SP-2012-4012

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

Volume VIII

NASA Earth Science and Space Applications, 

Aeronautics, Technology, and Exploration, 

Tracking and Data Acquisition/Space Operations, 

Facilities and Resources 

1989–1998

Judy A. Rumerman

The NASA History Series

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Office of Communications

History Program Office

Washington, DC
ii
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

(Revised for vol. 8) 

NASA historical data book. 

(NASA SP- 2012-4012) 

Vol. 1 is a republication of NASA historical data book, 

1958–1968/ Jane Van Nimmen and Leonard C. Bruno. 

Vol. 8 in series: The NASA historical data book series.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 

Contents: v. 1 NASA resources, 1958–1968 / Jane Van 

Nimmen and Leonard C. Bruno — v. 2. Programs and projects, 

1958–1968 / Linda Neuman Ezell — v. 3. Programs and projects, 

1969–1978 / Linda Neuman Ezell — v. 4. NASA resources, 1969– 

1978 / Ihor Gawdiak with Helen Fedor — v. 5. NASA launch 

systems, space transportation, human spaceflight, and space 

science, 1979–1988 / Judy A. Rumerman — v. 6. NASA Space 

Applications, Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology,

Tracking and Data Acquisition/Support Operations, Commercial 

Programs, and Resources 1979–1988 / Judy A. Rumerman — v. 7. NASA Launch Systems, 

Space Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Science 1989-1998/ Judy A. Rumerman — 

v. 8. NASA Earth Science and Space Applications, Aeronautics, Technology, and Exploration, 

Tracking and Data Acquisition/Space Operations, Facilities and Resources 1989–1998 / Judy A. 

Rumerman

1. United States. National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration—History. I. Van Nimmen, Jane. II. Bruno, 

Leonard C. III. Ezell, Linda Neuman. IV. Gawdiak, Ihor. V. 

Rumerman, Judy A — v. VI.

VI. Series. VII. Series. VIII. Series: NASA SP-4012. 

iii
iv

Table of Contents 

Preface and Acknowledgments ................................................................................................... v 

About the Compiler.................................................................................................................... vi 

Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 

Chapter Two: Earth Science and Space Applications............................................................... 4 

Chapter Three: Aeronautics, Technology, and Exploration ................................................. 220 

Chapter Four: Tracking and Data Acquisition/Space Operations ........................................ 528 

Chapter Five: Facilities and Field Centers ............................................................................ 608 

Chapter Six: NASA Personnel .............................................................................................. 675 

Chapter Seven: Finances and Procurement ........................................................................... 685 

NASA History Series List ....................................................................................................... 710 
Preface and Acknowledgments

In 1973, NASA published the first volume of the NASA Historical Data Book, a hefty tome 

containing mostly tabular data on the resources of the space Agency between 1958 and 1968. 

There, broken into detailed tables, were facts and figures associated with the budget, facilities, 

procurement, installations, and personnel of NASA during that formative decade. In 1988, 

NASA reissued that first volume of the data book and added two additional volumes (one for 

1958–1968 and one for 1969–1978) on the Agency’s programs and projects. NASA published a 

fourth volume in 1994 that addressed NASA’s resources for the period between 1969 and 1978. 

In 1999, it published volume V of the data book, which contained narrative and tabular 

information on the Agency’s launch systems, space transportation, human spaceflight, and space 

science programs between 1979 and 1988. Volume VI, published in 2000, was a continuation of 

those earlier efforts and addressed the Agency’s space applications efforts, the development and 

operation of aeronautics and space research and technology programs, tracking and data 

acquisition/space operations, commercial programs, facilities and installations, personnel, and 

finances and procurement during that era. 

Volume VII, published in 2008, addressed the decade from 1989 to 1998. It consisted of 

narrative and tabular material on the Agency’s launch systems, space transportation, human 

spaceflight, and space science programs. This eighth volume continues those earlier efforts. This 

fundamental reference tool presents information, much of it statistical, documenting the 

development of several critical areas of NASA responsibility for the period between 1989 and 

1998. This volume includes detailed information on NASA’s Earth science/space applications 

efforts, the development and operation of aeronautics and space research and technology 

programs, tracking and data acquisition/space operations, facilities and installations, personnel, 

and finances and procurement during this era. 

Special thanks are owed to my student research assistant, Tai Edwards, who gathered and 

organized much of the reference material for this volume and set up the many tables—a 

particularly tedious and exacting undertaking. The reviewers of these chapters provided an 

invaluable service, often pointing out important errors and omissions. 

Numerous people at NASA associated with historical study, technical information, and the 

mechanics of publishing helped in many ways to prepare this historical data book. Thanks are 

due to members of the NASA community around the county who provided material and helped 

fill in gaps in my information. Stephen Garber managed the contract and project, overseeing all 

aspects of the publication. NASA History Office Chief Archivist Jane Odom, History Office 

archivists Colin Fries and John Hargenrader, and staff at the NASA Headquarters and Goddard 

Space Flight Center libraries helped locate sometimes elusive information. Center historians 

provided information relating to their particular centers, and individuals in the Office of Human 

Resources and the Facilities Engineering Division were helpful in providing and explaining data 

regarding those areas.

Publishing professionals at NASA Headquarters and Maryland Composition prepared the 

manuscript for publication. 

Thanks are due to them all. 

v
About the Compiler

Judith A. Rumerman is a professional technical writer who has written or contributed to 

numerous documents for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. She has written 

documents describing various spaceflight programs, in-house procedures used at Goddard Space 

Flight Center, and various materials used for training. She was also the compiler of U.S. Human 

Spaceflight: A Record of Achievement, 1961–1998, a monograph for the NASA History Office 

detailing NASA’s human spaceflight missions, and volumes five and six of the NASA Historical 

Data Book, 1979–1988. In the years preceding the 2003 Centennial of Flight, Ms. Rumerman 

served as technical lead and prime author of the series of essays written for the Centennial of 

Flight Commission describing all aspects of aviation and spaceflight aimed at young people of 

high-school age.

