NASA Glenn History Colle

Cleveland, OH.

264. J.W. Crowley (NACA Associate Director of Aeronautical Research) to 

Powers (USAF Major General), 9 September 1947, NASA Glenn Histor

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

265. E.M. Powers to George Lewis, 5 November 1947, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

266. Hugh Dryden to Chief of Bureau of Aeronautics, “NACA Investigation 

British Gas Turbine Power Plants,” 2 January 1948, NASA Glenn Histo

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

267. T.A. Heppenheimer, “Rolls Royce and Its Aircraft Engines,” US Centen

Flight Commission, http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace

Royce/Aero54.htm (accessed 27 August 2009).

268. Edward Sharp to Hugh Dryden, “NACA Investigation of British Gas T

Type Power Plants.” 24 November 1947, NASA Glenn History Collecti

Directors Collection, Cleveland, OH.

269. R.J. Minty (USAF Colonel and Chief of Power Plant Lab) to Hugh Dry

“NACA Investigation of British Gas Turbine Power Plants,” 21 January 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

270. Emmert Jansen and John McAulay, Compressor Performance Charact

of a Python Turbine-Propeller Engine Investigated in the Altitude Win

Tunnel (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E50K24, 1951).

271. military-aircraft.org.uk, “Westland Wyvern Fighter Plane” (1 May 2005

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/other-fighter-planes/westland-wyve

fighter.htm (accessed 29 December 2009)

272. Interview with Bob Walker, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 August 2005

273. Eugene Krebs, et al., Dynamic Investigation of Turbine-Propeller Eng

Under Altitude Conditions (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E50J24, 1953)
References 

Image 121: Westinghouse’s 25-foot-long,11-stage axial-flow-compressor J40 turbojet und

11-month period of study in the AWT. The AWT was upgraded in 1952 to handle these n

powerful jet engines. (NASA C–1951–28738)
f 

Chapter 

Big Engines to Small Ro

(1950–1958)

A Period of

Transition

Construction of the new 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel was wr

up when in September 1948 news arrived that the Soviet Union had in

a Communist government in North Korea. In an attempt to gain 

over the entire peninsula, the new communist regime began suppor

insurgency in South Korea. When the insurgency appeared to be fail

North Korean army undertook a predawn attack into the south on S

25 June 1950. A United Nations resolution was passed, and a U.S. nav

responded the following day with force. Several days later, the Unite

began moving ground troops into the fray.274 The Korean War was 

armed conflict of the Cold War and the first opportunity for the jet 

to prove itself.

In the midst of these events, the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Lab

reorganized again in September 1949. Abe Silverstein, who had mo

office from the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) to the 8- by 6-Foot Sup

Wind Tunnel (8×6) the year before, became Chief of Research for th

lab. Upon assuming the vacant position of Associate Director in 1

finally moved to the Administration Building. As Associate Director, Silv

continued oversight of the lab’s research but also managed all ope

facilities, and construction. He claimed that his responsibilities and f

had not changed much, “It just provided a notch in the organizatio

that was filled by someone.”275
y p

The AWT Branch became part of the Engine Research Division.276 Al 

was the AWT Branch Chief; David Gabriel, who would later head the C

Program, was Assistant Chief; and Carl Meyer, Martin Saari, and 

Hensley led the three sections.277 Although new facilities such as th

the Propulsion Systems Laboratory, and later the 10- by 10-Foot Sup

Wind Tunnel would take on some of the AWT’s propulsion work, th

was upgraded so that it could test the newer and increasingly larger tu

The nature of the AWT tests would change dramatically in the late 195

for several years, the AWT continued the trends of the 1940s, such as 

Westinghouse turbojet, a turboprop, and a British jet engine.

Image 122: The swept-wing F-86A Sabre became the preeminent fighter of the Kor

It was powered by the General Electric J47-GE-13 (TG-190), which had undergone 

studies in the AWT during the late 1940s. The Sabre could reach an altitude of 49,000 

speeds of 685 mph, and it had a 10-to-1 kill advantage over the Russian MiG-15.2

(NASA E−3996)
f 

Upgrading for Big Engines

Some improvements were made to the turbojet engine in the postwa

but its capabilities advanced exponentially from 1948 through 1955

AWT had made the transition from large reciprocating engines to th

nal jet engines rather easily, but the AWT’s infrastructure was stres

the size of the new turbojets. It was not a great leap from Wright’s 

3,500-pound-thrust piston engine to General Electric’s (GE’s 4,000

I-40 turbojet. New engines, such as Pratt & Whitney’s J57, howev

duced 13,500 pounds of thrust. 

With the flare-up of hostilities in Korea, the NACA undertook a num

measures to keep up with new aeronautical advances. One was to u

the AWT. During the second half of 1951, a number of modifi

were made to modernize the facility. The most dramatic change w

Image 123: Apprentice Dominic Giomini examines a Westinghouse 24C-7 that faile

a run in the AWT on 19 July 1950. That same day NACA Director Hugh Dryden ha

a letter proposing the acceleration of research at the lab in response to the outbre

Korean War three weeks before. (NASA C−1950−26297)
y p

addition to the Exhauster Building. The small rectangular annex a

to the Exhauster Building’s northeast corner housed three new In

Rand compressors. A pump house and exhaust cooler pit were cons

underneath the tunnel, and two new cells were added to the cooling to

The modified AWT continued with its mission to analyze jet engines 

1950s, although the engines were much larger than those studied 

years before. 

Image 124: Growth of the jet engine’s capacity rose exponentially in the early 19

first GE centrifugal engines produced 1,600 pounds of thrust in the early 1940

C−1955−39607)
f 

Photo Essay 3: 

The Altitude Wind Tunnel Gets a Boost

Image 125: An addition was built on the AWT’s Exhauster Building in 1951. This n

contained three Ingersoll-Rand eight-cylinder reciprocating pumps. The original ex

were initially constructed to handle 7 pounds of air per second at an altitude of 50,

and 51 pounds per second at 28,000 feet. The new exhausters were upgraded to 12 

per second at 50,000 feet and 66 pounds per second at 28,000 feet. (NASA C−1953−
y p

Image 126: The AWT’s fan blades occasionally became worn or broken and ha

to be replaced. A new set of blades was installed on the 31-foot-diameter dri

fan in 1951. The blades were prepared in the shop area, seen in this photograp

before being lowered into the AWT through a hole in the top of the tunnel an

attached to the drive shaft. (NASA C−1951−28240)

Image 127: Workers install a large hub as part of a large overall upgrade of t

AWT. The blades, hub, and fairings for the drive fan were replaced. The new fa

ings were roughly twice the original size. (NASA C−1951−28286)
f 

Image 129: A pump house was built underneath the northeast leg of 

the tunnel. This Circulating Water Pump House drew cooling water 

to be used by the new exhaust system. The pump house contained four 

Ingersoll Rand pumps, two 250-horsepower discharge pumps, and two 300- 

horsepower spray pumps. Another 75-horsepower spray pump was located 

in the northeast corner. These pumps drew and returned water from the 

Cooling Tower. (1951) (NASA C−2007−02591)

Image 128: The AWT modernization included the installation of a new 

exhaust gas cooler manufactured by Biggs Company, in Akron, Ohio. This 

photograph shows the large cooler being moved between the Shop and Office 

Building to the left and the Exhauster Building to the right. The cooler was 

installed below the tunnel’s air scoop. A new 60-inch-diameter scoop was 

also installed. (NASA C−1951−28229)
y p

Westinghouse Falters

The J40 was one of the biggest disappointments in Westinghouse’s 

history. The 11,000-pound-thrust engine was intended to double the 

of the successful 24C (J34). More specifically, it was intended to 

the navy’s new post-World-War-II fighter jets, such as the McDonne

Demon.

Westinghouse successfully operated the J40 in November 1948, but 

not until January 1951 that the J40 engine completed its 150-hou

qualification test. The afterburner version would not qualify for 

six months.281 In the year following its initial successful flight on 7 

1951, the F-3H Demon suffered eight major crashes; three were 

linked to the J40 engines.282 From September 1951 through mid-Jul

during the midst of these delays and quality concerns, a series of J40 

tigations were conducted in the AWT. 

Image 130: NACA Lewis mechanics prepare the 11-stage compressor of the Westingh

engine in the AWT shop area. (NASA C−1951−28841)
f 

Image 131: A technician works on the 9,700-pound-thrust Allison J71-A-11 engin

AWT test section. The 16-stage axial-flow engine was 16 feet long, 4 feet in diam

weighed 4,450 pounds. The J71 replaced Westinghouse’s J40 on several navy fighter

C−1955−39623) 

The navy sought quick modifications that could be easily incorporat

the J40 engines already in the field, as well as long-term solutions to 

problems with engines in production. The XJ40-WE-6 was found t

serious compressor surge at high speeds. McDonnell had experienc

problem for the first time in a prototype F3H just as AWT researchers 

ered it. Experiments in the AWT showed that changes to the angles 

rotor blades and new stator diaphragms solved the problem but redu

thrust unacceptably. Use of a mixer at the compressor outlet, howev

improve the surge limit.283 

The compressor and combustor were revamped, and the engin

redesignated the “J40-WE-8.” It then underwent the general AWT ch

focusing on the effect of altitude on restarting, windmilling, and 

burners.284 The use of an adjustable turbine nozzle, as well as an ad
y p

Image 132: The Rolls-Royce Avon RA14 engine was a 16-stage axial-flow compresso

capable of producing 9,500 pounds of thrust. The Avon replaced the successful Nen

in 1950 and remained in service until 1974. Lewis studied the RA-14 turbojet en

the navy in the Four Burner Area in 1955 and in the AWT for 11 months in 1

engine was mounted on a stand capable of gauging engine thrust, and the tunnel

ducted to the engine through a venturi and bellmouth inlet, seen in this photograph.

C−1956−42786)

exhaust nozzle, increased both fuel efficiency and thrust.286 Westin

continued to have problems fabricating the engines, and McD

recommended replacing them with the Allison J71, which two yea

would also be tested in the AWT. In 1955 Westinghouse cancelled t

and the company, which 12 years before had built the first U.S. ax

turbojet, left the aircraft engine business altogether. The navy did sw

the J71, and the F-3H became one of the navy’s primary fighters u

early 1960s.287
f 

Image 133: A 16-stage Allison J71 jet engine is prepared in the shop for test run

Altitude Wind Tunnel. The J71, which was 16-feet long and 4-feet in diameter, could 

9,700 pounds of thrust. (NASA C−1952−30101) 

Image 134: The Allison T-38 turboprop was tested in the AWT from March to Novemb

(NASA C−1953−33216)
y p

Apprentice School

To facilitate the close interaction of the lab’s engineers, mecha

technicians, and scientists, Ray Sharp established a four-year appre

program to train craftsmen on a particular trade and basic scientific princ

The apprentice school covered a variety of trades, from aircraft mecha

electronic instrumentation, machinist, and altitude systems mechanic

Silverstein described the program as “the backbone of our work force

core of skill which translates the engineer’s and scientist’s ideas into pra

experiments and proven tests.”288

The school was established in 1942, but faltered when over 90 perce

its students entered into the military. After the war, 40 of the or

members returned to the lab. In some cases they were bumped to journe

positions because of training received in the military. Bill Harrison was o

those who left for the military. He remembered returning to the program, 

they graduated us—though we had been broken up. We had been in the 

Image 135: An apprentice in the altitude systems program is shown learning 

system in the Four Burner Area. The specialized skills required at NACA Lewis me

that apprentices were held to a higher standard than those in industry. They 

had to pass written civil service exams. Previous experience with mechanical m

airplanes, radio transmission, six months of work experience, or one year of tr

school was required. (NASA C−1954−34953)
f 

and navy—all over the world. We came back, and we had training in the 

or navy for something. Of course, I learned how to drop bombs—that h

me a lot. But they decided to graduate our class just to show the next 

that this is what you have to look forward to—graduation.”289

That honorary first class in 1949 had only 15 graduates, but the nu

steadily increased to 45 with the next class in 1952 and to 110 in 19

There were over 600 graduates by 1969.291 The program remained stron

decades. Many of the laboratory’s future managers began their caree

apprentices including Bill Harrison, Bill Schwab, Andy Szuhai, George Tu

and Bob Walker. Melvin “Lefty” Harrison, father of Bill Harrison and one 

original NACA Langley transfers, managed the program for several ye

the early 1950s. The curriculum was created by the lab’s skilled trades

Silverstein told the 1952 class that it should strive to become involved 

larger research team, constantly improve its skills, and work to be

leaders.292

Image 136: Members of the Apprentice Program’s 1955 graduating class. The e

school and their families turned out for the ceremonies. Ray Sharp, Abe Silver

and Charles Herrmann were regular participants. Visitors such as John Vic

Hugh Dryden, Addison Rothrock, Henry Reid, or local officials often made spee

(NASA C−1955−38393)
y p

Walker recalled that an older high school classmate had been admitte

the Apprentice Program the previous year. “He thought he’d died and go

heaven, because now he was getting paid to make model airplanes and 

models...fancy equipment and all that. So he was telling me a little bit abo

center, and I was interested in doing mechanical stuff. I asked him if the

any jet engines out there, and he said, ‘Oh yeah, they’ve got jet engines.’ 

said, ‘Well, can you see them and everything?’ And he said, ‘Oh, you can 

them apart, do anything you want to them. They’ll help you take them ap

thought, boy, I could do that. I wouldn’t need money to do that.”293

The program, which was certified by both the Department of Labor an

State of Ohio, included classroom lectures, study of models, and han

work. The apprentices rotated through the various shops and facilit

provide them with a well-rounded understanding of the work at the lab

hundred fifty of the 2,000 hours of annual training were spent in the class

A series of examinations was coupled with evaluation by supervisors 

shops. The apprentices were promoted through a series of grades unti

reached journeyman status. Those who excelled in the Apprentice Pro

would be considered for a separate five-year engineering draftsman pro

The 10 to 20 percent in each class that lagged behind were either reass

or released from the NACA.294

In the mid-1960s a special effort was undertaken by the lab to reach o

inner-city high school students. A Pre-Apprentice Program was establish

which potential candidates from the schools went through an intensive 

week training session. The top performers were given slots in the Appre

Program at Lewis, while others used the experience to gain industrial ap

ticeships. The program was a big success and continued into the 199

Also in the 1960s, a separate apprentice program was established at 

Brook Station.
f 

The Mighty J57

The most powerful and successful of the postwar jet engines w

Pratt & Whitney J57. It was the first engine to exceed 10,000 pounds o

and was used to power the military’s premier aircraft in the 1950s and 

including the B-52 Stratofortress, the F-100 Super Sabre, the Lockhe

and the F-102. A variant of the J57, the JT3, was used on Boeing’s 7

Douglas’s DC-8 commercial airliners.

Unlike the other piston engine giant, Wright Aeronautical, Pratt & W

sought to carve out a space in the postwar turbojet market. At the 

of the navy, the company bought Rolls-Royce’s successful Nene jet 

in 1948. Pratt & Whitney used the Nene to create the 5,000-pound-th

and the 8,750-pound-thrust J48 in 1948 and 1949.296 The breakthroug

two years later when the 13,500-pound-thrust J57 was first flown.297

The J57 was unique in that it had a dual axial-flow compressor that a

it to break through the barrier that seemed to exist at 10,000 pou

thrust. The engine employed two coaxial compressors, corresp

coaxial turbines, and a fixed-area nozzle. The inner spool had a seve

Image 137: NASA’s NB-52A with an X-15 underneath its wing. The B-52 was des

Boeing in the late 1940s as a successor to the B-47 bomber and remains an impor

strategic bomber. Despite the design similarities, the B-52, powered by four pairs o

Whitney J57 engines, was a much heavier and faster aircraft. In early 1951, the Air 

Command requested the production of 13 B-52As, but in June 1952, 10 of the ord

changed to an updated version, the B-52B. One of the three B-52As, renamed the “N

became the mothership for the NACA’s X-15 program. (1960) (NASA E−88−0180−4)
y p

axial-flow compressor and a single-stage turbine. The outer spool 

nine-stage axial-flow compressor and two-stage shrouded turbine.298

The original version of the engine, the J57-P-1, was studied in the A

late 1953 during the run-up to the first flight of the B-52 bomber. Th

had been significantly redesigned in 1949 to include the then-sec

engines. AWT researchers studied the engine’s performance and focu

flow ejectors, bleed ports, fuel flow, and inlet pressures. The rese

obtained baseline Mach 0.8 fuel flow and performance data at altitu

35,000 to 50,000 feet.299

Project Bee

Following the 1949 reorganization, the Lewis lab had begun workin

high-energy propellants such as diborane, pentaborane, and hydroge

potential was great, but the fuels were difficult to handle and require

tanks. The military became interested in the potential of these high

Image 138: The Pratt & Whitney J57 was tested extensively in the AWT from Decem

to February 1954. General performance characteristics, inlet pressure distortions, a

bustion efficiency were studied. Near the end of the investigations, one of the J57-P-1 

suffered a major failure, seen in this photograph. (NASA C−1954−37208)
f 

fuels, however. In late 1954, Lewis researchers studied the com

characteristics of gaseous hydrogen in a turbojet combustor. Despi

mixing of the fuel and air, it was found that the hydrogen provide

90-percent efficiency.300

Almost immediately thereafter, Associate Director Abe Silverstein b

focused on the possibilities of hydrogen. According to a 1974 intervie

John Sloop, Silverstein realized that high-altitude aircraft would re

large fuselage and wingspans. These areas could be used for the larg

required to store hydrogen.301 He enlisted Eldon Hall to continue w

on mixture ratios and then refine the calculations. They coauthored a 

not formally issued until April 1955, which foretold of liquid-hydrog

forming missions that far surpassed anything that traditional hydro

fuels could perform.302

That fall, Silverstein secured a contract to work with the air force to e

the practicality of liquid hydrogen aircraft. The Lewis portion of the p

was referred to as “Project Bee.”303 A new B-57B aircraft was obtained 

air force especially for this project, and a liquid hydrogen production 

Image 139: On the right: Abe Silverstein leads a tour of military and government 

in November 1955. At the time, Silverstein was negotiating with the air force to s

feasibility of a hydrogen-powered aircraft. An agreement was signed in Decemb

$1 million, one-year crash study. The program was called Project Bee. 

C−1955−40498)
y p

the nation’s first commercial facility for liquid hydrogen, was built in 

Painesville, Ohio. The aircraft was powered by two Wright J65 engin

equipped with two 23-foot-long wing tanks, one of which was mod

that it could be operated using either traditional or liquid hydroge

pellants. The other tank would be used to store helium used to pu

hydrogen.304

A number of tests were conducted on these engines in the AWT a

Four Burner Area altitude cells. Unlike prior studies in the AWT, whic

external air to create flow, this test used internal tunnel air. Lower pr

were attained since the exhausters only had to make up for tunnel le

not leakage plus air exhausted out of the air scoop. In addition, an e

diffuser was used rather than the usual nozzle. With nozzles regulat

exhaust airflow, the tunnel pressure was less than half of the turbine

Image 140: In 1957 a U.S. Air Force B-57B aircraft was brought to NACA Lewis fo

of liquid-hydrogen test flights. The aircraft was equipped with 23-foot-long, 430-gal

tanks. One of the tanks was modified to store liquid-hydrogen propellant and the othe

helium, which would be used to pump the hydrogen. The hydrogen tank consisted 

stainless steel inner shell covered with a lightweight, low-thermal-conductivity foa

insulation and an outer fiberglass covering to enclose the insulation and protect it ag

erosion. (NASA C−1957−44419)
f 

pressure. The diffuser permitted the tunnel pressure to be almost th

as the turbine pressure. The result was a 25,000 to 30,000 foot incr

altitude over previous AWT tests.305

An initial AWT study led by William Fleming compared the perform

liquid hydrogen with the standard JP-4 fuel in similar engines. The 

clearly showed the combustion superiority of hydrogen. The JP-4 c

tion became unstable above an altitude of 60,000 feet and failed at 

feet, but hydrogen performed well at altitudes up to 90,000 feet.306

In a follow-up study in the AWT, Harold Kaufman sought to check th

engine and fuel system that would be used on the B-57B test fli

Wright J65-B-3 engine was run in both jet fuel and hydrogen modes

it was shown that the hydrogen outperformed the JP-4, particularly 

altitudes. Lewis researchers tested the switching between the jet fu

hydrogen tanks numerous times with satisfactory results.

Image 141: A Wright J65-B-3 engine being prepared for runs in the AWT. Aft

War II, Wright Aeronautical did not invest heavily in the turbojet. Instead they con

their efforts on replacement parts and repairs of the existing Wright reciprocating eng

J65, based on a Rolls-Royce Sapphire design, did not sell well. Wright became a subc

for companies that were previously their rivals.307 (NASA C−1955−38288)
y p

Walter Olsen, Head of the Fuels and Combustion Division, felt that th

proven the ability of the hydrogen system with these extensive groun

but Silverstein insisted on a flight test.308 The intention was to take of

jet fuel, switch to liquid hydrogen while over Lake Erie, then after b

the hydrogen supply, switch back to jet fuel for the landing. Several d

were flown in the fall of 1956, and the first attempt at hydrogen-po

flight was attempted on 23 December 1956. The first two flights fa

make the switch to liquid hydrogen, but the third attempt, in Februar

was a success.309

Merritt Preston, a research engineer at the time, recalled that the las

occurred during a snowstorm. “[Abe] decided we needed to fly. W

obedient, so we flew.” When it came time to switch over to the hy

fuel, the engine would not cooperate so the pilot had to return wit

load of hydrogen during inclement conditions.” Landing with a full 

the highly explosive hydrogen was a daunting task. Preston added

that were not enough, it was discovered that the landing gear wo

deploy. The pilot circled until he was just about out of regular jet fue

finally the landing gear lowered allowing the aircraft to land safely

flights would later be used to help convince NASA leadership tha

hydrogen was safe to use for second-stage rockets. 

Image 142: The B-57B aircraft flew several flights in the winter of 1957 using liquid h

as a propellant at cruising altitudes. The flights would be one of the first times all of 

research elements were incorporated into a single operating system. This photograp

aircraft was taken one year later with the wing tanks removed. (NASA C−1958−4723
f 

Getting Jet Engines Ready for Civilians

By the mid-1950s, the aircraft industry was close to introducing jet airl

the nation’s airways. The noise produced by the large jet engines, ho

would pose a considerable problem for communities near airpor

problem was demonstrated by an NACA Lewis researcher who playe

play (LP) audio records of military jet engines for an audience at the 

Lewis 1957 Inspection.311

The NACA had formed a Special Subcommittee on Aircraft N

coordinate research on the problem. AWT tests showed that the so

the loudest noise was not the engine itself, but the mixing of the e

exhaust with the surrounding air in the atmosphere. The pressures re

from this turbulence produced sound waves. Lewis undertook a va

noise-reduction studies during the ensuing years involving engine 

throttling procedures, and suppressors. 

One of the first studies sought to design an exhaust nozzle that redu

turbulence. A number of nozzle configurations, including several m

“organ pipe” designs, were created. The goal of the nozzles was to 

Image 143: The NACA Special Subcommittee on Aircraft Noise, chaired by W

Littlewood, views a Pratt & Whitney J57 engine with a Greatex No. 2 exhaust nozzl

AWT test section. The engine was tested with various nozzles as part of a noise-red

study in the tunnel from January to May 1957. (NASA C−1957−44377)
y p

exhaust with the surrounding air to slow down its velocity and d

the noise. A Pratt & Whitney J57 was tested in the AWT with many o

nozzle configurations from January to May 1957.312 It was found t

various nozzle types did reduce the noise levels, but they also redu

aircraft’s thrust. By the fall of 1957, however, it was announced t

addition of an NACA-developed ejector reduced the noise levels w

diminishing thrust. The ejector did result in some drag and would th

the aircraft’s range.313

Image 144: Various nozzles tried to suppress noise on the Pratt & Whitney J57 en

in the AWT. Although the nozzles were successful in reducing the turbulence and 

the noise, they also reduced the engine’s thrust. (Left to right, then top to bottom: N

C−1957−44564, C−1957−44819, C−1957−44710, C−1957−44227, C−1957−44

and C−1957−44278)
f 

Image 145: A J57 engine is tested with a Coanda nozzle and ejector for a n

reduction study conducted in the AWT. As the engine exhaust roared through the 

tor it pulled low-speed air from the ejector pump with it. This reduced the shock 

resulting noise as the exhaust hit the atmosphere. (NASA C−1957−44771)

Image 146: A B-47 bomber on display at the NACA Lewis 1957 Inspection. One 

GE TG-190 (J47) engines has a noise-reducing ejector installed on its exhaus

ejector was developed at Lewis and tested on a Pratt & Whitney J57 in the 

(NASA C−1957−46143)
y p

Image 147: Atlantic Research’s grain Arcite rocket fires in the AWT. The tests ran from 

of 1958 to early 1959. (NASA C−1959−49412)

Where Do We Go From Here?

By the mid-1950s aircraft engine research began plateauing. Benjamin 

later recalled, “They were coming to a state of maturity where the re

research were very incremental. As a matter of fact, there was the 

developing of, ‘Where do we go from here?’” The answer came on 4 O

1957 with the launch of Sputnik I. The NACA and Lewis in particu

delved into rocket and high-energy fuels research, but it was most

hidden from Congress and the public. The Soviets forced their hand, ho

and Pinkel added, “[The space program] saved the day for the NA

Immediately following the Sputnik launch, work began modifying th

so that it could test rocket engines in altitude conditions.315 The engin

relatively small, and the use of the AWT for rockets was relatively br

days of the AWT’s role as a wind tunnel drew to an abrupt end.
f 

Image 148: Solid-rocket assembly damage in the AWT. Unlike the solid propellants 

typical missiles or other engines, the behavior of propellants in high-performance 

cannot be predicted on the basis of sea-level tests. In May 1958, Lewis researchers com

a series of low-pressure tests in the AWT to study the behavior of the solid propella

performance rocket engines with high expansion ratios. The pressure’s influenc

entire chamber, the exhaust nozzle, and the rocket’s specific impulse was measured.

C−1958−48161)
y p

Endnotes for Chapter 6

274. U.S. Army Center of Military History, “The Korean War: The Outbreak

(13 September 2006): 1-3, http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/ 

KW-Outbreak/outbreak.htm (accessed 27 August 2009).

275. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Mauer, 10 March 1

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

276. Abe Silverstein to staff, “Reorganization of Research Divisions,” 21 De

1949, Directors’ Collection, NASA Glenn History Office, Cleveland, OH

277. “Director’s Office Organizational Chart,” 1955, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

278. U.S. Air Force, “General Electric J47 Turbojet Engine,” National Museu

USAF, http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8

(accessed 27 August 2009).

279. “Turbojet Engine Development Budget Chart” 1955, C–1955–39607, N

Glenn Imaging Technology Center, Cleveland, OH.

280. “mod_awt_c1 through mod_awt_c13” (1951), NASA Glenn Images, NA

Glenn Imaging Technology Center, Cleveland, OH.

281. Eugene Emme, Aeronautics and Astronautics: An American Chronolo

of Science and Technology in the Exploration of Space, 1915–1960

(Washington, DC: NASA Headquarters, 1961), pp. 63–77.

282. Robert F. Dorr, “Engine Faults Dashed Demon’s Navy Career,” Army T

(Springfield, VA, Army Times Publishing Co., 23 January 2006) http://w

armytimes.com/legacy/rar/1-292308-1490368.php (accessed 27 Augu

2009). 

283. Harold Finger, Robert Essig, and E. William Conrad, Performance of R

and Stator Blade Modifications on Surge Performance of an 11-Stage 

Flow Compressor: I—Original Production Compressor of XJ40–WE–6 E

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E52G03, 1953). 

284. Adam Sobolewski and Robert Lubick, Altitude Operational Character

of Prototype J40–WE–8 Turbojet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E

1952).

285. Joseph Sivo and William Jones, Operational Characteristics of RA–14 A

Turbojet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E56D09, 1956).

286. Carl Campbell and Henry Welna, Preliminary Evaluation of Turbine 

Performance With Variable-Area Turbine Nozzles in a Turbojet Engin

(Washington, DC: NACA RM–E52J20, 1953). 

287. Dorr, “Engine Faults Dashed Demon’s Navy Career.”

288. “Apprentices Learn New Skills,” Lewis News (29 August 1969), p. 1.

289. Interview with Bill Harrison, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 14 October 2

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

290. Apprentice Manual (Washington, DC: NACA Flight Propulsion Labora

1953), p. 7.

291. “Apprentices Learn New Skills.”

292. “Victory Predicts Great Future for Graduates,” Wing Tips (15 February 

293. Interview with Bob Walker, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 August 2005

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.
f 

 294. Apprentice Manual, p. 13.

295. “Youths Complete Training in Pre-Apprentice Program,” Lewis News 

(1 September 1967), p. 1.

296. Jeremy R. Kinney, “Starting From Scratch?: The American Aero Engine 

the Air Force, and the Jet, 1940–1960” (Reston, VA: American Institute 

Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003).

297. “J57 (JT3),” Pratt & Whitney, A United Technologies Company, http://w

pw.utc.com/About+Us/Classic+Engines/J57 (JT3)/ (accessed 17 Novemb

298. Robert Lubick, William Meyer, and Lewis Wallner, Preliminary Data o

Effects of Altitude and Inlet Pressure Distortions on Steady-State and Su

Flow on the J57–P–1 Turbojet Engine (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E55

1955), p. 1.

299. Lubick, Preliminary Data.

300. V.F. Hlavin, E.R. Jonash, and A.L. Smith, Low Pressure Performance of 

Tubular Combustor With Gaseous Hydrogen (Washington, DC: NACA 

RM–E54L30A, 1955), pp. 9–10.

301. John Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as Propulsion Fuel, 1945–59 (Washington

NASA SP–4404, 1978), chap. 6.

302. Abe Silverstein and Eldon Hall, Liquid Hydrogen as a Jet Fuel for High

Aircraft (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E55C28a, 1955).

303. Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen.

304. R. Mulholland, Joe Algranti, and Ed Gough, Jr., Hydrogen for Turbojet 

Ramjet Powered Flight (Washington, DC: NACA RM–E57D23, 1957).

305. Harold R. Kaufman, High-Altitude Performance Investigation of J65–13

Turbojet Engine With Both JP–4 and Gaseous-Hydrogen Fuels (Washin

DC: NACA RM–E57A11, 1957), p. 2–3.

306. William A. Fleming, et al., Turbojet Performance and Operation at Hig

Altitudes With Hydrogen and JP–4 Fuels (Washington, DC: NACA RM–

1956), p. 18.

307. Kinney, “Starting from Scratch?”

308. Kaufman, High-Altitude Performance, p. 1–2.

309. Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen.

310. Interview with G. Merritt Preston, conducted by Carol Butler, 1 Februa

Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, Houston, TX.

311. “Jet Aircraft Noise Reduction,” Annual Inspection at NACA Lewis Fligh

Propulsion Laboratory, 7–10 October 1957, NASA Glenn History Colle

Cleveland, OH.

312. “Jet Aircraft Noise Reduction.”

313. J.S. Butz, Jr., “NACA Studies Ways to Soften Jet Noise,” Aviation Week

(4 November 1957).

314. Interview with Benjamin Pinkel, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 4 Aug

1985, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Clevela

315. William A. Fleming to Virginia Dawson, “Summary of Experience at N

Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH,” NASA Glenn History Collectio

Cleveland, OH.

316. Carl Ciepluch, Performance of a Composite Solid Propellant at Simulat

Altitudes (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–95, 1959), p. 1. 
Image 149: A Mercury capsule is mounted in the Altitude Wind Tunnel for a test of 

tower rockets. The AWT was quickly modified and became the center of NASA Lewis

Project Mercury. (NASA C−1960−53287)
p

Chapter 

Project Me

(1959–196

Space Is the Place

The deafening hiss of the control jets and the piercing alarm subs

former navy test pilot was helped out of the training rig, and threw 

the floor as NASA Lewis engineers guided him to a nearby cot. It wo

an hour before he could regain his composure.317 It was 16 Februar

and Alan Sheppard, considered to be the finest pilot of the original as

corps, was the first of the Mercury 7 to attempt to operate the Mu

Space Test Inertia Facility (MASTIF). The MASTIF was one of the 

profile test programs ever undertaken either in the Altitude Wind 

(AWT) or at NASA Lewis Research Center. Over the previous two 

Lewis and the AWT had shifted focus from aeronautics to space, fr

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) to the Nationa

nautics and Space Administration (NASA), from research to develo

and from a wind tunnel to an altitude chamber. 

Public and congressional reaction to the 4 October 1957 Sputnik I 

by the Soviet Union demanded that the United States undertake a 

program. The military, which had been attempting to launch its ow

lite into orbit, was eager to lead the way in space, but President 

Eisenhower was steadfast in his desire to have a civilian agency dir

program. The NACA seemed to be a logical group on which to build t

space agency, but the NACA’s Langley and Ames aeronautical labo

were hesitant. It was only the Lewis lab in Cleveland that felt passi

about getting into space.318 Over the next few years, the AWT would 

center of Lewis’s contributions to the first human space mission, 

Mercury.
y p

Lewis Guides the New Space Agency

NACA Lewis researchers had been advocating further space research fo

Predating Sputnik by two and one-half years, one document, “Su

Policy and Course of Action for NACA Re Rocket Engine Propulsion,” ur

NACA to enter the field of rocket engines. It stated that spaceflight “is a 

extension of the continuing success of NACA in advancing the engine 

A second document, “Lewis Laboratory Opinion of Future Policy and 

of Action for the NACA,” claimed that space exploration was impera

the nation’s survival during the Cold War. It called for an annual 25 

increase in the NACA’s staff, a new space laboratory, a launching cente

munications center, and other facilities. The document served as an 

for the future NASA. It stated that the greatest need was for basic r

under the aegis of a national agency independent from the military.3

Abe Silverstein was transferred to NACA Headquarters in early 1958 t

NACA Director Hugh Dryden with the formation of the agency. Silv

played a critical role in the creation of NASA. An appropriations bi

Image 150: Lewis’s hangar was repainted after the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion La

was renamed the “NASA Lewis Research Center.” Lewis, which had been investigati

engines and high-energy propellants for years, saw space as an extension of its aer

research. A host of new facilities were built for the space program, while others like 

were modified. (NASA C−1958−48854)
p

referred to as “the Space Act,” was submitted to Congress on 2 April 

the new agency. NASA officially came into being on 1 October, a

NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory became the NASA Lewis R

Center. Lewis underwent a major reorganization and for the next 1

concentrated its efforts almost exclusively on the space program.

Silverstein was named Director of Space Flight Operations later in 19

was responsible for coordinating, supervising, and reviewing all spa

work done at the three NACA labs. He also managed the personn

budget decisions for the Space Task Group (STG), whose assignme

to design and manage the nation’s new space program. During his te

the NACA/NASA Headquarters, Silverstein not only laid out the fram

for NASA and the manned space program but also planned early w

and communications satellite missions and numerous unpiloted m

including Ranger, Mariner, Surveyor, Syncom, and Voyager. It was Silv

who named NASA’s first human spaceflight programs. Mercury repr

“the swift messenger of things to come,” and Apollo showed a prog

with Apollo being the greatest of the gods.321

Image 151: Left to right: Associate Administrator Robert Seamans, Deputy Administra

Dryden, Administrator James Webb, and Abe Silverstein at a press conference follow

Gagarin’s 1961 orbital flight. Silverstein spent three years at NASA Headquarters 

create and guide the new space agency. (NASA GPN–2002–000153)
y p

NASA’s first effort would be Project Mercury—a series of 21 unmann

7 single-person orbital flights. NASA’s Source Selection Board, cha

Silverstein, selected McDonnell to manufacture the final Mercury caps

The boilerplate capsules would be designed and created at Langl

Lewis. Although Lewis was steeped in propulsion research, the S

that Mercury’s schedule did not provide enough time for NASA to d

its own rockets. Instead, the group decided to launch the capsules 

military’s existing Redstone and Atlas missiles. 

The Altitude Wind Tunnel Applies Itself to the Space Program

Wind tunnels of all sizes and speeds were used for Project Mercu

AWT was a significant facet in this new program, only not as a wind 

It was the AWT’s ability to simulate high altitudes inside a large ch

that piqued the STG’s interest. The STG had originally wanted to qua

Mercury capsule’s retrorockets and instrumentation with a series of b

drops near the edge of the atmosphere. By 22 May 1959 the STG dec

forgo the balloon drops and use the AWT instead. 

