Volume 39, Number 4 Winter 2022

NASA HISTORY

NEWS&NOTES

THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY

OFAPOLLO 17 HUMANKIND’S LAST 

CREWED MISSION TO 

THE MOON—SO FAR

4 The Pyroclastic Colors at Shorty 

Crater: Color-Correcting 50-YearOld Photos Provides New 

Insight into Lunar Geology

7 Hidden Engineering Support 

for the Apollo Missions

10 Lunar Groundwork: Research and 

Technology in the Age of Apollo

13 Apollo 17 Crew Salutes 

Plum Brook Station

16 The Crew of Apollo 17 

Visits NASA Langley

17 Remote Sensing: A Breakthrough 

Technology for Archaeology

19 The Public’s Understanding of 

the Problem of Space Debris

Astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, commander, makes a short 

checkout of the Lunar Roving Vehicle on 12 December 1972 

during the early part of the first Apollo 17 extravehicular activity at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. (Photo credit: NASA)

2 From the Chief Historian • 21 News from NASA’s Centers

22 Recent Aerospace History Publications • 23 Other Aerospace 

History News • 24 Obituary: James McDivitt • 25 Upcoming Meetings

NASA HISTORY DIVISION

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

F

IFTY YEARS AGO this December, 

the crew of Apollo 17 completed humanity’s last voyage to 

the Moon. Leaving the lunar surface 

for the final time on 14 December, 

Commander Gene Cernan spoke 

the now famous quote, “We leave as 

we came, and, God willing, we shall 

return, with peace and hope for all 

mankind.” Cernan’s words articulated 

both the stunning success of Project 

Apollo and the immense melancholy 

of those who were not ready to see the 

program conclude.

NASA’s human spaceflight program 

has spent the intervening 50-year 

period from Apollo 17 working in 

low-Earth orbit and preparing to pick 

up where that program left off. The 

135 launches of the Space Shuttle, the 

building of the International Space 

Station, and the many lessons learned 

living and working in the microgravity environment laid the groundwork 

for Artemis.

On 16 November of this year, NASA 

took the next major step in the program 

with the launch of Artemis I. Millions 

around the world watched live as the 

Space Launch System (SLS) rocket 

launched the Orion spacecraft on its 

scheduled 25-day mission that will see 

the uncrewed vehicle log over 1.4 million miles and travel farther (40,000 

miles beyond the far side of the Moon) 

than any human-rated spacecraft has 

ever traveled.

As of this writing, Orion is still making 

its initial flight around the Moon and 

returning stunning images rivaling 

the Apollo 8 “Earthrise.” This historic 

milestone represents a truly monumental achievement. But this is only the 

first step.

As historians, we must always consider the deeper context and analytical 

frameworks. What do past programs, 

including Apollo, the Space Shuttle, 

and the International Space Station, tell 

us about what we can expect from this 

and the next steps? Will abandoning 

the Cold War approach of Apollo and 

embracing a more coalition-building 

approach that includes commercial 

and international partners make this 

What do past programs, including Apollo, the Space 

Shuttle, and the International Space Station, tell us 

about what we can expect from this and the next steps?

Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison H. 

Schmitt photographs the site 

where he has taken rock and 

soil samples near the rim of 

Camelot Crater at Station 5 in 

the Taurus-Littrow valley. 

(Photo credit: NASA) 

From the 

Chief 

Historian

2
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

new round of lunar exploration more 

sustainable? Will success for Artemis 

coupled with potential new markets 

lead to a revolution in aerospace technology capable of reaching Mars?

As a social historian, I must also ask 

questions about potential ramifications back on Earth. What cultural 

impacts might a permanent presence 

on the Moon ultimately produce? 

Could becoming an interplanetary 

species produce a transcendent shift 

in us as a species? Will expansion 

beyond low-Earth orbit have positive 

or negative impacts on economic and 

social inequality?

Here, the example of Apollo is instructive. That program occurred against 

the backdrop (and, at times, at the forefront) of one of the most transformative periods in U.S. history. Running 

parallel with the social revolution of 

the 1960s, Apollo experienced many 

incredible triumphs as well as tremendous setbacks (cancellation of several 

final missions) and tragedies (Apollo 1).

Beyond delivering on President 

Kennedy’s end-of-the-decade goal and 

extraordinary scientific discoveries, 

some of the greatest legacies of that 

program took place back on Earth. 

The federal investment in aerospace 

infrastructure across the southern 

United States transformed the economics of much of the region. Critical 

investments in university engineering 

and science programs created foundations that continue to pay off with 

technological and scientific breakthroughs. Apollo 8 delivered an uplifting message at the end of a dreadful 

year (1968) and, with the capture of the 

“Earthrise” photo, stoked the flames of 

the environmental movement.

As we watch Artemis I and subsequent 

lunar missions, I am excited for the 

next round of amazing scientific discoveries and impressive engineering 

firsts. Hopefully the lessons of Apollo 

will prove a helpful framework for 

discovery both on the Moon and back 

home. If we are paying attention, I am 

sure they will. 

Brian C. Odom

Chief Historian

On Day 13 of the Artemis I mission, Orion reached its maximum distance from Earth and 

captured this image of the spacecraft with Earth and the Moon. (Photo credit: NASA)

Beyond delivering on 

President Kennedy’s endof-the-decade goal and 

extraordinary scientific 

discoveries, some of the 

greatest legacies of that 

program took place back 

on Earth.

From the Chief Historian (continued)

3
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

The Pyroclastic Colors 

at Shorty Crater

Color-Correcting 50-Year-Old Photos 

Provides New Insight into Lunar Geology

» By Ronald A. Wells and Harrison H. Schmitt

APOLLO 17 ASTRONAUT Harrison 

H. Schmitt discovered startlingly 

bright orange, red, and yellow 

deposits in a trench he dug across the rim 

of Shorty Crater on the Moon in 1972. 

A 68-centimeter core of this deposit 

and its underlying material includes 

black, partially devitrified beads and 

shards. Post-mission examination disclosed that the deposit is composed of 

volatile-rich, pyroclastic ash. The very 

small volcanic glass beads and shards 

making up this soil, rich in titanium 

and low in silica, were products of 

fire fountains erupting from depths of 

roughly 500 kilometers during ancient 

lunar history. Inexplicably, photo prints 

from the prime Ektachrome SO-368 

Hasselblad film made at the time, as 

well as later digital scans, depicted the 

trench as having a dull, pale brownish color (figure 1). Modern software 

techniques, however, allow restoration 

of the colors that Schmitt described in 

situ1 and for many decades afterward 

(figure 2). 

For nearly half a century, there has 

been a disconnect in the scientific community between what Schmitt actually 

saw on the Moon and described at the 

time and the documentary evidence. 

Schmitt recently worked with Wells 

in recapturing the original colors 

using photo-editing software.2 Images 

were first contrast-balanced; then, by 

adjusting the red, orange, and yellow 

color channels, it was possible to match 

the colors Schmitt had observed. The 

color-corrected photo shown in figure 2 was approved by Schmitt after 

eight iterations or adjustments of the 

balancing process.

Figure 3 (left) shows a collection of red 

and brown soil clods (sample 74220,8) 

taken from the central, redder area of 

the trench seen in figure 2. The right 

portion of this figure is a transmission 

photomicrograph of orange, yellow, 

and black glass shards collected from a 

Figure 1. Original Johnson Space Center digital scan AS17-137-

20990 of the trench dug by Harrison H. Schmitt at Shorty Crater. 

(Photo credit: NASA)

Figure 2. Contrast-balanced and color-corrected version of figure 1 as described in text. (Photo credit: NASA/derivative photo; 

copyright © by Tranquillity Enterprises, s.p., 2018)

4
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

core drive tube that had been inserted 

through the orange soil behind the 

trench to the right of the gnomon. The 

red/orange/yellow color differences of 

the beads appear to be related to the 

iron/titanium ratios of the glass. The 

black color of some of the beads is a 

consequence of the partial devitrification of the colored glass that results in 

dark crystallites in clear glass. The clear 

glass has essentially all the titanium 

removed from it by crystallization of 

the mineral ilmenite (FeTiO4). The 

latter effect can be seen in the photomicrograph. Several black beads in the 

center and upper mid-left of the photo 

appear to have irregular white patches. 

Those are actually clear glass with the 

white background showing through.

A fter Schmitt returned to the 

Command Module (CM), he took 

several photos from lunar orbit with 

the Hasselblad 250-millimeter camera 

over southwestern Mare Serenitatis.

3

In addition, the CM pilot, Ron Evans, 

took a Hasselblad photo with the 

80-millimeter lens. The color-corrected 

versions all show distributions of 

orange-red-black ash deposits in and 

around numerous craters in Mare 

Serenitatis, extending the range of these 

volcanic products well beyond Shorty 

Crater in the Taurus-Littrow valley. 