Ms. Rumerman has degrees from the University of Michigan and George Washington 

University. She grew up in Detroit and presently lives in Silver Spring, Maryland. 

vi
Notes on Sources 

The bulk of the sources used in preparing this volume were official NASA documents and 

references. Whenever possible, the author attempted to use primary sources prepared by the 

organizations or individuals most directly involved in a program or mission. NASA Web sites 

were also used extensively. Secondary sources were most often used to provide perspective 

rather than data. The following paragraphs describe major sources. Detailed footnotes are 

provided in each chapter. 

Annual Budget Estimates. These documents are issued each year by the NASA Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer when the annual budget request is presented to Congress. These lengthy 

documents (filling several loose-leaf binders each year) contain breakdowns of the budgets for 

three fiscal years: the year just ending, the next fiscal year, and the fiscal year two years out. 

Budget figures are presented by appropriation, program office, installation, program, and in any 

other way that may be of interest to budget preparers. Toward the end of this decade, a “fullcost” accounting method was adopted, and budget figures for major programs began to be 

presented in both the traditional way and in full-cost figures. Budget estimate documents also 

provide comprehensive narrative descriptions of programs and activities, describing both what 

occurred during a prior fiscal year (and occasionally further back) and what the Agency’s plans 

are for the next two years. These descriptions provide a useful account of a program’s evolution. 

Press and Media Kits. NASA prepares press or media kits for every Space Shuttle mission and a 

number of major robotic missions. They describe launch events, payloads, planned experiments, 

astronaut biographies, and other mission-unique information. Designed for nontechnical 

audiences and the media, they provide a comprehensive description of NASA missions. All 

Shuttle press kits and most other press kits are available online.

Mission Operation Reports. Every NASA mission is required to prepare a pre- and postlaunch 

mission operation report. These reports are designed for the use of senior management, and 

although they are part of the NASA Historical Reference Collection, they may not always be 

available to the public. They provide material similar to that found in the press kits but may also 

include more technical information, and the postlaunch reports may include assessments of the 

success of various mission elements.

Aeronautics and Space Reports of the President. These annual reports describe the aeronautics 

and space activities of all government agencies that engage in these types of activities. They 

provide a good overview and an excellent starting point for research. They were especially 

helpful in the chapter describing NASA’s aeronautics activities, since aeronautics generally falls 

into the research and technology area, and many efforts in this area do not result in an event 

comparable to the launch of a space mission. 

Press Releases. NASA Headquarters and each NASA center regularly issue press releases 

describing newsworthy events. They provide the current status on various events, including 

scientific missions, management and organizational changes, contract awards, and changing 

Agency priorities. They are often the only source of current, detailed information about a 

mission. Headquarters press releases have been posted on the NASA Web site since the early 

1990s. The centers began posting their press releases in the mid-1990s. 

vii
Exploring the Unknown, Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, 

Volume VI: Space and Earth Science, edited by John Logsdon. The introductory essay by John 

H. McElroy and Ray A. Williamson preceding the documents in this volume provides an 

outstanding overview of the evolution of the Earth Observing System (EOS), which may be the 

most important Earth science program conducted by NASA during this decade. 

Uplink-Downlink: A History of the Deep Space Network 1957–1997, by Douglas J. Mudgway. 

This book provides an excellent and extremely useful description of the Deep Space Network 

during the decade described in the current volume. It was especially useful in detailing changes 

made in the management structure at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Personnel at the Canberra 

and Goldstone complexes were also helpful in supplementing the published material. 

Web sites. The past few years have seen an explosion of material posted on the Internet. Every 

NASA program has a Web site (too many to list here) and posts a wide variety of information 

about a project. This has had both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, 

official documents, such as those involving legislation, policies, Agency reports, and directives, 

are readily available. NASA programs post huge amounts of material describing all phases of a 

mission, including mission parameters and specifications, instrument descriptions, scientific 

results, implications, etc. This information enables researchers to acquire a great deal of 

information without having to cull through files or archives. However, it is also very easy for 

errors to be perpetuated, even when information is located on NASA Web sites. Information is 

easily copied from one Web site to the next, often without question, and errors are inadvertently 

introduced when material is not carefully edited. It is necessary for the researcher to verify 

information carefully before using it. Another issue is that sometimes information will be

removed from a Web site because of storage considerations before it is archived. Information 

“disappears” or is moved to another location on the Internet. This happens especially when 

information becomes “out of date” and there is no concern for the historical value of the 

material. Broken links, due both to technical difficulties and the removal or moving of Web 

pages without revising the referring link, are also a problem. Web material has been used 

extensively in this volume, but care has been taken to ensure its reliability. An “accessed” date is 

always included, and a printed copy of all Web pages used has been provided to the NASA 

History Division.

Each NASA project has a Web site of varying levels of detail and quality. Some provide 

extensive information about the mission and science results, while others provide only basic 

information. Some projects have more than one Web site—one dealing with mission elements 

and a second dealing primarily with the science. 

The Canberra Deep Space Complex has an especially useful Web site that describes in detail the 

history and facilities of the complex. The Goldstone Complex’s Web site was also helpful. 

Madrid did not have much information available online, and Mudgway was the best source for 

information on that complex.

NASA Space Science Data Center. While it is not easy to navigate, the Master Catalog on the 

NSSDC database is often the only available source of basic information for each mission. Its 

pages supply a brief description of each mission, as well as orbital information and a list of the 

viii
instruments used (with a description of each), often with the names and affiliations of the 

Principal Investigators.