Image 152: Harold Gold and Merritt Preston discuss NASA Lewis’s role in Pro

Mercury on Dorothy Fuldheim’s local Cleveland television show, The One O’Cl

Club. Preston headed Lewis’s STG branch, and Gold designed the guidance sys

for the Big Joe capsule. It was Lewis’s first high-profile assignment in the natio

space program. (1959) (NASA C−2008−00902)
p

The turning vanes, makeup air pipes, and cooling coils were remove

the wide western end of the tunnel, and a device was installed ins

tunnel to test the capsule’s attitude control system. During a 15 Octob

meeting to allocate future Project Mercury assignments, the STG dec

also make use of the AWT to test the Atlas separation system, calibr

capsule’s retrorockets, study the escape tower rocket plume, and trai

nauts to bring a spinning capsule under control. The tunnel would 

the retrorockets to fire at conditions found at altitudes of 80,000 feet

Big Joe’s Attitude Control

The initial phase of Project Mercury consisted of a series of un

launches using the air force’s Redstone and Atlas boosters and the L

designed Little Joe boosters. The first Atlas launch, referred to as “B

to differentiate it from the smaller Little Joe rockets, was a single 

early in Project Mercury to use a full-scale Atlas booster and simu

Image 153: Construction of the MASTIF inside the AWT to test the autopilot and attit

trol systems for the Big Joe Mercury capsule. The MASTIF was built near the tunne

section, with stairs installed to reach the test section and observation platform

C−1959−50266)
y p

reentry of a mock-up Mercury capsule without actually placing it i

The mission was intended to assess the performance of the Atlas a

reliability of the capsule’s attitude control system, beryllium heatshie

recovery process.324 The launch was crucial since the STG felt that th

manned space program relied on the power of the Atlas rocket a

dependability of the heatshield.325

The overall design of Big Joe had been completed by Decembe

and soon thereafter project manager Aleck Bond assigned NASA Le

task of designing the electronic instrumentation and automatic stabi

system. Lewis also constructed the capsule’s lower section, which co

a pressurized area with the electronics and two nitrogen tanks for th

rockets. Lewis technicians were responsible for assembling the entire c

the General Electric (GE) heatshield, NASA Langley afterbody and re

canister, and Lewis electronics.326

Image 154: Installation of the attitude control system for the Big Joe capsule in the A

area. Robert Miller (on the left), Lou Corpas, Frank Stenger, and Phil Ross created the 

test rig, which was based on a design by Harold Gold and Edward Otto. The upper p

this piece contained the control system; gyros, thrusters, nitrogen tanks, and electron

located in the lower section. (NASA C−1959−50457)
p

Following separation, the capsule had to position itself with its he

down. The autopilot system kept the capsule at the correct attitude 

reentry, controlled the damping and roll during the actual reentry, an

plied information on the stability of an uncontrolled vehicle by shuttin

off after a specified gravity load (G load) was met.327 Harold Gold an

Sanders oversaw the Lewis team that designed, built, and tested th

sule’s attitude controls. These consisted of eight cold-gas nitrogen je

four tanks, and the autopilot gyros and electronics in a pressurized co

ment between the floor and the heatshield.328

A mock-up capsule was built to test the performance of the control 

At that point, the NACA in-house mentality remained alive despite t

agency’s trending toward contracting work out. Lewis engineer, Rober

recalled that during NASA’s first years, he would “take these drawin

go to the shops and have these guys study them. Then we’d have a m

and we’d discuss them and create enough interest and say, ‘Well, you 

can we do this in-house?’ And of course they created enough interest 

would do it in-house instead of shipping it out.”329

Image 155: NASA Lewis researcher William Masica operates the MASTIF. The Big Joe 

tion system package is mounted in the center of three cages, which each spin in a 

direction. Mounts for the tunnel’s turning vanes, which had been removed prior to th

can be seen in the background along the ceiling. (NASA C−1959−51728)
y p

In March 1959, engineers began assembling the MASTIF inside the AW

device could recreate any possible motion that the capsule might en

during its flight.330 The MASTIF had three cages nested inside one a

each of which spun independently in roll, pitch, or yaw. The goal 

determine if the autopilot system could rectify the capsule’s attitude 

ing separation. If the control system failed to work properly, the he

would be out of place and the spacecraft would burn up during ree

The AWT tests verified the control system and thrusters.

Afterward Lewis technicians assembled the actual Big Joe capsule in 

hangar. On 9 June, it was loaded on an air force transport aircraft and 

to Cape Canaveral. Scott Simpkinson led a team of 45 test operations 

nel from Lewis who followed the capsule to Florida and spent the e

months preparing it for launch. The launch took place in the early m

hours of 9 September 1959. Simpkinson’s team became concerned 

they realized that two exterior boosters had not yet jettisoned. Gold r

afterward, “At T plus four minutes all eyes turned to the telemeter 

Finally the meters on the panel deflected. The control system was 

our hopes were high for a successful flight.”332

Though the Atlas 1-D booster failed to properly separate, which pre

the spacecraft from attaining its intended altitude and speed, the 

procedures went well, the heatshield functioned properly, attitude 

was accomplished, reentry flight dynamics were studied, and re

was successful. It was the longest and fastest reentry recorded to 

Warren Plohr described the mission, “Despite the dirty curve thro

Atlas, the capsule reentered without excessive heating, landing in th

in perfect condition. Telemetry equipment began relaying data after 

separation as planned, giving us much-desired information.”334 As a r

the mission’s accomplishments, a second Big Joe launch was cancell
p

Image 156: The Big Joe capsule mounted atop an Atlas 1-D booster in the hours p

its 3:19 a.m. launch on 9 September 1959 from Cape Canaveral. It was the first M

launch involving a full-scale booster. (NASA GPN–2002–000045)
y p

Lewis Learns to Launch

Scott Simpkinson managed over 100 NASA Lewis engineers and techni

on the Big Joe project. Following the tests in the AWT, approximately 45 L

personnel, including those who had worked in the AWT, traveled to 

Canaveral in mid-June 1959 to prepare the capsule for its launch. Alth

the Air Force was running the launch, the NASA team was adamant a

staying involved. The Lewis contingent was stationed in Hangar S, a 

structure that had few amenities but many anecdotes. These included t

porting the capsule on a mattress in the back of a pickup truck and usin

janitor’s closets as offices.335

The switch from aeronautics to space was difficult for some NACA vete

at first. All procedures had to be documented and followed. There we

midtest or midflight adjustments. G. Merritt Preston, former AWT resea

and head of the Lewis Space Task Group, explained, “Before when we 

flying up at Lewis, we’d just go out and do it, and that’s not acceptable 

you’ve got all this kind of business.” The Lewis team soon adapted t

precise step-by-step procedures. “Sometimes it gets a little annoying, i

detailed,” admitted Preston, “but that’s the way it really has to be.”336

Image 157: The Big Joe capsule is shipped from Cleveland to Cape Canaver

9 June 1959. The capsule was assembled at Lewis. Later, the Mercury capsules 

created at McDonnell Douglas. (NASA C−1959−50892)
p

The Big Joe capsule recorded 139 measurements, which covered 

perature, pressure, noise, speed, and the behavior of various systems 

equipment.337 Frank Bechtel, who installed much of the telemetry, rec

working through muggy, mosquito-laden nights in Hangar S attempti

get the instrumentation installed. “It has like a thousand thermoco

embedded in this heatshield...We couldn’t get it to work. Here we find ou

ever built the connector for all the thermocouples...they didn’t know ho

solder a thermocouple connector and there was like a thousand wires in 

connector. We had to rebuild that connector and resolder the whole thin

After almost three months of preparation at Cape Canaveral, the ca

and booster were ready for launch in the early morning hours of 9 Septe

1959. Preston, Simpkinson, Henry Plohr, Harold Gold, Hap Johnson

Jacob Moser joined NASA Langley Big Joe project engineer Aleck Bo

Image 158: NASA Lewis engineers, technicians, and managers who traveled 

Cape Canaveral for the launch of the Big Joe Mercury capsule. (6 Sept. 1959) (NA

C–2009–02180)
y p

the blockhouse to oversee the launch. Others, like Frank Bechtel, monit

telemetry consoles during the 3-hour countdown. He recalled, “For 

launch I manned one station. I had to watch one temperature light. There 

a whole bunch of guys. That was my job, watch one temperature light. A

something went wrong I had to let them know, ‘Don’t light the fuse!’”339

Although there was a problem with the Atlas booster’s staging, Big J

attitude control system, heatshield, and recovery process worked 

G. Merritt Preston said afterward, “The success of the mission proves 

capability of Lewis people involved with the operation.”340

Some of the Lewis team stayed on at Cape Canaveral, where there w

opportunities for both technicians and managers. Scott Simpkinson w

go on to run the testing programs for both the Gemini and Apollo Progr

and manage flight safety on the shuttle program. Preston became Dire

of Launch Operations for Mercury and Gemini and Manager of the N

Johnson Space Center’s Florida operations. Others, however, had tie

Cleveland, such as new homes or children in school, which made tran

unappealing. In addition, the stress associated with launching spacefl

hardware on a tight schedule was intense, and many people burned ou
p

The Infamous Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia Facility (MASTIF)

The extensive training and medical testing of the Mercury astrona

been widely documented. NASA researchers were not sure how h

would react to the space atmosphere, so they were overly caut

their preparation for the Mercury flights. In 2007, astronaut Scott Ca

explained that more was known about the physical and mental he

the Mercury 7 than about any group of humans ever.341 One of th

publicized and feared of the tests was in the AWT’s MASTIF. 

The three-axis gimballing rig, originally designed to test the attitude 

of the Big Joe capsule, was adapted to train the astronauts how to r

tumbling spacecraft. NASA engineers feared that the capsule could s

of control once its thrusters were fired. They added a pilot’s chair, 

controller, and an instrument display to the MASTIF in order familia

astronauts with the sensations of an out-of-control spacecraft. 

NASA Lewis researcher James Useller and pilot Joe Algranti perfect

calibrated the MASTIF throughout 1959. Algranti responded well to 

entation on any one axis, but along two or more axes, his respon

was slower. The pilots were spun at 20 rpm and then later 50 and 7

A number of other pilots were brought in to help the engineers per

test rig.342

An astronaut was secured in a foam couch in the center of the rig. 

then spun on three axes from 2 to 50 rotations per minute. The pilo

tested on each of the three axes individually, then all three simultan

The yellow inner cage spun the pilots head over heels, the green cag

the pilots sideways, and the outer red yaw cage spun them horizonta

pilot was strapped in with only arms free to operate the communicat

panic buttons and a stick that controlled the small nitrogen jets that 

movement of the MASTIF. 

The rig, which included directional and vertical gyros, a rate dam

amplifier calibration unit, and an accelerometer switch, was inten

mimic the Mercury capsule control system. The astronaut could alter 

the attitude gyros during an actual flight by firing any of 12 hydrog

oxide rockets mounted to the outside of the axis pins to gain contro

rig after it had been set in motion.343 One witness said that the jets “s

like the blast of a giant air hose on concrete.”344

Engineer Frank Stenger felt guilty watching the pilots struggle, so he d

to try it himself one afternoon. He recalled, “So I got in it and spu
y p

Image 159: The MASTIF, a three-axis rig with a pilot’s chair mounted in the cen

installed in the AWT to train Project Mercury pilots to bring a spinning spacecraf

control. After being secured in a foam couch in the center of the rig, an astronaut w

small nitrogen gas thrusters to bring the MASTIF under control. There was an inciden

which one of the valves was opened and the empty rig spun wildly until it fell ap

MASTIF was reassembled using the spare set of parts, although a different style of m

had to be designed.345 (NASA C−1959−51723)
p

just one axis, just tumbled head over heel, I think it was. And I wen

the maximum speed, coasted to stop, somehow, I don’t remember wh

did it or whether we just coasted. But I got out of the cage and I was 

I was green. I was sick. I don’t know if I upchucked, but think I sat 

2 hours trying to recover. I didn’t go home until about 7 o’clock, jus

somewhere.”346

A second aim of the tests was to study the behavior of the astronau

when subjected to the rotations. During the rapid movements ass

with the MASTIF or high-speed flight, the pilot’s eyeballs tend to take 

to alter their direction than the body so the pilot is constantly read

his eyes to focus on what is in front of him. This condition, kno

nystagmus, often blurs the vision. Lewis researchers attached electro

an astronaut’s eye and to a camera inside the MASTIF’s cockpit to film 

during the spins. Robert Miller recalled, “I could see the eyes flipping 

down and sideways.”347

In February and March 1960, the seven Project Mercury astronau

female pilot Jerrie Cobb traveled to Cleveland to train on the M

Warren North and a team of air force physicians were on hand to m

their health. After being briefed by Algranti and Useller, the rider 

climb into the rig and be secured in the chair. Stenger would then slo

the MASTIF in motion. It was the astronaut’s job to bring it under co

Each individual was required to accumulate 4.5 to 5 hours of MASTI

The tests were grueling. Alan Sheppard said at the time that the MAST

given him the “most realistic vertigo experience of his life.”349 Wally 

compared a ride in the rig to a dog chewing on one’s leg. Scott Ca

explained, “No matter how well you fit the couch and no matter ho

you’re strapped in it, your internal organs start to move around even 

speeds. And at high speeds, it really starts sloshing.”350 While prepar

his 1999 STS-95 mission, John Glenn remarked, “When I went into t

for this flight, I was glad that rig had been torn down.”351

A crude dressing room, known as the “Astro-Penthouse,” was temp

constructed on the AWT viewing platform next the test section. 

equipped with a cot for astronauts to recuperate on after their rid

astronauts would descend into the test section and walk through the t

throat section to the waiting MASTIF. 

The MASTIF tests determined that rotations up to 70 rpm had no mea

influence on an astronaut’s operation of the rig. Repetition of thes

reduced the error rate. It was also found that when the astronauts 
y p

at a single location, the effects of nystagmus were reduced signifi

Despite Sheppard’s nausea during those first runs, severe motion s

was surprisingly rare during normal operation of the MASTIF.352 Steng

“It was a confidence level. The astronauts knew that once they got i

And every one of them was able to reorientate themselves for reen

position.... Once they built up their confidence level then they kne

could [reorientate themselves] if they were tumbling. It’s somethin

didn’t know they could do.”353

The first week was assigned to Sheppard and Schirra. On those fir

Sheppard did well in bringing the machine under control on one a

axes. Once all three axes were in motion, however, Sheppard became 

had to activate the “chicken switch” that signaled to the engineers 

down the machine. Sheppard doggedly tried the MASTIF again tha

noon. The trials improved, but again he was forced to call off the test 

he could bring it under control. Over the next few days, however, Sh

continued to climb into the rig for additional runs. Soon, he found a 

by which he would control the MASTIF one axis at a time until he 

bring the machine to a standstill. He had become adept enough to 

30 rpm on each axis. Sheppard was the first of the astronauts to ma

machine. He later felt that his motion sickness during the tests mig

been an early sign of the Ménière’s inner ear syndrome that caused 

be removed from flight status between 1964 and 1969. 

During the first U.S. suborbital flight, Sheppard assumed control 

capsule for a significant portion of the time outside the atmosphe

hand controller, identical to the one he had mastered during his M

runs, was used to pitch the capsule in various positions as it streak

space at 5,100 mph.354
p

Photo Essay 4: 

The Mercury 7 Come to Town

Image 160: Left to right: Robert Miller, John Glenn, and James Useller. The men w

driving forces behind the creation of the MASTIF and the running of the tests. 

C−1960−52744)
y p

Image 161: Center left and right: Astronaut Alan Sheppard and NA

Lewis Research Center test pilot Joe Algranti discuss the MASTIF inside the AW

Sheppard was the first of the Mercury astronauts to operate the rig. (NA

C−1960−52706)

Image 162: John Glenn begins his tests on the MASTIF. (NASA C−1960−52741)
p

Image 163: Left to right: Astronauts Deke Slayton and Scott Carpenter talk outsi

the “Astro-Penthouse.” When asked about the MASTIF’s affect on his eyes, Slayt

said, “To clear up the vision, all the spaceman has to do is stop using the cont

forces of the nitrogen gas.” (NASA C−1960−52807)

Image 164: Gordon Cooper prepares for a spin in the MASTIF. Cooper arriv

in Cleveland after the others had finished their tests because of an illness in t

family. (NASA C−1960−52972)
y p

Image 165: Left to right: Gus Grissom and Wally Schirra pose next to the MAS

inside the AWT. (NASA C−1960−52465 and C−1960−52818)

Image 166: Female pilot Jerrie Cobb prepares for a test on the MASTIF. Cobb w

one of several female pilots who underwent skill and endurance testing simi

to that of the Project Mercury astronauts. Several nonastronaut test pilots to

turns on the MASTIF, but Cobb was the only woman. The NASA requirement t

astronauts be military fighter pilots automatically disqualified potential fem

candidates. (NASA C−1960−53087)
p

Verifying the Retrorockets 

The Mercury capsule had six rockets on a “retropackage” affixed to t

tom of the capsule. Three of these were posigrade rockets used to s

the capsule from the booster and three were retrograde rockets u

slow the capsule for reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere. Performanc

retrorockets was vital since there was no backup if the systems faile

Space Task Group (STG) assigned the NASA Lewis and NASA Ames r

centers the task of verifying their reliability.355

NASA engineers feared that the posigrades would damage the 

during the separation process. During early 1961, separation tests f

the Atlas and Redstone boosters were conducted inside the AWT at a

comparable to the upper atmosphere. The setup was similar for bot

of tests. The full-size capsule model was affixed to the horizontally m

booster mock-up. The capsule would fire its posigrades and swin

from the booster on a pendulumlike tether.

The Redstone tests revealed that the gas that filled the booster’s 

section when the posigrades were fired actually helped the sep

process by driving the capsule away from the booster at an additional 

per second.356 The ensuing Mercury-Atlas separation tests ensured t

firing of the posigrade rockets did not injure the booster rocket, retror

or electronics. It also determined the actual boost level of the posigr

Although all three retrorockets fired simultaneously, only one was ne

achieve proper separation.358

Three retrograde rockets, also located on the bottom of the capsule, 

as a braking system to be initiated approximately 3,000 nautica

before the splashdown target. The three rockets were fired rotationall

5 seconds for 1 minute before the entire retropackage was jettison

thrust stand was set up in the AWT to test the rockets. The exact pos

the retrorockets’ thrust was determined by using a thrust cell and two 

cells.360 The studies showed that a previous probem with delayed ign

the propellant had been resolved. Follow-up test runs verified the re

of the igniter.361 Lewis researchers were able to calibrate the retroroc

that they would fire through the capsule’s center of gravity and not s

spacecraft tumbling.362
y p

Image 167: Mercury astronaut Scott Carpenter studies the separation syst

on a mock-up Mercury capsule in the AWT. The tunnel was used to study 

posigrade rockets that separated the capsule from its booster after leaving Ear

atmosphere. (NASA C−1960−52808)

Image 168: Mercury capsule/Redstone separation test in the AWT. The posigra

rockets were fired, and the capsule jettisoned forward on a tether. High-spe

film was used to analyze the separations. A plywood shield was hung guilloti

style above the ring. Once the bolts blew and the capsule shot out, the plywo

dropped down to protect the booster model when the capsule swung back on 

pendulum.363 (NASA C−1960−52778)
p

Image 169: Left: Gale Butler examines the Mercury capsule’s retrograde rockets prio

run inside the AWT. These studies showed that a previous problem concerning delay

the propellant had been resolved. Follow-up runs verified the reliability of the coated 

attachment to the propellant grain. In addition, the capsule’s retrorockets were cali

that they would not alter the capsule’s position when fired. (NASA C−1960−53146)
y p

Escape Tower Tests

The AWT was also used to determine if the smoke plume from the ca

escape tower rockets would shroud or compromise the spacecra

escape tower—a 10-foot steel rig with three small rockets—was attac

the nose of the Mercury capsule. It could be used to jettison the as

and capsule to safety in the event of a launch vehicle malfunction 

pad or at any point prior to separation from the booster. The abort se

could be initiated by ground control, the astronaut, or the booster

strophic detection system. Once actuated, the escape rockets located 

top of the steel tower would fire, and the capsule would be ejecte

from the booster. After the capsule reached its apex of about 2,50

the tower, heatshield, retropackage, and antenna would be ejected

drogue parachute would be released.364

Image 170: From March to July 1960 the AWT was used to qualify escape tow

motors for the Mercury capsule. For the tests, the AWT’s atmosphere was evacuat

altitude of approximately 100,000 feet, and the escape tower was mounted to the tun

with a mock-up Mercury capsule at the end. (NASA C−1960−53288)
p

Flight tests of the escape system were performed at Wallops Isl

part of the series of Little Joe launches. Although the escape rock

prematurely on the first attempt in August 1959, the January 1960 fol

was successful. Afterward, the AWT was used to qualify the escape 

motors at altitudes of 100,000 feet. The escape tower was mounted 

tunnel wall with a mock-up Mercury capsule at the end. Three d

escape motors were successfully fired. Thrust misalignment was stud

a fourth rocket using a four-piece balance system.365

The escape rockets were powerful enough to send a blast sailing t

the entire wind tunnel. Sections of tunnel walls were painted white t

with the high-speed photography. Every time the rockets were fired

ever, they would coat the interior with soot and the walls would hav

cleaned. NASA Lewis engineer Lou Corpas remembered, “[The exh

pumped all this soot and stuff out, just dumped it out through their 

stacks and it covered everything, everybody’s car, the street, every th

Image 171: Astronaut Alan Shepard is seen on the deck of the USS Champlain after the 

of his Mercury capsule. Shepard had just become the first American to enter outer spac

S61–02727)
y p

The Altitude Wind Tunnel Completes Another Mission

Once again, with little advance warning, the AWT had been reconfig

contribute to a new national aerospace need. When the facility had 

online just 15 years before, no one could have foreseen that it wo

used as an altitude tank for manned space missions. The use of th

during the busy early years of Project Mercury sped up the preflight 

and saved the new agency money.367 The attitude control and hea

instrumentation on the Big Joe capsule verified that reentry was s

humans. The escape system was never deployed during an actual 

but the tumbling capsule scenario did manifest itself on Neil Armstro

Dave Scott’s Gemini VIII mission. By June 1960, almost a year befo

Sheppard’s suborbital flight, the AWT had wrapped up its first and onl

on the human space program. It was ready for its next mission.

Endnotes for Chapter 7

317. Neal Thompson, Light This Candle: The Life and Times of Alan Sheppa

America’s First Spaceman (New York, NY: Crown Publishers, 2004), p

318. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Sloop, 29 May 197

NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, O

319. “Suggested Policy and Course of Action for NACA Re Rocket Engine 

Propulsion,” 6 May 1955, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, 

320. “Lewis Lab Opinion of Future Policy and Course of Action for the NA

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

321. Arnold S. Levine, Managing NASA in the Apollo Era (Washington DC:

SP-4102, 1982) chap. 2.

322. Levine, Managing NASA, chap. 2.

323. James Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology (Washington, DC: N

SP–4001, 1963), Part II-A. [Maxime A. Faget (Chief, Flight Systems Div

to Project Director, “Status of Test Work Being Conducted at the Lewi

Research Center in Conjunction with Project Mercury,” 22 October 19

324. Space Task Group, “Project Mercury Preliminary Flight Test Results of 

‘Big Joe,’ Mercury R and D Capsule,” NASA Project Mercury Working 

No. 107 and NASA TM–X–73017, 1959. 

325. Lloyd Swenson, James Grimwood, and Charles Alexander, This New O

A History of Project Mercury (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4201, 1966), 

326. “Big Joe, Lewis’ Part in the Project Mercury Story,” Orbit (22 May 1959

327. Swenson et al., This New Ocean.

328. “Big Joe, Lewis’ Part,” Orbit.

329. Interview with Lou Corpas, Frank Stenger, and Robert Miller, conduct

by Bonita Smith, 17 September 2001, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

330. “Big Joe, Lewis’ Part,” Orbit.
p

331. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview, conducted by Smith, 17 Septemb

332. “It Was Like This at Canaveral,” Orbit (25 September 1959): 1.

333. Swenson et al., This New Ocean.

334. “News Flash From Cape Canaveral,” Orbit (11 September 1959): 1.

335. Swenson et al., This New Ocean.

336. Interview with G. Merritt Preston, conducted by Carol Butler, 1 Februa

Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, Houston, TX.

337. Swenson et al., This New Ocean.

338. Interview with Frank Bechtel, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 19 July 2004

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

339. Bechtel interview, conducted by Arrighi, 19 July 2004.

340. “It Was Like This at Canaveral,” Orbit.

341. Scott Carpenter, “Talk at NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH

14 September 2007.”

342. Swenson et al., This New Ocean, chap. 8.

343. “Astronauts at Lewis,” Orbit (19 February 1960): 1.

344. Jean Pearson, “Thrills Await 7 Astronauts on Whirligig.” Detroit Free Pr

(8 December 1959). 

345. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview, conducted by Smith, 17 Septemb

346. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview, conducted by Smith, 17 Septemb

347. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview, conducted by Smith, 17 Septemb

348. Pearson, “Thrills Await 7 Astronauts.”

349. “Lewis Letter” (24 February 1960), Office of Public Information, NASA 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

350. Jean Pearson, “Project Dizziness,” Detroit Free Press (6 March 1960), p

351. “Well Wishers Thank Glenn in a Big Way,” Aerospace Frontiers (Febru

352. James Useller and Joseph Algranti, “Pilot Reaction to High Speed Rota

Aerospace Medicine 34, no. 6 (June 1963).

353. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview, conducted by Smith, 17 Septemb

354. Thompson, Light This Candle, p. 254.

355. Swenson et al., This New Ocean.

356. George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, The Mercury-Redstone Project

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–53107, 1963), pp. 4–7.

357. Grimwood, Project Mercury. [Memo, Faget, 22 October 1959.]

358. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, “Project Mercury Familiarization Manu

(St. Louis, MO: McDonnell SEDR–104, 1959), 7–3.

359. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, “Project Mercury,” 8–1.

360. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview, conducted by Smith, 17 Septemb

361. James Grimwood, Project Mercury. A Chronology, Part II–A. [NASA Sp

Group, Project Mercury [Quarterly] Status Report No. 6 for Period Endi

April 30, 1960.]

362. Grimwood, Project Mercury. [Memo, Faget, 22 October 1959.]

363. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview, conducted by Smith, 17 Septemb

364. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, “Project Mercury,” 6–13, 5–12.

365. Grimwood, Project Mercury: [NASA Space Task Group].

366. Corpas, Stenger, and Miller interview, conducted by Smith, 17 Septemb

367. Swenson et al., This New Ocean, chap. 6. 
Image 172: Conversion of the Altitude Wind Tunnel into two altitude c

This photograph shows the largest of the three bulkheads being inserted 

tunnel. It is being placed approximately where the wind tunnel fan was 

(NASA C−1961−58551)
p

Chapter 

After the final boom of the Mercury capsule escape rocket faded thro

the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) in late May 1960, the facility’s test 

was empty. During NASA’s first two years of existence, the NASA 

Research Center had refocused its efforts almost completely on the 

program. Less than 10 percent of the annual budget was dedicated t

nautics.368 The national human space program would continue, but m

the testing would take place at the NASA Langley Research Center a

Manned Space Flight Center being built in Houston. New facilities at 

such as the Propulsion Systems Laboratory and Rocket Engine Test F

were better equipped than the AWT to test rocket engines.

In the aftermath that followed President Kennedy’s April 1961 “Urgent 

address to Congress, NASA was given a seemingly unlimited bud

accomplish the accelerated lunar landing mission, the Agency reorg

and began swelling its ranks through a massive recruiting effort

personnel increased from approximately 2,700 in 1961 to over 4

1966.369 In October 1961 Abe Silverstein returned from NASA Headq

to serve as the Director of the NASA Lewis Research Center. 

Lewis also began a new wave of construction both in Cleveland 

its Plum Brook Station 60 miles to the west. Nineteen facilities we

or reassigned for space-related testing during the Apollo Program

Wind Tunne

Vacuum Cha

(1961–1963)

Metamorphosis
y p

aeronautics-based facilities, including the Small Supersonic Tunnels 

Icing Research Tunnel, were shut down.370 It was in this atmosphe

NASA Lewis decided to create two large altitude chambers inside the 

would prove to be a fortuitous decision. After acquiring the Centaur 

program in 1962, Lewis would need the large chambers for a va

tests.

Age of the Space Tank

The new and modified facilities were part of NASA Lewis’s plan to 

a comprehensive portfolio of test capabilities for a wide range o

applications. Former Centaur Manager, Larry Ross, explained that th

facilities “were more in line with the broad vision of a very ambitiou

program, including nuclear propulsion. So [Silverstein’s] vision, and h

mitment to that broader ambitious program he saw the nation unde

led to the development of the facilities.”371

One capability considered necessary by Lewis was a large space sim

chamber. Initial spaceflights revealed that the behavior of engines, op

systems, and flight hardware were affected by the environmental con

encountered in space. Testing these components in simulated space 

would be vital to their success. This was particularly true of satellites, 

equilibrium temperatures were often linked directly to their survival.

Silverstein was among the strongest advocates for extensive groun

ing in simulated flight conditions. He had been a primary advocate 

space environmental simulation chamber built in late 1960 at McDon

fly simulated missions leading up to the first manned Mercury fl

Silverstein believed that mission success could be guaranteed only if 

piece of equipment that is taken aboard...[is] environmentally chec

that it can live in the environment of space, the total environment of 

the vacuum of space, the temperatures of space, the pressures of spa

is, in the fields of other components; that the whole ensemble put t

is tested environmentally so as to operate successfully.”374

In early 1961 Lewis management decided to convert the AWT into t

chambers, one to simulate the vacuum of outer space and the ot

conditions of the upper atmosphere. The project was estimated 

$350,000 over two years.375 The new Space Power Chambers (SPC) 

was part of the first wave of large space tanks in the United States. Th

recreated the pressures, temperatures, and speeds of atmospheric 

but recreating a space environment required much lower pressures
p

Image 174: Meteor Impact Model in the new SPC No. 1. This satellite was set up 

the chamber days after the facility was officially rededicated as the Space Pow

Chambers (SPC) on 12 September 1962. The space tank was envisioned for th

study of small satellites like this one. (18 Sept. 1962) (NASA C−1962−61717)

Image 173: Initial configuration of Space Power Chamber (SPC) No. 1 inside t

AWT with a satellite installed. (NASA Glenn, Orbit, p. 1, 12 Jan. 1962)
y p

temperatures, and a method of simulating solar radiation. Although 

of the Project Mercury tests in the AWT were conducted in high-

conditions, it was not the space environment that satellites and 

vehicles would encounter. 

One study was conducted in the shop area of the AWT at this tim

Mercury Evaporating Condensing Analysis. Lewis researchers studie

cury condensation in an effort to design better power-conversion dev

the space program. Tests first were run in a ground facility then replic

the air during microgravity flights on Lewis’s AJ-2 aircraft.

There were no large vacuum chambers operating in the country 

construction of the SPC began in the summer of 1961. The McDonn

was relatively small. By the end of 1962, however, there were 10; 

1965, there were 40 including another chamber at Lewis for study

engines—the Electric Propulsion Laboratory. When it became operat

September 1963, the new 31-foot-diameter, 100-foot-long SPC No. 1 v

tank was rivaled in size only by the 35-foot-diameter, 65-foot-long 

Image 175: SPC No. 1 vacuum chamber in relation to the overall SPC facility. (NASA 
p

Image 177: Mercury was released into the horizontal pressurized condensing tube. 

behavior was monitored by an oscillograph and a high-speed camera on a rail th

could film at any point along the tube.376 Although the SNAP-8 program was even

ally terminated, these power-conversion studies contributed to the Brayton cycle a

the mercury Rankine systems of the late 1960s and early 1970s.377 (C−1961−5858

Image 176: Mercury Evaporating Condensing Analysis setup in the SPC shop area

was the only research performed in the facility between March 1960 and Septemb

1963. (NASA C–1961–57517) 
y p

tank at the Arnold Engineering Development Center.378 The Electric 

sion Laboratory had several smaller vacuum tanks designed specific

electric or ion thruster research. Although larger chambers capable of 

vacuums would later be constructed, the rapid conversion of the AW

the SPC allowed the facility to play a vital role in the early years of th

program, particularly in regards to the Surveyor missions to the Moo

Reconfiguring a Giant for the Space Age

The AWT’s 1-inch-thick shell, relatively smooth interior surfaces, 

infrastructure, and large internal volume were a good basis for 

vacuum chamber. The tunnel’s drive fan, turning vanes, exhaust scoo

test section lid were dismantled and removed. A section of the tunn

near the southeast corner was cut out and temporarily removed so 

Image 178: A worker cuts away the AWT’s outer shell in preparation for the installa

large bulkhead and the sealing of the inner shell during the creation of the new SPC N

tank. (NASA C–1961–58124)
p

large bulkhead could be placed inside the tunnel. Another seal, th

with a 15-foot-diameter access door, was placed near the tunnel’s no

corner, just beyond the test section. A third seal was made at the t

contraction just before the test section to form the larger chamber in t

leg of the tunnel. It could be removed to bring test articles into the la

No. 2 test chamber.

A new pump house, built directly beneath SPC No. 1, housed an oil-di

based vacuum system. The vacuum inside the chamber was brought d

three phases. The center’s central exhaust system pulled the vacuum 

to a pressure altitude of 100,000 feet in about 15 minutes, 2 mec

roughing pumps in the pump house reduced the pressure further, an

the 10 diffusion pumps created the final vacuum pressures. The entire 

required approximately 24 hours. Gaseous nitrogen could be introd

rapidly return the chamber to sea level.379

The most frustrating aspect of the conversion process was the discov

the tunnel’s shell was not sealed sufficiently to maintain the desired v

level for the space tank. The seal had been sufficient for the wind t

operation, but tests revealed that the entire shell would have to be re

for the vacuum chamber. Harold Friedman recalled, “[During] the wa

it was hard to get welders. Just everything was wrong. In fact, I th

welds in the wind tunnel were barely passable.”380 Bill Harrison adde

we ended up putting $25,000 into SPC and we rewelded every seam 

way around that big thing...in the process of doing that we found wh

welders [in the 1940s] had laid welding rod in the crack and welded o

of it so that they could fill it up faster.”381

The rewelding would not be required for the larger SPC No. 2 cham

the other end of the tunnel. SPC No. 2 would be used for shroud sep

tests in the same manner as it had been for the Project Mercury 

Howard Wine explains, “They didn’t have to go up to near the 

because the separation of the nose cone would take place when it w

in the atmosphere. So with the existing exhausters [from the AWT

sufficient in order for them to get into the area that they could sep

some reasonable altitude.”383 
y p

Contractors Get a Bad Name

One of the differences between NASA and the former NACA was th

of contractors to perform many of the tasks previously assigned to fe

employees. The resulting resentment of the contractors by civil ser

began in the early 1960s and persisted for decades. Several bad experie

during the construction of the SPC contributed to this impression of co

tor inferiority. 

One episode involved a man hired to sandblast the old paint from the 

interior of the SPC. The worker attempted to accomplish the task usin

air gun that was fed from a small bucket of sand. The work proceeded 

slow pace, and eventually the contractor was replaced. Under the agree

however, he had to clean up the sand and paint chips. After pulling his p

truck under the hatch in the opposite end of the tunnel, he began shov

the waste out by hand. This, too, proceeded slowly and the contracto

relieved of this duty, as well. NASA staff assumed the task and cleaned o

tunnel using large pieces of equipment.384

Another frustrating incident occurred during the assembly of the coppe

wall inside SPC No. 1. The cold wall contained a series of long, thin nitr

tanks that had to be joined together. The assembly required a special ty

arc welding know as heliarc welding. The crew selected to perform the 

Image 179: Workers inside SPC No. 1 work at removing the former 

tunnel’s turning vanes and cleaning up the chamber’s interior. (NASA 

C–1961–58128)
p

had no experience with this type of welding, so they hired a specialist 

Pennsylvania and purchased new equipment. The crew practiced the 

nique in the parking lot for hours until they felt confident enough to begi

task.385

The final welds on the nitrogen bottles were not successful, however

leakage from these cold-wall joints prevented the chamber from reac

the proper vacuum level. The contractor was let go, and NASA perso

took over the task. The nitrogen bottles were filled with helium, and s

plastic bags were placed over each weld to check for leakage. Lewis re

Howard Wine recalls receiving a mandate from Bill Harrison to complet

job rapidly. “We ran two shifts 24 hours a day, 12-hour shifts. I think it 

six or seven days a week. We were against a time constraint.” After se

weeks of testing and rewelding, the chamber atmosphere was success

reduced to the proper vacuum level.386

Those working on the Centaur Program would soon come to appreciat

role that contractors could play in the space program, but this opinion 

not generally shared by the mechanical and technical staff at Lewis

Apprentice Program was phased out in the 1970s, and the Test Ins

tions Division and the Technical Services Division were merged. The u

outside contractors for this work increased, particularly in the early 19

As the years have gone by, however, the quality and performance of con

tors has been proven and accepted as part of the NASA culture. In 

approximately half of the center’s staff were contractors.387

Image 180: Construction of a new control room for SPC No. 1 beneath the 

tunnel’s test section. (28 Nov. 1961) (NASA C–1961–58575)
y p

Photo Essay 5: 

The Altitude Wind Tunnel Is Transformed into the 

Space Power Chambers

Image 181: The AWT’s outer steel shell is removed so that the inner steel tunnel 

checked for leaks. The middle layer of insulation is visible. It was found that, in th

to complete the original tunnel construction during World War II, the seams were 

welded. To create the vacuum chamber, NASA would have to reweld the entire eas

the tunnel. (NASA C–1961–57394)
p

Image 182: Workers install a 31-foot bulkhead inside the southeast 

corner of the tunnel. The interior of the SPC was sandblasted and 

repainted with a double coat of aluminum paint that would not off-gas in 

a deep vacuum.388 (NASA C–1961–58579)

Image 183: Twenty-seven-foot-diameter bulkhead at the north end of SPC 

No. 1. It contained a swinging 15-foot-diameter door in the middle that 

permitted the movement of large articles into and out of the chamber. 