These observations have profound 

implications for lunar geology and are 

described in more detail by R. A. Wells 

and H. H. Schmitt.4

Shorty Crater provided remarkable 

close-up views of the volcanic rim and 

ejecta debris seen in the Hasselblad 

orbital photos. But it was not until 

Schmitt had seen the color panorama 

of the entire crater that the full significance of its formation became apparent 

(figure 4 on the following page). The 

characteristics of these volcanic products provide an improved understanding of the geochemical and geophysical 

nature of the Moon’s interior. The volatiles accompanying these eruptions of 

deep-seated magma, including water, 

suggest a much wider internal distribution for them than heretofore indicated. 

They also represent a potential ancient 

source of the water known to be present 

as ice at the lunar poles. Certainly, the 

widespread nature of these volatiles and 

deep-seated eruptions attest to a more 

colorful Moon and add constraints to 

the ongoing debate on the origin of the 

Moon itself. 

Figure 3. Left: Red and brown soil clods (sample 74220,8) taken from the central red area of the trench shown in figure 2. (Photo credit: 

NASA image S75-34259) Right: A transmission photomicrograph of orange, yellow, and black glass beads and shards taken from a core 

drill tube. (Photo credit: NASA image S73-15171)

The characteristics of 

these volcanic products 

provide an improved 

understanding of the 

geochemical and 

geophysical nature of the 

Moon’s interior.

5
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Acknowledgments

Elements of this article were presented at 

the Geological Society of America (GSA) 

2019 Annual Conference in Phoenix, 

Arizona. See https://gsa.confex.com/

gsa/2019AM/webprogram/Paper332002.

html for more details.

Financial support was provided in part by 

NASA grant NNX09AM43G and a SURA 

travel grant to GSA2019 (Wells).

Ronald A. Wells is the editor-in-chief 

of Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison H. 

Schmitt’s personal website, https://www.

americasuncommonsense.com.

Endnotes

1 H. H. Schmitt, “Geolog y a nd 

Stratigraphy of Shorty Crater Pyroclastic 

Ash Deposits,” abstract 1072, Lunar 

and Planetary Science Conference 48, 

Woodlands, TX, 2017, https://www.

hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2017/

pdf/1072.pdf; H. H. Schmitt, “3 myr 

Age for Shorty Crater at Taurus-Littrow, 

Site of Orange and Black Pyroclastic 

Ash,” abstract 166-12, Geological 

Society of America 2018 Annual 

Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, 2018, 

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2018AM/

webprogram/Paper319860.html; H. H. 

Schmitt, (2019), “It’s Orange!,” chap. 11 

in Apollo 17: Diary of the 12th Man, ed. 

R. A. Wells, editor-in-chief, https://

www.americasuncommonsense.com/; 

R. A. Wells and H. H. Schmitt, “ColorBalancing of in situ Documentation 

Photographs of the Apollo 17 Orange and 

Apollo 15 Green Volcanic Ashes,” abstract 

166-11, Geological Society of America 

2018 Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, 

IN, 2018, https://gsa.confex.

com/gsa/2018AM/webprogram/

Paper317759.html; R.  A. Wells and 

H. H. Schmitt, “Multi-Colored Lunar 

Surface Features Documented in ColorBalanced Apollo 17 Hasselblad Orbital 

Photographs,” abstract 1213, Lunar 

and Planetary Science Conference 48, 

Woodlands, TX, 2019, https://www.

hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2019/

pdf/1213.pdf.

2 Wells and Schmitt, “Color-Balancing”; 

Wells and Schmitt, “Multi-Colored 

Lunar Surface Features.” op. cit.

3 H. H. Schmitt, “Lunar Mare Color 

Provinces as Observed on Apollo 17,” 

Geology 2 (1974): 55–56; B. K. Lucchitta, 

figure 36, in Apollo over the Moon: A 

View from Orbit, ed. H. Masursky, G. W. 

Colton, and F.  El-Baz (Washington, 

DC: NASA SP-362, 1978), p. 49; B. K. 

Lucchitta and H. H. Schmitt, “Orange 

Material in the Sulpicius Gallus 

Formation at the Southwestern Edge 

of Mare Serenitatis,” 5th Lunar Science 

Conference Proceedings, Houston, 

TX, 18–22 March 1974, vol. 1 (New 

York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1974), 

pp. 223–234.

4 R. A. Wells and Harrison H. Schmitt, 

“Colors Across the Moon,” chap. 4 in 

R. A. Wells, Apollo over the Moon in 

Perspective: 3D Anaglyphs and Other 

Views from Orbit, vol. 2 (Burlington, 

ON, Canada: Apogee Books, 2021), pp. 

171–202, https://www.cgpublishing.

com/Books/9781989044131.html.

Figure 4. A contrast-balanced, color-corrected panorama of Shorty Crater assembled from the seven NASA photos taken by Eugene 

Cernan (left to right): AS17-137-21005, -00, -01, -02, -03, -04, and -24. The trench dug by Schmitt in figure 2 is off the photo on the rim at 

the middle left edge. The distance across the crater looking toward the mountains is ~110 meters. From left to right to the wall center, red 

debris streaks; orange ash slides; a thin, long, angled wedge-shaped black ash slide; and red and red-black splotches can be seen. Wall 

material on the right side of the crater is composed of brown and red-brown debris. (Photo credit: NASA/derivative photo; copyright © by 

Tranquillity Enterprises, s.p., 2018)

The Pyroclastic Colors at Shorty Crater (continued)

6
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

MANY OF US have seen photos, articles, and videos of the Mission Control Center 

(MCC) at the Manned Spacecraft 

Center (now known as Johnson Space 

Center) in Houston, Texas, where 

flight directors and flight controllers 

worked at consoles during the Apollo 

missions. Scenes from the MCC during 

the Apollo 11 lunar landing, the safe 

return of the crew of Apollo 13, and of 

course the Apollo 13 film starring Tom 

Hanks have circulated widely. Less well 

known were the group assembled in 

the Mission Evaluation Room (MER) 

in a building nearby, where I, along 

with other engineers and managers, 

supported the Apollo flight controllers 

during the missions.

NASA Manned Spacecraft 

Center’s Mission Evaluation 

Room

Prior to the Apollo 7 crewed mission, 

Apollo engineers worked alongside their 

flight control counterparts in the MCC 

backroom, called the Staff Support 

Room (SSR), as they supported the 

uncrewed Apollo missions. During the 

Apollo 4 mission in August 1967, the 

first Saturn V launch, while I manned 

the Electrical Power System (EPS) 

console in the MCC SSR, manager 

Dr. Christopher C. Kraft came back 

and said that the SSR was too crowded 

and that engineering would have to 

provide support from outside the MCC.

The Apollo Program Office established the MER on the third floor 

of Building 45, next to Building 30, 

where the MCC was located. I remember the first mission support from the 

MER was Apollo 7, the first crewed 

Apollo mission. 

Apollo 13

On the evening of 13 April 1970, when 

the explosion of Apollo 13’s Service 

Module (SM) oxygen tank occurred, 

I was on duty in the MER, and I did 

not leave the MER until the following morning. At that point, the CSM 

Hidden 

Engineering 

Support for 

the Apollo 

Missions

» By Gary W. Johnson, Senior Safety 

Engineer, J&P Technologies, Inc.

Read more about the history 

of the Mission Evaluation Room 

in JSC’s Building 45. 

The MER’s managers’ table, with MER manager Donald D. Arabian seen talking on the 

phone. (Photo credit: NASA)

7
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Hidden Engineering Support for the Apollo Missions (continued)

was completely unpowered, and the 

engineers supporting the active LM 

systems were experiencing a high level 

of activity. 

Prior to the Apollo 13 launch, I was concerned about the possibility of needing 

to use the Command Module’s (CM) 

battery charger to charge the Lunar 

Module (LM) batteries, so I worked 

with the Lunar Module Electrical 

Power Subsystem Manager, Arturo 

“Art” B. Campos, to develop a procedure using an on-board umbilical to 

electrically connect the battery charger 

output on a CM bus to the LM bus 

that the batteries were connected to. 

This was documented in a memorandum with copies to my management 

and the Flight Operations Electrical, 

Environmental, and Consumables 

(EECOM) personnel.

After the explosion of the SM oxygen 

tank, I went over to my office to get the 

memorandum documenting the procedure; then Art and I wrote a reverse 

procedure (MER SPAN CHIT) to 

provide power to the unpowered CM 

from the LM. The CM entry batteries 

had been run down while powering the 

spacecraft as the crew prepared to go to 

the LM. By using the LM batteries to 

power the CM, the entry batteries were 

recharged for reentry.

Later, prior to reentry, I was also busy 

working on the CM power-up configuration before we jettisoned the LM. 