Human Resources Information. The NASA Office of Human Resources has created an extensive 

“data cube” that contains a vast amount of statistical data relating to NASA personnel beginning 

in FY 1992. This information was an invaluable source for creating the tables in the NASA 

personnel chapter. Data for earlier years were obtained from annual NASA Civil Service 

Workforce reports. 

Procurement Information. Information from the comprehensive annual procurement reports 

published by the NASA Office of Procurement was used to create the tables in the chapter on 

NASA procurement activities. Information on the procurement regulations came primarily from 

the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS). Because the 

period described in this volume covers the years 1989–1998, the FAR and NFS for those years 

were used as references to reflect the status of regulations during that decade. 

Facilities and Center Information. Accurate information on center associate administrators was 

generally available from the NASA History Office. However, the names and dates of associate 

administrators were exceedingly difficult to obtain from some centers, requiring the assistance of 

the Office of the Administrator at the center, individuals in the center’s Human Resources 

Office, librarians, and historians. The NASA Headquarters Facilities Engineering Division

prepares spreadsheets detailing the physical facilities at Headquarters and each NASA center. 

Some of the information is included as a page in the annual budget estimates. Other information 

was obtained directly from the division. Information relating to the wind tunnels and similar 

facilities at the centers generally was obtained from center Web sites and personnel at the 

appropriate centers. No publications describe in a comprehensive fashion the changes made to 

the tunnels in the decade addressed in this volume. However, Frank E. Peñaranda and M. 

Shannon Freda provided a good starting point in Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, 

Wind Tunnels (compiled in 1985), since a large number of tunnels have not changed since then. 

Graphics. The graphics in this volume were acquired from many sources. The majority of the 

photographs were obtained from various NASA image libraries, including the NASA Image 

Exchange (NIX), the Great Images in NASA (GRIN) system, and the image libraries maintained 

by the individual centers. If there was an identifying number assigned to the photograph, the 

caption describing the photograph includes it. Some photographs provided by projects do not 

include an identifying number because the project does not use a numbering system. A few 

photographs were loaned to the author by project personnel, scanned, and returned to the owner. 

The diagrams in this volume generally came from documents such as press kits, reports, and 

NASA directives. These images were scanned at a resolution suitable for printing and “cleaned 

up” to eliminate stray marks. Sometimes the text was reentered to achieve a consistent style or to 

eliminate typographical errors. Organizational charts were usually redrawn by the author so that 

each would be consistent with the others in style. Other graphics were scans of images in 

company or project brochures, or in material provided to the author. They also may have been 

modified digitally to improve their quality or resolution.

ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

During the period between 1989 and 1998, NASA experienced what may have been its most 

productive decade ever. The Agency resumed human spaceflight after the 1986 Challenger

accident, began constructing the International Space Station (ISS), launched two of NASA’s four 

“Great Observatories,” and increasingly focused on characterizing Earth’s environment. Much of 

this work took place in a time of decreasing budgets and a push to accomplish more “faster, 

better, and cheaper.”

Earth Science and Space Applications

NASA’s Earth science and applications missions focused on observing Earth and its atmosphere 

and environment to improve life on the planet. During this decade, NASA stressed Earth system 

science—the observation and analysis of the integrated systems of Earth that incorporated the 

physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the planet—and concentrated on global change. In 

collaboration with other federal agencies and international partners, the Agency carried out a 

wide variety of observation and research programs conducted both from spacecraft in orbit 

around Earth and from aircraft. The Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) program was the 

cornerstone of NASA’s Earth science activities, a global-scale examination of Earth that studied 

the interaction of all the environmental components—air, water, land, and life—constituting the 

Earth’s system. Additionally, NASA participated in a series of operational meteorological and 

land remote sensing missions.

1
Aeronautics, Technology, and Exploration 

The Agency’s aeronautics, research and technology, and exploration activities built on a 

foundation established during the era of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 

(NACA), NASA’s predecessor agency. Its aeronautics activities focused on meeting national 

goals in the subsonic, transatmospheric, and supersonic regions of flight. Space research and 

technology initiatives supported and provided technology related to the Space Shuttle, America’s 

launch systems and satellites, and the ISS. These activities focused on future civil space 

missions, improving access to space and providing a base of research and technology to support 

all national space goals. Exploration activities grew largely out of recommendations made by a 

committee—chaired by former NASA astronaut Sally Ride—to the NASA Administrator in 

1987 and presidential initiatives in the late 1980s and early 1990s on the importance of regaining 

America’s leadership in space endeavors following the Challenger accident.

NASA’s state-of-the-art wind tunnel facilities played a major role in the development of 

improved aircraft and technology. While some tunnel facilities closed during this decade as part 

of efforts to increase efficiency and reduce duplication, some older facilities upgraded and added 

new capabilities.

Tracking and Data Acquisition/Space Operations

NASA’s tracking and data acquisition and space operations activities during the decade from 

1989 to 1998 provided vital support for all NASA flight projects and, on a reimbursable basis, 

supported projects of the Department of Defense (DOD) and other government agencies, 

commercial firms, and other countries and international organizations engaged in space research 

2
activities. This support was essential for achieving the objectives of all flight missions. During 

this decade, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) became operational, 

reducing the need for an extensive system of ground tracking stations. Consequently, many 

ground stations closed, leaving only a few to support the Space Shuttle and spacecraft not 

compatible with the TDRSS network. NASA built a second Tracking Ground Terminal at White 

Sands, New Mexico, primarily to support TDRSS operations. At the same time, the three Deep 

Space Network (DSN) complexes continued to improve and upgrade their antenna facilities to 

support the growing number of spacecraft launched into deep space. 