(NASA C–1962–61466)
y p

Image 184: Diagram of SPC No. 1 showing the location of the Vacuum 

Pump House below the chamber. However practical it was to end the AWT’s 

days as a tunnel, some, like NASA Lewis retiree Bob Walker felt differently

“When they welded it all and made a vacuum chamber out of it, they kind of 

destroyed the old feeling for it.” 389 (NASA CS–1961–22859)

Image 185: Interior view of Vacuum Pump House being constructed below 

SPC No. 1. The portals for the 10 pending 32-inch-diameter oil-diffusion 

pumps can be seen in the ceiling of the pump house, which was directly 

underneath the chamber. (NASA C–1961–58582)
p

Image 186: SPC No. 1 in its initial configuration in the east leg of the tunnel. The 100-

chamber was 31 feet in diameter at the southeast end, 27 feet in diameter at the north

and had an internal volume of 70,000 cubic feet.390 The diffusion pumps could re

atmosphere to a pressure level of 10–5 millimeters of mercury or roughly that fou

altitude of 100 miles. A removable dome would be added in the ceiling to lower a seco

rocket into the tank. (NASA C−1962−61467)
y p

Image 187: SPC No. 2 in the western end and throat section of the tunnel. The sectio

in this photograph was 51 feet in diameter and 121 feet long. The chamber also inc

tunnel’s throat section, which narrowed from 51 feet to 20 feet in diameter, and the 

of the tunnel. The chamber used the existing tunnel exhaust systems to simulate al

100,000 feet. (NASA C−1965−00703)
p

Pulling Centaur from the Wreckage

On 8 May 1962, as construction of the SPC was nearing completion, 

Atlas/Centaur rocket lifted off from Launch Complex 36A at Cape 

eral. The rocket rose into the clear sky and turned along its intende

Then, as it neared the darkness of space at 49 seconds and 50 miles 

flight, the Centaur burst into a ball of flames.391 The fireball streaked f

toward its destination for several seconds before falling into the oc

Cleveland, Lewis photographers were preparing to conduct a photo

survey of the center’s new space tank. They were unaware of the eff

the Atlas/Centaur explosion would have on the SPC and the entire c

Centaur was a 30,000-pound-thrust rocket designed in 1958 by G

Dynamics as a second-stage for the U.S. Army’s Advanced R

Projects Agency’s Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile.392 The C

Program was transferred in November 1959 to the Army Ballistic 

Agency in Huntsville, Alabama. That agency, led by Werner von 

would soon be incorporated into NASA as the Marshall Space 

Center.393

Centaur was a high-powered, sophisticated, and temperamental 

vehicle. It used controversial, high-energy, highly explosive liquid hy

as its propellant. Centaur was the first cryogenic stage ever attempt

had unique balloonlike fuel tanks with a thin shared bulkhead betw

oxidizer and propellant. It also had a two-burn capability, which m

behaved both as a launch vehicle and as a spacecraft. Robert Gra

directed many of the Cape Canaveral launches, explained to Virginia D

in 1999, “[The Centaur] had to be tweaked all the time; and it w

tolerant to any kind of failures, or something not being just right. It 

be right—period, or else it wasn’t going to work.”394

Yet Centaur’s potential was great. “You could get more energy, more 

out of that Centaur than any rocket ever built up to that time. And p

even now,” explained former Centaur launch analyst Joe Nieberdin

Centaur enabled missions that would not have been flown; they w

doable. You could put a couple thousand pounds to Mars, whereas w

the Centaur, you might only be able to put a couple hundred pound

Initially, the Atlas/Centaur had a one-mission objective: Surveyor. NA

relying on the new rocket to send a series of the Surveyor space

the Moon to photograph and sample the lunar surface as a prelude 

Apollo landings. Following the Centaur failure, there was debate with

Congress and NASA regarding Centaur’s future. Surveyor was 
y p

Image 189: Publicity photograph of a bulkhead in the new SPC taken two days a

Centaur F-1 explosion. Work would soon begin readying the unused facility for C

testing. (NASA C−1962−60341)

Image 188: The initial flight of a Centaur second-stage rocket with an Atlas boost

referred to as “F-1.” It failed 49 seconds after liftoff on 8 May 1962. The explosion r

from damage to one of the four panels that insulated the Centaur’s cryogenic 

hydrogen propellant tank. The liquid hydrogen, which boils at −426°F, quickly exp

and ruptured the tank. The resulting explosion destroyed both the Centaur and the 

(NASA MPD−1609)
p

designed to include a Surveyor orbiter component, which would sur

Moon from a lunar orbit. After the Centaur failure, though, the orbi

cancelled. It would be reconfigured as the Lunar Orbiter and launc

an Atlas/Agena.396

Hearings held by the House Subcommittee on Space Sciences fo

the F-1 failure found that General Dynamics had been responsible 

Centaur’s design flaws, but that the “less than adequate” technical ov

by NASA Marshall had caused these flaws to go unnoticed prior to 

Management at Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Ca

where Surveyor was being developed, pressed hard for the substitu

the Atlas/Centaur with a Saturn C-1/Agena D rocket, as previously su

by von Braun.397 Because of its importance to the incipient Apollo Pr

Image 190: Centaur rockets in the General Dynamics assembly plant. General Dyna

devised a new type of spacecraft that initially possessed a number of difficulties. It wa

cryogenic stage ever attempted, it would restart its engines in space, its tanks were ball

had to remain pressurized, and there was a bulkhead the thickness of only a couple 

aluminum foil between the oxidizer and propellant. (NASA C−1962−62408)
y p

Centaur was not cancelled. It was, however, strongly recommend

the program undergo an intense reevaluation.398 Ed Cortright, the A

Director of Lunar and Planetary Programs at NASA Headquarters, 

taking steps to give Centaur a new start. 

Nonetheless, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which was creating the S

spacecraft that would be carried to the Moon, was irritated that the p

and its transportation, Centaur, were being developed simultaneous

Apollo schedule was too tight for an uncertain rocket. The Jet Pro

Laboratory management suggested that Centaur be cancelled even 

the May 1962 failure of its first flight.399

In October 1962 the project was transferred to NASA Lewis. Over th

few years the entire Centaur Program was reevaluated at Lewis. The 

took place in both existing and specially constructed facilities. The Dy

Research Stand was built at Plum Brook Station to test the structural 

of the Atlas/Centaur. The Propulsion Systems Laboratory was used 

edly to test Centaur’s RL-10 engines and to study prelaunch chilld

liquid helium. Finally, the newly created SPC was used for a wide va

Centaur studies, including long-duration soaks in the new space ta

shroud separation tests.400

Accommodating Centaur

On 12 September 1962 the AWT was officially renamed the “Space 

Chambers” (SPC).401 On 8 October, the actual transfer of the Centaur P

to Cleveland began. Almost at once, NASA Lewis management dec

modify the new SPC No. 1 to accommodate a full-size Centaur. H

Wine, explained, “We didn’t have another facility anywhere at Lew

was capable of standing [the Centaur] up on its end, so that was 

Otherwise they would have had either turned down the project, wh

a real nice project to have because of high visibility, or they wou

had to build another facility.”402 The SPC would be directly involve

10 Centaur missions, and its tests would influence nearly every subs

mission.

The decision to reconfigure SPC No. 1 for Centaur resulted in almost 

year of construction on the unused space tank. The most time-con

aspect was the addition of a 22.5-foot-diameter extension with a rem

dome lid so that the Centaur could be set up vertically.403
p

The Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, the same company that per

the initial AWT construction, was contracted in March 1963. Delays 

transportation of the steel pushed the construction into late June. 

such as 60-hour work weeks and shipping steel on trucks rathe

railroad, were made to expedite the work, but NASA officials were 

at the delays.404 Pittsburgh-Des Moines argued that NASA’s alteration

design would have resulted in delays even if the steel had been de

on time. The new dome was finally completed in August 1963.405 Aft

two years of work, longer than the construction of the tunnel in the 

the SPC was finally ready. 

Image 191: An extension and dome are added to SPC No. 1 to accommodate a 

Centaur rocket. A crane lifts the dome’s lid into place as a welder works below sh

the supports. This photograph was taken in August 1963, almost a year after the fa

supposedly completed. (7 Aug. 1963) (NASA C−1963−65692)
y p

Centaur Comes to Cleveland

As NASA’s Director of Space Flight Operations, Abe Silverstein led a com

tee in 1958 to explore the requirements for upper-stage rockets. The g

concluded that high-energy propellants were a prerequisite. Concurre

the army had agreed to General Dynamics’s unique design of a liq

hydrogen second-stage rocket called Centaur.406 The following 

Silverstein established another team to select the upper stages for the 

Saturn booster being developed at NASA Marshall. This group, kn

thereafter as the “Silverstein Committee,” concluded that only u

stages using high-energy propellants would be practical. After a wee

discussions, during which it is said that Silverstein reminded the g

that the Project Bee liquid-hydrogen aircraft had been flown in Cleve

two years before, the reluctant von Braun agreed to the recommendat

for the Saturn upper stages.407

Von Braun remained uncomfortable with the concept, however, and pus

to have the Centaur Program cancelled. He and his team of rocket exp

in Huntsville had never felt at ease with Centaur’s use of liquid hydro

or its unconventional design. Andy Stofan, former Lewis Centaur mana

explained, “Literally it’s pumped up like a balloon. If you let the air 

the tank collapses ex

like a balloon. Marshall 

everything with I beams.”4

Ed Cortright obtained 

informal agreement from 

verstein, who had bec

Director at Lewis, to 

over the project if it 

moved from Marshall. T

are conflicting account

Silverstein’s initial reactio

Cortright’s suggestion 

the project be transferre

Cleveland. It was clear, 

ever, that both Silverstein 

NASA Lewis had been a

vanguard of liquid-hydro

development in the e

1950s. General Dynamics 

Image 192: Silverstein and Werner von Braun on 

the 1958 Space Technology Committee. It has been 

assumed that the disdain between the two space 

titans stemmed from their ethnic backgrounds, but 

Silverstein claimed that any friction was the result 

of different management and budgetary styles, 

not personal animosity. (NASA C−1958−47955)
p

familiar with Silverstein from his upper-stage committee in 1959 and pre

him to assume control of the project.409

Discussions on the future of Centaur were held in Huntsville. Even th

von Braun still pressed for the project to be cancelled, he agreed to Cortr

proposed transfer.410 Bruce Lundin, who oversaw all Lewis development 

at that time, recalled that NASA Administrator James Webb summoned 

Silverstein and him to Washington in August 1962, just weeks befor

official opening of the SPC facility, to formally offer Lewis the project. L

recounted, “It was really a dog...miserable [in] technical, contractual, fina

in every which way it was in terrible shape.” Lundin claimed later that he 

Silverstein were among the few that saw it as an opportunity.411

In Cleveland, Silverstein would personally ensure that the Centaur w

succeed and not delay the Apollo schedule. He hand-selected Lewis 

erans such as Dave Gabriel, Cary Nettles, and Ralph Schmiedlin to 

the project, but Silverstein would be heavily involved. Larry Ross exp

“[Silverstein] brought the program here because he felt it had to be d

And he felt he could do it.... I have to infer this, but I think there was a 

ter of pride involved here. In as much as he said we could do it; he 

going to make darn sure we did do it and we did it right.”412

Image 193: Left to right: Abe Silverstein and Administrator James 

Webb. Silverstein left NASA Headquarters in 1961 because he was 

unhappy with Webb’s restructuring of the space program. He assumed 

the position of Director at Lewis which had been vacant after 

Ray Sharp retired in January 1961. Silverstein recalled his return to 

Cleveland, “I was extremely happy to do that. In fact, I never wanted to 

leave.” 413 (NASA C−1962−58736)
y p

Endnotes for Chapter 8

368. Eugene Manganiello to I.H. Abbott and E.W. Conlon, 20 January 1960

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

369. Virginia P. Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and Am

Propulsion Technology, (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991), Appe

370. Manganiello to Abbott and Conlon.

371. Interview with Larry Ross, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 1 March 2007, N

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

372. S. Choumoff, Report on Certain Aspects of Space Simulation (Washingt

NASA TT F–9574, 1965).

373. Lloyd Swenson, James Grimwood, and Charles Alexander, This New O

A History of Project Mercury (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4201, 1966), 

chap. 9–2.

374. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Sloop, 29 May 197

Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

375. John C. Sanders, “Aeronautical and Space Research Goals,” 16 July 19

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

376. David Namkoong, et al., Photographic Study of Condensing Mercury F

0 and 1-G Environments (Washington, DC: NASA TN–D–4023, 1967), 

377. Sylvia Doughty Fries, NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo (Washing

DC: NASA SP–4104, 1992), chap. 3.

378. R.T. Hollingsworth, A Survey of Large Space Chambers (Washington, D

NASA TN D–1673, 1963), p. 12.

379. Schmiedlin, Ralph, et al., Flight Simulation Tests of a Centaur Vehicle 

Space Chamber (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–1929, 1970), pp. 35 an

380. Interview with Harold Friedman, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 Novem

2005, NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Clevela

381. Interview with Bill Harrison, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 14 October 2

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

382. Povolny, Space Simulation, p. 1.

383. Interview with Howard Wine, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 4 Septembe

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

384. Wine interview, conducted by Arrighi, 4 September 2005.

385. Wine interview, conducted by Arrighi, 4 September 2005.

386. Wine interview, conducted by Arrighi, 4 September 2005.

387. Jill Taylor, “The NASA Glenn Research Center: An Economic Impact S

Fiscal Year 2006,” September 2007, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cl

OH.

388. John Povolny, Space Simulation and Full-Scale Testing in a Converted 

(Washington, DC: NASA N66 35913, 1970), p. 2.

389. Interview with Bob Walker, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 2 August 2005

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

390. Demolition of Building #7: Altitude Wind Tunnel. General Arrangeme

AWT Base Bid/Option 3, drawing ED602, NASA Glenn History Collec

Cleveland, OH.
p

391. Ed Kyle, “Atlas Centaur LV–3C Development History,” Space Launch R

(28 May 2005), http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ (accessed 2 Septe

2009).

392. “Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics House of Repr

tives. Review of the Atlas Centaur Launch Vehicle Development Progr

NASA,” March 1963, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

393. Bruce Lundin, “Director Praises Centaur Program,” Lewis News (20 Oc

1972).

394. Interview with Robert Gray, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 9 Novem

1999, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

395. Interview with Joseph Nieberding, conducted by Virginia Dawson and 

Bowles, 15 April 1999, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH

396. Brian Sparks to Homer E. Newell, 21 September 1962, NASA Glenn H

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

397. Sparks to Newell.

398. “Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics.”

399. Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Cen

Upper Stage Rocket, 1958–2002 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4230, 200

p. 55.

400. “1962–1972 The First Decade of Centaur,” Lewis News (20 October 197

401. Abe Silverstein to staff, “Updating the Name of Structure Number 7 of 

Lewis Research Center,” 12 September 1962, NASA Glenn History Coll

Cleveland, OH.

402. Wine interview, conducted by Arrighi, 4 September 2005.

403. Povolny, Space Simulation, p. 1. 

404. R.W. Bouman, “Contracting Officer’s Decision, Contract NA53–3434,” 

February 28, 1964, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

405. John Dickson, “Periodic Status Report, Contract NAS3–3434, Project N

C–3674 C–1,” 29 August 1963, NASA Glenn History Collection, Clevela

406. “1962–1972 The First Decade of Centaur.”

407. Dawson and Bowles, Taming Liquid Hydrogen, p. 35.

408. Interview with Andrew Stofan, conducted by Tom Farmer, This Way U

Voices Climbing the Wind, WVIZ Documentary, 1991, NASA Glenn Hi

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

409. Interview with Grant Hansen, conducted by Virginia Dawson and Joe 

Nieberding, 6 June 2000, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, O

410. Interview with Edgar M. Cortright, conducted by Rich Dinkel, 20 Augu

1998, Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, Houston, TX.

411. Interview with Bruce Lundin, conducted by Tom Farmer, This Way Up

Climbing the Wind, WVIZ Documentary, 1991, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

412. Interview with Larry Ross, conducted by Tom Farmer, This Way Up: V

Climbing the Wind, WVIZ Documentary, 1991, NASA Glenn History 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

413. Silverstein interview, conducted by Sloop, 29 May 1974. 
Image 194: The first study in the new Space Power Chambers used a unique model tha

the Atlas/Centaur’s size and weight to test retrorockets. During this time a full-scale Cen

was being readied for testing in the facility’s vacuum chamber. (NASA C−1964−69428
pJ

Chapter 

Early Centaur P

(1963–1964)

Space Power Chambers 

Join the Fray

On 8 October 1962 the storm hit. “Communications were flying thro

the NASA, most of which I did not see until after,” former Centaur P

Assistant Manager Cary Nettles recalled in 2002. “I found out quic

what a big mess we had been handed.” Abe Silverstein had assigned 

the daunting task of assembling the Centaur Project Office at the NASA 

Research Center. Engineers from the NASA Marshall Space Flight 

annoyed that they had been ordered by NASA Headquarters to ass

the transition, arrived in Cleveland hoping to make their stay as s

possible. The boxes of paperwork that arrived from Huntsville revea

General Dynamics had hundreds of updates for the Centaur design t

not yet been implemented. Management of the program was fragm

The air force oversaw the Atlas booster, Marshall the Centaur’s RL-10 

and launch pad, and Lewis the Centaur stage. In addition, Lewis ha

managed a developmental program of this size or with this amo

national visibility.414

The Space Power Chambers (SPC) would not be ready for the fi

Lewis-run launches, but it would contribute significantly to three of t

ensuing Centaur missions. While waiting for the SPC to be modifi

the Centaur testing, large test articles were delivered to the facility

personnel would spend the subsequent months studying the equipm

learn about both the Centaur rocket and spaceflight hardware in g

When the SPC was finally ready in September 1963, the staff wasted 

getting started.
y p

Lewis Takes Control

During its first year with the Centaur Program, Lewis had underta

intensive redesign and testing effort. By the time that the SPC was com

in late August 1963, Lewis had already modified the Centaur in 

significant ways. These included implementation of a compreh

ground-testing program, use of a low thrust level during coast p

a smaller oxidizer tank, ground-chilled liquid helium, and an im

electronics programmer. The most significant change was the tem

switch from a parking orbit to a direct-ascent trajectory until Centa

proven itself. The direct ascent would pose fewer technical proble

would reduce the available launch opportunities by almost 75 perce

Image 195: Front desk: Ralph Schmiedlin, Head of the SPC Section of th

Engineering Branch, at his desk in the Blockhouse. Center and back desks: 

Groth and Ben Dastoli. Schmiedlin had transferred from NACA Langley in 1943

group was responsible for developing and running propellant dynamics and t

dynamic tests in a space environment for Centaur. (1963) (NASA MPD–538)
pJ

Just over a year after the Marshall team unloaded the boxes of Centaur 

orders, drawings, and other documents on the Lewis tarmac, Centa

ready for another launch attempt. The 27 November 1963 launch succ

placed a mock-up payload into orbit. Atlas/Centaur 2 (AC-2) became 

liquid-hydrogen rocket to reach space. Nettles recalled, “And 70 s

after liftoff we discovered that Centaur didn’t break up, and we had a 

to continue the project.”417

Six months later when Centaur’s follow-up single-burn launch suf

hydraulic malfunction, the Lewis group was again under the gun

were already looking to the late-1964 AC-4, which would be Centaur

complex flight to date. It would include the first restarting of the Ce

engines in space, the first use of the inertial guidance system, and t

Surveyor mass model as its payload.418 Although the SPC was not r

time for Lewis’s first two Centaur attempts, the facility would be 

length in preparation for AC-4. 

Extreme Diligence

Tests were developed by Centaur Program Manager Dave Gabriel an

Nettles, but Center Director Abe Silverstein personally watched ove

of the early Centaur work. Larry Ross stated, “There’s no doubt in m

that [Silverstein] approved every test concept. He was in many w

de facto Centaur Program Manager.... All the managers on Centaur 

have to come in on Saturday morning and stand and deliver.”419 

informed Virginia Dawson, “This management setup was a good o

was certainly largely responsible for the success of the Centaur Pr

One of the interesting aspects of this arrangement was that Abe ne

really give up the idea that I reported directly to him. I would receiv

calls from him asking about various aspects of the program.”420

Silverstein’s solution to technical problems was a rigorous testing pr

He insisted that the Centaur’s components, subsystems, systems, and 

vehicle be subjected to extensive ground testing. He felt that nothing 

fly in space without proving itself under similar conditions on the g

He later explained, “This 100-percent [reliability] requirement is of 

almost required in space activity, and we get it not by anything 

extreme diligence and the concept that every piece of equipment 

taken aboard, every component must be proven, environmentally c

so that it can live in the environment of space, the total environm
y p

space, the vacuum of space, the temperatures of space, the press

space; that is, in the fields of other components; that the whole en

put together is tested environmentally so as to operate successfully.”

SPC was created for just this purpose.

Centaur’s Test Engineering Branch was divided into two sections—

Brook Station’s E Test Stand for full-scale structural dynamics stud

the SPC for tests in a simulated space environment. The SPC secti

headed by NACA veteran Ralph Schmiedlin. For the AC-4 mission

test programs were developed for the SPC: the Atlas/Centaur sep

system, the behavior of electrical and guidance systems after long du

in a space environment, and the jettisoning of the nose cone for Ce

Surveyor payload. 

Image 196: Lewis personnel check out the Atlas/Centaur mass model inside SPC N

August 1963. The model, delivered the previous day on a small convoy of trai

promptly inserted into the chamber to begin setup for the separation system tests. 

were continuing to assemble the dome on SPC No. 1 at the other end of the 

(NASA C–1963–65614)
pJ

Whale-Bone 

Engineers on loan from General Dynamics worked closely with the 

team throughout the late summer and fall of 1963 preparing for th

Centaur tests in the SPC. Their first objective was readying the 

Centaur mass model in SPC No. 2 for a sequence of separation 

shaped explosive cord was wound around the rocket’s interstage a

Once the cord was exploded, eight small retrorockets pulled the Atla

from the Centaur.422 Although General Dynamics did not fores

problems with the separation system, the Lewis group, which wa

more hands-on than NASA Marshall had been, wanted to verify th

dynamics with a full-scale model and test its subsystems. This study 

result in a new jettison method that would significantly reduce the sep

time and thus minimize the danger of collision between the two stages 

separation.423

Image 197: Atlas/Centaur mass model suspended from the trolley system inside SP

The dark section to the right is the fixed Centaur model. The corrugated section a

researchers is the interstage adapter that was jettisoned from the Centaur using linea

charges. The long cagelike Atlas portion of the model begins just to the left of the ada

continues out of view to the left. Eight retrorockets were used to push this section aw

the Centaur. 424 (NASA C–1963–65907) 
y p

The “whale-bone” Atlas/Centaur mass model was suspended horizon

a trolley system inside the chamber with a net hung at one end to ca

jettisoned Atlas model. The chamber atmosphere was reduced to a p

altitude of 100,000 feet, and high-speed cameras were synchronized 

ignition of the retrorockets. After a number of test runs from late Septem

mid-November 1963, the Lewis researchers on the team, Henry Syn

Dick Heath, determined that the cord-shaped charge performed w

that the firing of the retrorockets was seriously inconsistent. In earl

the team conducted tests again using both standard and alternative v

of the rocket igniters. The new studies determined that the firing pr

resulted from the igniter’s unpredictability and the shortness of the b

period.425

Responding to Lewis’s suggestions, the rocket manufacturer develo

improved igniter that was fired electronically. When tested in the S

Image 198: The Atlas portion of the model separates from the simulated Centaur. F

the initial findings in late 1963, Rocket Power, Inc., developed its own improved ign

system was again tested during the spring of 1964 in SPC No. 2. The extended-burn 

used an initiator and fired electronically. Propellant granules used in the sustaine

improved the heat input by providing hot gases to the grain. The researchers found 

newly designed igniter fired properly using any closure thickness.426 (NASA C–1964–
pJ

Image 199: Left to right: K. G. Smits, R. G. Sims, and J. E. Rogers of Genera

Dynamics’s Astrophysics Division prepare for an Atlas/Centaur retrorocke

test in the SPC No. 2 control room. General Dynamics trained the Lewis staff 

on the Centaur for the initial testing.427 (NASA C–1963–66620)

Image 200: The retrorockets were tested with their igniters packed with 

various forms of boron potassium nitrate. The igniters failed six time

during their 67 firings. Researchers also used foam panels to record th

flame patterns and found a wide range of disbursement among the variou

igniters. A new igniter, which directed its flame directly at the propellant and 

burned for a longer duration, was selected.428 (NASA C–1964–70158)
y p

Image 201: Center: Lewis researcher Henry Synor goes over the Atlas/Centaur test se

General Dynamics technicians inside SPC No. 2. (NASA C–1963–65906) 
pJy 

Image 202: In late 1963 and early 1964, local radio station WHK featured NA

and Plum Brook Station during several episodes of its “Highlights in Education” se

February broadcast dealt with the Centaur work performed at Lewis and in its SPC fa

this photograph, Ralph Schmiedlin (center) explains the Atlas/Centaur retrorocket t

reporters. They are standing on a platform in SPC No. 2 with a Centaur mass mod

them. (NASA C–1963–67456)
3y p

redesigned retrorockets performed well, even when one retrorock

functioned.429 In addition, Dick Heath and Henry Synor reconfigur

propellant load to increase the rockets’ impulse and thus accelerate th

aration. Larry Ross recalled, “Those tests really did change the funda

design of the separation system.”430

Sick Patient Arrives

On 27 September 1963, just days before the first Atlas/Centaur sep

test was run in SPC No. 2, a C-130 aircraft arrived from Cape Canav

the NASA tarmac and unloaded a Centaur 6A rocket on a stretche

Nettles recalled, “We did, indeed, inherit a pretty sick patient at th

Technical flaws and mistakes were evident in many places, and, a

it was something of a mess. It had many unclear goals and program 

tives...our contactor was confused at best and demoralized at worst

Image 203: The Centaur 6A rocket is delivered to NASA Lewis for testing in SPC 

Because of its fragile structure, the Centaur had to be transported on a stretcher t

sure that it did not collapse on itself. It was flown from Cape Canaveral on a 

transport aircraft. (“Centaur engine arriving at Lewis aboard C-130,” 27 Septembe

NASA MPD-498) (NASA Glenn film collection)
pJ

The rocket, which was to be used for the space environment tes

brought into the SPC high bay where it was stood up vertically. Imme

Lewis engineers and technicians began working with it. Since the roc

a leftover single-burn Centaur, the electronics and operating systems 

be updated to the two-burn AC-4 configuration.

Again the General Dynamics advisors were involved with not only pr

the rocket for testing but also teaching the NASA personnel how t

with spacecraft technology. Months were spent reharnessing the Ce

electronics, learning about the systems, and being taught how to 

flight hardware. Ross explained, “Our people came out of a his

putting a scale model in the test section of a wind tunnel and playin

it; and when it didn’t yield the right data, then messing around with 

it did. That’s not the way you handle flight hardware. So we had a l

experience to go through.”432

Image 204: A team from General Dynamics was brought in to train Lewis personnel, 

whom had little space experience, on the complex Centaur rocket. This Centaur was 

6A model that was originally slated as a follow-up to the AC-2 flight. A rehabilitati

pad delayed the launch, however, and in the interim an updated Centaur was use

for the AC-3 launch.433 (NASA C–1963–66499)
3y p

During this period, SPC No. 1 was outfitted with several ad

components that would enhance the space simulation for Centau

rocket was surrounded by a large “cold wall” that was used to s

the cryogenic temperatures of space. Solar radiation was reproduce

two-hundred fifty-nine 500-watt lamps arranged in six arrays.434 Al

the two RL-10 engines would not be fired during these tests, a hy

system rotated engines as they would when steering the rocket d

mission. Microgravity, motion, and flight vibrations were the only 

of spaceflight that were not recreated.435 Ross explained, “It was Silv

doctrine that if it could be tested, you could simulate it. It may 

Image 205: Lewis technicians study the Centaur’s RL-10 engines in the SP

Centaur was the center’s highest profile program, and the SPC was an importan

the program. Abe Silverstein felt, “If the space program did nothing else than to s

if you want to develop a good product for a given use, whether it be on the grou

space, the thing you do is to design it and develop it for the environment in w

going to live.” 436 (NASA C–1964–71100)
pJ

perfect, you certainly have one G, but you could do it in a vacuum. Y

get a lot of feeling for how the system’s going to behave in flight.”437

Centaur was a fragile spacecraft with thin inflated tanks that had to b

surized to retain their proper form. If the pressure difference betw

upper section of the vehicle and the lower portion changed, the 

would likely collapse. A pneumatic system was installed in the c

to maintain this pressure differential, and the vehicle pressurizati

monitored around the clock seven days a week. 

Howard Wine, a technician in the SPC at the time, remembered, “So 

a whole new experience for us. We never had our hands on that 

sophistication...and so everybody is walking around on egg shells...b

[the Centaur] was so thin, so delicate.”438

By early spring 1964, the extensive setup of both the spacecraft a

chamber was finally completed. On 19 March the Centaur was rol

from the shop, hoisted high into the air by a crane, and lowered i

waiting space tank. Nearly three years after construction started, the 

new vacuum chamber, SPC No. 1, was finally ready to be used. 
3y p

Learning New Behaviors

NASA Lewis had almost doubled its staff in 1962 and 1963, and by 1964 L

had become NASA’s second largest center.439 Most of the new recruits 

young and just out of university. The center had already been expandin

research in the nuclear, chemical, and ion propulsion fields, as well as in p

conversion. Three large space-development programs were transferr

Cleveland in the early 1960s—the M-1 engine and the Agena and Ce

rockets. The impact of the programs on the center was enormous and affe

a large swath of Lewis’s resources.440

A two-story cinderblock office building was built inside the center’s ai

hangar to house the staff for the new development programs during 

crucial initial years. This “Blockhouse,” just a couple of minutes walk 

the SPC, would be the hub for Lewis space engineers and managers d

Centaur’s formative years. By mid-1965, almost 1,000 employees had 

transferred to the new Development Engineering Building and its a

outside of the main campus area.441

During the transition of the Centaur Program from Huntsville to Cleve

NASA Marshall personnel were prohibited from transferring out o

Centaur Project and were required to participate in a temporary det

Lewis.442 Vernon Weyers, a former Centaur launch vehicle mission an

remembers the atmosphere in the early days of Centaur. “Every Mo

morning, an airplane would pull up on the tarmac and all these Ma

engineers would file off, and they would spend the week, and on Friday s

time, the plane would go back to Huntsville for the weekend.”443

The Marshall engineers were eager to permanently return to Huntsville. L

was soon left on its own. The pressure on the Lewis office was intense 

ing Centaur’s first years. Lewis had to not only create new test facilities 

remedy the Centaur’s technical flaws but also learn how to work with s

hardware. A team of 25 to 30 engineers from General Dynamics, the des

and manufacturer of Centaur, were transferred from San Diego to Cleve

for two years to teach the Lewis group about Centaur. Larry Ross expla

“There was a fair degree of the NASA people having to learn behaviors

were inclined, or the NASA people were inclined to do tests in a very se

the-pants way. That’s not the way you handle [space] flight hardware. F

hardware is careful controls, inspectors watch everything you do, car

maintain configuration management.”444

Lewis also had to learn to manage a large development program that incl

the military and contractors. NASA would have to adapt to the diff

cultures of these groups. Seymour Himmel explained that the air 
pJ

liked to give contractors the work and almost all responsibility for dev

ing an aircraft or rocket. “[Lewis] was coming from basically a han

research kind of an organization; we couldn’t do anything we couldn

our hands on.”445 Meanwhile, General Dynamics, which had been a

entirely responsible for the program, found Lewis’s extra involve

frustrating at first, particularly its extensive test and qualification prog

Soon, however, both sides would come to appreciate the abilities o

other.

Image 206: As Lewis shifted from aeronautics research to spacecraft development work in the early 1960s, the center’s engineers and mechanics had 

to alter the way that they approached tests. Aircraft engines could often be 

tinkered with to improve performance, but space hardware required precision and adherence to specifications. Here a Surveyor nose cone is prepared 

in the high bay for separation tests in SPC No. 1. (NASA C–1964–70592)
3y p

Endnotes for Chapter 9

414. Cary Nettles to Virginia Dawson, “Centaur Notes,” 8 May 2002, NASA 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

415. Surveyor Project Review: August 27–28, 1963 (Pasadena, CA: JPL CR–

1966), pp. 9–10.

416. “Many End Careers at Year’s End” Lewis News (10 January 1979), p. 3

417. Cary Nettles, “Talk at NASA Group Achievement Award Ceremony at 

Lewis Research Center,” 1 December 1966, Cleveland, OH.

418. “3 Firsts Set for AC–4 Test Flight,” Lewis News (11 December 1964), p

419. Interview with Larry Ross, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 1 March 2007, N

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

420. Nettles to Dawson, “Centaur Notes.”

421. Interview with Abe Silverstein, conducted by John Sloop, 29 May 197

422. “Space Vehicles,” Inspection of the Lewis Research Center, 1966, NAS

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

423. “1962–1972 The First Decade of Centaur,” Lewis News (20 October 19

424. Richard Heath, et al., Investigation of Atlas Solid Fuel Retarding Rocke

During Atlas-Centaur Separation Tests (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X

1965), p. 5.

425. Richard Heath, et al., Study of Separation Dynamics and Systems Rela

Staging of Atlas-Centaur (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–52292, 1967)

pp. 2 and 5.

426. Richard Heath, Henry Synor, and Ralph Schmiedlin, Test of Improved 

for First-Stage Separation Rockets for the Atlas-Centaur Launch Vehicl

(Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–1676, 1968). 

427. Ross interview, conducted by Arrighi, 1 March 2007.

428. Heath et al., Investigation of Atlas, p. 4.

429. Heath et al., Test of Improved Igniter.

430. Ross interview, conducted by Arrighi, 1 March 2007.

431. Nettles, “Talk at NASA Group Achievement Award Ceremony.”

432. Ross interview, conducted by Arrighi, 1 March 2007.

433. Ralph Schmiedlin, et al., Flight Simulation Tests of a Centaur Vehicle 

Space Chamber (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–1929, 1970), pp. 12 a

434. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, pp. 12 and 35.

435. John Povolny, Space Simulation and Full-Scale Testing in a Converted 

Facility (Washington, DC: NASA N66 35913, 1970), p. 49.

436. Silverstein interview, conducted by Sloop, 29 May 1974.

437. Ross interview, conducted by Arrighi, 1 March 2007.

438. Interview with Howard Wine, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 4 Septembe

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 
pJ

439. “Lewis Research Center,” NASA Lewis press release, 17 January 1964, 

Information Office, Lewis Research Center.

440. Nettles to Dawson, “Centaur Notes,” 

441. “Occupancy of DEB Annex is Slated for Near Future,” Lewis News

(8 January 1965), p. 1.

442. Robert C. Seamons to Abe Silverstein, “Atlas Centaur Success. The Pe

of the Centaur AC–10,” 22 October 1962, NASA Glenn History Collect

Cleveland, OH.

443. Interview with Vernon Weyers, conducted by Mark Bowles, 8 April 20

NASA Glenn History Collection, Oral History Collection, Cleveland, O

444. Ross interview, conducted by Arrighi, 1 March 2007.

445. Interview with Seymour Himmel, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 1 M

2000, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.
Image 207: A full-scale Centaur second-stage rocket is lowered into the Spa

Chambers’ vacuum tank. The facility was used extensively for a number of tests t

Centaur for its critical missions to send Surveyor spacecraft to the Moon. (NASA 

68846) 
p

The Cleveland area public was hungry for NASA news in the early 

Local media outlets created in-depth special reports on NASA 

Research Center’s contributions to the space program, the center’s sp

bureau was in high-demand, and for the first time, large space exp

were held. In April 1961, 12,500 Clevelanders attended a display of s

at the Case Institute of Technology (now called Case Western Reser

versity), and an August 1962 open house attracted 17,000 visitors to 

Most impressive of all was the enormous “Space Science Fair” at Clev

Convention Center. The event, cosponsored by NASA and The Cle

Plain Dealer, drew an estimated 300,000 people in the fall of 1962.44

Gordon Cooper flew the final Mercury mission on 15 May 1963; it wo

nearly two years before humans would enter space again. In this lull b

Mercury and Gemini, the public’s attention turned to a series of un

missions that would explore the Moon in preparation for the eventual 

flights. The two primary phases were the Ranger and Surveyor pro

The Centaur second-stage rocket would be used to launch Surveyo

test flights and seven actual missions. The Surveyor spacecraft would p

the first controlled landings on another planet. Centaur was one of th

complex and temperamental rockets ever conceived. It had been ri

problems when the program was adopted by Lewis in 1963. Centaur w

center’s highest profile program during the Agency’s highest profile 

Chapter 1

The Centaur/Surveyor Mis

(1964–1967)

Ad Astra 

Per Aspera
y p

Pathway to the Moon

The Surveyor Program was begun at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

1960. Initially it had no association with the Apollo Program. Dur

initial planning stages, NASA intended to launch the Surveyors w

Atlas/Agena vehicles being used for the lighter Ranger missions. By Ju

NASA’s engineers determined that the Agena would not be powerful e

to carry the Surveyor. The Atlas/Centaur would be used instead.448 C

whose first launch had exploded in the atmosphere just two months 

was now a vital component of the $469 million Surveyor Program an

critical to the design and strategy for the Apollo missions.449 In Octo

Centaur Program was given a second chance with its transfer to Lew

The Centaur/Surveyor Program included eight developmental flight

Atlas/Centaur tests, one mass model payload, and four Surveyor 

ups used to verify that the vehicle could successfully put a spacecra

Image 208: From 1962 to 1964, NASA Lewis had a better relationship with the p

community than at any other period.447 Lewis was the largest of over 300 participan

Cleveland Press Parade of Progress Exposition held 28 August through 7 September 

Cleveland’s Public Hall. A model of a Centaur rocket with its Surveyor payload is se

left in this photograph. (NASA C–1964–71681) 
p

trajectory toward lunar orbit. It was essential to approach the Moon 

right speed so that the retrorockets could set the vehicle down gen

was also important to time the landing so that the Surveyor would h

maximum amount of sunlight for its solar panels.451 Centaur, with its 

to restart its engines in orbit, would provide some flexibility in sch

the landings. Silverstein had decided to forgo the restarting of the 

during the previous two launches so that Lewis engineers could c

trate on Centaur’s other problems. The upcoming launch of Atlas/Ce

(AC-4) in late 1964 would not only carry the first dummy Surveyor p

but also be the first two-burn mission. 