This consisted of marking up a CM 

display panel drawing with switch 

and circuit breaker positions. If a circuit breaker was to be closed, it was 

marked red, and if it was to be open, it 

The MER as seen during Apollo 11. The left side of the table was for Command and 

Service Module (CSM) engineering support, while the right side was for Lunar Module (LM) 

support. The author, responsible for the NASA CSM electrical power system (EPS), is 

shown wearing the striped shirt and sitting near the back of the left-hand side of the table. 

On his right is North American Aviation Space Division’s Harry Horii, manager for the CSM 

EPS. Across from him is NASA LM EPS subsystem manager Art Campos, looking at the TV 

monitor, and to his left is Grumman Bethpage manager for LM EPS Stan Feinberg. The TV 

monitor at the back would display LM EPS data when the LM was active and displayed 

CSM EPS data when the CSM was active. The data shown on the display replicated what 

was seen by the MCC Flight Controllers. The headsets allowed the engineers to listen to the 

flight crew and Flight Director. The black phones allowed them to call the MCC Flight 

Controller to request another data display or call home. The room had other tables with 

engineers covering other spacecraft systems and safety, reliability, and quality assurance. 

(Photo credit: NASA image S69-52725)

Harry Horii (left) confers with the author 

(right) in the MER as they support the 

Apollo  13 mission. (Still from the NASA 

documentary Apollo 13: Houston, We’ve 

Got a Problem)

Marked-up CM display panel drawing 

with switch and circuit breaker positions 

marked in preparation for the Apollo 13 

reentry. (Scanned part of V34-900101, Rev. 

AC, Controls and Displays—Main Display 

Console Panels.)

8
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Read More of Gary Johnson’s 

Experiences with NASA’s Human 

Spaceflight Program:

Gary Johnson: Lessons Learned 

from 50+ Years in Human 

Spaceflight and Safety, 30 April 2018

Gary Johnson’s Oral History 

Interviews

was marked blue. Switch positions were 

shown by a red arrow in the direction 

to be positioned. This information was 

then provided to the Flight Control 

Team, which converted the information to a checklist to be read to the crew.

Apollo 15

I was also involved in the MER engineering support that allowed Apollo 

15 to proceed for a lunar landing 

mission. During the mission, after 

trans-lunar injection (TLI) and just 

after transposition and docking, the 

Service Propulsion System (SPS) thrust 

light illuminated with no engine fire 

command present. This light indicated 

the presence of a short to ground in 

the SPS ignition circuitry. Ignition 

would have occurred if the engine had 

been armed. This condition was a “No 

Go” for Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI). 

I noted that the short indication first 

occurred just after Earth orbit insertion, when the spacecraft was in zero 

gravity, and then occurred a second 

time as mentioned above after TLI. In 

reviewing the SPS circuitry, the only 

place where one could find something 

floating in a closed cavity was the delta-V thrust panel switch. Knowing that 

the switch contained a braided wire 

that could have a loose wire strand, 

and that if it shorted to case (ground) it 

would illuminate the SPS thrust light, I 

could explain what the crew was seeing. 

The MER Manager gave me permission to go to the MCC to explain this 

theory of what could be causing the 

thrust indication. I explained what I 

considered to be the cause of the indication to Kraft. Kraft said this sounded 

plausible, but we needed to perform a 

test to prove the short was just causing 

the light to illuminate and not issuing 

a fire command to the SPS. The crew 

procedure was modified for a test firing 

of the SPS during a midcourse correction. The successful firing verified that 

the short was isolated to the system 

A delta-V thrust switch and allowed 

implementation of an alternate procedure to safely fire the SPS engine and 

successfully continue the mission.

Post-flight failure analysis showed that 

inside the delta-V thrust panel switch 

there indeed was a loose wire strand 

from the switch’s braided wire that was 

causing the short to ground.

Apollos 16 and 17

Prior to Apollo 17, the MER’s track 

record of solving mission problems 

led the Marshall Space Flight Center 

Director to contact MER Manager 

Don Arabian, asking for support from 

the MER engineers in finding the cause 

of several Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV) 

instrumentation anomalies. During 

Apollos 15 and 16, multiple intermittent battery instrument anomalies 

occurred during the rover’s operation 

in the low-temperature environment of 

the Moon. 

I was working as the Sequential 

Subsystem Manager, and my investigation of the grounding circuitry revealed 

that the small 22-gauge return wires to 

the meters and ampere-hour integrator were crimp-spliced with the large 

12-gauge battery return wire (there 

were a total of five wires in the splice). 

An open circuit to ground and power 

return would explain the anomalies 

seen in flight.

The number of these return wires 

and the size difference exceeded the 

Manned Spacecraft Center spacecraft 

requirements on the splicing of different gauge wires in a single splice, as 

large differences can result in a loose 

connection on some of the small-gauge 

wires. The investigation also revealed 

that the qualification LRV that was 

tested in a thermal vacuum chamber 

had solder connections, not the crimp 

splices as used on the LRVs.

The Apollo program did not want to 

impact the planned launch of Apollo 17, 

so they did not plan to make corrections 

to the LRV grounding to fix the problem. The grounding problem did not 

affect the LRV motor drive or mobility, 

only the electrical information displayed 

to the crew, and the MCC would keep 

track of battery ampere hours.

NASA engineering and contractor 

spacecraft design engineering supported the Apollo 17 mission in the 

MER as with the previous Apollo 

missions. After the Apollo 17 crew 

splashed down in the Pacific Ocean 

on 19 December 1972, the engineers in 

the MER removed their headsets as the 

Apollo program came to an end. The 

MER went on to support Skylab as well 

as test and orbital flights in subsequent 

programs until April 1988, when it was 

upgraded and moved to Building 30. 

Acknowledgment

Thank you to SAIC’s Safety and Mission 

Assurance Senior Communications 

Analyst/Editor Joanna M. Opaskar.

Hidden Engineering Support for the Apollo Missions (continued)

9
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Lunar Groundwork: 

Research and 

Technology in the 

Age of Apollo

» By James Anderson, Historian, Ames Research Center

WHEN THE S-IVB stage impacted 

the Moon following its separation from the Apollo 17 

spacecraft on 10 December 1972, the 

resulting quake was detected by a network of passive seismometers on the 

Moon that had been stationed at the 

landing sites of Apollo missions 12, 14, 

15, and 16. The less advanced Apollo 

11 seismometer had returned data for 

about three weeks but was no longer able 

to detect impacts in December 1972. 

With the existing network of seismometers in place, Apollo 17 continued to 

advance the seismic study of the Moon, 

laying out a new array of geophones 

embedded around the Taurus-Littrow 

site and recording signals from eight 

explosive packages that Commander 

Gene Cernan and Dr.  Harrison H. 

“Jack” Schmitt deployed and later detonated. Those seismic studies, however, 

were merely one facet of how this final 

Apollo mission built upon its predecessors and executed what was arguably 

the most ambitious itinerary for scientific exploration of the Apollo era.

Apollo 17 surpassed many of the 

benchmarks that prior missions had 

established. Cernan and Schmitt spent 

75 hours on the Moon as Command 

Module Pilot Ronald Evans orbited 

overhead. That was 

more t h a n t h re e 

times the duration of 

Apollo 11 and 4 hours 

more than the previous 

record holder, Apollo 16. 

They traversed more 

than 21 miles. That was 

4 miles farther than the 

Apollo 15 and 16 missions, which also had a 

lunar rover, a defining 

feature of the extended-duration “J” 

missions. For comparison, Apollo 17’s 

21 miles was 140 times the distance 

traversed during Apollo 11. Greater 

geographical coverage and more 

time on the surface enabled a greater 

opportunity to explore. Along the way, 

Apollo 17 collected the heaviest haul 

of lunar samples of any mission at just 

over 242 pounds of material, which 

included the deepest core samples 

drilled on any Apollo mission.

At least 10 new experiments debuted 

on Apollo 17, some of which were 

conducted aboard the Command 

and Service Module, while all the 

remaining experiments—whether 

aboard the CSM or on the lunar surface—followed up on many of the 

experiments that had been initiated 

earlier in the program. Some of the 

experiments even continued research 

into space biology that NASA had 

incorporated into crewed flights during 

Project Gemini, such as two in space 

biology, Biostack and Biocore, that 

investigated the effects of radiation. In 

fact, eight vertebrates traveled to the 

Moon on Apollo 17. Joining the three 

Greater geographical 

coverage and more time 

on the surface enabled 

a greater opportunity 

to explore.