Facilities and Resources

During the 10 years between 1979 and 1988, NASA’s facilities remained essentially the same as 

in the previous decade. The major administrative change was the return of Dryden Flight 

Research Facility to independent center status. Personnel decreased in number during the decade 

but became more diverse and better educated. NASA’s real budget also fell as President Bill 

Clinton worked to reduce the federal deficit, and the Agency was asked to do more with fewer 

resources. In the procurement area, mergers of aerospace firms consolidated major contracts 

among fewer businesses. NASA also became more efficient by consolidating several smaller 

contracts into fewer large procurements.

3
CHAPTER 2: EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS 

Introduction

This chapter addresses NASA’s Earth science and applications activities between 1989 and 

1998. Earth science and applications missions focus on observing Earth and its atmosphere and 

environment to improve life on the planet. This chapter also looks at technology in terms of 

materials science, fluid science, and physical processes, as well as addressing practical 

applications related to the microgravity environment as it affects humans in space.

As is customary in these data books, most material in this chapter is based on primary NASA 

documents and Web-based materials produced by NASA. These include pre- and post-launch 

mission operation reports, press kits and press releases, key personnel announcements, and 

various reports and plans issued by the Agency. For Shuttle-based application activities, the 

Space Shuttle mission archives and mission chronologies were consulted. The NASA projects 

themselves have been plentiful sources of data. Most have comprehensive Web sites, and many 

also publish information booklets and fact sheets. Partner agencies, such as the European Space 

Agency (ESA), also publish printed and online material regarding their joint activities with 

NASA, as do the academic and private-sector institutions and organizations that are the homes of 

researchers and investigators. Most budget material comes from the annual budget estimates 

generated by the NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer and from federal budget 

legislation. Other government agencies and organizations, including the General Accounting 

Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

4
Administration (NOAA), also issue reports and documents used as reference material.1

Measurements are presented in the unit used in the original reference (metric or English), and the 

conversions are in parentheses. 

The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) 

Most Earth science and space applications missions launched by NASA during the decade from 

1979 to 1988 were commercial missions or missions managed by government agencies other 

than NASA. Only the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE), the Magnetic Field 

Satellite (Magsat), and the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) were NASA missions. 

NASA’s other Earth science and applications missions took place aboard the Space Shuttle. 

SAGE and Magsat were part of NASA’s Applications Explorer Mission program. NASA’s other 

environmental observations missions consisted of two sets of meteorological satellites, both of 

which were operated by NOAA. NOAA operated this series of polar-orbiting satellites and the 

geosynchronous Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) after NASA 

developed and launched them. The earlier Nimbus satellites, which were also transferred from 

NASA to NOAA, continued to operate during this decade as well. 

The extent and effects of ozone and ozone depletion were a major focus of the decade. The Total 

Ozone Monitoring Spectrometer (TOMS) on Nimbus-7 provided the first global maps of total 

ozone with high spatial and temporal resolution beginning in the late 1970s. The Nimbus 

satellites continued to provide data on ozone levels from their backscatter ultraviolet instruments. 

NASA reported to Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) its 

assessment of key processes in the stratosphere, especially the effects of human-produced 

chemicals in the ozone layer. The urgency of the upcoming Upper Atmosphere Research 

1 The General Accounting Office became the Government Accountability Office in 2004.

5
Satellite (UARS)—the first satellite capable of simultaneously measuring the energy input, 

chemical composition, and dynamics of the stratosphere and mesosphere—was emphasized by 

the discovery of an ozone hole in the Antarctic and ozone depletion in the Arctic. 

In the area of resource observations, NASA continued its involvement in space-based operational 

civilian remote-sensing activities primarily through the Landsat program, managed by NOAA in 

the first part of the decade and later operated by the Earth Observation Satellite Company 

(EOSAT). During this decade, NASA launched Landsats 4 and 5, which provided better 

resolution than earlier satellites.

From 1979 to 1988, NASA’s role in the communications satellite field was primarily as a 

provider of launch services. The Agency launched 65 operational communications satellites for 

several governments and communication companies. These commercial missions enabled NASA 

to use some of its launch capabilities for the first time, such as the first use of the payload assist 

module in place of a conventional expendable launch vehicle third stage, and the first launch of a 

payload from the Shuttle’s cargo bay. NASA’s communications activities centered on its Search 

and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking (SARSAT) system, the development of the Advanced 

Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS), continued work on the mobile satellite program, 

and development of an information systems program to handle the huge quantities of data 

returned from space missions. 

Earth Science and Applications Overview (1989–1998) 

NASA’s focus on Earth science and applications began early in the Agency’s history with its 

first Earth-observing satellite, TIROS-1. Over the next two decades, NASA increasingly made 

6
broader and more precise and sophisticated measurements while improving the technology 

needed to observe Earth. During the decade from 1989 to 1998, NASA stressed Earth system 

science—the observation and analysis of the integrated systems of Earth, incorporating the 

physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the planet—and concentrated on global change. In 

collaboration with other federal agencies and international partners, the Agency carried out a 

wide variety of observation and research programs conducted both from spacecraft in orbit 

around Earth and from aircraft. 

Beginning in 1991, the MTPE program became the cornerstone of NASA’s Earth science 

activities as NASA formally began a global-scale examination of Earth to study the interaction of 

all the environmental components—air, water, land, and life—constituting Earth’s system. Much 

of the national effort was coordinated through the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP). Internationally, NASA collaborated with Japan, ESA, individual European nations, 

Russia, and Canada on several key spacecraft and instruments for programs in every area of 

environmental research. The Agency also was active in such international bodies as the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Climate Research Program, and the 

International Geosphere-Biosphere Program.2

 This global program was NASA’s long-term, 

coordinated research effort to study Earth as a global environmental system. 