Centaur’s Simulated Flight

Centaur included a number of systems and subsystems whose b

in space was critical to the success of the mission. The electron

control systems were at the forward section of the rocket, just bel

payload, and the mechanical and propulsion systems were at the 

Image 209: The Surveyor landing vehicle was basically a large tripod with 4.3-m

legs. Different equipment packages were used for the various missions. The early 

sions contained only cameras, whereas the later spacecraft also included excava

equipment. The Surveyor III spacecraft shown here landed on the lunar surf

on 20 April 1967. In this photograph, which was taken in November 1969 by 

Apollo 12 crew, a 1-meter mast with a solar cell panel rises above the base.453 (N

AS12–48–7121)
y p

In preparation for the two-burn flights, Cary Nettles, who manag

Centaur’s electronics and ground support equipment, wanted to 

thermal vacuum test to verify these systems, particularly the autopi

guidance arrangements.454

Electronic malfunctions were the most likely cause of failures in 

Studying the electrical and electronics systems during long soaks ins

SPC No. 1 space tank would help the Lewis team calibrate the syste

facilitate the monitoring of the spacecraft during an actual flight. Silv

who remained very involved with the program, felt that it was impo

use a fully operational Centaur for the tests so that the interaction of 

ferent electronics could also be studied.455

A Centaur with an AC-4 configuration was mounted vertically in the 

ber and subjected to a series of 60-minute low-Earth-orbit simulatio

each test, the systems were first given a dry run in a normal sea-level 

phere. Then, the chamber was sealed and the vacuum pulled down

nitrogen was used to chill the cold wall and partially fill the propellan

the Centaur was brought to launch temperature, the electrical um

were turned on, and the test commenced.456

The first 3 minutes of the test replicated the Atlas booster phas

Centaur electronic systems were activated during a simulated sep

The electronics systems were studied throughout the remainder of the 

mission: prestarting the RL-10 engines, simulating the engine igniti

cutoff, coasting for approximately 25 minutes, then simulating a 

engine ignition and cutoff, payload separation, Centaur course revers

finally the shutdown of all Centaur systems.457
p

Photo Essay 6: 

How Centaur Was Studied in Space Power 

Chamber No. 1

Image 210: A 100-foot crane is used to lower a Centaur 6A into SPC No. 1 and 

a waiting stand. The dome and removable lid were added to the facility specifi

to accommodate the 28.5-foot-long, 10-foot-diameter Centaur vehicle. The 

included autopilot, guidance, main propulsion, hydraulic, hydrogen peroxide s

boost-pump attitude control, telemetry, tracking, range safety, and pneumatic sy

The electronics and control systems were at the forward section of the rocket, an

mechanical and propulsion systems were near the rear. (NASA C–1964–68844) 
y p

Image 212: The 22.5-foot-diameter dome being placed onto SPC No. 1. Instrum

portals can be seen at the fixed-base of the dome. The top of the ribbed cold wa

visible inside the lid. (NASA C–1964–67913)

Image 211: Cutaway drawing of SPC No. 1 with the Centaur test setup. (NA

P–1047)
p

Image 213: A large 

liquid-nitr ogen-c

baffle, 20 feet in di

and 42 feet high

erected around the 

Centaur setup to si

the temperatures of 

space. The liquid ni

which was stored in 

7,000-gallon tanks, 

through a separatio

that automatically k

cold wall filled. (NA

X–1929, fig. 10)

Image 214: A radiant heater system was designed specifically for the tests. 

sectors of 500-watt tungsten-iodine lamps were arranged around the roc

to simulate the effect of the Sun’s heat on the electronic systems. Four of th

arrays were on the upper end of the Centaur, and two arrays were located near 

RL-10 engines. Certain lamps could be turned on at different times to simulate 

changing direction to the Sun.458 (NASA C–1967–00180)
y p

Image 215: The Vacuum Pump House contained the two Stokes piston pum

which could remove 12.5 cubic feet of air per second during the roughing stag

Roots rotary positive displacement pump, which could then remove 500 cubic f

per second; and ten 32-inch-diameter oil-diffusion pumps, which could rem

17,650 cubic feet of air per second.459, 460 (NASA C–1962–60342)

Image 216: The SPC No. 1 control room was constructed underneath the form

wind tunnel test section. It was built to replicate the Centaur controls at Ca

Canaveral. This panel operated the tanking system for the Centaur 6A rocket 

the vacuum chamber. There was extensive instrumentation for the tests, includ

200 transducers, 18 landlines, and a television camera. (NASA C–1967–00193
p

Electronics in the Space Environment

The effect of heat, both on the electronics and emanating from th

tronics, was one of Lewis’s primary concerns going into the Centau

The liquid-hydrogen propellant had an extremely low boiling point, 

additional heat could cause problems. The electronics themselves cou

heat up when exposed to the Sun and cause malfunctions. The sim

missions in Space Power Chamber (SPC) No. 1 were used to study the

transfer problems. 

Since the launch time had not yet been determined, the Centaur 

were tested under a variety of temperature conditions ranging from 

150 percent of what was actually expected on the mission. The resea

who included Ralph Schmiedlin, Larry Ross, and Bob Turek, fou

significant changes to the electronics at any of the levels, so the rem

tests were conducted at a constant radiation level.461 

Image 217: NASA Lewis researcher John Povolny monitors telemetry equipment set 

8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel Building for the Centaur environmental tests b

in SPC No. 1. This auxiliary area was used for inspection, calibration, and failure a

the guidance system and the inverter. Povolny would become the Chief of the Test Eng

Branch in the Centaur Program Office. (NASA C–1965–75077)
y p

In the end the researchers determined that the electronics did not 

heat to the spacecraft or propellant tanks. When not exposed to the S

electronics packages cooled in the space environment. It remained un

however, whether or not the solar radiation would cause problem

the electronic packages. Lewis researchers recommended that el

systems for spacecraft be designed to run at the minimum necessary 

level to avoid possible overheating. Solid-state electronics were 

because they produced less heat.462

Of the many problems facing NASA Lewis researchers when they as

control of the Centaur Program in 1962, the electrical inverter was 

the most daunting. The inverter produced power for Centaur’s guidan

autopilot systems by converting direct current to alternating current. Al

the device was vital to the Centaur’s performance, little was known a

operation, use, or safety. 

Image 218: Static inverter for Centaur guidance and autopilot systems. A mo

powerful off-the-shelf inverter was used after the first Centaur failure. After mo

fications at Lewis, the equipment was qualified in SPC No. 1. By 1965 it h

successfully passed the design proof tests and was operating reliably. The inver

weighed 37 pounds and measured 10 by 16 inches. It was able to run for abo

100 hours following a 12-hour prelaunch charge.463 (NASA C–1964–70983)
p

After the first Centaur launch failed, a larger inverter was employed 

ter handle the power loads. A Lewis circuit specialist analyzed the 

and modified it so that its components were within the mission’s 

margins.Following successful operation during the SPC No. 1 vacuum te

updated inverter was removed from the Centaur critical list.464

Ensuring Surveyor’s Survival

The 30 June 1964 launch of AC-3 was successful, but the rocket’s gu

computer had been interrupted briefly because of the ejection of th

fairing. Although this anomaly did not cause the overall Atlas/Centaur 

to fail, it was a concern for future launches. The nose fairing provi

aerodynamic shield for the payload, guidance system, and electronics p

as the rocket traveled through the Earth’s atmosphere. Upon entering 

Image 219: On 5 August 1964, the first actual jettison test was run in SPC No. 1 at a 

altitude of 70 miles. The deflector bulkheads below the payload were ripped from th

ings, and the tips of the shroud were broken off as the fairing halves slammed into th

pads.465 (NASA C–1964–71125)
y p

Image 220: Researchers in SPC No. 1 examine the nose cone for the Centaur/

spacecraft. (NASA C–1964–71093)
p

the thruster near the tip of the fairing forced the two pieces away fr

space vehicle. It was essential that the Surveyor’s mast and solar pan

be damaged during that brief jettison process.466 The separation syste

shown no difficulties during preflight tests in ambient temperatur

pressures. The Centaur team at Lewis felt that the conditions in spa

have affected the system’s two gaseous nitrogen bottles, which were 

activate the shroud’s explosive bolts.467

Within a month of the incident, a Centaur fairing was obtained and in

in SPC No. 1—which was the only space tank in the country large e

to accommodate the hardware. The SPC tests, led by Jack Humphr

Clarence Ross, sought to determine design faults in the AC-3 fairing an

flight-qualify the modified shroud for the upcoming AC-4 mission.

The two halves of the fiberglass fairing were mounted vertically to 

form at the opposite end of the chamber from the Centaur rocket u

the environmental tests. Aluminum pads were set up on either side t

the fairing halves as they were jettisoned, and a myriad of high-spee

eras were installed to record the tests. 

Image 221: Nitrogen bottle, thruster, and attachment plate in the tip of the Centaur/

nose cone. This thruster fired as the explosive bolts securing the fairing were relea

pushing the 1,000-pound fairing halves away from one another and the Centau

C–1965–00604)
y p

Image 222: Jack Humphrey, project manager for the Surveyor nose-cone tests, inspec

the jettisoned shroud inside SPC No. 1 in 1964. Humphrey had been at the center sin

He and his team had determined that the new design had enough clearance bet

deflector bulkhead and the packages. (NASA C–1964–73201)
p

In late July the shroud was heavily damaged during the very fi

conducted in altitude conditions. The force of the thruster caused 

of the fairing to break as they hit the catcher pads. The excess force 

likely damage the Surveyor on an actual launch. The team regroup

obtained a new shroud. The internal bulkhead was redesigned, and 

attachment fixture was installed for the thruster. The test setup was m

as well. The platform was moved further from the Centaur at the oth

of the chamber, and one of the catcher pads was replaced by a lar

This allowed the researchers to study the entire path of one of the jet

halves.468

Over the course of 11 ensuing runs, the redesigned bulkhead was tw

and retested. Though there was slight damage at times, the flight-wor

of the new fairing was validated by the final jettison on 24 Novembe

The Centaur managers were confident that the thruster devices 

jettison the fairing without damaging the payload. Lewis rese

recommended that these separation tests must be conducted in a v

environment.469

Just over two weeks later, AC-4 successfully launched a mock-up S

spacecraft into orbit. It was the first Centaur mission to have an er

shroud jettison.470 During the coast phase of the flight, however, the C

spun out of control. This would lead to a whole new vein of pro

management studies at NASA Lewis. The 3 March 1965 AC-5 was a

more spectacular failure. The Atlas booster’s engines failed seconds i

launch, and the rocket exploded on the launch pad.471
y p

Centaur’s Long Days

NASA Lewis Director Abe Silverstein personally oversaw the program 

ing its initial years and hand-picked some of the center’s brightest pe

to run it. The staff was a combination of old NACA veterans and yo

engineers right out of university. Larry Ross was one of the latter. He jo

the program in June 1963 after completing his undergraduate degre

Manhattan College. Ross accepted the position primarily because Le

offered assistance with graduate degrees, but he found his involvem

with the Centaur Program to be challenging and rewarding. The follow

year he met his future wife while working in the Blockhouse. Ross sp

the next 30 years at Lewis and continues to use his Centaur experienc

advise the current Ares engineers.472 

Dave Gabriel was Centaur Project Manager during the initial years, 

Cary Nettles, Russ Dunbar, and Ed Jonash as his assistants. For

Centaur lawyer, Harlan Simon referred to these men as “absolute gia

Image 223: Lewis researchers and General Dynamics technicians crowd into the 

No. 2 control room to prepare for Atlas/Centaur retrorocket tests. The cramped co

room was in the former Altitude Wind Tunnel control room built in 1943. (N

C–1963–66372)
p

Image 224: A meeting of Centaur Program managers. Standing, Cary Nettle

bowtie, Al LeRoy; to LeRoy’s left, Jeff Essary. During the program’s initial years

group doggedly worked through problems. It was not uncommon for meetings t

6 to 8 hours. (NASA MPD–538)

During a 1985 interview with Virginia Dawson, Simon emphasized 

besides being technically savvy, they were also excellent manag

“Whenever somebody came in with a statement or conclusion which in 

minds was obviously wrong, they would approach it from an educat

standpoint. They would ask questions and finally they would bring 

presenter around to the point where he saw that his recommendatio

presentation was not feasible, was not correct.”473 

There was tremendous pressure on the Lewis staff to make the program 

ceed. The team, constantly driven by upcoming launch dates, investe

extraordinary amount of time in the program. Overnight trips between w

days to California or Florida were routine for many. Simon claimed, “

worked seven days a week in five days. Nine days in a week sometimes. 

had boundless energy.... These people gave their lives essentially.”474
y p

The success was not without its casualties, however. In 1965 Gabriel t

a two-year leave of NASA. The stress of the program, along with the he

involvement of Silverstein, had taken its toll. Former mission analyst, 

Nieberding, explained the sacrifices made by the Centaur staff. “It’s to

to balance the family and the personal situations against a tremend

program like this. When people are this dedicated, the family someti

loses.”475 Divorces were the most common result, but there were also br

downs and shortened lives.476

The experience and high visibility of the Centaur Program, howe

benefited the careers of many young engineers. Former NASA C

Historian Sylvia Fries noted that 90 percent of the Apollo-era engine

had entered the management ranks by the end of the 1980s. Sala

plateaued for those engineers who resisted the transition.477 Some of 

former Centaur engineers would move into the upper echelon of the Le

organization. This is exemplified by the progression of Andy Stofan 

Larry Ross from inexperienced engineers right out of university in the e

1960s to NASA center directors in the 1980s. Ross recalled in 2007 

early in his career, SPC Manager Ralph Schmiedlin had correctly predic

that Ross would one day lead the center.478
p

Centaur Turns the Corner

The fiery launch pad failure of AC-5 was caused by the booster eng

response, modifications were made to Centaur that required the requ

tion of its nose cone prior to the AC-6 direct-ascent launch schedu

August 1965. NASA was becoming anxious. AC-5 was supposed to pl

first Surveyor model into orbit. This would now be the responsibility 

sixth of eight development launches.479

Potentially dangerous shrapnel produced during the AC-4 nose-con

in the SPC had led to the redesign of the fairing. The new shroud 

which incorporated approximately 25 new components, requir

requalification of the original payload clearance envelope. The Ce

forward bulkhead would also have to be reassessed to ensure that th

tanks would hold up during the shroud jettison.480

Image 225: Nose-cone separation test in SPC No. 1 for the upcoming AC-6 missio

would place the first Surveyor model into orbit. The 2,000-pound model was used as a

mented dynamic payload simulation. (NASA C–1965–00725)
y p

The SPC tests in the early summer were once again conducted b

Humphrey along with Charles Eastwood. The SPC No. 1 setup a

conditions were almost identical to the AC-4 shroud tests the previo

The envelope between the thermal bulkhead struts and the Survey

to be altered because of interference during the separation proce

redesigned shroud was approved in July after a series of runs in the 

AC-6, launched from Cape Canaveral on 11 August 1965, successfully 

the Surveyor model into an elliptical Earth orbit. The mission was a 

moment in the program’s history. It not only restored the nation’s 

dence in the Centaur’s capabilities but showed that failure could be 

into success. 

Nettles told the Centau

in 1966, “I believe a 

point in the project also 

at our greatest failure w

flight of AC-5, which ha

rather generously descri

the NASA Project Summa

suborbital flight. Lookin

on this now, from kickin

asses around at [launc

36A in March, to the suc

launch in AC-6 just five 

later from a new complex

fine accomplishment tha

made professionals out o

you. This really turned ou

est failure to the source, 

of our greatest strength.”

Another Chance at Two-Burns

The Centaur team did not have time to enjoy the success of AC-6, t

They had already been looking ahead to the crucial AC-8 mission sch

for April 1966.§ AC-8 would be the second attempt to restart the RL-10 e

in space. The previous attempt on AC-4 had failed when the hy

Image 226: Cary Nettles in the SPC shop at the foot of 

the Centaur 6A rocket. (1963) (NASA MPD–538)

§The Centaur missions were assigned numbers as the missions were conceived. 

mission conception and the actual launch, priorities sometime shifted, so the launch 

were not always in order. AC-7 would be launched on 20 Sept. 1966 after both A

AC-10. 
p

propellant sloshed forward and out the tank’s vents after the first 

firing. It was up to the NASA Lewis engineers to come up with a solu

the sloshing problem. 

AC-8 would also use an updated electronics package that had to be 

in the SPC No. 1 space tank. The electrical reharnessing of the Cen

already in the chamber took several months. The intensive procedu

slowed down by delays in receiving the upgraded hardware from G

Dynamics. The company was simultaneously trying to supply the 

teams at Cape Canaveral, their own test engineers, and Lewis. Delay

production of hardware were common.483

After the AC-4 mission, a new C-band transponder, or beacon, 

Centaur’s tracking system was incorporated in the design. The new 

ponder was tested in SPC No. 1 approximately 30 times over the ne

without problem. A faulty seal, however, caused the transponder 

on AC-6, which crippled the entire tracking system. During the 

to AC-8, Lewis engineers were able to recreate the failure in the 

Image 227: Left to right: Ben Dastoli and Larry Ross prepare for a test in the SPC No. 

room. (1964) (NASA C–2008–01424)
y p

chamber. The transponder that was to be used for the test was faulty, s

Ross personally returned the device to the manufacturer in Phoenix

repaired overnight, flown back to Lewis, and installed on the Cent

next day.484

Although a seal caused the failure on AC-6, Lewis engineers found t

larger problem was the pressurization of electronics boxes in space

of the boxes were designed to operate at specific pressures. The en

connected the boxes to a purge system so that they could analyze th

of pressure loss on the performance of the electronics. They found t

pressurization of the electronics was not needed and could actually 

failures. This resulted in an industrywide redesign of electronics 

ages.485 The team recommended that the electronic systems be desig

act independently and that a verification of the transponder seal be ad

the standard series of preflight readiness checks.486

Image 228: The Centaur 6A was initially harnessed with electronics and other eq

designed for the AC-4 mission. Afterward, the rocket was reharnessed with a new co

tion for the AC-8 flight. This photograph shows the guidance packages that were moun

the forward end of the rocket. Centaur’s inertial guidance system consisted of five com

an inertial platform, platform electronics, a pulse rebalance with power supply, a 

tional computer, and a signal conditioner. (NASA C–1969–02623)
p

During the Centaur’s SPC system tests conducted for AC-4, a meta

pierced the insulation between the heat sink and the overload-sensing 

This caused the static inverter to fail during the test. The inverter 

power for the Centaur’s guidance and autopilot systems. Lewis rese

felt that this warranted a detailed investigation, since a similar event 

cause an actual mission to fail.487

The researchers sought to replicate the failure from the original test 

No. 1 at a pressure altitude of 390,000 feet. Despite a couple of earl

ruptions, the inverter had operated successfully in the chamber for a 

79 minutes. It was found that during the repeated temperature fluct

of the original tests, the shard forced open the shunt, which cau

inverter to fail.The researchers felt that this was just one instance of a 

manufactured component that should have been analyzed before us

recommended that Centaur systems should go under repeated enviro

tal tests individually before the entire vehicle was tested.488

The SPC No. 1 environmental tests played a key role in the U.S. lun

gram. This series of studies in the SPC proved that the Centaur’s elec

systems could perform during a two-burn flight in a space enviro

General Dynamics’s original design was sound, and the few proble

were found were rectified before the Surveyor flights.489

Managing Liquid Hydrogen

Centaur’s use of liquid hydrogen as a propellant posed a number of 

cal difficulties. The cryogenic liquid vaporized at a very low tempera

the propellant tanks had to be designed with vents to prevent an exp

Solar energy coming directly from the Sun and reflected off the Earth’s 

phere caused some of the liquid hydrogen to boil off. In addition, b

the Centaur’s engines had to be restarted in space, the liquid hydrog

its liquid-oxygen oxidizer had to be stabilized within their tanks dur

coast period between engine firings. Otherwise the propellant might 

in the correct position when it came time for the engines to restart.49

The AC-4 and AC-8 missions in December 1964 and April 1966 were d

to be two-burn missions. The focus would be on managing the beha

the propellant within the tank so that the engines could be resta

When the first engine burn ended on the AC-4 flight, the liquid hy

sloshed forward, resulting in the venting of some of the hydrogen in 

form rather than gas. Normally the venting was even and nonpropuls

the forces generated when liquid was vented were more than the gu

system could overcome.
y p

Image 229: Centaur’s cryogenic liquid-hydrogen system is tested in SPC No. 2 pri

AC-4 mission. The cryogenic liquid hydrogen used by Centaur had a boiling point of 

During the Centaur’s coast period, some of the fuel would vaporize and would h

expelled via vents. The AC-4 system contained a venturi pump that measured the 

hydrogen flow from the tank through the standpipe. The pressure level was controlled 

valve. After the nose cone was ejected, the gas could be vented through pressure-fil

(NASA C–1964–72930)
p

Image 230: Setup for qualification tests of the new hydrogen venting system in SPC N

to the AC-8 mission. The hydrogen gases were drawn up into a small chamber, wh

discharged through symmetrical vents. The nozzles were installed away from the sp

to dampen their flow effects. Shields were placed below the inlet to keep the vent lin

liquid hydrogen.492 (NASA C–1965–03932)
y p

The motion of the liquid hydrogen prevented the vehicle from main

its balance, and the uneven venting skewed the Centaur’s trajectory

caused the loss of even more liquid hydrogen. Approximately 90 

of the liquid hydrogen was lost during the coast phase, and the 

could not be restarted. The tumbling spacecraft fell back into the 

atmosphere.493

Although NASA Lewis’s Weightlessness Analysis Sounding Probe and A

launches had previously studied the behavior of liquid hydrogen on 

models, the failed AC-4 flight revealed the unique problems crea

the forces associated with full-size propellant systems. Lewis rese

undertook a series of propellant management studies that resulted in 

modifications for the AC-8 flight. The vent system was completely rede

energy dissipaters were added, and a baffle was inserted in the hy

tank to prevent sloshing.

The new AC-8 vent system drew the hydrogen gases up into 

chamber, from which they were discharged through symmetrical ven

even distribution of this thrust was perfected with numerous ground 

December 1965 the system was qualified during an extensive series 

in SPC No. 2.494

On 8 April 1966, the AC-8 became the first Centaur to restart its eng

space. The propellant was successfully managed, and the off-gasse

expelled without altering the rocket’s trajectory.495 The mission was 

larger achievement than the AC-6 success. The Centaur’s complex tw

capacity had finally proven itself. For the first time, NASA and Congr

confident in the Centaur’s abilities.

Moonshot

AC-8 was the Lewis team’s biggest success to date, but as usual, the

little time to celebrate. The next launch, less than two months later

be its first attempt with a genuine payload. On 30 May 1966, the 

vehicle lifted off from Cape Canaveral carrying the Surveyor 1 spa

The Centaur stage performed perfectly, and Surveyor was on its way

days later, as the NASA Lewis Centaur team watched on television at 

Guerin House, the Surveyor began sending back images from the 

of the Moon. Cary Nettles recalled later, “[AC-10] was the ultimate cl

over four years of intensive work. I cannot really explain the elatio

felt in this personal triumph, that everything in the flight was perfect
p

Image 231: The AC-10, carrying the Surveyor 1 spacecraft, lifts off from Pad 36A on 

1966. On 2 June, the Surveyor 1 became the first spacecraft to land on the Moon

Centaur’s second successful two-burn mission and one of NASA Lewis’s greatest acc

ments. (NASA GPN–2000–000617)
y p

NASA Deputy Administrator Robert Seamans immediately wro

Silverstein, “This total performance justifies the faith which was reg

approximately three and one-half years ago in both the Centaur conc

the competency of the Lewis Research Center.” He added, “The achie

of the Centaur organization, both government and contractor, is part

striking when this technical difficulty and complexity of the Centaur 

opment must have appeared to be nearly insurmountable. Howev

outstanding technical confidence of the people and the dedication 

they have given to the Centaur Program seems to have reduced all o

difficulties to manageable size. These people have shown they are tru

fessional engineers and managers.”497

Ross later pointed out, “We had a remarkably competent team of me

and technicians. They were just the best.... I call them ‘the can-do p

Nothing would have happened by way of understanding the system

tributing to the reliability [of Centaur] without Silverstein’s vision a

can-do team. The engineers were important, but the mechanics and 

cians really made it happen.”498

Centaur was Lewis’s first attempt at a large developmental program 

first hands-on experience with spaceflight systems. It was a triump

Surveyors would prove the ability to soft land on the Moon, explore 

sites for the Apollo missions, and perform geological studies. On 7 O

a NASA Group Achievement Award was awarded to 123 members 

Lewis Centaur Program staff.499 Four years of intense work by the 

Lewis Center Director, management, engineers, technicians, and me

had paid off. 

Yet at the ceremony, Nettles turned to the future. He said, “In the b

sense, we’re not standing here today at the completion of Centaur’s d

ment. It’s not the end or even the beginning of the end. This is rather, 

the end of the beginning...a chance to transform Centaur from a suc

launch vehicle for Surveyor into an effective general-purpose upper s

a variety of high-energy missions.”500
p

Endnotes for Chapter 10

446. Kim McQuaid, “The Space Age at the Grass Roots: NASA in Cleveland

1990, 2007,” NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH, pp. 12–1

447. McQuaid, “The Space Age at the Grass Roots.” 

448. Bruce Byers. Destination Moon: A History of the Lunar Program (Wash

DC: NASA TM X–3487, 1977), chap. 2.

449. “Surveyor 1: NSSDC ID:1966–045A,” NASA’s National Space Science D

Center (7 September 2006), http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/ 

MasterCatalog?sc=1966-045A (accessed 8 October 2009).

450. “Surveyor 1: NSSDC ID:1966–045A.”

451. Interview with Art Zimmerman, conducted by Virginia Dawson and M

Bowles, 5 August 1999, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, O

452. Ralph Schmiedlin, et al., Flight Simulation Tests of a Centaur Vehicle i

Space Chamber (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–1929, 1970), p. 4.

453. “Surveyor 1: NSSDC ID:1966–045A.”

454. Cary Nettles, “Talk at NASA Group Achievement Award Ceremony at 

Lewis Research Center,” 1 December 1966, Cleveland, OH.

455. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, p. 1.

456. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests.

457. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, p. 14.

458. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, pp. 12 and 35.

459. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, pp. 35 and 39. 

460. Jack Humphreys, Centaur AC–4 Nose Jettison Tests (Washington, DC: N

TM–X–52154, 1966), p. 3.

461. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, pp. 1 and 16–17 and 22.

462. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, pp. 1 and 16–17 and 22.

463. Baddour, Maurice, Centaur Electrical System Problems, Related Work, 

Solutions (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–52105, 1965), p. 5.

464. Baddour, Centaur Electrical System, p. 2.

465. Humphreys, Centaur AC–4 Nose Jettison Tests, p. 6.

466. R.L. Radcliffe, “Surveyor Nose Fairing Mode Survey,” 28 April 1964, 

Evaluation Test Report No. 55A3291, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH, p. 4. 

467. Humphreys, Centaur AC–4 Nose Jettison Tests, p. 1.

468. Humphreys, Centaur AC–4 Nose Jettison Tests, pp. 4–6.

469. Humphreys, Centaur AC–4 Nose Jettison Tests, p. 7.

470. John Povolny, Space Simulation and Full-Scale Testing in a Converted 

Facility (Washington, DC: NASA N66 35913, 1970), p. 53.

471. Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles, Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Cen

Upper Stage Rocket, 1958–2002 (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4230, 200

p. 84.

472. Interview with Larry Ross, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 1 March 2007, N

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

473. Interview with Harlon Simon, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 20 Marc

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

474. Simon interview, conducted by Dawson, 20 March 1985.
y p

475. Interview with Joe Nieberding and Robert Gray, conducted by Virgini

Dawson, 9 November 1999, NASA Glenn History Collection, Clevelan

476. Simon interview, conducted by Dawson, 20 March 1985.

477. Sylvia Doughty Fries, NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo (Washing

DC: NASA SP–4104, 1992), p. 137.

478. Larry Ross to Bob Arrighi, “AWT Chapters 10–11,” 16 June 2008, NASA 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH. 

479. “Success Scored by Atlas-Centaur 6 Flight,” Lewis News (20 August 196

480. Jack Humphreys and Charles Eastwood, Centaur AC–6 Nose Fairing 

Separation Tests (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–52290, 1965), p. 1.

481. Humphreys and Eastwood, Centaur AC–6 Nose Fairing.

482. Nettles, “Talk at NASA Group Achievement Award Ceremony.”

483. Interview with Larry Ross, conducted by Bob Arrighi, 1 March 2007, N

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

484. Ross interview, conducted by Arrighi, 1 March 2007.

485. Ross interview, conducted by Arrighi, 1 March 2007.

486. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, pp. 15 and 21.

487. Schmiedlin, Ralph and B.J. Dastoli, Centaur Solid State Inverter Failur

During Simulated Flight in an Environmental Space Chamber (Washi

DC: NASA TM–X–52336, 1967), p. 1.

488. Schmiedlin and Dastoli, Centaur Solid State Inverter, pp. 1–2.

489. Schmiedlin et al., Flight Simulation Tests, p. 1.

490. Lacovic, Raymond, et al., Management of Cryogenic Propellants in a F

Scale Orbiting Space Vehicle (Cleveland, OH: NASA TN D–4571, 1968

491. Groesbeck, William, “Design of Coast-Phase Propellant Management S

for Two-Burn Atlas-Centaur Flight AC–8 (Washington DC: NASA TM–

1966), p. 2.

492. Lacovic, et al., Management of Cryogenic Propellants, p. 15.

493. Lacovic, et al., Management of Cryogenic Propellants, pp. 1 and 15.

494. Groesbeck, Design of Coast-Phase Propellant Management System, pp

and 15.

495. Lacovic, et al., Management of Cryogenic Propellants, p. 1.

496. Cary Nettles to Virginia Dawson, “Centaur Notes,” 8 May 2002, NASA 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

497. Seamons to Silverstein, “Atlas Centaur Success.”

498. Ross interview, conducted by Arrighi, 1 March 2007.

499. “Achievement Awards Go To 146 Centaur Project Workers,” Lewis New

(9 December 1966), p. 1.

500. Nettles, “Talk at NASA Group Achievement Award Ceremony.” 

Image 232: Lewis engineers stand below the net used to catch the OAO-1 fairing in 

Following the Surveyor launches, Centaur was used to carry increasingly large payloa

the OAO satellites. The Space Power Chambers was used to test the shroud jettison system 

of these new missions. (NASA C–1965–01628) 
Chapter 1

Centaur’s Big Pay

(1965–1975) Alter Destiny

“They amazed me. I didn’t think Lewis, being a propulsion center, 

have the smarts to do some of that stuff,” recalled former NASA 

Research Center engineer and Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Science and Applications, Ed Cortright.501 Lewis’s rocket program

matured quickly in the early 1960s. The old engine lab quickly b

a leader in launch vehicles. Cary Nettles recalled, “The whole aer

community suddenly took notice that Lewis was a first-line conte

the space business.”502 The staff had physically moved from the tem

cinderblock offices in the hangar to the brand new Development En

ing Building with a control room linked directly to Cape Kennedy

there the staff could monitor and back up the Lewis launch team at th

The staff also moved professionally from inexperience to expertise 

fields of spaceflight systems, payload integration, and launching. 

The missions expanded, too. After Centaur’s achievements with Su

its future was promising. The vehicle underwent numerous technical 

ments and was ready for larger payloads and more complex missio

only was it ready, but it was needed. The Agena rocket was the onl

comparable vehicle in the NASA stable, and it had a limited lift cap

Centaur was the Agency’s only option for launching heavy payloads

larger payloads required larger fairings and special modifications to in

the satellites into the launch vehicle. Over the next 10 years, the Space 

Chambers (SPC) would be critical for testing the new fairing configu
y p

Lewis’s Other Rocket—Agena

Lewis also was responsible for the Agena second-stage rocket progra

the Centaur, it was an upper-stage space tug with a two-burn capab

single Bell 8096 engine produced considerably less thrust than Centau

liquid-hydrogen RL-10s, however. Agena performed numerous im

missions that included the first closeup photographs of the Moon, Ma

Venus. 

Between its debut in 1959 and its transfer to Lewis in January 19

Agena rocket had put over 80 launches under its belt. Since Agena 

established technology, Lewis engineers did not have to overhaul it 

did Centaur. The first Lewis launch was a Thor/Agena carrying the 

Image 233: The versatile upper-stage Agena rocket employed a single 16,000-poun

engine that could be shut down and restarted in flight. Agena and its payload reach

on Atlas, Thor, and Titan boosters. Following staging, the first burn maneuvered th

into an Earth-oriented parking orbit. The second burn was geared to the particular m

either an elliptical Earth orbit or trajectories toward the Moon or planets. (NASA 

01439)
satellite balloon. The Ranger 6 launch followed five days later.505 Dur

seven years that Lewis managed the Agena Program, 27 of 30 launche

successful. Agena’s heaviest payload attempt would be the 3,900

Orbiting Astronomical Observatory 1 (OAO-1) satellite in April 1966.

Observatories in Space

The OAO Program, begun at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center i

consisted of a series of four increasingly heavy and complex space o

tion satellites, direct predecessors of the Hubble Telescope. The s

were equipped with powerful telescopes to study and retrieve ult

data on specific stars and galaxies. In-depth observations were not p

from Earth-bound telescopes because of the filtering and distortion 

atmosphere. NASA hoped that the ultraviolet data would help rese

determine the age of certain stars. The telescopes required a large 

platform so that they could focus on dim and distant stars for long 

of time.507

Image 234: Lewis Agena team whiteboards for the 21 March 1965 Ranger C lau

boards were used to track flight and countdown events. For each Agena launch, Lewi

the launch vehicle requirements; acquired, tested, and integrated the vehicle; prepar

launch; and oversaw the launch until the stage was at its correct flight trajectory.5

C–1965–74460)
y p

The process of placing the OAO-1 in its 500-mile-altitude Earth or

expensive, so the satellite was designed for a lengthy life.508 Y

preparation were involved, and a great deal was riding on a suc

launch. Goddard selected the Atlas/Agena D for the task despite t

that the rocket had not previously borne that much weight. Lewis wo

responsible for integrating the payload with the Agena, testing the 

and launching the vehicle.509

The OAO-1 satellite was wider in diameter than the Agena stage, so 

three-section clamshell shroud was created to enclose both the satel

the Agena. This new shroud would be qualified in SPC No. 2 un

supervision of William Prati and OAO Project Engineer Richard G

June 1965, Lewis technicians began setting up the large fairing ins

chamber over models of the OAO-1 and Agena. 