The Apollo 17 Command and Service Modules photographed from the Lunar Module during rendezvous and docking maneuvers in lunar orbit. Note the exposed Scientific 

Instrument Module Bay, where a lunar sounder, an infrared 

scanning spectrometer, and a far-ultraviolet spectrometer were 

housed along with a panoramic camera, mapping camera, and 

laser altimeter. (Photo credit: NASA)

10
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

astronauts, five pocket mice made the 

journey for Biocore, while Biostack, 

which had also flown earlier in the 

Apollo program, included specimens 

such as bacterial spores, plant seeds, 

and shrimp and insect eggs. Radiation 

in deep space remains one of the most 

significant threats to life during a prolonged trip and is currently the focus of 

experiments aboard the Orion capsule 

as well as on a dedicated space biology 

CubeSat, BioSentinel, that Artemis I 

recently deployed.

Not all the technology used on 

Apollo 17 was new, of course. Reliability 

and simplicity are crucial support 

factors that enable cutting-edge 

achievements. Throughout the Apollo 

landings, an array of geological tools 

was used. Aside from the development 

of the cordless drill, many of the tools 

were as mundane as hammers, rakes, 

tongs, and scoops. One of the most 

frequently used tools was a simple dust 

brush. The potential for inflicting damage, combined with its pervasiveness, 

makes lunar dust an especially treacherous obstacle to many operations. 

Astronauts attempted to brush the dust 

off themselves before returning inside 

the Lunar Module, while outside the 

Lunar Module they frequently had 

to dust off equipment, from camera 

lenses to the rover’s thermal surfaces 

and reflectors. The dust even imperiled the success of the mission at the 

beginning of the first traverse in the 

rover. In the right shin pocket of his 

suit, Gene Cernan’s hammer inadvertently caught the right rear fender, 

knocking off the fender extension. The 

damage was potentially far greater 

than aesthetic. The turning of the rover’s wheel soon kicked up enough lunar 

dust to become a nuisance that also 

The potential for inflicting 

damage, combined with 

its pervasiveness, makes 

lunar dust an especially 

treacherous obstacle to 

many operations. 

Lunar Groundwork: Research and Technology in the Age of Apollo (continued)

Lunar surface extravehicular activity 

training at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. 

Scientist-astronaut Harrison Schmitt (foreground) simulates scooping up lunar sample material. Astronaut Eugene Cernan 

(background) holds a sample bag. (Photo 

credit: NASA)

Gene Cernan hammers a double core in the distance while seismic 

charge number 5 appears in the foreground (right) in this photo taken 

by Harrison Schmitt at Geology Station 9 during their third lunar 

extravehicular activity. (Photo credit: NASA)

11
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Lunar Groundwork: Research and Technology in the Age of Apollo (continued)

threatened the thermal and mechanical 

functioning of the rover. Cernan spent 

a few minutes re-attaching the fender 

extension with “good old-fashioned 

American gray tape” as he described it 

while making the repair, but the fix fell 

off after about an hour. There are some 

issues that not even duct tape can solve.

On the ground in Houston, team members developed a plan for the second 

attempt at the fender fix in advance 

of the next two traverses. Duct tape 

received a mild redemption, returning 

once more to hold together an array 

of maps that would act as the fender. 

Instead of just duct tape, this time 

some clamps in the Lunar Module 

were repurposed to keep the replacement fender firmly in place. It held 

for the remainder of the mission. The 

issue is not unique to the Moon. Earlier 

this year, the accumulation of Martian 

dust on the solar panels of the InSight 

lander led to the gradual winding down 

of its extended mission, four years after 

landing and operating successfully on 

the Red Planet. In the trade space of 

potential engineering solutions for mitigating something like dust, sending a 

human with a brush to clean off some 

solar panels for a robotic mission on 

Mars or the Moon is comical. There 

is something about the fender fix on 

Apollo 17 that—while less critical 

than the carbon dioxide filter solution 

on Apollo 13—is distinctly human. 

So, what might we take away from 

Apollo 17, beyond the mission highlights such as Schmitt becoming the 

first and, so far, only scientist to walk 

on the Moon?

The mission’s success built upon a 

network. It was a network that first 

enabled Apollo to achieve its political and engineering feats, and, once 

Apollo 11’s success was established, the 

network supported the expansion in 

the engineering and scientific scope 

that occurred over the rest of the 

Apollo missions. Far more than simply a network of scientific instruments 

like the seismometers deployed during 

Apollo, the “lunar groundwork” of 

Apollo had also utilized existing spacebased infrastructure, such as the solarweather–monitoring network that the 

early Pioneer spacecraft composed. 

Apollo was never intended to create 

a self-sustaining Moon colony, but it 

was a series of integrated missions that 

built upon each previous mission rather 

than existing as repetitive one-offs that 

wound down as soon as the funding 

and the success of Apollo 11 subsided. 

In that context, even though subsequent Apollo missions had already 

been canceled and attention turned 

to the Space Shuttle, Apollo 17 was a 

culmination of what the program was 

able to achieve after the initial planting 

of flags and footprints. 

Left: From left to right, John Young, Charlie Duke, Deke Slayton, Rocco Petrone, and Ron 

Blevins discuss the prototype for the rover replacement fender. Note the lunar maps, tape, 

and clamps that ultimately held the fender in place for the remainder of the traverses. (Photo 

credit: NASA) Right: A close-up view of the lunar rover with the final makeshift repair to the 

right rear fender. Schmitt is seated in the rover. (Photo credit: NASA)

Lunar Sample 76535, collected 

at Station 6 of the Taurus-Littrow 

valley, is perhaps the most interesting rock that was returned from 

the Moon by the Apollo missions. 

Classified as a troctolite, it 

appears almost gemlike due to its 

atypical luster and color and has a 

unique crystalline structure. 

(Image credit: NASA)

12
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Apollo 17 Crew Salutes 

Plum Brook Station

» By Bob Arrighi, Historian, Glenn Research Center

J

UST BEFORE 1 P.M. on 16 

February 1973, Apollo 17 astronauts Eugene Cernan, Ronald 

Evans, and Harrison Schmitt were 

whisked out of the cold and into the 

Engineering Building at NASA’s Plum 

Brook Station1 in Sandusky, Ohio. The 

crew, which had recently completed 

NASA’s final Moon landing, were 

in the midst of the Agency’s largest 

post-mission publicity tour to date. The 

men, the last humans to visit the Moon 

as part of Project Apollo, were feted at 

the Super Bowl, the White House, the 

U.S. Capitol, and dozens of other stops 

across the nation.

The visit to Lewis Research Center’s 

(present-day Glenn Research Center) 

remote test facility at Plum Brook was 

different, however. On 26 December 

1972—one week after the Apollo 17 

crew returned to Earth—NASA 

Headquarters privately informed Lewis 

Center Director Bruce Lundin that it 

was terminating its nuclear propulsion 

and power work in order to concentrate its decreasing financial resources 

on near-Earth space activities. The 

decision would result in the closure of 

Plum Brook Station and the separation 

of hundreds of employees.

In 1956, the Lewis Laboratory leased 

500 acres at the massive, but inactive, 

Plum Brook Ordnance Works, located 

60 miles west of the Cleveland campus, to construct a large test reactor to 

support its nuclear propulsion research. 

As construction progressed, the laboratory leased another 2,700 acres at 

the site to build a collection of smaller 

facilities to study high-energy cryogenic propellants. As this first wave of 

facilities began operation in the early 

1960s, NASA formally acquired the 

entire 6,000-plus-acre property and 

began constructing larger facilities, 

including the nation’s largest vacuum 

chamber and only facility for firing 

full-scale rocket stages in a simulated 

space environment.

Although some of the Plum Brook 

work had immediate applications for 

Centaur and the Saturn stages, much 

of the research was on nuclear propulsion systems, cryogenic fuel depots, 

and other advanced technologies for 

future extended missions to distant 

destinations such as Mars.

On Friday, 5 January 1973, Lundin 

made the trek to Sandusky to address 

the Plum Brook staff. Lundin’s grim 

expression while taking the podium 

in the cafeteria dashed any hopes for 

post-holiday commendations. Instead, 

Lundin explained that as a result of 

post-Apollo reductions in federal funding, NASA was terminating programs 

with long lead times, including the 

nuclear work. As a result, the station 

would be closing imminently. The 

employees were tasked with wrapping 

up test programs and systematically 

mothballing the facilities while seeking 

new employment.

The Engineering Building, seen here in the late 1960s, 

was the hub of Plum Brook management activities. The 

large cafeteria served as the primary staff assembly area.

(Photo credit: NASA)

13
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

It was into this environment that the 

Apollo 17 crew arrived several weeks 

later, on 16 February. It was a hectic 

day that also included stops at two 

local schools, a press conference, and 

a visit to the Lewis campus. At Plum 

Brook, the three astronauts joined station manager Alan “Hap” Johnson at 

the head table in the cafeteria. Johnson 

noted the tight schedule and quickly 

turned the microphone over to the crew.