The first phase of MTPE consisted of free-flying satellites, such as UARS, and Space Shuttle 

missions, such as the Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS). Airborne 

and ground-based studies complemented the space missions. Phase 2 consisted of the Earth 

Observing System (EOS) satellites, whose overall goal was to advance understanding of the 

2 “Mission to Planet Earth Strategic Enterprise Plan, 1995–2000,” NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC; 1995, 5.

7
entire Earth system on a global scale by improving our knowledge of the components of the 

system, the interactions among them, and how Earth’s system is changing.3

Additionally, NASA participated in a series of operational meteorological and land remotesensing missions in partnership with NOAA and the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). The Space 

Shuttle also carried missions that focused on the microgravity environment in terms of both its 

impact on humans and its role in technological processes. Most of these were Spacelab missions, 

and some used Spacelab hardware but operated automatically or remotely without the 

participation of the Shuttle crew. Other missions studying the microgravity environment 

involved small satellites that were released from the Shuttle for a short period of time, either to 

fly freely in the vicinity of the Shuttle or to conduct experiments perched on the end of the 

Shuttle’s robot arm. These satellites were then retrieved, reberthed in the Shuttle, and returned to 

Earth.

This chapter discusses the Earth science and applications missions launched between 1989 and 

1998 in which NASA had a role and several almost completely developed during the decade and 

launched soon after. It also discusses several missions carried on board the Space Shuttle. Tables 

2-1 and 2-2 list the missions addressed in this chapter. 

3 “NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth: Space-Based Missions, 1994–2000,” NASA History Division folder 18482, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, 1994.

8
Management of NASA’s Earth Science and Applications Program 

At the start of the 1989–1998 decade, Earth science and applications missions were managed by 

the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA), referred to within NASA as Code E. This 

combined organization had been established in November 1981. At the start of 1989, the 

divisions within OSSA relating to Earth science and applications were Earth Science and 

Applications, Microgravity Science and Applications, and Communications and Information 

Systems (see figure 2-1). The remaining divisions were Space Physics, Solar System 

Exploration, Astrophysics, and Life Sciences (discussed elsewhere in these data books). Dr. 

Lennard A. Fisk was Associate Administrator of OSSA; Ray J. Arnold headed the 

Communications and Information Systems Division; Dr. Shelby Tilford led the Earth Science 

and Applications Division; and Robert A. Schmitz was acting head of the Microgravity Science 

and Applications Division. In April 1990, an administrative action changed the letter designation 

for OSSA to Code S, but the functions and organization remained exactly the same.4

4 Richard Truly to Officials-in-Charge of Headquarters Offices, “Headquarters Organization/Mail Codes,” April 26, 

1990, NASA History Division folder 009524, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, 

DC.

9
Figure 2-1. Office of Space Science and Applications, 1983–1993. 

In the spring of 1991, Robert Rhome became head of the Microgravity Science and Applications 

Division. Around the same time, the Communications and Information Systems Division was 

disestablished.5

 Its head, Ray Arnold, moved to the Office of Commercial Programs. 

In July 1992, the roles and responsibilities assigned to OSSA changed to include responsibility 

for “planning, development, and operation of NASA missions that used the Space Shuttle, 

Spacelab, other Shuttle-attached payload carriers, and Space Station Freedom.” OSSA also 

assumed responsibility for managing and directing the expendable launch vehicle (ELV) and the 

5 “Role and Responsibilities—Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications,” NASA Management 

Instruction 1102.1F, July 31, 1991, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

10
upper stages launch service program, including “planning, requirements, acquisition strategy, 

operations, and oversight.”6 

In October 1992, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin announced an Agencywide reorganization 

to “better focus NASA’s programs, to streamline how we do business so we can meet the 

challenges ahead” that, among other changes, affected the management of space and Earth 

science missions.7 OSSA first split into two organizations: one to manage space science 

missions, and one to manage Earth science and applications missions. Earth science and 

applications missions went to the new Office of Mission to Planet Earth (OMTPE) (Code Y). 

Space science missions went to the temporarily named Office of Planetary Science and 

Astrophysics (Code S).8

 

Effective with the new organization, Dr. Fisk moved from the position of Associate 

Administrator of the disbanded OSSA to become NASA’s Chief Scientist. Dr. Tilford became 

acting MTPE Associate Administrator. Dr. Robert Watson became OMTPE acting Chief 

Scientist as well as head of the OMTPE Science Division. The OMTPE Flight Systems Division 

was headed by Michael R. Luther, and Dr. Dixon Butler headed the Operations, Data, and 

Information Systems Division. These changes became effective in March 1993.9 Along with 

these changes, Goldin placed NASA’s life sciences and microgravity programs into a new 

6 “Role and Responsibilities—Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications,” NASA Management 

Instruction 1102.1H, July 30, 1992, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 7 “Goldin Announces Changes in NASA Organization To Focus and Strengthen Programs and Management,” NASA 

News Release 92-172, NASA History Division folder 18429, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

8 It was soon renamed the Office of Space Science.

9 “Assignment of Key Personnel and Establishment of New Offices,” NASA Special Announcement, March 11, 

1993. See chapter 3 of volume VII of the NASA Historical Data Book, 1989–1998, for further discussion of 

OLMSA’s organization.

11
organization, the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA), 

designated Code U at NASA. Dr. Harry Holloway was its first Associate Administrator. Later in 

the year, Dr. Tilford became OMTPE Chief Scientist.