Image 235: The text on t

poster states: “The OAO is a 

stabilized satellite capable o

modating a variety of astro

experiments. It is comprise

main component systems: t

craft and the experiment p

The first OAO will carry tw

ment packages. The Smi

Astrophysical Observatory 

ment package will map th

celestial sphere in ultravio

to a wavelength of 1100 A

and will record the brightn

least 200,000 hot stars. The 

sity of Wisconsin experim

determine stellar energy dis

and measure emission line 

ties of diffuse nebulae in the 

region from 3000 to 800 A

units.” (NASA C–1965–744
Image 236: Lewis engineers work on the OAO-1 test setup in SPC No. 2. One-half 

large clamshell nose fairing is removed in this photograph, revealing the 10-foo

4-foot-diameter OAO-1 payload. The solar panels are folded flat against the sate

they would be during a launch. A platform elevator with an 11-foot inside diame

built around the setup to allow access to all areas of the shroud. (NASA C–1965–0
y p

Three jettison tests were run in July and the first week of Augu

simulated altitude of 20 miles. For these studies, only one-half of the 

was ejected. A large net was stretched horizontally over the chamb

to catch the jettisoned shroud. Accelerometers on the model and 

provided William Prati and Richard Geye with data they could use 

the actual launch to verify a successful separation.510

The launch from Cape Canaveral in April 1966 was trying for the 

team, however. Geye recalled, “On the first attempt we scrubbed the m

because of instrumentation problems. Then it was hot fired. The third 

tornado in the area blew out our power supply. Another hot firing fo

We finally made it on the fifth try.”511 The launch and separation dur

fifth try on 8 April 1966 went smoothly. The OAO-1 satellite itself, ho

failed after only 90 minutes when overarcing in the star trackers ca

battery failure.512
Image 237: The setup for a shroud separation test prior to Centaur’s Orbiting Astro

ical Observatory (OAO-1) launch. The clamshell shroud consisted of three section

enclosed both the Agena and OAO—a fiberglass nose fairing and aluminum mi

aft fairings. The upper two fairings separated when the Atlas engines stopped, an

aft fairing fell away with the Atlas upon separation from the upper stages.513 Grum

Aerospace Corporation built the OAO-1, Lockheed the Agena, and General Dyna

Convair the shroud and separation system. (NASA C–1965–02079)

Photo Essay 7: 

Space Power Chambers’ Busy Schedule
y p

Image 238: A mechanic installs the new platform elevator in SPC No. 2 for a ser

of Centaur/OAO shroud tests. (NASA C–1965–00138)

Image 239: The viewing platform alongside the former tunnel test section w

converted into a shop area. The high bay is to the left of the platform, and the t

section is to the right. (NASA C–1965–00378)
Image 240: The Weightlessness Analysis Sounding Probe is prepared for testing 

No. 2 in August 1964. The probe was a two-stage sounding rocket designed by 

Gold and NASA Lewis’s Spacecraft Technology Division to examine ways to contro

hydrogen during the periods between rocket firing. The rocket would carry a tran

scale model of the S-II fuel tank and television cameras to film the behavior of the pro

during flight.514 (NASA C–1964–71575)
y p

Image 241: The Weightlessness Analysis Sounding Probe sounding rocket is t

in SPC No. 1 in April 1966. During the 7 June 1966 sounding rocket launch o

Wallops Island, the propellant was purposely sloshed by a thruster on the side o

tank. The tank contained a baffle ring that quickly settled the sloshing fuel.51

862-pound rocket reached an altitude of 250,000 feet before freefalling back to E

The almost 7 minutes of microgravity during freefall provided researchers with en

data to launch the first orbital Saturn IB one month later.516 (NASA C–1966–018
Image 242: One-half of an Atlas Launcher set up inside the high bay of th

facility. On the launch stand, the Atlas was tethered by two pins that were 

out by the booster engine’s thrust. Friction caused the pins to pull at different s

resulting in asymmetrical drag on the Atlas during its launch. The high ba

used for this test because of its thick concrete base. A series of tests conducted w

launcher’s engines and hydraulics activated resulted in a resolution of the pro

(NASA C–1966–01269)
y p

Image 243: In late 1965, tests of deceleration pellets for the new Zero Gravity F

which was about to come online, were conducted in SPC No. 2. A 5-foot-diameter, 2

foot-tall deceleration stand was mounted vertically in the chamber floor and fille

polystyrene pellets. Objects were dropped through a penetration in the roof into the d

ant to determine which types of pellets worked best. (NASA C–1966–01954)
Centaur Moves Forward

Cary Nettles recalled making a presentation in the mid-1960s to a 

from the new telecommunications group COMSAT about Centaur’s p

capabilities. He told Virginia Dawson in 2002 that this meeting led dir

many of Centaur’s communications satellite missions in the 1970s.517 C

was already selected for the 1969 Mariner flights to Mars when, in J

1967, it assumed responsibility for three missions previously slated 

Agena—the next two Advanced Technology Satellites and OAO-2.518

The 4,436-pound OAO-2, the largest payload ever attempted on an 

Centaur, was scheduled to be launched in late 1968 on Atlas/Cen

(AC-16). The payload weight was redistributed after the failure of t

OAO satellite. The unprecedented size of OAO-2 forced NASA Lew

neers to use a longer Agena shroud and a transition adapter on the C

vehicle. The basic Agena/OAO-1 separation system and fairing rem

but the fairing included a cylindrical section of the Centaur/Surveyor 

and a new adapter to fix the fairing to the booster.519 The modified 

for the OAO-2 mission was 18 feet longer than the Surveyor nose 

and was jettisoned by a mechanical spring rather than by a gas 

system.520, 521

Image 244: A model of th

observation satellite is tra

through the former AWT tes

and into SPC No. 2. OAO-2 c

two new experiments ins

opposite ends of the satel

Smithsonian Astrophysical 

tory’s experiment consisted 

telescopes capable of examin

700 stars every day. The U

of Wisconsin’s study employ

telescopes to study single 

longer durations to determ

chemical composition, temp

and pressure.522 (NASA 

01709)
y p

Lewis’s Launch Vehicle group was responsible for the compatibility 

launch vehicle and satellite. They determined if adapters or exte

were needed to ensure proper shroud clearance. The satellite manuf

developed a “control envelope” to identify an area outside of the spac

path. The Lewis team studied this envelope to ensure that neither spa

motion nor the shroud jettison interfered. After any conflicts were re

and the payload was encapsulated, a final x ray of the spacecraft wa

to make sure that the payload was properly centered within the shro

Image 245: Panel showing a diagram of the OAO-2 fairing and its latches. T

were 10 latches along the vertical splitlines and 6 around the aft circumfe

tial joint. Each latch was held by a single explosive nut, and each nut had 

redundant explosive cartridges. The cartridges were activated by a mission progr

mer as the Centaur engines were fired. The tip of the cone was joined by the 

mechanical spring thruster.524 (NASA C–1968–01621)
As part of this process, Lewis researchers sought to qualify the new 

with a series of jettison tests in SPC No. 2. Three tests were successfu

in April 1968 at a simulated altitude of 90,000 feet. The shroud’s st

integrity held up, the fairing halves performed well, and the entire 

tion system worked in a simulated space environment.525, 526

Image 246: OAO-2 shroud test setup in SPC No. 2. A steel base 10 feet in diameter was 

on the chamber floor. A metal shell spacer was attached to the base, and a mock 

forward bulkhead was attached to the spacer. The fairing and payload were then mo

the forward bulkhead. Two 30- by 50-foot nylon nets were horizontally secured 11 f

the chamber floor to catch the fairing halves after they were jettisoned.527 (NASA 

01258)
y p

OAO-2 was launched into a geosynchronous orbit by AC-16 at an alti

480 miles on 7 December 1968. To obtain the desired thrust-to-weig

for lifting the heavy payload and shroud, the Atlas was secured to the 

pad for an extra 1.76 seconds. The launch went well, and the new 

was jettisoned without problem.528

OAO-2 was a major accomplishment for the astronomy scientists, G

engineers, and the Centaur launch team. The satellite’s 11 telescope

ated for over four years and provided a wealth of x-ray, ultraviol

infrared information on the stars.529 After only a month, OAO-2 o

over 20 times more ultraviolet data from stars than all of the sounding 

studies of the previous 15 years combined.530 It was also Centaur’s 

payload to date. It required precise launch coordination, the use of t

transition adapter, and a new hybrid nose fairing. For their efforts the 

launch team received another NASA-wide Group Achievement Awar

Image 247: Lewis researchers examine the base of the OAO-2 nose fairing afte

jettisoned in SPC No. 2. In the background is the transition adapter that was made e

for this heavy launch. It was placed between the Centaur and the payload so that th

Agena shroud could be used on the Atlas/Centaur. (NASA C–1968–01259)
Image 248: Stamp issued by Sharjah (currently the United Arab 

Emirates) to celebrate the OAO-2 mission. It was the first successful space observatory and yielded a wealth of information on stars. 

(1964) (Don Hilger/Colorado State University)532

Image 249: Left to r

Silverstein and Al You

among seven Lewis staff 

honored on 27 June 

40 years of federal 

Silverstein and Young 

the Altitude Wind 

(AWT’s) original man

the 1940s.533 The Apollo 

would land on the Mo

couple of weeks after 

and both men would r

afterward. (NASA Lew

3 July 1969)
y p

Following the OAO-2 tests in 1968, the SPC was relatively quiet for t

couple of years. The shop area was used to prepare the Pratt & W

TF-30 turbofan engine for testing in the Propulsion Systems Labo

but the test chambers remained unused. Lewis remained active, t

as the Apollo Program raced for the finish line. Centaur sent Mar

and 7 toward Mars, and Agena continued with the Space Electric 

Test II (SERT II) and several military launches. The center also re

to aeronautics and reinstated its airbreathing engines research pr

Al Young and Abe Silverstein retired after 40 years of service. Silverst

at the time, “As NASA engages in its second ten-year program, it 

important that the men whose decisions initiate the new long range p

be available to complete them. Since I do not think I can stretch m

years of service into fifty, it is perhaps best for me and for the Lewis 

if I bow out now.”534

Centaur Stumbles

At 10:40:05 p.m. on 30 November 1970, the AC-21 launch vehicle ro

the dark skies above Cape Kennedy carrying the follow-up to the suc

OAO-2 space-based observatory. This satellite, OAO-B, included a Go

designed 36-inch telescope and spectrophotometer that was inten

measure ultraviolet energy emitted by stars from an orbit 466 miles 

the Earth. The telescope was over twice the size of that on the OAO-

could observe stars eight times dimmer.535

When the command came to start the Centaur engines and eject the 

1 of the 16 explosive nuts securing the fairing failed to release. Dur

8 minutes and 20 seconds before the final jettison, the rocket was 

off course by the extra weight of the 2,400-pound shroud. The rock

satellite were destroyed when the Centaur plummeted back into the 

atmosphere.536 It was the third official failure in Lewis’s first 13 C

launches.

For the Centaur team, the loss was painful. Each OAO satellite was 

and required its own payload integration. Joe Nieberding explains

were not cookie cutters. They were different instruments, and ther

folks who had worked on that one for seven years...and one bol

open up on the shuttle, and it couldn’t carry it all the way over. It w

heavy.”537
A Lewis failure investigation team quickly went to work. The AC-25 

was less than two months away. The Launch Vehicle Review Board, 

by H. Warren Plohr, quickly established that the mission failure resulte

the unsuccessful shroud jettison, but they could not determine the 

Seventeen scenarios were analyzed during this initial study, but no 

conclusive cause was found. The shroud system was the same as th

on the successful OAO-2 launch.538

Although not used to test the shroud before the AC-21 launch, the S

a key element of the failure investigation. The review board had 

mended a redesign of the shroud, higher quality manufacturin

assembly, and intensified inspection methods.539 In April 1971 William 

who ran the previous OAO shroud tests, oversaw investigations of 

sixth-size shroud in SPC No. 2.

Image 250: A one-sixth-scale model of the failed AC-21 shroud is set up inside SP

Investigators found that the spring actuators failed to jettison the shroud because 

restraint in the shroud. When the restraint was freed, it took over 8 minutes for the s

release the shroud. The flight data on hinge strain and the accelerometer indicated 

latch system was the most probable cause.540 (NASA C–1971–01491)
y p

Following the investigation, new explosive latches were designed 

fairing. Afterward, the entire full-scale separation system underwent 

sive qualifications in SPC No. 2 in the spring of 1972. The runs were 

to the jettison tests prior to OAO-1 and OAO-2. The fourth and h

OAO satellite, renamed “Copernicus,” was launched into orbit on 21 

1972 by AC-22. Daniel Shramo, Centaur Program Manager, called it a 

book flight.”542 The 4,900-pound Copernicus remained active for nin

and yielded even more spectral data than OAO-2.543 

The launch was just weeks shy of the 10th anniversary of the pro

transfer to Lewis. Afterward, Center Director Bruce Lundin said, 

breaking failure and exhilarating success are merely the milestones in 

road of hard work, sacrifice, technical accomplishments, and comra

that have marked this first decade of Centaur.”544

Image 251: The AC-21 shroud is investigated in SPC No. 2. The fairing was j

16 latches with no backup systems or redundancy. The board recommended 

mechanical redundancy to each nut, the self-containment of the separation nut and i

additional inspections to ensure hardware conformity, and identification and re

all nonflight hardware. Other recommendations were verification of cleaning fluids 

resolution of discrepancies of on-site fixes.541 (NASA C–1971–01488)
Centaur Goes Modern

AC-22 was the final flight of the Centaur-D model spacecraft. 

Centaurs had been made to order for the particular launch. In 19

Centaur-D became the first standardized model. Twenty of the Cent

twenty-three flights were successful, but it was outdated by the late 

Nieberding explained, “[The Centaur-D] was designed for Survey

seven Surveyors. We got into those launches, and then the ATS came 

the Advanced Technology Satellites, AC-17 and 18, and the OAOs

users came along, but there was always like a three- or four-year fu

wasn’t like a six-year, and then of course, the shuttle came along an

you only had a few more years, so there was never a long enough fu

pump a lot of money into the vehicle. It was always, let’s fix it for n

fix it for the next one.”545

Centaur’s successor was the D-1A. Its guidance system, telemet

electronics had been significantly upgraded and included a new 60

digital computer. To simplify the spacecraft and its interfaces, dev

used an equipment module to store the payload.546

The Centaur fairing had been slightly modified during the upgrade t

and had to be requalified in SPC No. 2 during winter 1972/73. Onc

under the guidance of William Prati, the tests, which used mock-up M

and Intelsat IV payloads, verified the structural integrity and opera

the separation system.547 In April 1973 the first launch of a D-1A s

Pioneer 11 spacecraft sailing passed Jupiter. 

The new D-1A model could split its payload into two compartme

experiment payload, which held the third-stage, and an equipment m

which stored support systems for the experiment. These were se

from the Centaur by an adapter. The system would be put to its lim

ing a series of High Energy Astrophysical Observatories (HEAOs) la

planned for the late 1970s.

Structural tests during the spring of 1975 in SPC No. 2 sought to de

the equipment module’s flexibility, verify the load capacity, and pu

overload the structure to determine the point of failure. During th

phase of the test, the adapter failed before the equipment module. T

continued with a new simulated HEAO adapter and successfully reac

module’s failure point. The structural strength was deemed robust 

for the HEAO missions.548 The three missions were highly success

bridged the gap between the OAO telescopes of the 1960s and the 

Space Telescope launched in 1990.
y p

Image 252: Centaur D-1A equipment module in SPC No. 2. The 19-foot-long HEAO 

contained an experiment module on top and an equipment module attached to the 

The octagonal 3-foot-high, 7.5-foot-diameter equipment module, seen in the neck p

this setup, included the avionics and other support systems for the HEAO experiments.

C–1975–01216)
Going Down Slow

The final HEAO test would be the last time that the SPC’s test ch

would be used. The vacuum tank had been idle since 1967, and 

SPC No. 2 had been staggered every few years. Two new facilities a

Lewis’s auxiliary Plum Brook Station had come online in 1969. The 

Power Facility had become the world’s largest vacuum chamber. I

handle the separation tests for the new, larger shrouds that were em

at the time. The Space Propulsion Facility combined some of SPC 

space simulation technology, such as the cold wall and radiant lamp

the ability to fire large engines in a vacuum. SPC had served its purpo

ing the battle to get Centaur operational in the early 1960s and for th

shroud modifications for the larger payloads of the late 1960s. Alth

operated through 1975, the facility’s abilities had been superseded b

newer, more powerful facilities. The SPC would never be used aga

wind tunnel or a vacuum chamber.

Image 253: Space Propulsion Facility at Plum Brook Station. The facility, with its lid 

open to the left, combined some of SPC No. 1’s space simulation methods and added t

to fire large rocket engines in a vacuum. Its first tests in 1970 verified that Centaur 

flown without its boost pumps. In 1985 the Space Propulsion Facility was named a 

Historic Landmark. (NASA C–1987–02664) 
y p

Endnotes for Chapter 11

501. Interview with Edgar M. Cortright, conducted by Rich Dinkel, 20 Augu

1998, Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, Houston, TX.

502. Cary Nettles to Virginia Dawson, “Centaur Notes,” 8 May 2002, NASA 

History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

503. Interview with Seymour Himmel, conducted by Virginia Dawson, 1 M

2000, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

504. “Ranger B Preparations,” Lewis News (17 July 1964), p. 1.

505. “Successes Three,” Lewis News (28 February 1964), p. 3.

506. “3 Atlas-Agena Launches Assigned to Atlas-Centaur,” Lewis News (6 Jan

1967), p. 1.

507. Walter Scott, “The Engineering Design of the Orbiting Astronomical O

vatory” in The Observatory Generation of Satellites (Washington, DC: N

SP–30, 1963).

508. Scott, “The Engineering Design of the Orbiting Astronomical Observa

509. “Large Load for Atlas-Agena,” Lewis News (1 April 1966), p. 1.

510. “OAO Tests Here,” Lewis News (3 September 1965), p. 4. 

511. “First 100 Launches: Just the Beginning,” Lewis News (15 March 1983), 

512. “Project OAO-B Press Kit,” NASA press release No. 70-14, 29 October 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

513. “Large Load for Atlas-Agena.”

514. “Lewis Launches Wasp,” Lewis News (24 June 1966), p. 8.

515. “Lewis Launches Wasp.” 

516. Courtney Brooks, James Grimwood, and Lloyd Swenson, Chariots for 

A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft (Washington, DC: NASA SP–42

1979), chap. 8. 

517. Nettles to Dawson, “Centaur Notes.”

518. “3 Atlas-Agena Launches,” p. 3.

519. Charles Eastwood, Centaur—Orbiting Astronomical Observatory Nose 

Altitude Jettison Test (Washington, DC: NASA TM–X–2096, 1970), p. 2.

520. Lewis Research Center, Atlas-Centaur AC–16 Flight Performance Eval

for the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory OAO–II Mission (Washingto

NASA TM–X–1989, 1968), p. 6. 

521. “Centaur Is To Boost Biggest Payload Yet,” Lewis News (8 November 1

522. “OAO Eyes Focus on Hidden Stars,” Lewis News (20 December 1968), 

523. Warren H. Plohr, “Interim Investigations Conducted by the OAO–B La

Vehicle Review Board,” 12 January 1971, NASA Glenn Records, Box 4

Organizational Code 5800, H–7. 

524. Larry Ross to Bob Arrighi, 9 June 2008, NASA Glenn History Collectio

Cleveland, OH.

525. Plohr, “Interim Investigations,” D–8.

526. Lewis Research Center, Atlas-Centaur AC–16 Flight Performance Eval

p. 107. 

527. Eastwood, Centaur—Orbiting Astronomical Observatory, p. 8.
528. Lewis Research Center, Atlas-Centaur AC–16 Flight Performance Eval

p. 1.

529. Mark Wade, “OAO,” Encyclopedia Astronautica (1995–2006) http://ww

astronautix.com/craft/oao.htm (accessed 3 September 2009).

530. “OAO Meets Milestone,” Lewis News (31 January 1969), p. 2.

531. “NASA Cites Atlas, Centaur for OAO II,” Lewis News (6 June 1969).

532. Hillger, Don, “Orbiting Astronomical Observatory Satellites” (NOAA/ 

NESDIS/STAR/RAMMB, CIRA, 2004–2008), http://www.cira.colostate.ed

RAMM//hillger/OAO.htm (accessed 7 October 2009).

533. “Director Marks Forty Years,” Lewis News (3 July 1969), p. 1.

534. “Dr. Silverstein Retiring,” NASA Lewis press release 69–61, 22 October 

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

535. “OAO To Study Stars,” Lewis News (23 October 1970).

536. “OAO Failure,” Lewis News (18 December 1970), p. 3.

537. Interview with Joe Nieberding and Robert Gray, conducted by Virgini

Dawson, 9 November 1999, NASA Glenn History Collection, Clevelan

538. Plohr, “Interim Investigations,” H–18. 

539. John E. Naugle to Deputy Administrator, “OAO–B Launch Vehicle Fai

Review,” 17 June 1971, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, O

540. Plohr, “Interim Investigations.”

541. Plohr, “Interim Investigations.”

542. “1962–1972 The First Decade of Centaur,” Lewis News (20 October 197

543. National Space Science Data Center, “OAO–3,” NSSDC ID: 1972–065A

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1972-065A (a

7 April 2008). 

544. Bruce Lundin, “Director Praises Centaur Program,” Lewis News (20 Oc

1972).

545. Nieberding and Gray interview, conducted by Dawson, 9 November 

546. “Single Spacecraft To Visit Two Planets,” Lewis News (2 November 197

p. 2.

547. William M. Prati, Centaur D–1A Nose Fairing Jettison Test (Washington

NASA TM X–73450, 1976), p. 1.

548. Thomas Niezgoda, D–1A Equipment Module Structure Test (Washingt

NASA TM X–73401, 1976).

549. Wallace Tucker, The Star Splitters: The High Energy Astronomy Observ

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–466, 1984). 
Image 254: Researchers examine blueprints for a model of a new Altitude Wind Tunnel

proposed to convert the Space Power Chambers, which had not been used in several y

into a wind tunnel configuration. (NASA C–1985–03172)
y 

Chapter 1

The Idle 

(1975–20

Where the Wave 

Finally Broke

“We’re living in difficult times,” Bill Harrison told the 1973 gra

apprentices, “and the measure of our success in the future will lie 

ability to accept change and bad times and emerge stronger than b

The December 1972 Apollo 17 mission brought a close to NASA’s h

days of the 1960s. Within days of the splashdown, large space pr

were being cancelled across the Agency. The effect was felt imme

by the staff at the NASA Lewis Research Center. The closure of Plum 

Station with its two new world-class facilities was announced on 6 J

1973. Over the next two years, over 750 civil servants were either le

retired.550 Many of the graduating apprentices had already been in

that the center could not hire them because of the budget cuts. H

lamented, “Certainly in today’s world there is no lack of challenge, o

funding to pursue each and every problem.”551

The center did not have a clear mission at the time, and its role 

development of the space shuttle would be minimal. The state of t

ter continued to deteriorate in the late 1970s with declining budg

staffing. The steady reduction of the workforce and the looming th

center closure resulted in the nadir of employee morale. One area t

not suffer was the Launch Vehicles Division. It continued to send C

rockets into space carrying interplanetary payloads such as the Pion

Voyager spacecraft. 
y p

Bruce Lundin, who had succeeded Abe Silverstein as Center Director, 

out renewable energy and aeronautics research projects. These in

wind turbines, solar cells, Stirling engines, and electric automobile

Space Power Chambers (SPC) shop area was used as the base for the 

vehicle studies. As early as 1979, Lewis began long-term planning to 

NASA’s downturn. Despite extraordinary efforts, many of the propos

programs could not be undertaken because of budget constraints.

of those failed enterprises was the proposed reinstitution of the SP

original Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) configuration.

Image 255: The 1970s were not kind to NASA Lewis. Without a clear mission or stabl

the center sought nontraditional research projects such as wind energy, electric auto

and quiet jet engines. In this photograph, several NASA center directors and NAS

quarters managers gather in the SPC shop area to listen to a description of the Electri

Project at Lewis. (NASA C–1976–04044) 
y 

Image 256: Part of the AWT Exhauster Building became a clean room known as 

Power Laboratory in the mid-1960s. In July 1970, however, the structure opened as 

space Information Display building. It contained models, hardware, and exhibits 

been used at the space science fairs of the early 1960s. (NASA C–1970–02258)

Image 257: In 1975 the Aerospace Information Display was expanded and rena

“Visitor Information Center.” The exhauster equipment had been shipped to NASA M

A large lobby was created, and the annex became an assembly room. NASA retire

Weiss estimated that annual visitors increased from 1,000 to 50,000 during that firs

(NASA C–1978–1648)
3

y p

Image 258: The AWT shop area was used to store and work on vehicles for the NASA an

Research and Development Administration Electric Vehicle Project. (NASA C–1977–0

Image 259: NASA researchers in front of a van used to support the Electric Vehicl

Office. The van was outfitted with battery chargers and other specialized test equipmen

C–1977–01797)
y 

Space Power Chambers Becomes a Garage

Through an interagency agreement between NASA and the Energy R

and Development Administration (ERDA),|| Lewis engaged in several 

related programs in the mid-1970s, including the Electric Vehicle 

Lewis investigated new drivetrains, improved powertrains, and en

the overall engine. As part of the project, Lewis also tested a fleet com

of every commercially available electric car. The SPC shop area was 

store and work on these vehicles.554

Battery longevity was the crucial element for the electric automobile’s 

Lewis applied its experience with the long-life batteries used for s

to these new cars. The result was a nickel-zinc battery that offered 

twice the range of traditional automobile batteries. The range was d

strated during test runs in a utility van using both types of batteries

many of the center’s energy research programs of the 1970s, the conc

proven but never taken on by industry. A combination of factors, in

consumer reluctance and the eventual leveling of gas prices, resu

these programs being shelved indefinitely. These efficiency progra

occasionally revisited when oil prices rise precipitously. 

A New Propulsion Wind Tunnel

In 1982 former Lewis propellant researcher and Titan/Centaur m

Andy Stofan returned from an assignment at NASA Headquarters to 

the position of Center Director of the NASA Lewis Research Center

assembled a team to create and implement the center’s first strateg

Lewis set its sights on five new major programs—the Space Station F

Electrical Power System, a Centaur to be carried on the space 

the Advanced Communications Satellite, the Advanced Turboprop

reinstitution of the AWT.556

Lewis advocates for the AWT claimed at the time that “there are no 

sion wind tunnels in the free world that provide a subsonic, standar

ating envelope with true altitude pressure and temperature.” The pr

reinstitution of the AWT would increase the tunnel’s speed to Mach 

an altitude of 55,000 feet and its temperature to –20°F for jet engine 

icing research, and noise-suppression studies.557

||ERDA was later folded into the Department of Energy in much the same way that th

was into NASA.
3

y p

Image 260: Special features of the proposed new AWT included low- and high-sp

sections, an exhaust scoop, cooling coils, and two spray-bar systems. This is one 

drawings created by Sverdrup Corporation for their extensive Preliminary Eng

Report. (1984) (NASA Glenn)

In the early 1970s Bruce Lundin had called upon trusted Lewis v

to put together a cost study for the reinstitution of the AWT for ver

short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) testing. Harold Friedman, Milt B

J. C. Lovell, W. E. Emley, and Robert Godman authored a report that 

mended expanding the diameter of the test section to 24 feet and the 

to 30 feet. The report, which converted the costs of the original comp

into 1976 figures, estimated that the reinstitution of the tunnel wou

$39 million.558 This proposal was not acted upon.

The second look in the 1980s into reinstituting the AWT, howev

much more ambitious. New and envisioned future aeronautics techn

such as V/STOL, high-speed turboprops, highly survivable military 

and high-speed rotorcraft could be studied. These new aircraft 

would require a wind tunnel that could support large-scale test artic

propulsion systems. High subsonic speeds, altitude conditions, and 

lated inclement weather were necessities.559 Lewis’s dormant AW

seemed like an excellent location for this new facility. 
y 

The AWT Project Office, led by Roger Chamberlin, was established 

to oversee the project. The office drew deeply from Lewis’s ex

experience with propulsion tunnels as well as from the tunnel expe

the NASA Langley and NASA Ames research centers, Boeing, and the 

Engineering Development Center. Different teams addressed the r

ments for aerothermodynamics, the creation of icing condition

establishment of a dynamic math model, and the acoustical problem

The center contracted with Sverdrup Corporation in 1981 to e

the options and expenses for reinstituting the AWT. By Novembe

Sverdrup had completed the Preliminary Engineering Report. The 15-v

document was the most comprehensive engineering report ever crea

a NASA facility.562 It analyzed all of the tunnel’s components and ex

various options for the modifications. The report affirmed Lewis’s 

The existing infrastructure was deemed robust enough to be the b

the new tunnel.563

Image 261: Members of the AWT Project Office inside the tunnel. The office consisted 

groups. The Engineering Office executed Construction of Facilities tasks such as the 

nary Engineering Report, final design, studies, and construction management. The 

Office ensured that the facility met all the proposed specifications and requirem

Systems Office guaranteed that the facility was safe and efficient.560 (NASA C–1984–0
3

y p

Unlike the original tunnel design, the new tunnel would allow 

inclement weather testing and acoustical measurement instruments. 

icing program was so successful in the 1940s and 1950s that it ha

retired in the early 1960s. The evolution of aircraft wing design in th

resulted in calls for new icing studies. In the 1980s, the program wa

rected. The Icing Research Tunnel was brought back online and mai

a busy schedule. It was felt that the new AWT could alleviate some 

Icing Research Tunnel backlog and permit the testing of larger comp

and altitude simulation.

The AWT’s new test section would have a slotted throat and hone

screen upstream to smooth the airflow.564 Since the tunnel’s intern

ments had been removed during the creation of the SPC in 1962, a n

section, exhaust scoop, heat exchanger, two-stage fan system, and 

vanes would have to be installed. In addition, the steel bulkheads 

create the vacuum chamber would have to be removed.565

Image 262: Members of the AWT Project Office examine drawings for the proposed 

tion of the AWT. A researcher is seen through the contraction in the high-speed le

(NASA C–1985–01572)
y 

The tunnel’s drive motor, refrigeration system, shell, and auxiliary bu

all remained. These items were valued at $30 million in the 1980s. Inst

of the new components including spray bars was estimated at $20 m

The AWT Project Office claimed, “For a $20 million investment, a $50 

facility could be obtained which will contribute significantly to many 

programs in regions of the flight envelope not currently available i

U.S. facilities.”566

In mid-March of 1984, a seminar on wind tunnel modeling was 

NASA Lewis. As part of the planning process a 1/10th scale model 

tunnel had been built to test various components and systems. M

of the AWT Project Office discussed the AWT reinstitution and m

status. Representatives from NASA’s aeronautics centers, Langley and 

and manufacturers Calspan Corporation and Boeing related their res

modeling programs. This was followed by detailed discussions of the 

drive system, acoustics, controls, and icing simulation.567

Image 263: AWT model assembly in cell CW-22 of the Engine Research Building. T

included the high-speed test section near the middle and a corner with a turning va

right. (NASA C–1985–02361)
3

y p

Image 264: A Centaur 6A rocket was placed inside SPC No. 1 in 1963 for long-durati

environment testing. Although the studies ended in the late 1960s, the rocket remain

the chamber until August 1984. It was decided to remove the Centaur when the cente

ered returning the facility to its original wind tunnel configuration. (NASA C–1984–
y 

All for Nothing

H. Harvey Album, Chairman of the Congressional Advisory Commi

Aeronautics Assessment, formed an Ad Hoc Altitude Wind Tunnel A

Subcommittee to review the proposed AWT reinstitution project in 

The eight-member subcommittee was composed of experts on larg

port aircraft, rotorcraft, propulsion systems, and military aircraft.568

Following a report by the AWT ad hoc subcommittee, the Congre

Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment decided to cancel fis

1986 funding for the reinstitution studies. The AWT Project had con

a substantial amount of personnel and financial resources. An es

$5 million and 100 man-years were scheduled for the upcoming fisc

and it appeared that the actual reinstitution of the tunnel would exc

$160 million already proposed. In addition, the subcommittee calcula

the tunnel would cost over $5 million per year just to operate.569

The cancellation was also based on technical reasons. The Congre

Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment argued that the AWT 

duplicate the capabilities of the Arnold Engineering Development 

and other tunnels. The committee also questioned the AWT’s potentia

considered the 20-foot-diameter test section to be too small to test h

ter rotors, propfans, or large propulsion systems. They felt that it wo

capable of inlet propulsion integration studies only on small engines. 

size models, aircraft, engines, rotors, and propulsion systems could b

in other facilities or during test flights.570

The committee felt that full-scale models would produce quest

results by not allowing enough open space for the proper amount of 

through the AWT test section. They also felt that the test section wou

be capable of testing smaller models or engines because of this blo

Propulsion systems can really only be tested with full-size engine

concluded that the range of altitude and Mach numbers in the AWT sp

did not allow Mach 0.9 at an altitude of 25,000 feet and that its Mach n

range was limited at altitudes of 30,000 feet. Finally, the committee 

the AWT’s proposed inclement weather testing would only work on 

engines.571

The committee suggested that the Arnold Engineering Development C

16T, 16S, and Aeropropulsion Systems Test Facility could ade

test large-scale engine systems. They, along with NASA Ames’s 

and 14-foot tunnels, would be high Reynolds number facilitie

Aeropropulsion Systems Test Facility could be used for high-a
3

y p

low-Mach-number fighter jet testing; it would be suitable for engine in

in its freejet mode, and general engine tests could be done in its direct-c

section. Lewis’s Icing Research Tunnel was seen as a sufficient alterna

full-scale wing section and inlet testing, although it was acknowledg

the AWT would be superior for propulsion testing.572

The AWT Project Office prepared a three-page response to the Congre

Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment’s findings. They add

the fact that full-scale engines or models would reduce the Reynolds n

significantly. The AWT group pointed out that aerodynamic tunne

propulsion tunnels had different test requirements. Aerodynamic 

required having Mach and Reynolds numbers as close as poss

actual aircraft. This was best accomplished with smaller models in 

atmospheric or pressurized tunnels. Propulsion tests, however, requi

matching of altitude and pressure in addition to Mach number and Re

number. Propulsion tests also permitted higher blockages, so larger 

scale models could be used. This meant that large or full-scale Re

numbers could be achieved at simulated altitudes.573

Image 265: Increase in manpower needed for the AWT reinstitution proje

(NASA Glenn)
y 

John Murphy, the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology’s A

Administrator of Legislative Affairs, refuted the committee’s claim

letter to the Chairman of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Transpo

Aviation, and Materials. He claimed that the AWT’s 20-foot test section 

allow testing of full-scale turboprops and a half-span of an F-15 w

F-100 engine. Neither of these could be accomplished in any other 

in “the free world.”574 Nonetheless, the decision stood, and the AWT w

fallow.

Antenna Field

The tunnel would remain dormant, but one of Andy Stofan’s othe

programs from the 1980 master plan, the Advanced Communi

Technology Satellite, resulted in some activity for the facility. I

the Shop and Office Building was converted into an antenna testing 

and was renamed the “Microwave Systems Laboratory.” The new lab

Image 266: This Near-Field Antenna Test Facility in the high bay 

was used to test new sophisticated higher frequency space communications antennas and proof-of-concept antennas for the Advanced 

Communications Technology Satellite.575 The foam pyramids along 

the walls absorbed microwaves. (NASA C–1984–00747)
3

y p

Image 267: Bill Darby, a mechanical engineering technician, stands beneath an i

membrane antenna inside the Near-Field Antenna Test Facility in the high bay. T

6-meter offset-parabolic inflatable membrane reflector and software were developed 

onstrate that a novel ground station composed of an array of relatively small apertu

economically replace a single, expensive tracking ground station. (NASA C–2004–01
y 

consisted of the Near-Field Antenna Test Facility in the high bay a

Far-Field Antenna Test Facility in the former SPC No. 1 control roo

walls of the high bay were covered with row after row of foam pyra

absorb any microwave rays that escaped the antenna.

In this setting researchers could scan a 22- by 22-foot area just a few 

sandths of an inch away from the surface. The ability to study thes

antennas at such a close distance allowed the researchers to extrapo

data to that of an antenna beam’s behavior when connecting to o

communications satellites. The only other alternative for this testing 

require miles of distance between the antenna and probe in diffic

conditions.576 The facility was expanded in 1991 and remains active 

The tunnel, however, remained silent and empty.
3

y p

Endnotes for Chapter 12

550. Virginia P. Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and 

American Propulsion Technology (Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1

p. 262.

551. Bill Harrison, “Address to Apprentice School Graduation,” 8 June 1973

Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

552. “NASA Five Year Planning (FY–1980–84),” January 1979, NASA Glenn 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

553. Calvin Weiss, discussion with Bob Arrighi, NASA Glenn Research Cen

24 October 2008.

554. “The ERDA–NASA Energy Activities Team,” Lewis News (14 May 1976)

555. “New Technology for Transportation,” NASA Spinoff 1977 (1977), p. 9

556. Dawson, Engines and Innovation, p. 214.

557. Donald Boldman, Royce Moore, and Rickey Shyne, Experimental Eva

tion of Two Turning Vane Designs for Fan Drive Corner of 0.1 Scale M

of NASA Lewis’s Proposed Altitude Wind Tunnel (Washington, DC: NA

TP–2646, 1987), p. 2.

558. Harold Friedman, “Altitude Tunnel for STOL Engine Testing,” memo f

record, 15 July 1971, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

559. “AWT Project Management Report: July 1985,” 1 August 1985, NASA G

History Collection, Cleveland, OH. p. 2

560. “AWT Project Management Report: July 1985.”

561. John Abbott, et al., Analytical and Physical Modeling Program for the 

Lewis Research Center’s Altitude Wind Tunnel (Reston, VA, AIAA–85–0

1985), p. 3.

562. “AWT Narrative,” c1985, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, O

563. “Engineering Services” Lewis News (31 December 1981).

564. Abbott, et al., Analytical and Physical Modeling Program. 

565. Boldman et al., Experimental Evaluation.

566. “Altitude Wind Tunnel Rehabilitation,” NASA Glenn History Collection

Cleveland, OH.

567. Wind Tunnel Modeling Seminar (Washington, DC: NASA TM–104978, 

568. Ad Hoc Altitude Wind Tunnel Advisory Subcommittee, “Assessment o

Altitude Wind Tunnel at NASA Lewis Research Center,” 25 February 1

NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

569. Congressional Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment, “NASA 

nautics Budget for FY86,” NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, 

570. Congressional Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment, p. 1. 

571. Congressional Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment, p. 2.

572. Congressional Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment, p. 4.

573. AWT Subcommittee, “Response to CACA on Their Comments Relative 

‘Alternative Facilities’,” NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH
y 

574. John F. Murphy, Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs, to Hon

Dan R. Glickman, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, 

Aviation, and Materials, March 1985, NASA Glenn History Collection, 

Cleveland, OH.