After a couple of droll comments to 

break the ice, Cernan addressed the 

situation. “Having never been here, it 

really is a privilege to be here because 

I’ve heard so much about what goes 

on. I know what’s happening here, and 

I wish I could bring you news from 

somewhere that someone’s changed 

their mind about closing Plum Brook 

or at least changing what they plan on 

doing with it. But I don’t have any of 

those words.”

Instead, Cernan reminded them that 

Center management and local elected 

officials were working hard to ease the 

transition. He then switched gears, facetiously relating the difficulty in waking 

Evans during the mission. Cernan then 

offered some general praise similar to 

that given to Agency employees across 

the country before returning his focus 

to those gathered in the room.

Although maybe in a few short 

months, many of you won’t be 

here in Plum Brook and many 

of you might not be here with 

NASA, but take with you a 

feeling of pride and a feeling of 

accomplishment for what you 

have contributed directly into 

the Apollo program, certainly 

directly into the efforts of 

NASA and probably more 

important into the efforts and 

the prestige and a leadership of 

our entire nation. And wherever 

you go and whatever you do, I 

don’t think you’ll ever have to 

hold your head low to anybody 

for that. You can be proud. And 

if just by being here today I can 

give you a little bit of an identity, 

a little bit of feeling of belonging to those accomplishments, 

then certainly our visit here was 

Congressman Charles Moser (left) and Plum Brook Manager Alan Johnson (back to 

camera) welcome Ron Evans and Harrison Schmitt into the Engineering Building at Plum 

Brook Station. (Photo credit: NASA)

Apollo 17 Crew Salutes Plum Brook Station (continued)

...the station would 

be closing imminently. 

The employees were 

tasked with wrapping 

up test programs and 

systematically mothballing 

the facilities while seeking 

new employment.

14
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

more than worthwhile. For me 

it was very personally gratifying.

Cernan lightened things up again with 

more ribbing of Evans, who in turn 

related a couple of amusing aspects 

of the mission. Schmitt concluded 

the event by comparing the Agency’s 

upcoming near-Earth space activities 

to the settling of the American West, 

while stressing the need for further 

human exploration of the universe. At 

the end of the 30 minutes, the entourage filed out and headed to their next 

stop, and the Plum Brook employees 

returned to their duties safely terminating station activities.

Neither the closure of Plum Brook 

Station nor the Agency’s focus on 

the Space Shuttle was permanent, 

however. NASA brought four major 

facilities at Plum Brook back online in 

the late 1980s and early 1990s whose 

subsequent tests have included large 

shroud separation systems, landing 

airbags for Mars Pathfinder, a radiator 

for a space station power system, the 

Delta III cryogenic stage, and SpaceX’s 

Crew Dragon. Meanwhile, NASA 

has introduced several plans to return 

to the Moon in recent decades, most 

significantly with Artemis. In 2020, 

Plum Brook supported Artemis by 

testing the Orion spacecraft in simulated space conditions inside the Space 

Environments Complex. 

Endnote

1 Plum Brook Station was renamed Neil 

A. Armstrong Test Facility in 2021.

Plum Brook manager Alan “Hap” Johnson (left), Gene Cernan (center), and Ron Evans address the Plum Brook staff on 16 February 

1973. (Photo credit: NASA)

Apollo 17 Crew Salutes Plum Brook Station (continued)

STAY UP 

TO DATE

WITH NASA HISTORY’S EVENTS 

AND PUBLICATIONS

SIGN UP FOR OUR LISTSERV AT 

https://history.nasa.gov/listserv.html

15
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

The Crew of Apollo 17 

Visits NASA Langley

» By Rob Wyman, History and Archives Program Manager, Langley Research Center

AT THEIR OWN REQUEST,

Apollo 17 astronauts Eugene 

A. Cernan, Ronald E. Evans, 

and Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt visited 

NASA’s Langley Research Center in 

Hampton, Virginia, on 27 February 

1973 to thank staff members for their 

contributions to human spaceflight.

“We stood on the shoulders of giants 

as we shot for the stars,” said Cernan, 

pointing out that many of those giants 

were in the audience that had gathered 

in the hangar to listen to the astronauts 

talk about their voyage. “You here at 

Langley have a tremendous tradition. 

NASA really got its birthright here 

and it is something we are all proud of,” 

he added.

Evans spoke about his reaction on seeing Earth on his way to and back from 

the Moon. “It’s my home—your home. 

We realized there is only one Earth and 

we must protect that Earth.”

Schmitt emphasized Langley’s work 

on the Lunar Orbiter program, stating 

that it also played an important role 

in bringing science into the Apollo 

program. Not only did the orbiters 

successfully photograph 99 percent of 

the lunar surface—helping to identify 

locations for the lunar landing sites—

but they also studied the Moon’s gravity field, along with its radiation and 

micrometeoroid environment.

Schmitt also said there was “no question 

that Langley has to go into history as the 

ancestral home of manned spaceflight.”

Langley made many other foundational 

contributions to the Apollo program. 

Several of the most significant facilities 

used to develop techniques for Lunar 

Orbit Rendezvous and to prepare 

the astronauts for Apollo missions 

were designed, built, and operated by 

Langley. These included the rendezvous 

and docking simulator and the lunar 

landing simulator, extravehicular activity techniques, and aerodynamics and 

structures research.

Following their remarks, the three 

astronauts presented then–Center 

Director Edgar Cortright with a replica 

of the plaque left on the Moon and an 

autographed color photograph of their 

7 December 1972 liftoff from Kennedy 

Space Center in Florida. 

Astronaut Ronald E. Evans holds up an 

autographed color photograph of the 

7 December 1972 liftoff of Apollo 17, which 

he presented to the staff in appreciation for 

their contributions to human spaceflight. 

Looking on are astronauts Harrison H. 

Schmitt (center) and Eugene A. Cernan. 

(Photo credit: NASA/LaRC)

“We stood on the 

shoulders of giants as 

we shot for the stars.”

16
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Remote Sensing: 

A Breakthrough 

Technology for 

Archaeology

» By Priscilla Foreman, Summer and Fall 2022 NASA History Intern

I

N THE SUMMER OF 1972, while 

Apollo 17 Commander Eugene 

A. “Gene” Cernan, Command 

Module Pilot Ronald E. Evans, and 

Lunar Module Pilot Harrison H. “Jack” 

Schmitt were in training for their 

upcoming lunar mission, the launch of 

another project NASA was working on 

would lay the foundation for expanding 

how we study Earth. Earth Resources 

Technology Satellite (ERTS)-1, later 

renamed Landsat 1, was launched on 

23  July 1972 from Vandenberg Air 

Force Base in California. A collaboration 

between NASA and the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS), Landsat 1 

became the oldest continuous Earthobserving satellite imaging program.

With this focus, Landsat 1 became a 

new tool transforming the study and 

practices of remote sensing. “Remote 

sensing” generally refers to obtaining 

information from the land surface 

through sensors mounted on aerial 

or satellite platforms. USGS Director 

Dr. V. E. McKelvey wrote, “The ERTS 

spacecraft represents the first step in 

merging space and remote-sensing technologies into a system for inventorying 

and managing the Earth’s resources.”1

NASA scientists were not the only ones 

who saw the potential in using satellite Earth-observation technology, and 

one man in particular 

saw how it could revolutionize his field of study: 

Dr. Thomas L. Sever.

The Pioneer

Tom Sever’s path to NASA was anything but conventional. He started off 

in seminary on track to become a priest 

but changed gears, deciding instead to 

earn a master’s degree and doctorate in 

archaeoastronomy and anthropology. 

After completing his doctorate, Sever 

worked for an environmental nonprofit 

as an archaeologist. While working 

on one project in Peru, Sever became 

frustrated and thought there must be a 

better way to do this. He began reading 

and researching new technologies he 

could utilize. “Traditional archaeology 

wasn’t going to work for me to answer 

the questions I had,” Sever remembers.2

 After reading about imaging 

work happening at National Space 

Technology Laboratories, now named 

Stennis Space Center, in 1981 Sever 

joined a Stennis team interpreting satellite images. On the side, Sever began 

mapping archaeological sites with the 

satellite imagery. Using the satellite 

imagery, he found what looked like 

ancient roadways in Chaco Canyon, 

New Mexico. Teams then verified the 

discovery on the ground: the paths 

were there and had been used by past 

civilizations. From this discovery, Tom 

Sever established himself as NASA’s 

only archaeologist and was energized 

by his findings. He began to organize 

conversations on the innovations that 

remote sensing could bring to the 

field of archaeology. Many archaeologists had their doubts about using 

this technology, but through more 

conversations with leading archaeologists, the great value of these applications became apparent. “They came 

away from the visit convinced that the 

new technologies to which they were 

introduced may represent the kind of 

scientific breakthrough for archaeology 

Deep in the Guatemalan jungle, Tom Sever and Ph.D. 

student Robert Griffin study a crumbled “stele,“ a stone 

pyramid used by the Maya to record information or display 

ornately carved art. Sever and Griffin found the stele and 

other ruins hidden for more than 1,000 years during an 

expedition that relied on NASA remote sensing technologies to pinpoint sites of ancient settlements. (Photo credit: 

NASA/T. Sever)

“Traditional archaeology 

wasn’t going to work 

for me to answer the 

questions I had.”