The mission of MTPE was to develop programs to acquire a scientific understanding of the 

entire Earth system on a global scale by describing how its component parts and their 

interactions evolved, how they functioned, and how they might be expected to continue evolving 

on all timescales. The programs were managed by several divisions:

• The Flight Systems Division developed all MTPE flight systems, including EOS, Earth 

probes, Space Shuttle and aircraft payloads, and NOAA operational flight systems on a 

reimbursable basis. It also served as liaison to the Office of Space Flight for matters relating to

the Space Shuttle, Office of Space Science for Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) matters, and 

OLMSA for flight systems interfaces.

• The Operations, Data, and Information Systems Division managed mission operations, 

data systems development, applications, and data management for MTPE programs, and served 

as liaison to the Office of Space Communications.

• The Science Division managed all science research efforts, defined flight programs 

related to MTPE, and served as liaison to the Office of Aeronautics for investigating the 

environmental impact of aviation.10 (See figure 2-2.) 

10 “Role and Responsibilities—Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth (AA/MTPE),” NASA 

Management Instruction 1102.16, June 28, 1993. NASA History Division folder 18429, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

12
Figure 2-2. Office of Mission to Planet Earth organization, June 1993. 

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland, was the lead center for MTPE

missions.

In January 1994, Administrator Goldin announced the appointment of Dr. Charles Kennel as 

Associate Administrator for OMTPE, replacing Dr. Tilford, acting Associate Administrator since 

the MTPE office was formed. Dr. Mark Abbott was also named Chief Scientist for OMTPE.11 In 

mid-1994, Watson left his position as head of the OMTPE Science Division. He was replaced by 

Dr. Robert Harriss. 

In 1995, NASA moved from an “office” structure to one of “strategic enterprises.” OMTPE 

became the Mission to Planet Earth Enterprise, one of NASA’s five strategic enterprises.12 

11 “NASA Administrator Announces Management Changes,” NASA News Release 94-3, January 6, 1994, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-003.txt (accessed February 23, 2005). 12 NASA’s other strategic enterprises were Aeronautics, Human Exploration and Development of Space, Space 

Science, and Space Technology.

13
Dr. Kennel left NASA in January 1996 to return to the University of California, Los Angeles. 

William Townsend, Deputy Associate Administrator, became acting Associate Administrator. In 

mid-1996, the Flight Systems Division was abolished and a new division, Program Planning and 

Development, was established. Michael Luther, who had led the Flight Systems Division, 

became head of the new division. The Operations, Data, and Information Systems Division was 

also abolished. 

Two significant changes in the management approach to MTPE were implemented in 1996. The 

MTPE program office at Goddard assumed a larger role when program management 

responsibilities were transferred from NASA Headquarters to Goddard. Also, the NASA Office 

of Space Access and Technology was disestablished with advanced technology development to 

be managed by the enterprises and coordinated by a Chief Technologist in the Office of the 

Administrator. With this change, MTPE assumed responsibility for the small spacecraft 

technology initiative (Lewis and Clark missions) and the commercial remote sensing program.13

NASA also established a lead center for microgravity research at Marshall Space Flight Center 

(MSFC).

At the start of 1998, MTPE Enterprise was renamed the Earth Science Enterprise. Acting 

Associate Administrator Townsend stated that “Earth Science” more clearly conveyed the 

program’s goals and more directly focused on the research being conducted. In February, Dr. 

Ghassem Asrar was selected as the new NASA Associate Administrator for Earth Science. The 

major divisions of the enterprise were Business, Program Planning and Coordination, Research, 

13 “Science, Aeronautics, and Technology, Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates,” Budget Summary, Office of Mission to 

Planet Earth, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, SAT 3–5.

14
and Applications and Outreach. Figure 2-3 shows the organization’s structure, including both its 

divisions and major programs and projects. 

Figure 2-3. Earth Science organization structure, 1999. 

Money for Earth Science and Applications

Funding levels for Earth science and applications activities reflected NASA’s growing focus on 

assessing the condition of Earth’s ozone layer and investigating Earth as an integrated system. In 

general, funding for Earth sciences during this decade increased. However, in fiscal year (FY) 

1993, the funding level fell significantly. This reflected a major restructuring and realignment of 

the EOS program and a reduction in its scope. The decrease also reflected a restructuring of the 

15
disbanded OSSA into separate offices for Space Science, Life and Microgravity Science and 

Applications, and MTPE. Funds for materials processing, Space Science Data Center activities 

associated with information systems, and search-and-rescue programs (all formerly considered 

Earth science and applications activities) were transferred to other program offices.14 Funding in 

FY 1994 recovered and surpassed the previous high point. It continued to grow, except in FY 

1997, when it remained essentially flat. Table 2-3 shows programmed amounts for major budget 

categories. 

During this decade, appropriation bills passed by Congress seldom specified amounts for 

NASA’s individual programs, designating amounts only for the research and development 

(R&D) or (beginning with FY 1995) the Science, Aeronautics and Technology (SAT) 

appropriations category as a whole. In general, the Agency relied on conference committee 

reports for more specific direction.15 Thus, the tables in this chapter do not include 

appropriations data for Earth Science. The total amounts appropriated for R&D and the SAT 

categories can be found in chapter 7 of this volume. 

The budget tables that follow (tables 2-4 to 2-54) show budget requests and programmed 

amounts for the programs within Earth science and applications. Since NASA typically submits 

an original and revised budget request before Congress acts on a budget, both amounts are 

indicated, separated by a “/.” The original submission results from an extensive “budget 

exercise” performed by the individual projects and organizations at each NASA Center, in which 

14 “Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, Research and Development Budget Plan for Space Science and Applications,” 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, RD SSA-2.

15 Technically, directions from a conference committee are not legally binding. However, NASA generally follows 

the guidance contained in such reports.

16
managers and analysts take a detailed look at past costs and planned and anticipated costs for the 

next year and future years based on the project schedule and milestones. Changes stated in a 

revised submission often result from feedback to the Centers from Headquarters program offices 

that may have received input from the congressional authorization committee via the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). Where no amount appears, there was no submission received. 