575. Larry Ross, “Year in Review—Space,” Lewis News (December 1982). 

576. “New Test Facility Investigates Large Space Antennas,” Lewis News

(16 December 1983).
Image 268: The Altitude Wind Tunnel/Space Power Chambers as it appeared in Au

The facility began suffering from neglect in the 1990s. In 2004, the NASA Glenn Resea

began taking steps to demolish the facility. (NASA C–2007–02571)
Chapter 1

The Final Days of the Altitude 

Tunnel/Space Power Chamber

(2005–2009)

Death Knell

**The name of the center was changed from the NASA Lewis Research Center to t

John H. Glenn Research Center on 1 March 1999.

After the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT)/Space Power Chambers (SPC) 

spent almost its entire lifetime evolving to stay current, the 1985 canc

of the proposed restoration of the tunnel portended the fate of the 

Maintenance of the facility seems to have ceased in the early 199

exterior shell began rusting, and birds started using the SPC dome for 

The test chamber room became littered with old equipment. The 

control room was steadily cannibalized, and the space was used as a 

room. The tunnel’s primary asset, its 1-inch-thick inner steel shell, ho

remained in fairly good shape. 

In 2003 NASA began examining its assets and infrastructure. The Agen

about to embark on its mission to return to the Moon. The examinat

two facets: a look at NASA’s ability to meet the nation’s aerospace 

needs and a determination of which unused facilities and structure

be demolished. Since the AWT was not being used, it was omitted fr

former focus but was a prime candidate for the latter. In this atmosp

was not surprising when NASA Glenn** decided to demolish the AW

The center had no plans to use the AWT/SPC’s footprint, but an 

study indicated that upkeep costs such as repainting the exterior wou

those of complete demolition. The days of the once-essential AWT/SP

officially numbered.
3

y p

Image 269: Glenn Chief Architect Joe Morris leads a tour of the AWT/SPC in August 2

tunnel had been idle for 30 years, and its vast interior was used to store such items as 

ball, Christmas Club decorations, and a Star Wars R2D2 replica. (NASA G6QH9170)

Wind Tunnels Become Endangered

The construction of wind tunnels at NASA had been declining fo

years. The Unitary Plan Act of 1949 sought to build complementary 

at NACA, military, industry, and university sites. Following this w

Unitary Plan Act tunnels in the mid-1950s, which included the 10- 

Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel at Glenn, NASA’s construction of new 

wind tunnel’s tapered off. Its most recent major tunnel was the N

Transonic Facility, which began operating at the NASA Langley R

Center in 1983. Glenn’s last wind tunnel was the Hypersonic Test 

which became active at its Plum Brook Station in 1971. 

In 2003 the Rand Corporation was hired to analyze NASA’s ability t

national research needs. The study focused on the Agency’s wind 

and propulsion test facilities. It identified 29 of the 31 active NASA 
as unique, and it recommended that they be maintained. Althou

capabilities of some of these facilities were duplicated by other n

and international facilities, the Rand paper claimed that each tunnel 

specialized that schedule backlogs were common.577 Since the AWT w

in service at the time, it was not included in the Rand study.

In April 2004 President George W. Bush announced his Vision for 

Exploration, which would send astronauts first to the Moon and then t

Aeronautics programs at Glenn and throughout NASA were slashed

endured a tenuous period of adjustment. There were employee b

few new hires, budget cutbacks, a massive reorganization, and rumo

the center would close. 

In March 2005 the U.S. House Subcommittee on Space and Aeron

led by Congressman Ken Calvert of California, held hearings on the 

of aeronautics at NASA. The hearings were called to address the 

cutbacks in the fiscal year 2006 aeronautics budget, but they also ex

longer-term decisions such as the future of civil aeronautics resear

development, the effect of workforce reductions on the Agency’s aero

capabilities, and the preservation of wind tunnel and propulsion test fa

Among the subcommittee’s recommendations was that NASA cont

dispose of underutilized facilities. “Some of these facilities are not u

and long-term fixed costs could be reduced through consolidatio

deactivation.”578 This was almost in direct contrast to the Rand stu

years before. 

The Die Is Cast

It was in this atmosphere that the decision was made to remove the 

SPC. In 2004, for the first time in its history, NASA Headquarters al

funds for the demolition of unused facilities and asked its centers to 

projects for consideration. Glenn proposed the removal of nine bu

including the tunnel portion of the AWT/SPC. No testing had bee

ducted inside the facility since the mid-1970s. Although the AW

was unique on the basis of size alone, Glenn felt that the $93,000 

maintenance costs for the facility were exorbitant.579 A 2004 estim

exterior repairs and repainting of the AWT/SPC were over $4.5 millio

the tunnel would have to be repainted every 8 to 10 years.

Glenn considered alternatives other than demolition of the facili

relocation of the facility was unrealistic, and there had been no 

expressed by other government agencies or private companies in t
3

y p

Image 270: Throat section of the AWT as seen on 5 April 2005 during 

a photographic survey prior to the tunnel’s demolition. The stairs and 

telephone were installed for the Project Mercury tests in the late 1950s, 

including the Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia Facility (MASTIF). A bulkhead 

sealed the leg off from the former test section on the other side. (NASA 

C–2007–00377)

of the facility since the mid-1980s. There would not be much nee

new wind tunnel with NASA’s new Vision for Space Exploration a

Rehabilitation of the tunnel for NASA’s use was considered to be a “w

millions of dollars” since the facility was “no longer needed.”580

NASA Headquarters concurred with Glenn’s decision and advoca

proposed demolition.581 Glenn spent the next two years working 

demolition plans and soliciting bids from construction companies. 

services were obtained, and demolition plans were created. Bids 

form the work were solicited, and the $3.5 million contract was awa

the Pinnacle Construction Development Group in 2007. Pinnacle con

with Brandenburg Industrial Services from Chicago to perform the 

demolition.582
Image 271: Exterior of SPC No. 1 in 2005. The inner tunnel shell was in 

relatively good shape, but the exterior weather shell, seen to the left, was 

heavily rusted. (NASA C–2005–01670)

Image 272: Interior of SPC No. 1. Over the years, rain entered the open 

portals in the dome and collected on the chamber floor. This resulted in 

heavy rust damage along the bottom of the otherwise robust chamber. 

(NASA C–2005–01646)

Photo Essay 8: 

Farewell Tour
3

y p

Image 273: This panel and the acoustical tile walls are the only remaining 

of the former AWT control room. The room was used to operate SPC No. 2 

in the 1960s and 1970s, but the control panels and measurement equi

were removed over the years. The space is now used as a storage room. 

C–2007–00398)
Image 274: Interior of the AWT/SPC as it appeared in 2005. The section to the left, 

the MASTIF had been set up 45 years before, was later used to store holiday decor

(viewed from the west). (NASA C–2005–01615)

Image 275: A section of the inner shell was cut away in 2005 to view the steel mes

fiberglass insulation. The ties that affixed the insulation to the mesh were made fro

asbestos-based material. Left in place, the ties posed little danger, but extra safety pr

tions were used when dismantling the tunnel.583 (NASA C–2005–01625)
3

y p

Image 276: View into the former test section. The area had been used to store 

antenna equipment in recent years. (NASA C–2009–00763)

Image 277: This area immediately beyond the test section had become a storage a

recent years. The door at the far end opened into SPC No. 1. (NASA C–2007–0256
Image 278: The Icing Research Tunnel, which sat in the shadow of the AWT for over 

was named an International Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark in 1987 

International. (NASA C–2007–02576)

NASA’s Historic Properties

The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act created the National R

of Historic Places to list buildings, structures, and sites worthy of pr

tion because of their contributions to U.S. history. NASA currently 

National Historic Landmarks and many pieces of property on the N

Register of Historic Places. NASA Glenn has two current National H

Landmarks, the Zero Gravity Facility at Lewis Field and the Space Pro

Facility at Plum Brook Station. A third, the Rocket Engine Test Facili

demolished in 2003 to expand a runway for the adjacent Cleveland H

International Airport. In 2007 Glenn’s 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind 

and the Abe Silverstein 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel were 

mined to be eligible for the National Register because of their contri

to the space shuttle program.584

As part of a centerwide Ohio Historic Inventory report in the mid

Gray & Pape, Inc., conducted a survey of the AWT in May 1996. Al

they neglected to make a determination on its National Register eligibi

report states, “The Altitude Wind Tunnel has been cited as historic

most important facility at [NASA Lewis Research Center].”585 The 
3

y p

significance had been noted 10 years before by Virginia Dawson, w

then writing her definitive history of the center, Engines and Inn

(Ref. 151). Dawson was asked to coauthor a proposal to nominate th

Research Tunnel for an ASME International national landmark. She de

stating, “As far as I am concerned, it is the Altitude Wind Tunnel, 

Icing Research Tunnel that is historically significant.”586

Glenn is now (2009) in the process of creating a historic district for i

campus area. The district was found to have significance because 

associations with the technical advancement of national aeronaut

space programs. In addition, the center’s original buildings were cons

with matching blonde brick facades with rustication and banded w

that exemplify an early 20th century research facility. Buildings adde

were constructed in the same style, giving the main campus area a 

appearance. The AWT’s Shop and Office Building was among those o

structures. Since the tunnel portion of the AWT was slated for dem

prior to the demarcation of the Glenn historic district, it was not id

as contributing to the district.587

Historical Mitigation

In the fall of 1989 NASA signed an agreement with the National Con

of State Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council on H

Preservation that applies to the maintenance of NASA’s National H

Landmarks.588 The National Historic Preservation Act requires 

agencies to identify and protect historic properties; its implem

regulations mandate that formal consultation be completed when

federal agency proposes a program or project that may affect a 

property. The National Historic Preservation Act created the Advisory C

on Historic Preservation, a small federal agency located in Washingto

to oversee regulatory compliance; and it authorized the individua

Historic Preservation Officers to serve as the regulatory authority dur

consultation. The federal agency with the historic facility, the State H

Preservation Officers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Prese

must reach an agreement on an appropriate level of documentat

mitigation, of a facility prior to any construction work.589

There are properties that are eligible for the National Register but 

formally nominated because of political, planning, or other reason

National Historic Preservation Act states that federal agencies must 

the same consultation process for eligible properties as they do wit

properties. Although there was no formal decision on the AWT’s eli
Image 279: The documentation of the AWT included gathering drawings (such as 

section of the test section), conducting oral histories, researching archival collecti

studying technical reports. (1942) (NASA ED–71101)

Glenn decided to treat the facility as eligible for the National Regist

center recognized that the planned demolition of the AWT was an 

effect under the National Historic Preservation Act regulations. Joe 

the Glenn Historic Preservation Officer at the time, initiated cons

with Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer Lisa Adkins and the A

Council on Historic Preservation shortly after Glenn decided to demo

AWT in 2004. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation informed 

that they did not need to be a consulting party and simply requeste

copied on the final agreement. Adkins visited Glenn on 22 August 

meet with Morris and tour the AWT site. 
3

y p

Image 281: On 22 August 2005, Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer Lisa Adkins 

Glenn officials to assess the mitigation required to document the AWT prior to its de

Left to right (background and foreground): Bob Arrighi, Kevin Coleman, Wayn

Les Main, Joe Morris, Steve Gordon, Lisa Adkins, and Bob Houk (NASA C–2007–0256

Image 280: Left to right: Building Manager Wayne Condo and former NASA Glen

Officer Kevin Coleman inside the SPC. Coleman was instrumental in brokering a 

Glenn’s Facilities Division to document the AWT before its demolition. (NASA C–200
Image 282: NASA photographer Pete Tate and Bob Arrighi set up camera equipme

SPC No. 1 in October 2005. The photographic survey of the facility included both st

and 360° panoramic images. (NASA C–2005–01653) 
3

y p

In May 2007 a Memorandum of Agreement was executed between 

and the Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer in accordance w

National Historic Preservation Act. The agreement outlines the mi

measures that Glenn agreed to implement to offset the demolition 

historic property. NASA Glenn undertook a broad effort to both ph

document the facility and compile the history of its construction, re

and contributions to the nation’s aeronautics and space communi

Glenn History Office agreed to perform the mitigation work for G

Facilities Division. Glenn’s actions surpassed the mitigation measur

NASA normally takes when demolishing a historic property. The 

and its support buildings were extensively photographed and filme

to the AWT’s removal. Documents, photographs, blueprints, films, a

histories were gathered. A great deal of research was performed, a

resulting in a website, an interactive computer disk (CD-ROM), and 

describing the tunnel and its history. These items serve as a per

documentary record for the facility, lessons learned insight for interna

use, increased public awareness of NASA Glenn’s contributions, educ

resources, and a collected body of materials for future researchers.

Demolition

The AWT demolition focused on the actual tunnel and its support co

The tunnel’s test section within the former Shop and Office Buildi

Exhauster Building, and the Refrigeration Building were not des

The former Circulating Water Pump House and the Vacuum Pump 

underneath the tunnel were included in the demolition. NASA Glen

decided to fund several options not included in the NASA Headq

package. These included removing the large generators and drive m

the Exhauster Building and renovating the high-bay exterior.590

An Environmental Assessment was conducted to address land use

resources, ambient noise, endangered species, hazardous materials, 

resources, and other concerns. The assessment found that the only sho

concerns were air quality, noise, and land use due to the construction 

The only long-term concern was the removal of a historic property.5

Normal NASA demolition projects consist of three phases: relocation 

utilities, remediation of hazardous materials, and destruction of the str

The relocation of utility lines and pipes began in early 2008. The 

original construction methods and certain aspects of its operational 

posed potential environmental hazards, particularly regarding lead

paint, asbestos ties between the shell layers, asbestos-containing 
siding on the high bay, and possible polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB

internal remediation of these hazards occurred in the fall of 2008. M

the external remediation took place simultaneously with the demoli

December workers on scaffolding began cutting away sections of th

shell and safely removing the asbestos ties and insulation. Afterw

inner shell was segmented with torches and removed with a crane.59

The demolition work was largely completed in May 2009. The las

task, the removal of the drive motor and generators from the Ex

Building, was completed the first week of June. 
33

y p

Photo Essay 9: 

The Giant Comes Down

Image 283: Workers begin ripping off the outer shell. (NASA C−2008−04593)
Image 284: The insulation and steel mesh are removed from between the shel

(NASA C−2008−04591)

Image 285: A construction worker uses a torch to segment the inner shell. (NAS

C−2008−04596)
33

y p

Image 286: In December 2008 a gaping wound appeared in the AWT. (NA

C–2008–04475)

Image 287: Pieces of the shell were placed inside the tunnel for temporary stor

(NASA C−2008−04599)
Image 288: One of the last tasks (1 June 2009) was lifting the drive motor out. 

C–2009–01589)

Image 289: Workers clean up debris at the AWT demolition site. (NASA C–2009–0
33

y p

Image 290: As shown in this 26 February 2009 photograph, the removal of the st

started in the middle of the tunnel and proceeded to the two ends with their larger 

rings. Pieces of the shell were flattened and laid on the muddy ground to support th

cranes. (NASA C–2009–00752)
Epitaph

The AWT/SPC facility was one of the most successful test facilities f

Lewis and the NACA and NASA agencies. Like most successful faci

adapted and modified itself over time to meet the changing needs 

aerospace community. The insightful design and the original investm

such a strong structure resulted in a facility robust enough to withstan

modifications.

The building itself, however, would be of minimal benefit if it were 

the excellence of the skilled staff and the farsighted leadership exem

by Abe Silverstein. The research engineers worked closely with the 

operators and the mechanics on a daily basis to study and improve 

engines for years. With the advent of the space program, the staff a

itself to the new technology and methods of handling it. Silverstein 

one step ahead of the new technology, or at least ready to take it 

moment it became available. This was true of the original turboj

afterburner, supersonic tunnels, liquid hydrogen, the human space pr

and Centaur. The AWT/SPC was involved in each of these projects.

Image 291: A photographic survey of the AWT in April 2007 prior to its demolitio

C–2007–00383)
33

y p

Endnotes for Chapter 13

577. Philip S. Anton, et al., Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities: Sup

ing Analyses to an Assessment of NASA’s Capabilities to Serve National 

Needs (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2004).

578. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, “The Fu

of Aeronautics at NASA,” 109th Congress, 1st Session, Serial No. 109–

16 March 2005. 

579. Leslie Main, “Recordation of the Glenn Research Center Altitude Wind 

Section 106 Check Sheets,” NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland

580. Trudy Kortes, “AWT and PSL Environmental Assessment,” Community 

ness Meeting at NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH (27 Apr

581. NASA Glenn Facilities Division, “Project Requirements Document for 

tion of the Altitude Wind Tunnel Building 7 at Glenn Research Center

No. 9395,” September 10, 2004, NASA Glenn History Collection, Clevela

582. Angel L. Pagan, “NASA GRC Solicitation: Demolition of the Altitude W

Tunnel,” 19 July 2006.

583. Interview with Lesley Main and Bryan Coates, conducted by Bob Arri

13 May 2008, NASA Glenn History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

584. Archaeological Consultants, Inc., “Survey and Evaluation of NASA-Ow

Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shu

Program: John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Cleveland an

Brook Station, Sandusky, OH,” November 2007.

585. Deborah McClane, Gray and Pape, Inc., Ohio Historic Inventory No. 

CUY–4587–15 (Columbus, OH: Ohio Historical Society, May 1996).

586. Virginia P. Dawson to Dr. William Olsen, 21 March 1986, NASA Glenn 

Collection, Cleveland, OH.

587. Main and Coates interview, conducted by Arrighi, 13 May 2008. 

588. Programmatic Agreement Among the National Aeronautics and Space 

istration, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Office

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (1989).

589. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, “National Historic Preserva

Act of 1966, As Amended Through 2000,” http://www.achp.gov/NHPA

(accessed 8 October 2009).

The facility had not been significantly modified since the 1960s, and p

tative maintenance ceased. NASA Glenn chose to invest in the rest

of the Space Power Facility and Space Propulsion Facility at Plum 

Station for the new space initiative. Although there are still people w

that the demolition is a loss, aeronautics research was ebbing and alte

uses of the facility were not feasible. The AWT/SPC is gone, but ironic

a result of the demolition, its story has finally reached a larger audie
590. NASA Glenn Facilities Division, “Project Requirements Document for D

tion of the Altitude Wind Tunnel Building 7 at Glenn Research Center

No. 9395,” 10 September 2004, NASA Glenn History Collection, Clevela

591. Kortes, “AWT and PSL Environmental Assessment.” 

592. Main and Coates interview, conducted by Arrighi, 13 May 2008.

gp

Bibliographic Ess

As the archivist at the NASA Glenn Research Center, I was both famil

and had access to many materials in our History Collection that we

for this book. Documents such as historical correspondence and 

from our Director’s Office, talks given at the National Advisory Comm

Aeronautics’s (NACA’s) triennial inspections, the complete run of ou

newspaper, and oral history transcripts provided material for a sig

portion of the manuscript. 

In addition, my close association with Glenn’s Imaging Technology 

provided me access to the center’s extensive photograph and film coll

Though the original captions were often vague, the dates of photo

and ancillary information from the image often helped piece toget

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) story. Most of the information about th

conducted in the AWT and Space Power Chambers (SPC) was gathere

the massive archive of NACA and NASA technical reports. I was also 

study scores of blueprints on the facility in all of its incarnations. 

I conducted 13 interviews with eight retirees and one with two 

employees. Bill Harrison, Harold Friedman, and Frank Holt were 

describe the lab’s earliest years. Howard Wine and Bob Walker were 

with the 1950s and 1960s testing. Larry Ross and Joe Nieberdin

authoritative on the Centaur period. Les Main and Bryan Coates p

information regarding the demolition of the tunnel. NASA Ames hi

Glenn Bugos, talked to retiree Walter Vincenti about the design of th

for me. 

Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles have written extensively on the 

of NASA Glenn. Their Engines and Innovation and Taming Liquid Hy

go into further detail on some of the topics covered in this book. The 
3

y p

materials used by Dawson and Bowles are archived in the Glenn 

Collection. This material, particularly the oral history transcripts, ha

invaluable in bringing this story to life.

Documents regarding the proposed reinstitution of the wind tunne

1980s were found in the Glenn Records Management System. Les M

Tina Norwood supplied much of the information regarding NASA 

properties, the demolition project, and the Historic Preservation Act. 

of these were documents filed by NASA Glenn with the Ohio H

Preservation Office. 

I gathered oral history transcripts from the NASA Johnson Space 

Oral History Project and the NASA Headquarters History Collection

able to locate additional interviews with Abe Silverstein and correspo

by George Lewis and Charles Lindbergh at NASA Headquarters. Co

all materials used for this publication were added to the Glenn 

Collection.

Numerous secondary resources were consulted for contextual in

tion. The most important were Dawson’s Engines and Innovation, G

Electric’s Five Decades of Progress, Margaret Engel’s Willis Havilan

rier, William Fleming’s History of North American Small Gas Turbines

Hansen’s Engineer in Charge, James Grimwood’s This New Ocean, 

Dorr’s B-29 Superfortress, and T. A. Heppenheimer’s “The Jet Airp

Born.” Other useful resources included NASA’s National Space Scienc

Center, Eugene Emme’s Aeronautics and Astronautics timelines, a

National Museum of the Air Force. 
Bechtel, Frank, 19 July 2004 (Cleveland, OH)

Friedman, Harold, 2 Nov. 2005 (Beachwood, OH)

Harrison, Billy, 9 Aug. 2005, 16 Sept. 2005, 14 Oct. 2005, and 8 Au

(North Olmsted, OH)

Holt, Frank, 9 Aug. 2005 and 9 Sept. 2005 (Cleveland, OH)

Main, Leslie and Bryan Coates, 13 May 2008 (Cleveland, OH)

Nieberding, Joseph, 16 Feb. 2008 (Cleveland, OH)

Ross, Larry, 1 Mar. 2007 (Cleveland, OH)

Walker, Robert, 2 Aug. 2005 (Cleveland, OH)

Wine, Howard, 4 Sept. 2005 (Cleveland, OH)

Interview L

Interview 
3

y p

Website and CD-ROM 

The documentation of the Altitude Wind Tunnel included the gather

of many historical materials. Many of these are available on the webs

http://awt.grc.nasa.gov.

The home page has 360° panoramic photographs of the interior a

exterior of the tunnel.

The Interactive History section launches a Flash multimedia piece t

includes a detailed chronological history, facility layouts with photograp

a documentary video, a collection of related technical reports, and s

eral hundred videos and images. (The Interactive History section is a

available as a computer disk (CD-ROM). It can be obtained by sendin

self-addressed, stamped envelope to the NASA History Division, Ro

CO72, NASA Headquarters, 300 E St. SW, Washington, DC 20546.)

The Facility section of the website describes the physical characteris

and operation of the wind tunnel and altitude chambers in detail. T

pages include descriptions of the refrigeration system, control rooms, a

other components.
The Mitigation section describes the historical mitigation that was 

prior to demolition of the facility and includes related documents 

photographs. 

The Research section has a two-part event timeline, a timeline of A

SPC tests, and Portable Document Format (PDF) files of 21 histo

documents.

The Students section include short narrated animations that describe 

the AWT and SPC worked, brief histories of wind tunnels and vac

chambers, and glossaries.

The Gallery section includes over 1300 images, including captions 

high-resolution versions.

y 

Reference Works, NASA SP-4000:

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology. NASA SP-4001, 

Grimwood, James M., and Barton C. Hacker, with Peter J. Vorzimme

Project Gemini Technology and Operations: A Chronology. NASA SP-

1969. 

Link, Mae Mills. Space Medicine in Project Mercury. NASA SP-4003, 1

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1963: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4004, 1964. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1964: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4005, 1965. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4006, 1966. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4007, 1967. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4008, 1968. 

Ertel, Ivan D., and Mary Louise Morse. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chro

ogy, Volume I, Through November 7, 1962. NASA SP-4009, 1969. 

Morse, Mary Louise, and Jean Kernahan Bays. The Apollo Spacecraft: 

A Chronology, Volume II, November 8, 1962–September 30, 1964. NA

SP-4009, 1973.

Brooks, Courtney G., and Ivan D. Ertel. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chr

ogy, Volume III, October 1, 1964–January 20, 1966. NASA SP-4009, 1

The NASA History Ser
3

y p

Ertel, Ivan D., and Roland W. Newkirk, with Courtney G. Brooks. Th

Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume IV, January 21, 1966–July 1

1974. NASA SP-4009, 1978. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1968: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4010, 1969. 

Newkirk, Roland W., and Ivan D. Ertel, with Courtney G. Brooks. Sk

A Chronology. NASA SP-4011, 1977.

Van Nimmen, Jane, and Leonard C. Bruno, with Robert L. Rosholt. N

Historical Data Book, Vol. I: NASA Resources, 1958–1968. NASA SP-4

1976, rep. ed. 1988. 

Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Vol. II: Programs a

Projects, 1958–1968. NASA SP-4012, 1988. 

Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Vol. III: Programs 

Projects, 1969–1978. NASA SP-4012, 1988. 

Gawdiak, Ihor, with Helen Fedor. NASA Historical Data Book, Vol. IV

NASA Resources, 1969–1978. NASA SP-4012, 1994.

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Vol. V: NASA Launch 

Systems, Space Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Scienc

1979–1988. NASA SP-4012, 1999.

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Vol. VI: NASA Space 

Applications, Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology, Trac

and Data Acquisition/Support Operations, Commercial Programs, an

Resources, 1979–1988. NASA SP-4012, 1999.

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Vol. VIII: NASA Laun

Systems, Space Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Scienc

1979–1988. NASA SP-2009-4012.

There is no NASA SP-4013.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1969: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4014, 1970. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1970: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4015, 1972. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1971: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4016, 1972. 
y 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1972: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4017, 1974. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1973: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4018, 1975.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1974: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4019, 1977. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1975: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4020, 1979. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1976: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4021, 1984.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1977: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4022, 1986.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1978: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4023, 1986.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1979–1984: Chronology of Science, T

ogy, and Policy. NASA SP-4024, 1988.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1985: Chronology of Science, Technol

and Policy. NASA SP-4025, 1990.

Noordung, Hermann. The Problem of Space Travel: The Rocket Motor

Edited by Ernst Stuhlinger and J.D. Hunley, with Jennifer Garland. N

SP-4026, 1995.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1986–1990: A Chronology. NASA SP-

1997.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1991–1995: A Chronology. NASA SP-

4028, 2000.

Orloff, Richard W. Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference. NA

SP-2000-4029, 2000.

Lewis, Marieke and Swanson, Ryan. Aeronautics and Astronautics: 

A Chronology, 1996-2000. NASA SP-2009-4030, 2009. 

Management Histories, NASA SP-4100:

Rosholt, Robert L. An Administrative History of NASA, 1958–1963. N

SP-4101, 1966. 
3

y p

Levine, Arnold S. Managing NASA in the Apollo Era. NASA SP-4102, 

Roland, Alex. Model Research: The National Advisory Committee for 

Aeronautics, 1915–1958. NASA SP-4103, 1985.

Fries, Sylvia D. NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo. NASA SP-4104

Glennan, T. Keith. The Birth of NASA: The Diary of T. Keith Glennan

Edited by J.D. Hunley. NASA SP-4105, 1993.

Seamans, Robert C. Aiming at Targets: The Autobiography of Robert C

Seamans. NASA SP-4106, 1996.

Garber, Stephen J., editor. Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Fort

Years of Human Spaceflight Symposium. NASA SP-2002-4107, 2002.

Mallick, Donald L. with Peter W. Merlin. The Smell of Kerosene: A Tes

Pilot’s Odyssey. NASA SP-4108, 2003.

Iliff, Kenneth W. and Curtis L. Peebles. From Runway to Orbit: Reflec

of a NASA Engineer. NASA SP-2004-4109, 2004.

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People, Volume 1. NASA SP-2005-4110, 2

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: Creating a Rocket Industry, Volu

NASA SP-2006-4110, 2006.

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: Hot Days of the Cold War, Volum

NASA SP–2009–4110, 2009.

Laufer, Alexander, Todd Post, and Edward Hoffman. Shared Voyage: 

ing and Unlearning from Remarkable Projects. NASA SP-2005-4111, 

Dawson, Virginia P., and Mark D. Bowles. Realizing the Dream of Fl

Biographical Essays in Honor of the Centennial of Flight, 1903–2003

NASA SP-2005-4112, 2005.

Mudgway, Douglas J. William H. Pickering: America’s Deep Space Pi

NASA SP-2008-4113. 

Project Histories, NASA SP-4200:

Swenson, Loyd S., Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexande

This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury. NASA SP-4201, 1966; 

reprinted 1999.

Green, Constance McLaughlin, and Milton Lomask. Vanguard: A His

NASA SP-4202, 1970; rep. ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971. 
y 

Hacker, Barton C., and James M. Grimwood. On Shoulders of Titans: 

History of Project Gemini. NASA SP-4203, 1977, reprinted 2002.

Benson, Charles D., and William Barnaby Faherty. Moonport: A Histo

Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations. NASA SP-4204, 1978. 

Brooks, Courtney G., James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. 

Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. NASA SP

1979. 

Bilstein, Roger E. Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apo

Saturn Launch Vehicles. NASA SP-4206, 1980 and 1996.

There is no NASA SP-4207.

Compton, W. David, and Charles D. Benson. Living and Working in 

A History of Skylab. NASA SP-4208, 1983.

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. The Partnership: A H

of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. NASA SP-4209, 1978. 

Hall, R. Cargill. Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger. NASA SP-

1977.

Newell, Homer E. Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Scien

NASA SP-4211, 1980. 

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. On Mars: Exploratio

the Red Planet, 1958–1978. NASA SP-4212, 1984. 

Pitts, John A. The Human Factor: Biomedicine in the Manned Space 

Program to 1980. NASA SP-4213, 1985.

Compton, W. David. Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Ap

Lunar Exploration Missions. NASA SP-4214, 1989.

Naugle, John E. First Among Equals: The Selection of NASA Space Sci

Experiments. NASA SP-4215, 1991. 

Wallace, Lane E. Airborne Trailblazer: Two Decades with NASA Lang

737 Flying Laboratory. NASA SP-4216, 1994.

Butrica, Andrew J., ed. Beyond the Ionosphere: Fifty Years of Satellite 

Communications. NASA SP-4217, 1997.

Butrica, Andrew J. To See the Unseen: A History of Planetary Radar 

Astronomy. NASA SP-4218, 1996.
3

y p

Mack, Pamela E., ed. From Engineering Science to Big Science: The N

and NASA Collier Trophy Research Project Winners. NASA SP-4219, 

Reed, R. Dale. Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story. NASA SP-4220

1998.

Heppenheimer, T. A. The Space Shuttle Decision: NASA’s Search for a 

Reusable Space Vehicle. NASA SP-4221, 1999.

Hunley, J. D., ed. Toward Mach 2: The Douglas D-558 Program. NA

SP-4222, 1999.

Swanson, Glen E., ed. “Before This Decade is Out . . .” Personal 

Reflections on the Apollo Program. NASA SP-4223, 1999.

Tomayko, James E. Computers Take Flight: A History of NASA’s Pione

Digital Fly-By-Wire Project. NASA SP-4224, 2000.

Morgan, Clay. Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia Share History

Highest Stage. NASA SP-2001-4225.

Leary, William M. We Freeze to Please: A History of NASA’s Icing Rese

Tunnel and the Quest for Safety. NASA SP-2002-4226, 2002.

Mudgway, Douglas J. Uplink-Downlink: A History of the Deep Space 

Network, 1957–1997. NASA SP-2001-4227.

Dawson, Virginia P., and Mark D. Bowles. Taming Liquid Hydrogen: 

Centaur Upper Stage Rocket, 1958–2002. NASA SP-2004-4230.

Meltzer, Michael. Mission to Jupiter: A History of the Galileo Project. N

SP-2007-4231.

Heppenheimer, T. A. Facing the Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersoni

NASA SP-2007-4232.

Tsiao, Sunny. “Read You Loud and Clear!” The Story of NASA’s Spacefl

Tracking and Data Network. NASA SP-2007-4233.

Center Histories, NASA SP-4300:

Rosenthal, Alfred. Venture into Space: Early Years of Goddard Space 

Center. NASA SP-4301, 1985. 

Hartman, Edwin, P. Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Resea

Center, 1940–1965. NASA SP-4302, 1970. 
y 

Hallion, Richard P. On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden, 1946–

NASA SP-4303, 1984. 

Muenger, Elizabeth A. Searching the Horizon: A History of Ames Rese

Center, 1940–1976. NASA SP-4304, 1985. 

Hansen, James R. Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeron

cal Laboratory, 1917–1958. NASA SP-4305, 1987. 

Dawson, Virginia P. Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and 

American Propulsion Technology. NASA SP-4306, 1991.

Dethloff, Henry C. “Suddenly Tomorrow Came . . .”: A History of the 

Johnson Space Center, 1957–1990. NASA SP-4307, 1993. 

Hansen, James R. Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Cen

from Sputnik to Apollo. NASA SP-4308, 1995.

Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: An Illustrated History of the Dry

Flight Research Center. NASA SP-4309, 1996.

Herring, Mack R. Way Station to Space: A History of the John C. Stenn

Space Center. NASA SP-4310, 1997.

Wallace, Harold D., Jr. Wallops Station and the Creation of an Ameri

Space Program. NASA SP-4311, 1997.

Wallace, Lane E. Dreams, Hopes, Realities. NASA’s Goddard Space Fli

Center: The First Forty Years. NASA SP-4312, 1999.

Dunar, Andrew J., and Stephen P. Waring. Power to Explore: A Histor

Marshall Space Flight Center, 1960–1990. NASA SP-4313, 1999.

Bugos, Glenn E. Atmosphere of Freedom: Sixty Years at the NASA Am

Research Center. NASA SP-2000-4314, 2000.

There is no NASA SP-4315.

Schultz, James. Crafting Flight: Aircraft Pioneers and the Contributio

the Men and Women of NASA Langley Research Center. NASA SP-200

4316, 2003.

Bowles, Mark D. Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear Program at Plum B

Station, 1955–2005. NASA SP-2006-4317.

Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: An Illustrated History of the Dry

Flight Research Center. NASA SP-4318, 2007. Revised version of SP-4
3

y p

General Histories, NASA SP-4400:

Corliss, William R. NASA Sounding Rockets, 1958–1968: A Historical 

Summary. NASA SP-4401, 1971. 

Wells, Helen T., Susan H. Whiteley, and Carrie Karegeannes. Origins 

NASA Names. NASA SP-4402, 1976. 

Anderson, Frank W., Jr. Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and 

NASA, 1915–1980. NASA SP-4403, 1981. 

Sloop, John L. Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945–1959. NA

SP-4404, 1978. 

Roland, Alex. A Spacefaring People: Perspectives on Early Spaceflight

NASA SP-4405, 1985. 

Bilstein, Roger E. Orders of Magnitude: A History of the NACA and NA

1915–1990. NASA SP-4406, 1989. 

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Linda J. Lear, Jannelle Warren Findley, R

Williamson, and Dwayne A. Day. Exploring the Unknown: Selected 

Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume I, 

Organizing for Exploration. NASA SP-4407, 1995.

Logsdon, John M., ed, with Dwayne A. Day, and Roger D. Launius. 

Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S

Civil Space Program, Volume II, External Relationships. NASA SP-440

1996.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Roger D. Launius, David H. Onkst, and 

Stephen J. Garber. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in th

History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume III, Using Space. NAS

SP-4407,1998.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Ray A. Williamson, Roger D. Launius, Ru

J. Acker, Stephen J. Garber, and Jonathan L. Friedman. Exploring the 

Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space 

Program, Volume IV, Accessing Space. NASA SP-4407, 1999.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Amy Paige Snyder, Roger D. Launius, St

J. Garber, and Regan Anne Newport. Exploring the Unknown: Selecte

Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume V, 

Exploring the Cosmos. NASA SP-4407, 2001.
y 

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Stephen J. Garber, Roger D. Launius, an

Ray A. Williamson. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in th

History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume VI: Space and Earth 

Science. NASA SP-2004-4407, 2004.

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Roger D. Launius. Exploring the Unknow

Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, 

Volume VII: Human Spaceflight: Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apol

NASA SP-2008-4407, 2008.

Siddiqi, Asif A. Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space R

1945–1974. NASA SP-2000-4408, 2000.

Hansen, James R., ed. The Wind and Beyond: Journey into the Histor

Aerodynamics in America, Volume 1, The Ascent of the Airplane. NA

SP-2003-4409, 2003.

Hansen, James R., ed. The Wind and Beyond: Journey into the Histor

Aerodynamics in America, Volume 2, Reinventing the Airplane. NAS

SP-2007-4409, 2007.

Hogan, Thor. Mars Wars: The Rise and Fall of the Space Exploration 

Initiative. NASA SP-2007-4410, 2007.

Monographs in Aerospace History (SP-4500 Series):

Launius, Roger D., and Aaron K. Gillette, compilers. Toward a Histor

the Space Shuttle: An Annotated Bibliography. Monograph in Aerosp

History, No. 1, 1992.

Launius, Roger D., and J. D. Hunley, compilers. An Annotated Biblio

of the Apollo Program. Monograph in Aerospace History No. 2, 1994

Launius, Roger D. Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis. Monograph in 

Aerospace History, No. 3, 1994.

Hansen, James R. Enchanted Rendezvous: John C. Houbolt and the G

of the Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous Concept. Monograph in Aerospace Hi

No. 4, 1995.