17
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

in the second half of the 20th century 

that radiocarbon dating was in the 

first half of the century.”3

 In March 

1984, Tom Sever put on NASA’s first 

Conference on Remote Sensing in 

Archaeology, funded by NASA, the 

National Science Foundation, and 

the National Geographic Society. The 

conference was attended by 22 professional archaeologists and included 

numerous presentations on remote 

sensing technology and examples of 

its applications. The conference established collaboration between NASA 

and the archaeology community and 

led to NASA requesting proposals for 

funding for several archaeology projects with remote sensing technologies.

Sever’s work went on to influence foreign government officials. In one such 

project, Sever used Landsat images to 

identify Maya sites near a proposed 

hydroelectric dam project. When identifying Maya sites near the MexicoGuatemala border, images revealed 

that Mexico’s forests were decimated, 

while Guatemala still had rainforest 

cover. This discovery was crucial to 

the formation of the Guatemala Maya 

Biosphere Reserve, which was created 

in 1990 to help preserve the largest 

tropical rainforest in Central America. 

Tom Sever’s contributions to remote 

sensing use in archaeology were substantial, and through his efforts, more 

archaeologists began to use these new 

technologies. While archaeologists 

were seen as the outliers in the scientific 

community in adopting remote sensing 

technology in the 1980s, there is less 

reluctance today.

Developments in Recent 

Decades 

One of the most apparent improvements to remote sensing is new technologies improving our ability to see 

and view our planet through imagery; 

the Landsat program itself is now in its 

ninth iteration. Outside of improved 

remote sensing technology over the 

past 50 years, a key growth factor 

in remote sensing usage is improved 

accessibility. It is now easier than 

ever for anyone to use remote sensing 

technology. Sever remembers an episode in 1985: “The head of Harvard’s 

anthropology department told me my 

problem was that I was trying to bring 

math and science to a group of people 

that became archaeologists because it 

didn’t require math.”4

 The anecdote 

illustrates how Sever faced difficulties 

convincing his primarily anthropology 

and archaeology colleagues to utilize 

new remote sensing technology.

At the heart of numerous remote sensing initiatives today is citizen science, 

where the public plays a substantial 

part in projects. One such project, 

GlobalXplorer, invites the public to 

analyze images of archaeological sites to 

identify disturbance and possible looting. NASA’s Applied Sciences Program 

makes satellite data available for the 

public to use to tackle various issues. 

While this more accessible approach 

to technology 

The razor-sharp border between Mexico and Guatemala, as seen in this 1988 Landsat 

image, shows the impact of high rural population on the rainforest. Guatemala’s sparsely 

populated Petén district stands in stark contrast to the stripped and tilled landscape of 

Mexico. This image prompted the leaders of Mexico and Guatemala to set aside 

long-standing tensions and focus on preserving the rainforest. (Image credit: NASA/

Landsat)

Remote Sensing: A Breakthrough Technology for Archaeology (continued)

MEXICO GUATEMALA

(continued on page 20) »

18
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

The Public’s 

Understanding 

of the Problem of 

Space Debris

» By Madelyn Pollack, Summer and 

Fall 2022 NASA History Intern

ALTHOUGH THE GENERAL PUBLIC

is familiar with terms such as 

“space junk” and “orbital debris” 

today, these words have been relevant 

since the launch of the first humanmade satellite, the USSR’s Sputnik. 

When people stared up at the sky in 

late 1957, hoping to catch a glimpse of 

Sputnik, what they actually saw was its 

discarded rocket body—not the satellite itself. Since that time, the amount 

of defunct material in Earth’s orbit has 

multiplied at exponential rates. Space 

debris represents a risk to spacecraft, 

potentially damaging or destroying 

them through high-speed collisions or 

a sandblasting effect from the smallest 

objects. And although most debris 

burns up in the atmosphere, larger 

pieces can reach Earth’s surface intact, 

posing hazards to life on the planet.

Some historical events featuring space 

debris are more infamous than others. 

Unforgettably, Project West Ford, a 

Cold War communications project, 

intentionally launched millions of tiny 

copper needles into orbit in 1961 and 

1963.1 The reentry of the Skylab and 

Mir space stations into Earth’s atmosphere and their crashes into Australia 

(1979) and the Pacific Ocean (2001), 

respectively, highlighted the dangers 

to all people on Earth as spacecraft 

deorbit. But more concerning to the 

future of spaceflight are in-orbit collisions, such as the 2009 event in 

which the defunct Russian Cosmos 

2251 satellite smashed into the active 

U.S. Iridium satellite. It was the worst 

collision event to date, breaking both 

satellites into countless pieces that now 

orbit Earth at high speeds and present 

danger to active missions at similar 

altitudes. Debris can also be broken 

apart and increase in numbers when a 

country undergoes anti-satellite tests to 

blast their nonfunctioning spacecraft, 

like the November 2021 occurrence 

orchestrated by Russia that forced 

astronauts on the International Space 

Station to undergo debris avoidance 

maneuvers and shelter in their escape 

pods in case of a breach of the Station’s 

protective shields.

Along with the glory and awe engendered by spaceflight missions, we 

must wrestle with the resulting space 

clutter’s effects in low-Earth orbit, 

namely pollution and threats of danger. Through a small-scale analysis of 

secondary sources and Washington Post

public opinion articles in connection 

to orbital debris and spaceflight in the 

Listen to Sputnik’s beeps.

Watch a video modeling all tracked 

orbital debris items in 2019.

Computer-generated image of orbital debris as of 1 January 2019. 

(Image credit: NASA Orbital Debris Program Office)

19
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

United States, I have identified several 

prevalent themes. First, many writers 

have stated the facts of the issue for 

public consumption and condemn the 

state of Earth’s orbit, making calls to 

action. Second, as much as NASA and 

the public are aware of the presence of 

potentially damaging debris in orbit, 

there are still estimated millions of tiny 

particles that are untraceable by current 

technology. Even small items like paint 

flecks can cause critical damage! Third, 

there are currently no legally binding 

measures in place on an international 

scale to limit the amount of debris that 

goes into space, and any strategies to 

remove what is already there are not yet 

available for use.

Although the problem of orbital debris 

does not affect the average person on 

a day-to-day basis like other environmental crises we face, it is undoubtedly 

a growing concern with the potential 

to affect all people indiscriminately. In 

the last several years, we have seen more 

awareness portrayed in popular media. 

The fictional movie Wall-E (2008) 

depicts a future where Earth and its 

orbit are so cluttered with debris that 

the entire population of the planet is 

forced to leave and wander the space 

landscape. Gravity (2013) is a fictional 

illustration of the “Kessler Effect” or 

“Kessler Syndrome,” a term coined 

to describe a never-ending cycle of 

debris-creating collisions. In the movie, 

two astronauts working in low-Earth 

orbit struggle to return to Earth after 

debris from a destroyed satellite sets off 

a cascade of destruction. While these 

films are indeed fictional, the depictions 

represent real fears for Earth and its 

space neighborhood among non-experts.

Despite the media’s coverage of the 

dangers of orbital debris, it may be surprising to learn that there seems to be 

little effect on the opinion of the pursuit 

of space exploration among Americans. 

Although we are conscious of the problems created by launching additional 

objects into orbit, rather than stop the 

direct cause of the problem, launches 

into orbit—which would be the simplest 

solution—we push for new, innovative 

ways to ensure a future in space. The 

analysis of these public opinions is 

important for many reasons, but most of 

all, the expression of opinions regarding 

orbital debris has the power to persuade 

governments to take action and work 

toward mitigation solutions. 

Endnote

1 While many of the needles are believed 

to have deorbited, as of 2022, clumps 

of needles from the 1961 launch remain 

in orbit. See https://www.orbitaldebris.

jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/

odqnv17i4.pdf.

The Public’s Understanding of the Problem of Space Debris (continued)

is often criticized for the credibility of 

the users utilizing the data, the potential 

for significant discoveries is increased 

with the growing participation of the 

public. With access to new remote sensing technologies, we can continue to 

discover and document archaeological 

sites of civilizations in the past. These 

sites can contribute to our knowledge 

of past civilizations, which can, in turn, 

help us make informed decisions for the 

betterment of society. 

Endnotes

1 Richard S. Williams and William 

Douglas Carter, ERTS-I: A New Window 

on Our Planet, USGS Professional 

Paper 929 (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 1976).