Programmed amounts are determined after the end of a fiscal year and reflect the amounts 

actually available to be spent. Occasionally, a new budget category is established during a fiscal 

year. When this happens, there will be a programmed amount but no budget request for that 

budget category. Funds for these activities often were transferred from another project’s budget 

through a “reprogramming” of funds during the year. All amounts come from the annual budget 

requests prepared by the NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

Earth Science and Applications/MTPE Program

NASA’s Earth Science and Applications/MTPE program was responsible for broad space-based 

and airborne scientific studies of Earth as an integrated whole and studies of the processes that 

comprise Earth system science. The Agency’s interest in Earth sciences began in its early days 

with the development of TIROS-1, the first satellite to observe Earth from the vantage point of 

space. Over the next two decades, NASA explored the basic feasibility of making useful Earth 

observations from space and determining whether space systems were reliable enough for 

continuing use.16 Nimbus-7, which launched in 1978 and operated into the 1990s, was an 

especially important mission, offering new capabilities and producing a number of new 

16 John J. McElroy and Ray A. Williamson, “The Evolution of Earth Science Research from Space: NASA’s Earth 

Observing System,” in John M. Logsdon, ed., Exploring the Unknown, Selected Documents in the History of the 

U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume VI: Space and Earth Science (Washington, DC: NASA Special Publication4407, 2004), pp. 442–443.

17
measurements, as well as the first view of the Antarctic ozone hole from space. Electro-optical 

imaging sensors with varying resolutions and spectral characteristics observed Earth, and 

sounding instruments produced vertical profiles of the atmosphere from polar-orbiting and 

geosynchronous satellites. In addition, NASA cooperated with NOAA and the international 

community on research programs focusing on Earth’s environment. It also joined other 

organizations in observing ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere and attempting to determine 

its cause.17

The Agency’s focus on Earth system science began with a 1982 NASA-initiated report that 

established the initial scientific basis for studying Earth’s physical, chemical, and biological 

systems in an integrated fashion. Centering on global change, this report raised the question of 

how human activities might be altering these systems and affecting Earth’s habitability.18 It also 

addressed the principal scientific ideas that would lead to the idea for the MTPE program in the 

next decade. 

The issue of global habitability was of interest worldwide. At the United Nations Unispace II 

Conference in Vienna in August 1982, the United States proposed an international cooperative 

research effort to obtain data from space and by other means relating to changes in Earth’s 

environment that could affect its ability to sustain human life. Although President Ronald 

17 McElroy and Williamson, in Logsdon, pp. 445–446.

18 Richard Goody, chairman, Workshop Executive Committee, “Global Change: Impacts on Habitability, A 

Scientific Basis for Assessment,” 7 July 1982, cited in John M. Logsdon, ed., Exploring the Unknown, Selected 

Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume VI: Space and Earth Science, pp. 477–497. 

18
Reagan was not yet ready to support the initiative, scientists continued to explore the scientific 

concept of an interdisciplinary approach to Earth science.19

In May 1986, the NASA Advisory Council issued a report that influenced the design of both 

NASA’s future MTPE program and the future U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP). It called for NASA to collaborate with NOAA, the National Science Foundation 

(NSF), and other federal agencies on a series of specialized space research missions to study 

specific Earth system processes, an interdisciplinary program of basic Earth system research, an 

advanced information system to process the data obtained, and a program of instrument 

development. It also called for an Earth observing system of polar-orbiting and advanced 

geostationary space platforms as well as additional specialized space research missions.20 This 

report and one that followed were instrumental in initiating a major new thrust in Earth science, 

as well as a proposed 10-year program that would cost $17 billion and use the Space Shuttle to 

launch polar-orbiting platforms—an ambitious idea that “proved problematic.”21 The committee 

also listed measurements of specific substances, variables, and properties that should be obtained 

to achieve the goals stated in the report.

Even before these reports were published, NASA began planning for a major Earth science 

research program. The Earth Science and Applications Division formed the EOS Science and 

Mission Requirements Working Group (SMRWG), which arrived at specific goals, processes, 

and a conceptual research payload. This payload became the initial EOS payload and led to 

19 McElroy and Williamson, in Logsdon, pp. 447–448.

20 The report also listed the precise responsibilities of NASA, NOAA, and the NSF. Earth System Sciences 

Committee, NASA Advisory Council, “Earth System Science Overview,” May 1986, cited in Logsdon, ed., pp. 

536–562. 21 McElroy and Williamson, in Logsdon, pp. 449–450.

19
development of a plan for two large Earth-orbiting platforms (see discussion of EOS later in this 

chapter).22 Around the same time, the NASA Space Studies Board of the National Research 

Council conducted its own studies of the types of space-based measurements needed and how 

they would fit into other Earth science research.23

In January 1989, outgoing President Reagan announced a new presidential initiative for FY 

1990: USGCRP—an interagency research and observation effort coordinated by the Committee 

on Earth and Environmental Sciences through the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

When President George H. W. Bush took office, he reaffirmed the initiative, and the U.S. 

Congress codified the program by passing the Global Change Research Act of 1990.24 The 

USGCRP addressed fundamental questions regarding changes in global climate and 

environmental processes in order to “monitor, understand, and ultimately predict” the nature of 

global changes and the mechanisms causing them.25 

MTPE was the largest element of the USGCRP. It was also an integral part of the International 

Earth Observing System (IEOS), in which satellites and instruments from the United States, 

Europe, Japan, and Canada were closely coordinated to provide complementary data on various 

aspects of Earth’s environment.26 MTPE included near-term flight missions, the Earth Probes 

program, in situ and aircraft observations, research and analysis programs, a comprehensive data 

22 McElroy and Williamson, in Logsdon, p. 451.

23 McElroy and Williamson, in Logsdon, p. 454. 24 National Research Council, A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and NASA’s Mission to 

Planet Earth/Earth Observing System (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995), p. 6. Also U.S. Congress, 

Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law 101-606, November 16, 1990, 101st Congress, 1st sess., 

http://www.gcrio.org/gcact1990.html (accessed March 6, 2006). 25 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System, 

OTA-BP-ISC-122 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1993), p. 1.