Gorn, Michael H. Hugh L. Dryden’s Career in Aviation and Space. M

graph in Aerospace History, No. 5, 1996.

Powers, Sheryll Goecke. Women in Flight Research at NASA Dryden 

Research Center from 1946 to 1995. Monograph in Aerospace Histor

No. 6, 1997.
3

y p

Portree, David S. F., and Robert C. Trevino. Walking to Olympus: An 

Chronology. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 7, 1997.

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Legislative Origins of the National Aero

nautics and Space Act of 1958: Proceedings of an Oral History Works

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 8, 1998. 

Rumerman, Judy A., compiler. U.S. Human Spaceflight, A Record of 

Achievement 1961–1998. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 9, 1

Portree, David S. F. NASA’s Origins and the Dawn of the Space Age. 

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 10, 1998.

Logsdon, John M. Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Coo

tion in the Space Station. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 11, 1

Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey in Aeronautical Research: A Career at NA

Langley Research Center. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 12, 1

Braslow, Albert L. A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control w

Emphasis on Flight Research. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 

1999.

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Managing the Moon Program: Lessons 

Learned From Apollo. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 14, 1999

Perminov, V. G. The Difficult Road to Mars: A Brief History of Mars E

ration in the Soviet Union. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 15, 

Tucker, Tom. Touchdown: The Development of Propulsion Controlled 

Aircraft at NASA Dryden. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 16, 

Maisel, Martin, Demo J. Giulanetti, and Daniel C. Dugan. The History 

XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft: From Concept to Flight. Monograp

in Aerospace History, No. 17, 2000. NASA SP-2000-4517.

Jenkins, Dennis R. Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History 

the X-15 Research Airplane. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 1

2000. NASA SP-2000-4518.

Chambers, Joseph R. Partners in Freedom: Contributions of the Lang

Research Center to U.S. Military Aircraft of the 1990s. Monograph in 

Aerospace History, No. 19, 2000. NASA SP-2000-4519.

Waltman, Gene L. Black Magic and Gremlins: Analog Flight Simulati

NASA’s Flight Research Center. Monograph in Aerospace History, No

2000. NASA SP-2000-4520.
y 

Portree, David S. F. Humans to Mars: Fifty Years of Mission Planning

1950–2000. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 21, 2001. NASA

SP-2001-4521.

Thompson, Milton O., with J. D. Hunley. Flight Research: Problems 

Encountered and What They Should Teach Us. Monograph in Aerosp

History, No. 22, 2001. NASA SP-2001-4522.

Tucker, Tom. The Eclipse Project. Monograph in Aerospace History, 

No. 23, 2001. NASA SP-2001-4523.

Siddiqi, Asif A. Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology of Deep Space an

Planetary Probes 1958–2000. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 

2002. NASA SP-2002-4524.

Merlin, Peter W. Mach 3+: NASA/USAF YF-12 Flight Research, 1969–1

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 25, 2001. NASA SP-2001-4525.

Anderson, Seth B. Memoirs of an Aeronautical Engineer: Flight Tests 

Ames Research Center: 1940–1970. Monograph in Aerospace History

No. 26, 2002. NASA SP-2002-4526.

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Bibliography Com

orating the One-Hundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight o

December 17, 1903. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 27, 2002. 

NASA SP-2002-4527.

Chambers, Joseph R. Concept to Reality: Contributions of the NASA 

Langley Research Center to U.S. Civil Aircraft of the 1990s. Monograp

Aerospace History, No. 29, 2003. NASA SP-2003-4529.

Peebles, Curtis, editor. The Spoken Word: Recollections of Dryden His

The Early Years. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 30, 2003. NAS

SP-2003-4530.

Jenkins, Dennis R., Tony Landis, and Jay Miller. American X-Vehicles

Inventory—X-1 to X-50. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 31, 20

NASA SP-2003-4531.

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Chronology Comm

rating the One-Hundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight on 

December 17, 1903. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 32, 2003. 

SP-2003-4532.
3

y p

Bowles, Mark D., and Robert S. Arrighi. NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The 

Brook Research Reactor. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 33, 20

NASA SP-2004-4533.

Wallace, Lane and Christian Gelzer. Nose Up: High Angle-of-Attack a

Thrust Vectoring Research at NASA Dryden, 1979–2001. Monograph 

Aerospace History No. 34, 2009. NASA SP–2009–4534.

Matranga, Gene J., C. Wayne Ottinger, Calvin R. Jarvis, and D. Christi

Gelzer. Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly: The Lunar Landing Res

Vehicle. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 35, 2006. NASA SP-20

4535.

McCurdy, Howard E. Low Cost Innovation in Spaceflight: The History 

the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) Mission. Monograph in 

Aerospace History, No. 36, 2005. NASA SP-2005-4536.

Seamans, Robert C., Jr. Project Apollo: The Tough Decisions. Monogra

Aerospace History, No. 37, 2005. NASA SP-2005-4537.

Lambright, W. Henry. NASA and the Environment: The Case of Ozone 

Depletion. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 38, 2005. NASA 

SP-2005-4538.

Chambers, Joseph R. Innovation in Flight: Research of the NASA Lang

Research Center on Revolutionary Advanced Concepts for Aeronautic

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 39, 2005. NASA SP-2005-4539. 

Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey Into Space Research: Continuation of a C

at NASA Langley Research Center. Monograph in Aerospace History, 

No. 40, 2005. NASA SP-2005-4540. 

Rumerman, Judy A., Chris Gamble, and Gabriel Okolski, compilers. 

Human Spaceflight: A Record of Achievement, 1961–2006. Monograp

Aerospace History No. 41, 2007. NASA SP-2007-4541.

Dick, Steven J.; Garber, Stephen J.; and Odom, Jane H. Research in N

History. Monograph in Aerospace History No. 43, 2009. NASA SP-200

4543.

Merlin, Peter W. Ikhana: Unmanned Aircraft System Western States F

Missions. Monograph in Aerospace History No. 44. NASA SP-2009-45

Fisher, Steven J., ed., with Shamin A. Rahman. Remembering the Gia

Apollo Rocket Propulsion Development. Monograph in Aerospace His

No. 45. NASA SP–2009–4545.
y 

Electronic Media (SP-4600 Series)

Remembering Apollo 11: The 30th Anniversary Data Archive CD-ROM

NASA SP-4601, 1999. 

Remembering Apollo 11: The 35th Anniversary Data Archive CD-ROM

NASA SP-2004-4601, 2004. This is an update of the 1999 edition.

The Mission Transcript Collection: U.S. Human Spaceflight Missions f

Mercury Redstone 3 to Apollo 17. SP-2000-4602, 2001. 

Shuttle-Mir: the United States and Russia Share History’s Highest Stag

NASA SP-2001-4603, 2002. 

U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission presents Born of Dreams ~ Insp

by Freedom. NASA SP-2004-4604, 2004.

Of Ashes and Atoms: A Documentary on the NASA Plum Brook React

Facility. NASA SP-2005-4605.

Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket Interactive 

CD-ROM. NASA SP-2004-4606, 2004.

Fueling Space Exploration: The History of NASA’s Rocket Engine Test 

Facility DVD. NASA SP-2005-4607.

Altitude Wind Tunnel at NASA Glenn Research Center: An Interactiv

History CD-ROM. NASA SP-2008-4608.

Conference Proceedings (SP-4700 Series)

Dick, Steven J., and Keith Cowing, ed. Risk and Exploration: Earth, S

and the Stars. NASA SP-2005-4701.

Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Critical Issues in the History of 

Spaceflight. NASA SP-2006-4702.

Dick, Steven J., ed. Remembering the Space Age: Proceedings of the 5

Anniversary Conference. NASA SP-2008-4703.

Societal Impact (SP-4800 Series)

Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Societal Impact of Spaceflight. 

SP-2007-4801.

Dick, Steven J. ed., with Mark L. Lupisella. Cosmos and Culture: Cult

Evolution in a Cosmic Context. NASA SP–2009–4802.

f 

List of Imag

Preface

1. Exterior of Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) in 2005 (NASA C–2005–0

p. x. 

2. Mechanic working on engine in AWT test section (NASA C–1949–

p. xiii.

3. Abe Silverstein in the AWT (NASA C–1946–14511), p. xv.

Chapter 1

4. Hindenburg airship crossing the Atlantic in 1936 (National Archiv

LC–USZ62–70162), p. 2.

5. George Lewis at desk (NASA EL–1997–00143), p. 4.

6. Diagram of Ludwig Prandtl’s wind tunnel, which was built in 191

(NACA TN 66, Fig. 2), p. 6.

7. Propeller Research Tunnel at Langley Field in 1927 (NASA EL–01

p. 8.

8. Charles Lindbergh, Vice Admiral Arthur Cook, Charles Abbot, an

Joseph Ames (NASA GPN–2002–000024), p. 11. 

9. General Henry Arnold greets George Lewis (NASA C–1944–07495)

10. Drawing of full-scale aircraft in AWT test section (NASA C–1944–

p. 13.

11. Early drawing of AWT (NASA C–1944–05308), p. 14.

12. Model of new National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NA

engine laboratory (NASA C–1942–01009), p 15.

13. Aerial photo of air races and grandstands in 1938 (NASA C–1991

01875), p. 16.

Chapter 2

14. Construction of AWT shell in 1943 (NASA C–2008–00817), p. 20.

15. Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) design team working 

desks at NACA Langley in 1941 (NASA C–2007–02563), p. 22.
3

y p

16. Interior shell during construction of AWT (NASA C–2007–02314), 

17. Drawing of heat exchanger used in AWT and Icing Tunnel (NASA 

C–1956–41911), p. 25.

18. Carrier Corporation compressors inside Refrigeration Building (N

C–1944–7456), p. 26. 

19. AERL’s original employees on steps of the “farm house” in 1941 

C–2006–01209), p. 27.

20. Dr. Edward Raymond Sharp (NASA C–1943–01534), p. 28.

21. Construction of the AWT’s Shop and Office Building (NASA C–20

02306), p. 29.

22. George Lewis and Ray Sharp address early AERL staff (NASA C–1

08287), p. 30.

23. Admiral Erwin King, John Victory, and Ray Sharp (NASA C–1945–

p. 31.

24. Frank Holt on AERL tarmac (NASA C–1943–01331), p. 32.

25. Wooden model of Bell YP-59A (NASA C–1945–11554), p. 33.

26. Assembly of AWT drive fan in AERL hangar (NASA C–1943–01849

27. Memphis Belle visits AERL hangar (NASA C–1943–1867), p. 34. 

Photo Essay 1: The Altitude Wind Tunnel Stands Up

28. Erection of AWT corner rings (NASA C–1944–06707), p. 35.

29. Construction of Shop and Office Building in 1942 (NASA C–2

02294), p. 36.

30. Construction of AWT nears completion (NASA C–1943–01521

31. Interior of Refrigeration Building during construction (NASA 

02318), p. 37.

32. Workers install drive motor in Exhauster Building (NASA C–1

01962), p. 37.

33. Construction of viewing platform for AWT (NASA C–2007–02

p. 38.

34. Interior of AWT shop during construction (NASA C–1943–02186

35. Interior of AWT shell during construction (NASA C–1944–04710)

36. Lid for the AWT test section (NASA C–1950–26294), p. 40.

37. Abe Silverstein and Smith DeFrance (NASA C–2009–02181), p. 41

38. Long-time AWT manager, Alfred Young (NASA C–2008–00629), p

39. Aerial view of the newly completed AWT (NASA C–1945–13045), 

Chapter 3

40. Bell YP-59A Airacomet in the AWT test section (NASA C–1944–04

p. 48.

41. General Henry Arnold addressing AERL staff (NASA C–1944–07493)

42. Boeing B29 on the AERL tarmac (NASA C–1944–05883), p. 51.

43. Colonel Edwin Page, William Durand, Orville Wright, and Addiso

Rothrock (NASA C–1943–01562), p. 53.
f 

44. Henry Reid meeting with Carlton Kemper and Elton Miller in 192

(NASA EL–1997–00141), p. 54.

45. Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory at the AERL (NASA C–1945–12097)

46. Ben Pinkel describing turbojets during media tour of AERL (NAS

C–1945–10634), p. 57.

47. Bell YP-59A, first test in AWT (NASA C–1944–04825), p. 58.

48. Bell YP-59A viewed from above test section (NASA C–1944–04314

49. General Electric (GE) I-16 jet engines on Bell YP-59A (NASA C–1

10686), p. 60.

50. Mechanics in class on jet propulsion (NASA C–1945–13464), p. 6

51. AWT seen from the exterior during night operations (NASA C–19

09513), p. 62.

52. Staff at work in AERL’s Fabrication Shop (NASA C–1945–10396), 

53. AWT air being ducted to Lockheed YP-80A’s GE I-40 engine inle

(NASA C–1945–09446), p. 65.

54. B-29 engine installed in the AWT (NASA C–1944–05554), p. 66.

55. Closeup of Wright R-3350 engine (NASA C–1944–04488), p. 67.

56. B-29 Superfortress in the AERL hangar (NASA C–1945–10587), p. 

57. Lockheed YP-80A on display in AWP shop (NASA C–1945–10600

58. Lockheed YP-80A in AWT test section (NASA C–1945–09576), p. 

Chapter 4

59. Researcher examining stator blades on Westinghouse 24C axial-fl

engine (NASA C–1950–26086), p. 76.

60. Drawings of centrifugal compressor, axial-flow, and ducted-fan je

engines (NASA C–1946–15565, C–1945–13707, and C–1946–15563

61. General Henry Arnold and NACA members touring AWT (NASA 

07499), p. 79.

62. Westinghouse 19B turbojet engine in AWT test section (NASA C–

06735), p. 80.

63. Westinghouse 19XB in AWT test section (NASA C–1944–07564), p

64. McDonnell Phantom XFD-1 in flight (U.S. Navy/Dept. of Defense

65. Douglas D-558-1 in flight (NASA E–713), p. 83.

66. GE TG-180 in AWT test section (NASA C–1945–08687), p. 84.

67. Tunnel operators at controls in AWT control room (NASA C–1945

p. 85.

68. NACA inlet duct being lowered into AWT test section (NASA C–1

28464), p. 86.

69. Republic F-94 interceptor firing afterburner (National Archives), p

70. Technician working on afterburner in AWT (NASA C–1946–14938

71. Early variable-area nozzle in AWT (NASA C–1945–8708), p. 90.

72. Douglas XTB2D-1 Skypirate in AWT (NASA C–1944–08060), p. 91
3

y p

73. Lockheed XR-60 installed in AWT test section (NASA C-1945–1359

74. Republic YP-47M in AWT test section (NASA C–1945–13445), p. 

75. George Lewis, Abe Silverstein, Ray Sharp, Carlton Kemper, and J

Hall (NASA C–1944–04955), p. 95.

Chapter 5

76. Men on top of AWT shell (NASA C–1945–10525), p. 98.

77. Aerial view of Robert Boone residence in the 1940s (NASA C–1

 03926), p. 100.

78. Group photograph in front of AWT (NASA C–1945–11156), p. 1

79. Construction of Small Supersonic Tunnel (NASA C–1945–10764), p

80. Drawing of Small Supersonic Tunnels building (NASA C–1946–

 p. 102.

81. Drawing of ramjet with performance statistics (NASA C–1946–1

 p. 104.

82. Installation of 20-inch NACA ramjet in AWT test section (NASA 

 C–1946–14733), p. 105.

83. Technician with 16-inch ramjet in AWT (NASA C–1949–23409), 

84. Launch of Talos missile from USS Galveston cruiser (U.S. Navy 

 98846), p. 107. 

Photo Essay 2: How Engines Were Tested in the Altitude Wind Tu

85. Diagram of AWT and its support buildings (NASA CD–07–

 p. 108.

86. Aerial view of AWT and support buildings (NASA C–1944–

 p. 109.

87. AWT researchers in an office (NASA C–1956–43538), p. 11

88. AWT shop with several engines (NASA C–1947–18019), p. 

89. A researcher meets with mechanics (NASA C–1956–43540)

90. An engine being lowered by crane into AWT test section (

 C–1951–28463), p. 111.

91. Mechanic installs instrumentation on engine in AWT test s

 (NASA C–1946–14244), p. 112.

92. Harold Friedman examining scales below AWT test section 

 (NASA C–1945–09635), p. 112.

93. Filming of test through portal in AWT test section clamshe

 (NASA C–1951–28499), p. 113.

94. Operator starting test from AWT control room (NASA C–19

 10346), p. 113.

95. Cooling equipment inside Refrigeration Building (NASA C–

 06714), p. 114.

96. Worthington exhauster in Exhauster Building (NASA C–19

 06710), p. 114.
f 

97. AWT drive fan illuminated in tunnel (NASA C-1944-03993)

98. AWT drive motor located in Exhauster Building (NASA C–

18325), p. 115.

99. Turning vanes in southeast corner of AWT (NASA C–1944–

 p. 116.

100. Cooling coils located in western leg of AWT (NASA C–195

25465), p. 116.

101. Makeup air pipe upstream from AWT test section (NASA C

27823), p. 117.

102. Aerial view of tunnel contraction (NASA C–1979–04019), p

103. Turboprop engine in AWT test section (NASA C–1953–332

p. 118.

104. Air scoop downstream from AWT test section (NASA C–19

08709), p. 118.

105. Researcher at the engine panel in AWT control room (NAS

C–1946–14241), p. 119.

106. Aftermath of engine failure in AWT test section (NASA C–

11214), p. 119.

107. Female analysts (“Computers”) at manometer boards (NAS

C–1944–04238), p. 120.

108. Cover of NACA Research Memorandum (NACA RM No. E7

p. 121.

109. Mechanic installing instrumentation on 20-inch ramjet in AWT 

section (NASA C–1946–14246), p. 123.

110. Researchers examining drawings in office in Shop and Office Bu

(NASA C–1956–43539), p. 124.

111. AWT researcher William A. Fleming (NASA C–1958–48622), p. 

112. Camera being set up to film Westinghouse 24C engine (NASA 

27657), p. 126.

113. Icing test setup in AWT (NASA C–1947–18308), p. 127.

114. Vought Cutlass on tarmac at NACA Langley Aeronautical Labor

1948 (NASA EL–2000–00267), p. 128.

115. Mechanic examining compressor blades on GE TG-190 engine 

C–1949–22850), p. 129.

116. Installation of GE TG-190 engine in AWT test section (NASA C–

22168), p. 130.

117. GE TG-100 turboprop (NASA C–1946–17387), p. 131.

118. Walter Olsen (NASA C–1956–41087), p. 132.

119. Armstrong-Siddeley Python turboprop engine (NASA C–1949–2

p. 133.

120. Abe Silverstein and AWT researcher Martin Saari (NASA C–1958

p. 135.
3

y p

Chapter 6

121. Westinghouse J40 turbojet engine in AWT (NASA C–1951–28738)

122. F-86A Sabre jet fighter in 1955 (NASA E-3996), p. 142.

123. Westinghouse 24C engine after failure in AWT (NASA C–1950–2

p. 143.

124. Chart indicating increase in turbojet performance (NASA C–195

39607), p. 144. 

Photo Essay 3: The Altitude Wind Tunnel Gets a Boost

125. New Ingersoll-Rand compressors (NASA C–1953–31751), 

126. New fan blades being set up in AWT shop (NASA C–1951

p. 146.

127. Installation of new fan hub in AWT (NASA C–1951–28286)

128. Delivery of new exhaust gas cooler (NASA C–1951–28229)

129. Interior of new pump house in 1951 (NASA C–2007–02591)

130. Mechanics work on Westinghouse J40 engine in AWT shop (NA

C–1951–28841), p. 148.

131. Allison J71 engine in AWT test section with lid raised (NASA C–

39623), p. 149.

132. Rolls-Royce Avon RA14 engine in AWT test section (NASA C–19

42786), p. 150.

133. Allison J71 jet engine being prepared for tests in AWT (NASA C

30101), p. 151.

134. Mechanic installing Allison T-38 turboprop in AWT (NASA C–19

33216), p. 151.

135. Apprentice being trained on altitude exhaust system (NASA C–

34953), p. 152.

136. Graduating apprentices from 1955 class (NASA C–1955–38393)

137. NASA B-52 in flight with X-15 under its wing (NASA E–88–0180

p. 155.

138. Damaged Pratt & Whitney J57 engine (NASA C–1954–37208), p

139. Abe Silverstein meets with military officials at NACA Lewis Flig

Propulsion Laboratory (NASA C–1955–40498), p. 157.

140. Drawing of liquid-hydrogen system on B-57 (NASA C–1957–44

p. 158.

141. Wright J65 engine in AWT test section (NASA C–1955–38288), p

142. NASA Lewis’ B-57 on tarmac (NASA C–1958–47236), p. 160.

143. NACA Special Subcommittee on Aircraft Noise in AWT test sect

(NASA C–1957–44377), p. 161.

144. Composite of different noise-reduction nozzles on Pratt & Whi

J57 engine (NASA C–1957–44564, C–1957–44819, C–1957–4471

C–1957–44227, C–1957–44737, and C–1957–44278), p. 162.

145. J57 engine in AWT with ejector installed (NASA C–1957–44771)
f 

146. B-47 bomber with noise-reducing ejector on engine (NASA C–

46143), p. 163.

147. Atlantic Research grain Arcite rocket firing in AWT (NASA C–19

49412), p. 164.

148. Solid rocket after failure in AWT (NASA C–1958–48161), p. 165

Chapter 7

149. Mercury capsule installed in AWT (NASA C–1960–53287), p. 16

150. Name on Lewis hangar being changed from NACA to NASA (N

C–1958–48854), p. 170.

151. Abe Silverstein, Hugh Dryden, James Webb, and Robert Seama

1961 (NASA GPN–2002–000153), p. 171.

152. Harold Gold and Merritt Preston on television (NASA C–2008–0

p. 172.

153. Construction of Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia Facility (MASTIF) 

C–1959–50266), p. 173.

154. Construction of Big Joe capsule in AWT shop (NASA C–1959–5

p. 174.

155. Operation of MASTIF for Big Joe (NASA C–1959–51728), p. 175

156. Big Joe capsule mounted on Atlas booster before launch in 195

(NASA GPN–2002–000045), p. 177.

157. Loading of Big Joe on transport aircraft (NASA C–1959–50892), 

158. Lewis team at Cape Canaveral for Big Joe launch in 1959 (NAS

C–2009–02180), p. 179.

159. Pilot in MASTIF inside AWT (NASA C–1959–51723), p. 182. 

Photo Essay 4: The Mercury 7 Come to Town

160. Robert Miller, John Glenn, and James Useller (NASA C–19

52744), p. 185.

161. Alan Sheppard and Joe Algranti view the MASTIF (NASA 

C–1960–52706), p. 186.

162. John Glenn operating the MASTIF (NASA C–1960–52741), 

163. Deke Slayton and Scott Carpenter in AWT (NASA C–1960

52807), p. 187.

164. Gordon Cooper in the MASTIF (NASA C–1960–52972), p. 

165. Gus Grissom and Wally Schirra next to the MASTIF (NASA 

C–1960–52465 and C–1960–52818), p. 188.

166. Female pilot Jerrie Cobb operating the MASTIF (NASA C–

53087), p. 188.

167. Scott Carpenter views mockup Mercury capsule test setup in AW

(NASA C–1960–52808), p. 190.

168. Researcher prepares mockup for retrorocket test (NASA C–1960

52778), p. 190.
3

y p

169. Mechanics view Mercury retrorockets in AWT (NASA C–1960–5

p. 191.

170. Technicians install Mercury capsule in AWT (NASA C–1960–532

p. 192.

171. Alan Sheppard on deck of USS Champlain following space flig

(NASA S61–02727), p. 193.

Chapter 8

172. Installation of bulkhead into AWT (NASA C–1961–58551), p. 19

173. Original design of Space Power Chamber (SPC) No. 1 (NASA G

Orbit, 12 Jan. 1962), p. 199.

174. Satellite being installed in new SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1962–6171

p. 199.

175. Diagram of SPC facility (NASA Glenn), p. 200.

176. Exterior of mercury evaporating experiment in SPC shop (NAS

C–1961–57517), p. 201.

177. Interior of mercury evaporating experiment in SPC shop (NASA 

C–1961–58584), p. 201.

178. Workers removing outer shell of AWT (NASA C–1961–58124), p

179. Workers removing turning vanes in SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1961–

p. 204.

180. Construction of new SPC control room (NASA C–1961–58575), 

Photo Essay 5: The Altitude Wind Tunnel Is Transformed into the 

Power Chambers

181. Crane peels away AWT’s outer shell (NASA C–1961–5739

p. 206.

182. Workers creating seal inside AWT (NASA C–1961–58579), 

183. Door opening in an SPC No. 1 bulkhead (NASA C–1962–

p. 207.

184. Diagram of SPC No. 1 (NASA CS–1961–22859), p. 208.

185. Construction of Vacuum Pump House (NASA C–1961–585

p. 208. 

186. Interior of new SPC No. 1 space tank (NASA C–1962–61467), p

187. Interior of new SPC No. 2 test chamber (NASA C–1965–00703)

188. Explosion in 1962 during first Centaur launch (NASA MPD–160

p. 212.

189. Entrance to new SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1962–60341), p. 212.

190. Manufacturing of Centaur rockets at General Dynamics (NASA 

C–1962–62408), p. 213.

191. Dome added to SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1963–65692), p. 215.

192. Abe Silverstein and Werner von Braun (NASA C–1958–47955), 

193. Abe Silverstein and James Webb (NASA C–1962–58736), p. 217

194. Firing of Atlas/Centaur retrorockets (NASA C–1964–69428), p. 2
f 

Chapter 9

195. Ralph Schmiedlin and others in Blockhouse in 1963 (NASA MP

p. 222.

196. Delivery of Atlas/Centaur mass model (NASA C–1963–65614), p

197. Setup of Atlas/Centaur mass model in SPC No. 2 (NASA C–196

65907), p. 225.

198. Firing of Atlas/Centaur retrorockets (NASA C–1964–68534), p. 2

199. Technicians in SPC No. 2 control room (NASA C–1963–66620), 

200. Mechanic installing small rocket test stand (NASA C–1964–7015

p. 227.

201. Henry Synor and others preparing Atlas/Centaur model in SPC 

(NASA C–1963–65906), p. 228.

202. Ralph Schmiedlin being interviewed inside SPC No. 2 next to C

mass model (NASA C–1963–67456), p. 229.

203. Delivery of Centaur 6A rocket to NASA Lewis Research Center 

(NASA MPD–498), p. 230.

204. Technicians preparing Centaur 6A in SPC shop (NASA C–1963–6

p. 231.

205. Centaur with RL-10 engines in SPC shop (NASA C–1964–71100)

206. Researchers and mechanic working on Surveyor shroud in SPC 

bay (NASA C–1964–70592), p. 235.

Chapter 10

207. Centaur 6A rocket being lowered into SPC No. 1 (NASA C–196

68846), p. 238.

208. Model of Centaur with Surveyor on display (NASA C–1964–716

p. 240.

209. Surveyor spacecraft on the Moon in 1967 (NASA AS12–48–7121)

Photo Essay 6: How Centaur was Studied in Space Power Chamb

210. Lowering of Centaur into SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1964–6884

p. 243.

211. Drawing of Centaur test setup in SPC No. 1 (NASA P–104

p. 244.

212. Lowering of dome lid onto SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1964–679

p. 244.

213. Diagram of cold wall in SPC No. 1 (NASA TM X–1929, fig

p. 245.

214. Radiant lamps at base of Centaur (NASA C–1967–00180), 

215. Interior of Vacuum Pump House (NASA C–1962–60342), 

216. SPC No. 1 control room (NASA C–1967–00193), p. 246.

217. John Povolny at telemetry station (NASA C–1965–75077), p. 24
3

y p

218. Static inverter for Centaur guidance and autopilot systems (NAS

C–1964–70983), p. 248.

219. Damaged Surveyor shroud after test in SPC No. 1 (NASA C–196

71125), p. 249.

220. Installation of Surveyor shroud in SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1964–71

p. 250.

221. Nitrogen bottle in nose cone of Centaur/Surveyor (NASA C–196

00604), p. 251.

222. Jack Humphrey views Surveyor shroud (NASA C–1964–73201), 

223. Crowded SPC No. 2 control room (NASA C–1963–66372), p. 25

224. Centaur Program meeting (NASA MPD–538), p. 255.

225. Surveyor nose-cone test in SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1965–00725), p

226. Cary Nettles in SPC shop in 1963 (NASA MPD–538), p. 258.

227. Larry Ross and Ben Dastoli in SPC No. 1 control room in 1964 

C–2008–01424), p. 259.

228. Guidance packages for Centaur 6A (NASA C–1969–02623), p. 2

229. Centaur hydrogen venting system test (NASA C–1964–72930), p

230. Test setup for hydrogen venting system (NASA C–1965–03932)

231. Launch of AC-10 with Surveyor 1 in 1966 (NASA GPN–2000–00

p. 265.

Chapter 11

232. Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO) shroud test in SPC N

(NASA C–1965–01628), p. 270.

233. Drawing of Agena vehicle (NASA C–1968–01439), p. 272.

234. Whiteboards in Agena launch room (NASA C–1965–74460), p. 

235. Poster for Project OAO (NASA C–1965–74461), p. 274.

236. Setup of OAO-1 shroud in SPC No. 2 (NASA C–1965–01461), p

Photo Essay 7: Space Power Chambers’ Busy Schedule

237. Engineers view OAO-1 shroud in SPC No. 2 (NASA C–19

02079), p. 277.

238. Mechanic installing platform elevator in SPC No. 2 (NASA 

C–1965–00138), p. 278.

239. Shop area on former tunnel viewing platform (NASA C–1

00378), p. 278.

240. Weightlessness Analysis Sounding Probe (WASP) setup in 

No. 2 (NASA C–1964–71575), p. 279.

241. WASP rocket setup in SPC No. 1 (NASA C–1966–01838), p

242. Atlas Launcher test setup in SPC high bay (NASA C–1966–

p. 281.

243. Test of deceleration pellets for Zero Gravity Facility (NAS

C–1966–01954), p. 282.
f 

244. OAO-2 model (NASA C–1968–01709), p. 283.

245. Panel showing location of OAO-2 shroud latches (NASA C–1968

01621), p. 284.

246. OAO-2 shroud test setup in SPC No. 2 (NASA C–1968–01258), 

247. Researchers examine OAO-2 shroud after test (NASA C–1968–0

p. 286.

248. OAO-2 stamp from Sharjah (Courtesy of Don Hilger), p. 287.

249. Abe Silverstein and Al Young before retirement (NASA Lewis N

3 July 1969), p. 287.

250. Scale model of failed AC-21 shroud in SPC No. 2 (NASA C–197

01491), p. 289.

251. Researcher conducting OAO-B failure investigation (NASA C–1

01488), p. 290.

252. Centaur D-1A equipment module in SPC No. 2 (NASA C–1975–

01216), p. 292.

253. Space Propulsion Facility at Plum Brook Station (NASA C–1987

02664), p. 293.

Chapter 12

254. Researchers study drawings for model of new AWT (NASA C–1

03172), p. 296.

255. NASA officials meet in SPC shop (NASA C–1976–04044), p. 298

256. Aerospace Information Display in Exhauster Building (NASA C

02258), p. 299.

257. New Visitor Information Center (NASA C–1978–1648), p. 299.

258. Electric vehicle fleet in SPC shop (NASA C–1977–01813), p. 300

259. NASA researchers with van used for battery study (NASA C–19

01797), p. 300.

260. Diagram of features of proposed new AWT (NASA Glenn), p. 3

261. AWT Project Office members posing in tunnel (NASA C–1984–0

p. 303.

262. Researchers examine drawings near model of high-speed leg o

(NASA C–1985–01572), p. 304.

263. Assembly of AWT model (NASA C–1985–02361), p. 305.

264. Centaur 6A being removed from inside SPC No. 1 (NASA C–19

04470), p. 306.

265. Chart showing increase in manpower for reinstitution of AWT (

Glenn), p. 308.

266. Near-Field Antenna Test Facility in SPC high bay (NASA C–198

00747), p. 309.

267. Bill Darby with membrane antenna (NASA C–2004–01883), p. 3
3

y p

Chapter 13

268. View of AWT exterior in 2005 (NASA C–2007–02571), p. 314.

269. Joe Morris leads tour of AWT/SPC in 2005 (NASA G6QH9170), 

270. Throat section of AWT in 2005 (NASA C–2007–00377), p. 318. 

Photo Essay 8: Farewell Tour

271. Exterior of SPC No. 1 (NASA C–2005–01670), p. 319.

272. Interior of SPC No. 1 (NASA C–2005–01646), p. 319.

273. Remnants of SPC No. 2 control room (NASA C–2007–003

p. 320.

274. Interior of AWT/SPC tunnel (NASA C–2005–01615), p. 32

275. Section cut out of interior shell of AWT/SPC (NASA C–200

01625), p. 321.

276. Cluttered former AWT/SPC test section (NASA C–2009–00

p. 322.

277. Items stored in diffuser area of tunnel in 2005 (NASA C–2

02565), p. 322.

278. Aerial view of Icing Research Tunnel (NASA C–2007–02576), p

279. Blueprint from 1942 showing cross section of AWT test section 

ED–71101), p. 325.

280. Kevin Coleman and Wayne Condo entering SPC No. 1 (NASA 

C–2007–02567), p. 326.

281. Meeting of Glenn officials with Ohio State Historic Preservation 

Officer (NASA C–2007–02564), p. 326.

282. Photographer setting up in SPC No. 1 (NASA C–2005–01653), p

Photo Essay 9: The Giant Comes Down

283. Removing outer shell of AWT/SPC (NASA C–2008–04593), 

284. Removing insulation and mesh (NASA C–2008–04591), p. 

285. Cutting away inner shell of AWT/SPC (NASA C–2008–045

p. 331.

286. AWT/SPC with large section removed (NASA C–2008–044

p. 332.

287. Pieces of shell in tunnel (NASA C–2008–04599), p. 332.

288. Lifting the drive motor out of AWT/SPC (NASA C–2009–0

p. 333.

289. Cleaning up AWT/SPC demolition debris (NASA C–2009–

p. 333.

290. Pieces of shell being removed from AWT/SPC (NASA C–2

00752), p. 334.

291. Illuminated interior of tunnel (NASA C–2007–00383), p. 335.
Inde

A

Abbot, Charles, 11

Ackeret, Jakob, 12

Adkins, Lisa, 325, 326. See also State Historic Preservation Officers

Advanced Communications Satellite (ACTS), 301, 309

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 211

Advanced Technology Satellite (ATS), 283, 291

Advanced Turboprop, 301. See also Turboprop engines

Aerobee, 264

Aerojet M-1 rocket engine, 234

Afterburner. See Engine components

Agena (upper-stage rocket), 213, 271, 272−273, 277, 283, 288

Bell 8096 engine, 272

Thor/Agena, 272

Air force. See Army air corps/air force, U.S.

Air races, 16, 32, 72

Airflow. See Engine problems

Album, H. Harvey, 307

Algranti, Joseph, 181, 183, 186

Allen, R. C., 79

Allison, 83

J71 (jet engine), 149, 150, 151

T-38 (turboprop), 151

Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT), ix, x, 3–194, 20, 21, 41, 43, 48, 49, 98, 108, 10

 112, 168, 169, 172, 316

adaptability, xi, 14, 94, 101, 335

components

 air scoop, 118, 147

 airflow, 22, 24, 26, 65, 66, 72, 91, 101, 105, 106, 115–118, 134, 158, 

 balance chamber (Toledo scales), 112

 centrifugal compressors. See refrigeration system

 compressors, 144, 145

 cooling coils (heat exchanger), 25, 116

 cooling system. See refrigeration system

 contraction, 117, 118

Bold page numbers refer to information in an image.
3

y p

Altitude Wind Tunnel (continued)

components (continued)

 control room, 22, 85, 113, 119, 320

 corner rings, 35, 36, 49

 dimensions, xi, xii, 21

 drive fan, 34, 39, 115, 116, 146

 drive motor, 37, 115, 333

 exhaust gas cooler, 144, 147

 exhaust system, 22, 99, 103, 114, 144, 147

 lid, 40, 41, 113

 makeup air, 22, 101, 117

 refrigeration system, 22, 24–27, 113, 114

 centrifugal compressors, 26, 37

 flash cooler, 37

 Freon 12, 26, 116

 rollers, 24

 shell, 20, 23–24, 35–36, 40, 202, 305, 321, 332

 inner shell, 23, 202, 206, 315, 319, 321, 331

 outer shell, 98, 202, 206, 315, 319, 329, 330

 steel mesh and fiberglass insulation, 24, 206, 321, 331

 test section, 13, 22, 65, 71, 86, 111, 112, 118, 133, 149, 165, 322, 325

 turning vanes, 27, 40, 116, 173

construction, 20, 34–40, 41–44, 49, 206

 began, 29, 35, 40

 completed, 44

 influence of war on, 27, 28, 44, 206 

 man-hours, 21

 modifications, 101, 142−147, 158, 164, 173, 199

conversion to SPC. See Space Power Chambers, conversion to 

demolition, xv, 328, 329, 330−335, 336. See also Pinnacle Construction 

 Development Group; Brandenburg Industrial Services; U.S. Hou

 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

 decision, 315, 317

 environmental assessment, 328–329

 hazardous materials remediation, 328–329

 neglect, xv, 314, 315, 319−322, 335

 process, 334

design, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23–27, 25, 41

documentation. See Historical mitigation

Engine Research Tunnel (former name of AWT), 14, 21

rehabilitation plan, 296, 298, 302−303, 301−307. See also Congressional 

 Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment; Ad Hoc Altitud

 Wind Tunnel Advisory Subcommittee; Preliminary Engineering 

 Report; U.S. House Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation, a

 Materials

 AWT model, 296, 304, 305

 AWT Project Office, 303, 304, 305, 308
Altitude Wind Tunnel (continued) 

rehabilitation plan (continued)

 cancellation, 307−309, 315

 components, 304, 306

 cost, 303, 307

 duplicate capabilities, 307

schedule, 62−64, 122

staff. See also Glenn Research Center, employees

 managers, 42, 43, 84−86, 93, 110, 113, 199, 122, 125, 126, 131, 278, 2

 operators, 114, 335

support buildings, 22, 108, 109

 Air Dryer Building, 117

 Circulating Water Pump House, 144, 147, 328

 Exhauster Building, 40, 43, 99, 113, 114, 115, 144, 145, 147, 299, 32

Refrigeration Building, 26, 37, 40, 43, 113, 114, 328

 Shop and Office Building, 29, 36, 38, 40, 43, 62, 101, 110, 146, 147, 

 328

 viewing platform, 38, 79, 183

Ames, Dr. Joseph, 9, 10, 11

Ames Research Center (ARC) and Ames Aeronautical Laboratory (AAL), 10, 

 189, 303, 305

employees, 23, 24, 41

facilities 

 11-foot tunnel, 307

 14-foot tunnel, 307

 40- by 80-foot wind tunnel, 23

Anderson, Samuel, 25

Antenna testing. See Microwave Systems Laboratory

Apollo, 171, 180, 197, 211, 213, 214, 217, 239, 240, 241, 288, 297

Applied Astrophysics Laboratory. See Johns Hopkins University

Apprentices. See Glenn Research Center, employees

Armstrong, Neil, 194

Armstrong-Siddeley (British), 134

Mamba engine, 134

Python (contrarotating turboprop), 133, 134, 135

Army, U.S. 