2 Pola Lem, “Peering Through the Sands 

of Time: Searching for the Origins 

of Space Archaeology,” NASA Earth 

Observatory, https://earthobservatory.

nasa.gov/features/SpaceArchaeology

(accessed 11 November 2022).

3 Thomas Sever and James Wiseman, 

Conference on Remote Sensing: Potential 

for the Future (Mississippi: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Earth Resources Laboratory, National 

Space Technology Laboratories, 1985), 

p. 1.

4 Massie Santos Ballon, “Tom Sever, 

Archaeologist,” 25 May 2008, https://

scicom.ucsc.edu/publications/

QandA/2008/sever.html (accessed 5 

December 2022).

Remote Sensing: A Breakthrough Technology for Archaeology (continued)

While these films are 

indeed fictional, the 

depictions represent 

real fears for Earth and 

its space neighborhood 

among non-experts.

20
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

News from NASA’s Centers

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC

» By Michele Ostovar

On 1 November 2022, Bob Jacobs, the 

Director of the History and Information 

Services Division of the NASA Office of 

Communications, happily announced 

the selection of Dr. Brian Odom as the 

Agency’s new Chief Historian. Brian 

had been serving as NASA Marshall 

Space Flight Center’s historian since 

2016, and then as the Acting Chief 

Historian since August 2020, after the 

retirement of former Chief Historian 

Bill Barry. We are pleased to welcome Brian in his well-deserved promotion to this new permanent role. 

Congratulations, Brian!

NASA History Publications 

Update

» By Stephen Garber, NASA Headquarters,

and James Anderson, NASA Ames

Research Center

Roger Launius’s NACA to NASA to 

Now: The Frontiers of Air and Space in 

the American Century will be published 

early in 2023. This one-volume survey history of NASA and the National 

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 

(NACA) is the long-awaited successor 

to Roger Bilstein’s Testing Aircraft, 

Exploring Space ( Johns Hopkins 

University Press, 2003) and will serve 

as an excellent, up-to-date overview of 

the Agency’s storied history.

After a significant delay, the fiscal year 

(FY) 2020 Aeronautics and Space 

Report of the President, an annual 

congressionally mandated report 

detailing the U.S. Government’s aeronautics and space activities, has been 

completed and is now available on the 

NASA History website. Inputs have 

also been received from nearly all 12 

contributing government agencies for 

a combined FY 2021 and 2022 report 

that will be available in the spring.

Also due to be published in 2023 is A 

Wartime Necessity, which focuses on the 

research efforts of the NACA as well as 

aeronautical research organizations outside of the United States during World 

War II, paying particular attention to 

how these organizations attempted to 

innovate at the time. Alex Spencer, an 

aeronautics curator at the National Air 

and Space Museum, has edited this 

collection of essays on a notable, if not 

well-covered, topic. The manuscript has 

been copyedited, is being prepared for 

layout, and likely will be published as an 

e-book in the new year.

Another publication currently in the 

works is a history of NASA’s Discovery 

Program. The late Dr. Susan Niebur 

did a great deal of outstanding research 

and wrote the first draft before David 

Brown recently revised the manuscript. 

This book is scheduled to be published 

in fall 2023, around the time of the 

Discovery@30, New Frontiers@20 

history symposium. (See page 23

for more details.)

The NASA History program is also 

moving forward with another NACArelated publication called Reflections 

on the NACA. Originally developed 

from a symposium, this manuscript 

features insightful essays about the 

NACA’s culture, methods of research, 

accomplishments, and role in broader 

aerospace history from a variety of topflight (pun intended!) aeronautics historians. It is also being envisioned as an 

e-book, complemented with a special

web-based photo essay.

Finally, Bob Arrighi at NASA’s Glenn 

Research Center is completing an 

updated history of NASA’s wind tunnels, with a historic preservation slant 

and multiple illustrations. This manuscript should be ready for copyediting 

and layout early in 2023.

Armstrong Flight Research 

Center (AFRC)

Edwards Air Force Base, California

» By Christian Gelzer

Historian Christian Gelzer and a colleague have been examining newly 

acquired records of the Bell X-1 and 

its first supersonic flights, which Ed 

Saltzman gathered and preserved, 

beginning in 1961. (Read more about 

Saltzman in the Summer 2022 issue of 

News & Notes.) Among the material 

is a handwritten list of X-1 flights with 

annotations. Two of the flights have no 

data (“folder missing”). There are also 

Mach number corrections for three of 

the flights, but no explanation of how 

the engineers corrected the initial data. 

Between 29 August and 4 November 

1947, an unnamed pilot (records suggest it was Chuck Yeager) flew the X-1 

15 times. At least six of these flights 

were supersonic. After Yeager’s first 

21
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Recent Aerospace History Publications

Please note that this list of recent 

commercially published works is 

not comprehensive and does not 

represent an endorsement by NASA.

Fred Haise, Never 

Panic Early: An 

Apollo 13 Astronaut’s 

Journey (Smithsonian 

Books, April 2022).

Maura Mackowski, Life 

in Space: NASA Life 

Sciences Research During 

the Late Twentieth 

Century (University of 

Florida Press, May 2022).

Govert Schilling, The 

Elephant in the Universe: 

Our Hundred-Year 

Search for Dark Matter 

(Harvard University 

Press, May 2022).

Lori Garver, Escaping 

Gravity: My Quest 

to Transform NASA 

and Launch a New 

Space Age (Diversion 

Books, June 2022).

Colin Burgess, Soviets 

in Space: Russia’s 

Cosmonauts and the 

Space Frontier (Reaktion 

Books, July 2022).

Andy Saunders, 

Apollo Remastered: The 

Ultimate Photographic 

Record (Black Dog and 

Leventhal Publishers, 

September 2022).

Andy Bruno, Tunguska: 

A Siberian Mystery and 

its Environmental Legacy

(Cambridge University 

Press, October 2022).

Jim Bell, The Art of the 

Cosmos: Visions from the 

Frontier of Deep Space 

Exploration (Union 

Square, November 2022).

Roland Miller, The 

Space Shuttle: A 

Mission-by-Mission 

Celebration of NASA’s 

Extraordinary Spaceflight 

Program (Artisan Books, 

November 2022).

Christopher A. Roosa, 

Son of Apollo: The 

Adventures of a Boy Whose 

Father Went to the Moon 

(University of Nebraska 

Press, November 2022).

Mary Jane Rubenstein, 

Astrotopia: The Dangerous 

Religion of the Corporate 

Space Race (University 

of Chicago Press, 

November 2022).

Becky Smethurst, 

A Brief History of Black 

Holes: And Why Nearly 

Everything You Know 

About Them Is Wrong

(Macmillan U.K., 

November 2022).

Margaret Weitekamp, 

Space Craze: America’s 

Enduring Fascination 

with Real and Imagined 

Spaceflight (Smithsonian 

Books, November 2022).

supersonic flight on 14 October 1947, 

the records show that the X-1 went 

supersonic on 28, 29, and 31 October 

and 3 and 4 November. If Yeager made 

all these flights, he did so with the broken ribs he sustained two nights before 

his record-breaking flight. Most lists 

show James T. Fitzgerald, Jr., as the 

second pilot to go supersonic on 24 

February 1948.

The material will eventually be added 

to the Center’s historical reference 

collection. 

News from NASA’s Centers (continued)

22
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Other Aerospace History News

Call for Papers for Discovery@30, New Frontiers@20: 

A Symposium on the History of NASA’s Discovery 

and New Frontiers Programs

Date: November 2023

Location: Washington, DC

Congress approved NASA’s Discovery 

Program in 1993, initiating a new era 

of lower-cost, competed missions to 

explore the solar system. Like NASA’s 

older Explorer program of astronomy 

and astrophysics missions, these missions were to be developed and led by 

principal investigators. In 2002, based 

on the model of Discovery but recognizing a need for medium-class science 

missions to tackle questions identified 

in the decadal survey, NASA initiated 

the New Frontiers Program. Over the 

past 30 years, missions from these two 

programs have transformed our understanding of our solar system and have 

accomplished historic firsts. They have 

also redefined the role of science and 

scientists in the development of planetary science missions, even as this willingness to experiment with innovative 

management approaches created a tension with an often risk-averse NASA.

The NASA History Office and the 

Smithsonian’s National Air and Space 

Museum invite proposals for papers to 

be presented at a two-day symposium 

to be held in November 2023 in 

Washington, DC. We welcome diverse 

voices and perspectives to examine 

the history of the Discovery and New 

Frontiers Programs, their successes and 

failures, and their impact on knowledge 

and the practice of planetary science. 

The symposium will be a combination 

of panel discussions, keynote talks, and 

group discussion. The intention is to 

publish an anthology of selected papers.

Visit the Call for Papers web page to 

see a list of potential topics for papers.

Submission Procedure

If you wish to present a 

paper, please send the title, an 

abstract of no more than 400 

words, and a short biography 

or curriculum vitae, including 

affiliation, by 1 May 2023 to 

Dr. Brian C. Odom, NASA’s 

Chief Historian. Questions 

about the symposium are 

also welcome.

2023 Forum on Philosophy, 

Engineering, and Technology

The 2023 Forum on Philosophy, 

Engineering, and Technology (fPET 

2023) will be held at the Technical 

University of Delft in the Netherlands 

on 19–21 April 2023. The conference 

will bring together engineers and philosophers to address the challenges 

of engineering in a changing world. 

We are currently witnessing disruptive changes due to climate change, 

pandemics, and war. Technological 

developments in, for example, 

geo-engineering, artificial intelligence, 

biotechnology, and neurotechnology 

may contribute to such disruptions but 

also help to better deal with them.

fPET 2023 will provide the opportunity to meet like-minded researchers 

and present and discuss research on 

the intersection of engineering and 

philosophy, addressing the theme 

of technology and engineering in a 

changing world, broadly understood. 

The conference will be a daring attempt 

to provide a forum to discuss engineering and philosophy in general, to meet 

and mingle, and to ignite the debate 

on a novel research perspective that 

draws from fields hitherto (largely) 

unconnected to the philosophy and 

engineering debate. It will also try out 

a new format and attempt to spur interdisciplinary collaboration. For details 

on the conference, including the Call 

for Papers and information about previous fPET meetings, see https://www.

fpet2023.org/. 

This artist’s rendering shows the Discovery Program’s 

Psyche spacecraft near 

the surface of the 

Psyche asteroid. 

(Image credit: Maxar/ASU/

Peter Rubin)

23
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

Apollo Astronaut James 

McDivitt Dies at Age 93

» Reprinted from NASA Press Release 22-107

F

ormer NASA astronaut James A. 

McDivitt, who commanded the 

Gemini IV and Apollo 9 missions, died Oct. 13. McDivitt passed 

away peacefully in his sleep surrounded 

by his family and friends in Tucson, 

Arizona. He was 93 years old.

McDivitt was born June 10, 1929, 

in Chicago. He graduated from 

Kalamazoo Central High School, in 

Kalamazoo, Michigan, before going on 

to receive a Bachelor of Science degree 

in Aeronautical Engineering from the 

University of Michigan, graduating 

first in his class in 1959.

He joined the Air Force in 1951 and 

retired with the rank of Brig. General. 

He flew 145 combat missions during 

the Korean War in F-80 and F-86 aircraft. He was a graduate of the U.S. Air 

Force Experimental Test Pilot School 

and the U.S. Air Force Aerospace 

Research Pilot course and served as 

an experimental test pilot at Edwards 

Air Force Base, California. He logged 

more than 5,000 flying hours during 

his piloting career.

McDivitt was selected as an astronaut 

by NASA in September 1962 as part of 

NASA’s second astronaut class.

He first flew in space as commander of 

the Gemini IV mission in June 1965. 

McDivitt was joined by fellow Air 

Force pilot Ed White on the program’s 

most ambitious flight to date. During 

Gemini IV, White would become the 

first American to venture outside his 

spacecraft for what officially is known 

as an extravehicular activity (EVA) or as 

the world has come to know it, a spacewalk. In the following years, it was a 

skill that allowed Apollo explorers to 

walk on the Moon and American astronauts and their partners from around 

the world to build the International 

Space Station. The mission’s fourday duration nearly doubled NASA 

astronauts’ previous time in space to 

that point, with the longest American 

spaceflight previously being Gordon 

Cooper’s 34-hour Mercury 9 mission. 

McDivitt’s second spaceflight as the 

commander of Apollo 9 played a critical role in landing the first humans 

on the Moon. This was the first flight 

of the complete set of Apollo hardware 

and was the first flight of the Lunar 

Module. The mission launched from 

NASA’s Kennedy Space Center on 

March 3, 1969, with Commander 

James McDivitt, Command Module 

Pilot David Scott, and Lunar Module 

Pilot Russell Schweickart. After launch, 

Apollo 9 entered Earth orbit and the 

crew performed an engineering test of 

the first crewed lunar module, nicknamed “Spider,” from beginning to 

end. They simulated the maneuvers 

1964 portrait of NASA astronaut James 

A. McDivitt. (Photo credit: NASA)

Astronaut James A. McDivitt, commander of Gemini IV, suited in preparation 

for weight and balance tests. (Photo credit: 

NASA)

24
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 39, Number 4 • Winter 2022

that would be performed during actual lunar missions. 

During the mission, the astronauts performed a series 

of flight tasks with the command and service module 

and the lunar module. The top priority was rendezvous 

and docking of the lunar module with the command 

and service module. The crew also configured the 

lunar module to support a spacewalk by McDivitt and 

Schweickart. On Flight Day 10, March 13, 1969, the 

Apollo 9 capsule re-entered Earth’s atmosphere and 

splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean, within three 

miles and in full view of the recovery ship, the USS 

Guadalcanal, about 341 miles north of Puerto Rico.

McDivitt logged more than 14 days in space.

After Apollo 9, he became manager of lunar landing 

operations, and led a team that planned the lunar 

exploration program and redesigned the spacecraft to 

accomplish this task. In August 1969, he became manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program, guiding the 

program through Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

McDivitt retired from the U.S. Air Force and left 

NASA in June 1972, to take the position of executive 

vice-president, corporate affairs for Consumers Power 

Company. In March 1975, he joined Pullman, Inc. 

as executive vice-president and a director. In October 

1975 he became president of the Pullman Standard 

Division, The Railcar Division, and later had additional 

responsibility for the leasing and engineering and construction areas of the company. In January 1981 he 

joined Rockwell International as senior vice president, 

government operations, and Rockwell International 

Corporation, Washington, D.C.

His numerous awards included t wo NASA 

Distinguished Service Medals and the NASA 

Exceptional Service Medal. For his service in the 

U.S. Air Force, he also was awarded two Air Force 

Distinguished Service Medals, four Distinguished 

Flying Crosses, five Air Medals, and U.S. Air Force 

Astronaut Wings. McDivitt also received the Chong 

Moo Medal from South Korea, the U.S. Air Force 

Systems Command Aerospace Primus Award, the 

Arnold Air Society JFK Trophy, the Sword of Loyola, 

and the Michigan Wolverine Frontiersman Award. 

Apollo Astronaut James McDivitt Dies at Age 93 (continued)

Upcoming Meetings

5–8 JANUARY 2023

American Historical Association 137th Annual Meeting

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

https://www.historians.org/annual-meeting

23–27 JANUARY 2023

2023 American Institute of Aeronautics 

and Astronautics SciTech Forum 

National Harbor, Maryland, and online

https://www.aiaa.org/scitech

8–10 MARCH, 2023

American Astronautical Society’s Annual 

Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium

Laurel, Maryland

https://astronautical.org/events/goddard/

22–26 MARCH 2023

American Society for Environmental History Annual Meeting

Boston, Massachusetts

https://www.aseh.org/Events

28–30 MARCH 2023

International Astronautical Federation Spring Meetings 2023

Paris, France

https://www.iafastro.org/events/iaf-springmeetings/iaf-spring-meetings-2023.html

30 MARCH–2 APRIL 2023

Organization of American Historians Annual Meeting

Los Angeles, California

https://www.oah.org/meetings-events/oah23

12–15 APRIL 2023

National Council on Public History Annual Meeting

Atlanta, Georgia

https://ncph.org/conference/2023-annual-meeting/

19–21 APRIL 2023

2023 Forum on Philosophy, Engineering, and Technology

Delft, Netherlands

https://www.fpet2023.org/

25
EXPLORE

New Titles 

in the NASA 

History Series

COMING SOON

NACA to NASA to Now 

by Roger D. Launius

A History of Near-Earth 

Objects Research 

by Erik M. Conway, Donald 

K. Yeomans, and Meg 

Rosenburg

The Wind and Beyond,

Volume III: Other Paths, 

Other Flyways

James R. Hansen and 

Jeremy R. Kinney, eds.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Headquarters

300 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20546

www.nasa.gov

Flickr

nasacommons

Facebook

@NASAHistoryOffice

Twitter

@NASAhistory

FOLLOW

NASA History 

on Social Media

NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES

Newsletter Editor and Graphic Designer » Michele Ostovar

Copyeditor » Lisa Jirousek

DOWNLOAD this and other recent 

editions of News & Notes at 

http://history.nasa.gov/histnews.htm.

Ron Evans captured this view of the Apollo 17 Lunar Module in orbit around the Moon prior to its 

docking with the Command and Service Module on 14 December 1972. (Photo credit: NASA)