Wright Field, 28, 53, 85, 105, 132

Army air corps/air force, U.S., 10, 49, 52, 70, 79, 132, 221, 234

Army Ballistic Missile Agency. See Marshall Space Flight Center

Arnold, General Henry “Hap”, 12, 29, 49, 50, 52, 56, 57

Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) facilities, 303, 307

Arrighi, Robert, 326, 327

Atlantic Research grain Arcite rocket, 164

Atlas Launcher, 281

Atlas rocket booster, 172, 173, 174, 177, 189, 212, 221, 281. See also Project 

 Mercury, Big Joe
3

y p

Atlas/Agena, 213, 240, 274. See also Agena

shroud, 270, 274, 275, 276

Atlas/Centaur (AC) launch vehicles, 211, 220–266, 228, 283. See also Centau

AC-2, 223, 231

AC-3, 231, 249, 251

AC-4 (mockup Surveyor launch), 223, 224, 231, 241, 242, 251, 253, 257, 

 259, 261, 264 

AC-5 (failure), 253, 257, 258 

AC-6, 257, 258, 259, 264

AC-8, 258, 259, 261, 263, 264

AC-10, 264, 265

AC-16, 283, 286

AC-17, 291

AC-18, 291

AC-21 (failure), 288, 289, 290

AC-22, 290, 291

AC-25, 289

F-1 (failure), 211, 212, 249 

failures, 212, 213, 253, 260, 261, 288–289. See also Launch Vehicle Revie

 Board; U.S. House Subcommittee on Space Sciences

 mass model (“whale bone”), 220, 224, 225−230, 225−229

 retrorockets and separation tests, 173, 220, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 

 igniters, 226, 227

Aust, Jack, 34

AWT. See Altitude Wind Tunnel

Axial-flow engine. See Turbojets

B

Baeumker, Dr. Adolf, 5

Bechtel, Frank, 52, 179, 180, 341

Beheim, Milt, 302

Bell Aircraft Corporation, 56

X-5, 83

XP-59A and YP-59A Airacomets, 33, 48, 49, 52, 56, 57, 58–60, 71

Big Joe. See Project Mercury

Biggs Company, 147

Bioletti, Carlton, 23

Boeing, 4, 68, 303, 305

B-17 Flying Fortress, 34, 51, 52

B-29 Superfortress, 49–51, 62, 66, 68, 69, 70, 91, 94, 135. See also Wright 

 engines

B-45, 130

B-47, 130, 155, 163

B-52 Stratofortress, 155, 156

B-57, B-57B, 157, 158, 159, 160

707, 155

Bombing and bombers. See World War II
Bond, Aleck, 174, 179

Boone, Robert, 99, 100

Bowles, Mark, 339, 340

Brandenburg Industrial Services, 318. See also Altitude Wind Tunnel, demol

Brayton cycle, 201

Breisch, John, 34

Brentnall, Brigadier General Samuel, 105

Bristol (British), Proteus engine, 134

Buckingham, Edgar, 55

Buckingham study, 55 

Bugos, Glenn, 339

Bush, President George W., 317. See also Vision for Space Exploration

Bush, Vannevar, 52

Butler, Gale, 191

C

Caldwell, U.S. Navy Commander T., 83

Calspan Corporation, 305 

Calvert, Congressman Ken, 317 

Canadair, Sabre (under license to North American), 130

Cape Canaveral, FL, 177–180

Hangar S, 178, 179

36A Launch Complex, 211, 258, 265

Carl, U.S. Marine Pilot Major Marion, 83

Carpenter, Scott, 181, 183, 187, 190

Carrier Corporation, 24−26, 114

Carrier, Willis, 24, 27, 44 

Case Institute of Technology, 16, 239

Centaur (upper-stage rocket), 198, 211, 212, 213, 214, 217, 221–266, 238, 24

 245, 283–285, 288–292. See also Atlas/Centaur launch vehicles; Pratt 

 Whitney, RL-10 engine; Silverstein, Abe; Space Power Chambers, SP

Centaur-D, 291

Centaur D-1A, 291, 292

Centaur 6A, 230, 231, 238, 243, 260, 306

electronics, 174, 242, 247–249, 259–261

 C-band transponder, 259−260

 inertial guidance system, 260

 inverter for guidance and autopilot systems, 248, 261

 pressurization, 260

fuel system, 223, 247, 261−264, 262. See also Hydrogen, liquid

 sloshing, 258–259, 261, 279, 280

 vaporizing and venting, 261, 262, 263, 264

shuttle-Centaur, 301, 335

transfer to Cleveland, 214, 216, 217, 221

Centaur Program, 135, 142, 205, 211, 221, 222, 224, 234, 254, 255, 256, 286, 

Centrifugal engine. See Turbojets
3

y p

Chamberlin, Roger, 303

Chubb, L. W., 79

Cleveland, Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce, 16, 17

Cleveland Municipal Airport, 16

National Air Races. See Air races

Radio station WHK, 229

site selection, 16

space fairs,

 Case Institute of Technology, 239

 Parade of Progress (Cleveland’s Public Hall), 240

 Space Science Fair (Cleveland Convention Center), 239

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. See Electric company

Cleveland Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center

Cleveland Plain Dealer, 21, 239

Cleveland Press, 32, 240

Coates, Bryan, 339, 341

Cobb, Jerrie, 183, 188

Cold War, 141

Coleman, Kevin, 326

Combustion blowout. See Engine problems

Computers. See Glenn Research Center, employees

COMSAT (telecommunications group), 283

Condo, Wayne, 326

Congressional Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Assessment, 307–308

Ad Hoc Altitude Wind Tunnel Advisory Subcommittee, 307

Consolidated, B-24, 52

Contractors. See Glenn Research Center, employees

Contrarotating. See Turboprop engines

Convair

B-36 Peacemaker, 130

F-102, 155

XP-81, 131

Cook, Vice Admiral Arthur, 11

Cooper, Gordon, 187, 239

Corpas, Louis, 174, 193 

Cortright, Edgar, 214, 216, 217, 271

Crawford, Frederick (Thompson Ramo Woolridge, TRW), 16, 17

Cryogenic, 213. See also Hydrogen, liquid; Nitrogen, liquid

D 

Darby, William, 310

Darchuck, George, 22

DARPA. See Advanced Research Projects Agency 

Dastoli, Ben, 222, 259
Dawson, Virginia, 101, 324, 339, 340

Engines and Innovation (history of NASA Lewis Research Center), 101, 

DeFrance, Smith, 41

Department of Energy. See Energy Research and Development Administrati

Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fur Luftfahrt. See German air ministry

Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei, 3

Diborane, 156

Dietz, Robert, 43

Drag reduction. See Engine problems

Dorr, Robert, 340

Douglas, 4

D-558-I Skystreak, 83

D-558-II Skyrocket, 125

DC-8, 155

X-3 Stiletto (NACA experimental jet), 125

XB-42A Mixmaster, 82

XTB2D, 62

XTB2D-1 Skypirate, 91, 92, 94

Dryden, Hugh, 55, 143, 153, 170, 171

Duct Lab. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Ducted fan, 78

Jeep, 55, 57, 58

Dunbar, Russell, 254

Durand, Dr. William, 53, 55, 79 

Durand Committee. See National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Spec

Committee on Jet Propulsion

Dynamic response. See Engine problems

E

Eastwood, Charles, 258

Echo 2, 272

Echols, Major General Oliver, 30, 52

Eisenhower, Dwight, 169

Electric company, 17, 62, 63

Electric Vehicle Project, 298, 300, 300–301

Electricity, 17, 62, 64

Emme, Eugene, 340

Emley, W. E., 302

Employees. See Glenn Research Center

Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), 300–301

Engel, Margaret, 340

Engine components 

afterburners, ix, 87, 89, 88–90, 91, 126, 335

combustion chambers, 88

flameholders, 84, 90, 104

nozzles, 72, 161, 162
3

y p

Engine components (continued) 

nozzles (continued)

 Coanda, 163

 Greatex No. 2 exhaust nozzle, 161

 variable-area nozzle, ix, 86, 88, 90, 106, 128

Engine Installation Division. See Glenn Research Center, divisions

Engine problems

airflow, 58, 59, 60, 130

altitude restarting, 87, 126

combustion blowout (flameout), xii, 77, 87, 126

cooling and overheating, 49, 51, 52

drag reduction, 8, 50, 68, 87

dynamic response, 90, 135

engine knock, 50

failures, 119, 143, 156

fuel efficiency, 72

windmilling, 87, 126

Engine Research Building (ERB). See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Engine Research Division. See Glenn Research Center, divisions

Engineers. See Glenn Research Center, employees

Environmental chambers. See Space tanks 

Escape tower rocket. See Project Mercury

Essary, Jeff, 255

Expositions. See Cleveland, Ohio, space fairs

F

Facilities. See Ames Research Center; Glenn Research Center; Langley Resea

Center

Failures. See Engine problems

Female employees. See Glenn Research Center, employees

Flameholder. See Engine components

Fleming, William, 43, 125, 127, 159, 340

Ford, Helen, 27

French aircraft industry, 6

Freon-12. See Altitude Wind Tunnel, components, refrigeration system

Friedman, Harold, 22, 41, 42, 43, 59, 64, 68, 112, 203, 302, 339, 341

Fries, Sylvia, 256

Fuels and Lubricants Building. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Fuldheim, Dorothy, 172

One O’Clock Club, 172

Full-Scale Tunnel. See Langley Research Center, facilities

G

Gabriel, David, 142, 217, 223, 254, 255, 256

Gagarin, Yuri, 171

Gagg, Rudolph, 14, 24
Gemini Program, 180, 194, 239 

General Dynamics, 211, 213, 216, 221, 225, 228, 231, 234, 235, 254, 277

Astrophysics Division, 227

General Electric (GE), 82, 85

Gas Turbine Conference, 95

I-A, 56, 57, 60

I-14, 60

I-16, 48, 52, 56–58, 60, 70

I-20, 60

I-40, 57, 65, 70–72, 87, 91, 95, 119, 143

plants

 Schenectady, NY (steam turbine plant), 79, 82, 131

 West Lynn, MA, 52, 56−58, 60, 70, 79, 82

TG-100 (turboprop), 79, 82, 130, 131, 132, 135 

TG-180, 82, 83, 84, 87–89, 90, 95, 125, 129 

TG-190 (J47), 99, 125, 129, 130, 142

German air ministry (Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fur Luftfahrt) and aircraft, 3, 

 9, 11, 53–55, 95 

Geye, Richard, 274, 276

Gildersleeve, Clifford, 16, 17

Giomini, Dominic, 143

Glenn, John, 183, 185, 186

Glenn Research Center, ix, xii, 15−17, 22, 50, 99, 101, 135, 164, 169, 171, 19

 297, 298, 301

budget and funding, xiii, 9, 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 33, 197, 297–298, 307, 317, 

construction, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 40

divisions, 28, 41, 101, 141, 142

 Engine Installation Division, 41

 Facilities Division, 326, 328

 Launch Vehicles Division, 284, 286, 297

 Powerplants Division, 8, 9, 31, 42, 53–55

 Spacecraft Technology Division, 279

 Technical Services Division, 205

 Test Installation Division, 224. See also Harrison, Billy; Glenn Resear

 Center, employees, mechanics

 Wind Tunnels and Flight Division, 101

employees, 28, 30, 50, 101, 234, 254−256, 335

 apprentices, 152, 153, 152–154, 205, 297

 contractors, 204–205, 235

 engineers and researchers, xiv, 42, 43, 64, 84, 105, 110, 111, 119, 12

 125, 131, 157, 175, 185, 191, 227, 234, 235, 254, 255, 260, 266, 2

 275, 286, 296, 300

 female employees, 15, 42, 120, 122

 mechanics, xiv, 42, 61−63, 105, 122, 123, 148, 191, 235, 266, 278

 model builders, 32, 33

 pilots, 181, 183

 technicians, xiv, 32, 100, 111, 112, 122, 149, 227
3

y p

Glenn Research Center (continued) 

facilities

 Altitude Wind Tunnel. See Altitude Wind Tunnel (primary category)

 Development Engineering Building, 234, 271, 273, 305

 Duct Lab, 103

 Electric Propulsion Laboratory, 200, 202

 Engine Propeller Research Building, 29

 Engine Research Building, 21, 66, 103

 Four Burner Area, 103, 132, 134, 150, 152, 158

 Fabrication Shop, 63

 Fuels and Lubricants Building, 21

 Glenn historic district, 324 

 Guerin House, 99, 100, 264

 hangar (Flight Research Building), 21, 29, 33, 34, 69, 170

 BlockHouse, 222, 234, 254, 271

 Icing Research Tunnel, xi, 41, 50, 127, 198, 304, 308, 323, 324

 International Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, 323, 32

 refrigeration system, 25–27

 Jet Propulsion Static Laboratory, 56, 77

 Microwave Systems Laboratory, 309

 Far-Field Antenna Test Facility, 311

 Near-Field Antenna Test Facility, 309, 310, 311

 Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL), 103, 114, 142, 197, 214, 288

 Rocket Engine Test Facility (RETF), 197, 323

 Solar Power Laboratory, 299 

 “Stack” tunnels (Small Supersonic Tunnels), 102–103

 visitor center, 299

 Zero Gravity Facility, 282, 323

 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel, 43, 103, 105, 106, 141, 142, 2

 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel, 43, 142, 316, 323

Inspections and open houses. See Inspections

Plum Brook Station. See Plum Brook Station (primary category)

transition from aeronautics to space, 169−172, 178, 234, 235

Gloucester (Great Britain), E-28/39, 56

Goddard Space Flight Center, 273, 274, 286, 288

Godman, Robert, 43, 85, 302

Gold, Harold, 172, 174, 175, 176, 179, 279

Golladay, Richard, 111

Gordon, Steve, 326

Göring, Air Minister Hermann, 5

Goss, Dr. Wilbur, 107

Göttingen 

Altitude tunnel, 9, 10 

Prandtl’s tunnel, 6, 7

University of Göttingen tunnels, 4, 5

Gray, Robert, 211
Great Britain 

aircraft, 6, 54, 56. See also Gloucester

aircraft engines, 132, 134. See also Armstrong-Siddeley; Rolls Royce; Whi

Greatex. See Engine components, nozzles

Grimwood, James, 340

Grissom, Gus, 188

Groth, Harold, 222

Grumman Aerospace Corporation, 277

Guerin House, 100, 264

Gulick, Beverly, 29

H

Halford H-1, 71 

Hall, Eldon, 157

Hall, Jesse, 95

Hansen, James, 340

Harrison, Billy, 103, 105, 111, 122, 123, 152, 153, 205, 297, 339, 341

Harrison, Melvin “Lefty,” 153

Hazardous materials remediation. See Altitude Wind Tunnel, demolition

Heath, Dick, 226, 230 

Hensley, Reece, 142

Heppenheimer, T. A., 340

Herrmann, Charles, 27, 153

Hermann, Lou, 34

High Energy Astrophysical Observatories (HEAOs), 291, 292, 293 

Himmel, Seymour, 135, 234

Hindenburg airship, 2, 3

Hines, Wellington, 125

Historical mitigation (documentation), xv, xvii, 324−328. See also State Histo

 Preservation Officers 

photographic survey, 327, 328, 335

publications, 328

website and interactive history, 328, 342−343

Hitler, Chancellor Adolf, 4

Holt, Frank, 29, 32, 33, 339, 341

Honeycomb screen. See Wind tunnels, components

Houk, Bob, 326

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, 317

House Subcommittee on Space Sciences. See Centaur, failures

Howard, Alan, 79

Hubble Space Telescope, 273, 291

Human space program, x, xiv, 171, 172, 174, 181, 194, 197, 198, 239, 335

Humphrey, Jack, 251, 252, 258

Hunsaker, Jerome, 15, 52, 100

Hydrogen, 

gaseous, 156, 157

liquid, 157–160, 212, 216, 223, 247, 279, 280, 335. See also Centaur, fuel 
3

y p

I

Icing research, 127, 304 

Icing Research Tunnel. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Ide, John Jay, 3

Ingersoll-Rand. See Altitude Wind Tunnel, components, compressors

Inspections and open houses, 42, 69, 70, 100, 239

1957 Inspection, 161, 163

Intelsat IV, 291

Interactive history. See Historical mitigation

J

Jacobs, Eastman, 55

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 213, 214, 240

Jets. See Turbojets

Johns Hopkins University, 103, 107

Applied Astrophysics Laboratory, 103

Johnson, Alan “Hap”, 179

Johnson Space Center, 180, 197

Jonash, Edward, 254

JP-4 (jet fuel), 159 

Junior Aviators. See Glenn Research Center, employees

Jupiter flyby, 291

K

Kaufman, Harold, 159

Keirn, Colonel Donald, 56, 58

Kemper, Carlton, 8, 9, 11, 15, 54, 55, 95, 125

Kennedy, President John F., 197

Kennedy Space Center. See Cape Canaveral

King, Fleet Admiral Erwin, 31, 100

Knudsen, William, 15

Korean War, 72, 141, 142, 143

Krebs, Eugene, 135

L

Langley Research Center (LaRC), Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory 

 (LMAL), 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 172, 173, 197, 222, 303, 305

employees, 8, 9, 22, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 42, 53, 54, 55, 57, 153, 222

facilities 

 Atmospheric Wind Tunnel, 7

 Full-Scale Tunnel, 7, 9, 41, 59, 66

 National Transonic Facility, 43, 316 

 Propeller Research Tunnel, 7, 8, 14 

 Structural Research Laboratory, 21, 22

 Variable Density Tunnel, 7
Langley Research Center (continued)

facilities (continued) 

 Vertical Spin Tunnel, 7

 8-Foot High Speed Tunnel, 7, 14, 23

 19-Foot Pressure Tunnel, 7, 10, 14, 23

Launch Vehicle Review Board, 289

LeMay, Major General Curtis, 69 

LeRoy, Al, 255

Lewis, Dr. George, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 29, 30, 41, 95, 100, 340

Lindbergh, Charles, 10, 11, 12, 340

Little Joe. See Project Mercury

Littlewood, William, 161

Lockheed

aerospace, 277

C-130 Hercules, 230

F-80 Shooting Star, 72

P-38, 52

P-80, 72

TP80S, 72

U-2, 155

XP-80 Shooting Star, 71 

XR-60 Constitution, 92, 94

YP-80A Shooting Star, 65, 70, 71, 72

Lovell, J. C., 302

Lunar Orbiter, 213

Lundin, Bruce, 86, 90, 217, 290, 298, 302

M

Macomber, John, 23, 43 

Main, Leslie, 326, 339, 340, 341

Major, Gesa, 61

Malina, Frank, 52

Manhattan College, 254

Manned Space Program. See Human space program

Marcus, Lawrence, 22

Mariner, 171, 283, 288, 291

Mark I. See Space tanks

Mars, first closeup photographs, 272

Marshall Space Flight Center, 211, 216, 217, 221, 223, 225, 234, 299. See also

 von Braun, Werner

Army Ballistic Missile Agency, 211

engineers, temporary detail to NASA Lewis, 234

Masica, William, 175

Massa, Manfred, 23, 43

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 10

7- by 10-foot Wright Brothers Wind Tunnel, 5, 10
3

y p

MASTIF. See Project Mercury, Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia Facility 

McAuley, John, 130

McDonnell, 149

F-3H Demon, 148–150

space manufacturing, 172, 178, 198, 200 

XFD-1 Phantom, 81, 82

XF-85 Goblin, 125

Mead, George, 11, 14, 15

Mechanics. See Glenn Research Center, employees

Memphis Belle. See Boeing, B-17 Flying Fortress

Mercury. See Project Mercury

Mercury Evaporating Condensing Analysis (MECA), 200, 201

Mercury Rankine systems, 201

Mercury 7. See Project Mercury

Messerschmitt (Germany), 93 

Me-262 Schwalbe, 54, 57, 70, 71, 77, 92

Meteor Impact Model, 199

Meyer, Carl, 142

Microwave Systems Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Miller, Elton, 8, 54

Miller, Robert, 174, 175, 185

Millikan, Robert, 12

Missiles, 107

Atlas intercontinental ballistic, 211. See also Atlas rocket booster

Redstone. See Redstone rocket (primary category)

Talos, 107

Model builders. See Glenn Research Center, employees

Monroe, Louis, 24, 41, 42, 43

Moon 

first closeup photographs, 272

landing, 287

Moore, Royce, 68

Morewitz, Zella, 15

Morris, Joseph, 316, 325, 326

Moser, Jacob, 179

Moss, Sanford, 55, 60

Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia Facility (MASTIF). See Project Mercury

Munk, Dr. Max, 7

Murphy, John, 309 

N

NACA. See National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

Nahigyan, Nick, 22

NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), xi, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 5

 169, 170, 171
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (continued)

expansion, 10, 11

salaries, 33

Special Committee on Aircraft Noise, 161

Special Committee on Future Research Facilities, 10

Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, 53, 55, 79, 82

Special Committee on New Engine Research Facilities, 11, 14

wartime mission, 10, 49−55, 91, 92, 94

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), xiii, 169, 171, 297, 

historical publications, x, xi, 339, 340, 345–357

National Bureau of Standards, 9, 10, 53–55, 85

National Historic Landmark, 293, 323, 324 

National Historic Preservation Act, 323, 324, 325, 328, 340 

National Museum of the Air Force, 340

National Space Science Data Center, 340

National Register of Historic Places, 323, 324, 325

National air races. See Air races 

Navy, U.S., 79, 81, 82, 107

Aeronautical Engine Laboratory, 85

aircraft, 125, 148, 149, 150, 155

Office of Scientific Research and Development, 103

U.S. Navy Aircraft Factory, 10

Nettles, Cary, 217, 221, 223, 230, 242, 254, 255, 264, 266, 271, 283

Nieberding, Joseph, 211, 256, 288, 339, 341

Nitrogen, liquid, 245

Noise reduction, 99

NACA Special Subcommittee on Aircraft Noise, 161

North, Warren, 183

North American

AJ-2, 200

F-86A Sabre, 130, 142

F-100 Super Sabre, 155

X-15 (rocket-powered), 155

Northrop

F-89 Scorpion, 83

XP-79 (flying wing), 82

Norwood, Tina, 340

Nozzles. See Engine components

Nystagmus, 183, 184, 187

O

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, 309

Ohio Historic Preservation Office. See State Historic Preservation Officers

Olsen, Dr. Walter, 132, 160 

Open houses. See Inspections and open houses
3

y p

Orbiting Astronomical Observatories (OAOs), 274, 273–276

Copernicus (OAO-C), 290

OAO-1, 270, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277

 shroud jettison tests, 270, 275–276, 277, 278 

OAO-2, 283, 284, 286−288

 nose fairing jettison tests, 284–286

OAO-B, 288, 289, 290

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory experiment package, 274, 283

University of Wisconsin experiment, 283

Otto, Edward, 174

P

Page, U.S. Army Major Edwin, 11, 53, 59

Palmatier, Everett, 25

Parsons, Jack, 52

Pentaborane, 156

Phelan, Joseph, 54

Pinkel, Benjamin, 57, 164

Pinnacle Construction Development Group, 318 

Pioneer, 291, 297

Piston engines, 49–52, 53, 55, 79, 91−93, 135, 143, 155

turbochargers, 52, 60

Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, 20, 35, 40, 215

Plohr, H. (Henry) Warren, 176, 179, 289

Plum Brook Station, 154, 197, 229, 293, 297, 316, 336

Dynamics Research Stand (E Stand), 214, 224 

Hypersonic Test Facility (HTF), 316

Plum Brook Reactor Facility, x

Space Power Facility, xv, 293, 336

Space Propulsion Facility, 293, 323, 336

Pollyea, Myron, 43

Povolny, John, 43, 247

Power, General Thomas, 69

Prandtl, Ludwig, 6, 7

Prati, William, 274, 276, 289, 291

Pratt & Whitney, 79, 155

J42, 155

J48, 155 

J57, 143, 155–156, 161, 162, 163

R-4360 Wasp Major, 91, 92

RL-10 engine, 214, 221, 232, 258, 272 

TF-30 (turbofan), 288 

Preliminary Engineering Report, 302, 303

Preston, G. Merritt, 43, 59, 60, 160, 172, 178, 179, 180

Prince, William, 130

Project Bee, 156–160, 216
Project Mercury, 135, 169, 172, 173, 174, 182, 194, 197, 198, 200, 239, 318. S

 Space Task Group

astronauts, 169, 181−188, 190, 193, 194

attitude control, 180

Big Joe, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 194

 heatshield, 176, 180

escape tower rockets, 168, 192–193 

Lewis team, 178, 179

Little Joe, 173, 193

Multi-Axis Space Test Inertia Facility (MASTIF), 169, 173, 175, 176, 181–

 182, 185–188, 318 

 Astro-Penthouse (dressing room), 183, 187

Mercury/Atlas separation tests (and retrorockets), 172, 173, 189, 191

Mercury/Redstone separation test, 190

Mercury 7 (astronauts), 169, 181, 183, 185–188, 190, 193, 239

mockup capsule, 175, 193

retrorockets. See Mercury/Atlas separation tests 

Propeller Research Tunnel. See Langley Research Center, facilities

Q

Quinn, James, 43

R

Ramjets, 65, 99, 103, 104, 105, 106

NACA 20-inch, 104, 105, 123

Project Bumblebee, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107

Rand Corporation, wind tunnel study, 316, 317

Ranger, 171, 239, 240, 273

Reader, Austin, 43, 62

Redstone rocket, 172, 173, 189 

Reid, Henry, 54, 55, 153

Reiwaldt, William, 111

Republic

F-84 Thunderjet, 83

F-94 interceptor, 88

P-47, 52, 93

YP-47M Thunderbolt, 92, 93

Restarting at high altitude. See Engine problems

Robinson, Russell, 129

Rocket engines, 54, 164 

solid rocket, 165

Rocket Power, Inc., 226

Rockets. See Agena; Atlantic Research grain Arcite rocket; Atlas rocket boos

 Centaur; Saturn

Rogers, J.E., 227
3

y p

Rolls-Royce (British) 

Avon (RA14 turbojet), 150

Nene, 134, 150, 155

Sapphire, 159

Roosevelt, President Franklin, 28

Ross, Clarence, 251

Ross, Larry, 198, 223, 230, 231, 234, 247, 254, 256, 259, 260, 266, 339, 341

Ross, Phillip, 174

Rothrock, Addison, 22, 49, 53, 100, 153

Russia. See Soviet Union

S

Saari, Martin, 43, 131, 135, 142

Sam W. Emerson Company, 28, 29

Sanders, John, 175

Satellites. See Advanced Communications Satellite; Advanced Technology Sa

 Echo 2; High Energy Astronomical Observatories; Hubble Space Tel

 Intelsat IV; Orbiting Astronomical Observatories; Sputnik I

Saturn (booster rocket), 213, 216, 280

Schirra, Walter (Wally), 183, 184, 188

Schmiedlin, Ralph, 217, 222, 224, 229, 247, 256

Schwab, William, 122, 153

Scott, David, 194

Seamans, Robert, 171, 266 

SERT II. See Space Electric Rocket Test

Sharp, Dr. Edward “Ray,” 24, 28, 30, 31, 32, 95, 100, 123, 152, 153, 217 

Sheppard, Alan, 169, 183, 184, 186, 193, 194

Sherman, Albert, 55

Shramo, Daniel, 290

Silverstein, Abe, xiv, xv, 9, 298, 335 

Altitude Wind Tunnel Chief, 41, 42, 43, 53, 55, 58, 66, 68, 88, 89, 91, 95, 

Center Director (Centaur Program), 197, 198, 216, 217, 221, 223, 232, 24

 254, 256, 266, 287, 288

Director of Research, 141, 152, 153, 157

Division Chief, 101, 103, 122, 135

Headquarters, 170, 171, 172

Langley, 41

Silverstein Committee, 216

Silverstein doctrine, 232

Simon, Harlon, 254−255

Simpkinson, Scott, 176, 178, 179, 180 

Sims, R. G., 227

Slayton, Donald (Deke), 187

Sloop, John, 88, 89, 157

Smits, K. G, 227

SNAP-8 (nuclear power testing), 201
Solar Power Laboratory. See Glenn Research Center, facilities 

Soviet Union, 169

aircraft and aircraft industry, 4, 6

MiG-15, 142

Space Act of 1958, 171 

Space Electric Rocket Test (SERT II), 288

Space Power Chambers (SPC), 196, 202–293, 204, 205, 206–210, 220, 293, 3

components

 access door, 203

 bulkheads, 196, 202, 203, 207, 212

 cold wall, 232, 244, 245

 control rooms, 205, 227, 246, 254, 259, 311

 dome and extension, 209, 215, 243, 244

 exhaust system. See Space Power Chambers, support buildings, Vac

 Pump House

 platform elevator, 278

 trolley system, 225

 viewing platform, 278

conversion to SPC, 196–198, 202–207, 215 

 heliarc welding, 204

rewelding, 203, 206

dimensions, 200

SPC No. 1, 199, 200, 202, 204, 207, 208, 209, 214, 215, 224, 232, 233, 23

 242, 243, 244, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 257, 258, 259, 261, 280, 

 306, 319, 327

SPC No. 2, 203, 210, 224, 228, 229, 254, 262, 263, 264, 270, 274, 275, 27

 283, 285, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292

support buildings

 shop area, 201, 231, 232, 258, 281, 288, 298, 300, 301

 Vacuum Pump House (pumps), 203, 208, 209, 246, 328

Space Station Freedom Electrical Power System, 301

Space tanks, 198–202, 211, 214

Mark I (Arnold Engineering Development Center), xii, 200, 202

McDonnell, 198

Space Task Group (STG), 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 189

Space Technology Committee, 216

Spacecraft launches, 171, 172. See also Advanced Communications Satellite; 

 Advanced Technology Satellite; Atlas/Agena; Atlas/Centaur launch v

 Echo 2; High Energy Astronomical Observatories; Intelsat IV; Orbitin

 Astronomical Observatories; Project Mercury, Big Joe; Project Mercu

 Little Joe; Mariner; Pioneer, Ranger; Surveyor; Voyager

learning curve, 178–180

SPC. See Space Power Chambers

Special Committee on New Engine Research Facilities. See National Advisor

Committee for Aeronautics

Sperry M-1 Messenger, 8

Sputnik I, 164, 169 
3

y p

Stack tunnels. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

Stanley, Robert (Bob), 59

State Historic Preservation Officers, 324, 326, 328

Ohio State Historic Preservation Office, 328, 340

Stenger, Frank, 174, 181, 183, 184

Stofan, Andy, 216, 256, 301, 309

Stratton, Samuel, 9

Subcommittees. See National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

Surveyor, xii, 171, 202, 211, 213, 214, 223, 224, 238, 239, 240, 241, 249–253

 264, 265, 266, 271, 283, 291

design, 213, 240, 241

mass model, 223, 253, 257

missions, 239, 253, 257, 258, 264, 265

nose-cone separation, 224, 235

shroud (fairing) jettison, 249–252, 253, 257, 258, 283 

Sverdrup Corporation, 302, 303

Syncom satellite, 171

Synor, Henry, 228

Szuhai, Andrew, 153 

T

Talcott, Clifford, 43

Tate, Peter, 327

Timoshenko, Stephen, 23, 24

Truman, Senator Harry, 51

Tunder, George, 153

Turbochargers. See Piston engines

Turbojets, 52–54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 65, 76, 77, 80, 87, 88, 104, 140, 143, 149, 1

 151, 154, 155, 157, 335. See also Engine problems; Engine compone

axial-flow engines, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 84, 95, 125, 128, 129, 140, 150, 15

centrifugal engines, 77, 78, 95, 144

development, ix, 49–50, 55, 56–61, 65, 79–87, 94, 98, 144

Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, 55, 79 

U.S. Gas Turbine Mission (British turbojet survey), 132

Turboprop engines, 82, 99, 130, 133, 142, 143, 151. See also Armstrong-Sidd

 Python

Advanced Turboprop, 301

contrarotating turboprop, 134, 135

Turek, Bob, 247

U 

Unitary Plan Act of 1949, 316 

U.S. aircraft industry, 6, 9–10

U.S. House Subcommittee on Space Sciences, 213

U.S. House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, 317 
U.S. House Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation, and Materials, 309

Useller, James, 181, 183, 185

USS Champlain, 193

USS Galveston, 107

V

Variable-area exhaust nozzle. See Engine components

Variable Density Tunnel. See Langley Research Center, facilities

Venus, first closeup photographs, 272

Vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL), 307

Victory, John, 12, 17, 28, 31, 100, 153

Victory Over Japan Day (V-J Day). See World War II 

Vietnam War, 107

Vincenti, Walter, 23, 24, 339

Vision for Space Exploration, 315, 317, 318 

Visitor center. See Glenn Research Center, facilities

von Braun, Werner, 211, 216, 217 

von Kármán, Theodore, 12

Vought (Chance-Vought) 

FG-1 Corsair, 80

F7U Cutlass (fighter jet), 128

Voyager, 171, 297

W

Wagner, Jack, 111

Walker, Robert, 126, 134, 135, 153, 154, 208, 339, 341 

Wallner, Lewis, 131

Wallops Island, 193, 280

Webb, James, 171, 217

Weightlessness Analysis Sounding Probe (WASP), 264, 279, 280

Welding. See Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT)

Weining, Roger, 85

Westinghouse, 142

J40, 76, 140, 148, 149, 150

XJ34-WE-32, 128

19A (turbojet), 79, 80, 81

19B, 57, 62, 80, 81, 82, 95, 125

19XB, 81, 82, 95, 125

24C (J34), 76, 99, 125, 126, 127, 128, 143, 148

Westover, General Oscar, 10

Weyers, Vernon, 234

“Whale bone.” See Atlas/Centaur launch vehicles, mass model

Whitney, Ernest, 21, 28, 29, 41
3

y p

Whittle (British), 132

W-1B, 56

W-1X, 56

Wilson, Maurice, 24

Wind energy research, 298

Wind tunnels. See also Glenn Research Center, facilities; Langley Research C

 facilities; Ames Research Center, facilities

components, 6, 7

history, 5–7, 12

Windmilling. See Engine problems

Wine, Howard, 64, 203, 214, 233, 339, 341

World War I, 4, 6, 13, 134

World War II, 9, 10, 12, 13, 34, 66, 69, 77, 103, 134, 135

bombing and bombers. See also Boeing, B-29; Boeing, B-47

 Dresden, 69

 Japan, 69, 70, 91

end of the war, 91−93, 99, 100

postwar, 95, 99

war effort, 30, 50, 55, 62–64, 66, 82, 92, 93, 94

Worthington. See Altitude Wind Tunnel, components, exhausters

Wright Aeronautical (Curtis-Wright Corporation), 67, 79, 155, 159

J65, 158, 159

R-2600 Cyclone, 29, 67

R-3350, 52, 58, 62, 66, 67, 68–70, 92, 135, 143

 flammable crankcases, 51

 overheating, 49, 51, 52

Wright Brothers, 5, 53

Wright Brothers Wind Tunnel (MIT). See Massachusetts Institute of Technol

Wyatt, DeMarquis, 43 

Y

Young, Alfred, 22, 24, 41, 42, 43, 91, 101, 120, 142, 287, 288

Z

Zahm, Albert (Catholic University), 5

Zulinke, Adolph, 25

E–1