26 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, [no date]), p. 58.

20
system, interdisciplinary science and modeling efforts, an education program, and EOS. These 

activities involved not only NASA but also scientific and governmental organizations from 

around the world working together.27

The name “Mission to Planet Earth” was popularized in a 1987 report on future directions for the 

U.S. civil space program written by a commission led by former astronaut Sally Ride.28 In July 

1989, President Bush, marking the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, endorsed 

MTPE.29 In its resolution commemorating the Apollo mission, the Senate Subcommittee on 

Science, Technology, and Space also called for “the expeditious development of the global 

environmental program envisioned as the ‘Mission to Planet Earth.’”30 

The idea of a mission to planet Earth, and the concept of looking at Earth as NASA looked at 

other planets, were furthered by the December 1990 “Report of the Advisory Committee on the 

Future of the U.S. Space Program” prepared by a team of experts chaired by Dr. Norman 

Augustine.31 Vice President-elect Al Gore also heralded it in a 1991 pre-election campaign book 

titled Earth in the Balance, which announced NASA’s new mission as a “mission to planet 

27 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1992), p. 21.

28 Sally Ride, NASA Leadership and America's Future in Space, A Report to the Administrator (Washington, DC: 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, August 1987), pp. 23–25. According to an Announcement of 

Opportunity for MTPE research issued in 1997, “the Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) program was conceived 

almost a decade ago, in an era of growth in funding for global environmental research.” Appendix A, Introduction to 

the NASA MTPE Science Research Plan, http://research.hq.nasa.gov/code_y/nra/current/AO-97-MTPE01/ApendixA.htm (accessed January 17, 2007).

29 George H. W. Bush, “Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing,” July 20,1989, 

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1989/89072000.html (accessed February 14, 2006).

30 Senate Resolution 156, “A Resolution To Express the Sense of the Senate with Respect to the Apollo 11 Lunar 

Mission, the International Space Station Freedom Program, and the ‘Mission to Planet Earth,’” July 20, 1989, 101st 

Congress, 1st sess., http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:SE00156:@@@L&summ2=m& (accessed 31 

January 2007).

31 “Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program” (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, December 1990).

21
Earth.”32 NASA Administrator Goldin called MTPE “a moral commitment to future 

generations,” citing the need to “understand our environment—separating natural from human 

causes and effects—so policymakers can make decisions on hard data, not suppositions.”33

Organizationally, the Office of Mission to Planet Earth was established in 1992 (later becoming 

the MTPE Enterprise). It focused on five major Earth science disciplines— land surface cover, 

near-term climate change, long-term climate change, natural hazards research, and atmospheric 

ozone—and sought to understand the components of the Earth system and their interactions, how 

they functioned, and how they were expected to change over time.34 Specifically, MTPE 

committed to measuring 24 global environmental variables in five areas over a 15-year period 

(see table 2-55). 

Phase 1 of MTPE began with the September 1991 launch of UARS. The second phase of MTPE 

consisted primarily of the EOS program. EOS was designed to provide systematic, continuous 

observations from low-Earth orbit for a minimum of 15 years to quantify changes in Earth’s 

system.35 

EOS

EOS was a broad program of Earth system science that obtained and analyzed long-term, 

comprehensive observations from space. It consisted of a planned series of spacecraft carrying a 

variety of sophisticated instruments to make the most wide-ranging measurements ever taken of 

32 Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 2000).

33 “Goldin Announces Changes in NASA Organization To Focus and Strengthen Programs and Management,” 

NASA News Release 92-172, October 15, 1992. NASA History Division folder 18429, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

34 “Mission to Planet Earth Enterprise Name Changed to Earth Science,” NASA News Release 98-12, January 21, 

1998, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1998/98-012.txt (accessed March 5, 2006).

35 In 1995, NASA changed from the program office structure to the strategic enterprise structure, with MTPE named 

as one of five strategic enterprises. In 1998, its name was changed to the Earth Science Enterprise (ESE).

22
the interrelated elements of the global environment. These measurements—along with 

measurements from other MTPE satellites, ground experiments, and scientific research—enabled 

scientists to model Earth as a total system, with the goal of assessing how human activity had 

affected the planet and projecting how it would affect it in the future. 

The mission goals of the EOS program were to 1) create an integrated, scientific observing 

system emphasizing climate change that would enable multidisciplinary studies of Earth’s 

critical, interrelated processes; 2) develop a comprehensive data information system, including a 

data retrieval and processing system; 3) serve the needs of scientists performing an integrated 

multidisciplinary study of planet Earth; and 4) acquire and assemble a global database of remotesensing measurements from space over a decade or more to enable definitive and conclusive 

studies of Earth’s system.36 The priorities for acquiring this data would conform to the four 

priority environmental science issues identified by the USGCRP as key to understanding global 

climate change.37 These priorities were to:

1) Understand Earth’s climate system to improve our understanding of the climate system as a 

whole, rather than focusing on its individual components, and thus improve our ability to predict 

climate change and variability

2) Investigate the biology and biogeochemistry of ecosystems to improve our understanding of 

the relationship between a changing biosphere and a changing climate and the effects of global 

change on managed and natural ecosystems

36 “Science Writers’ Guide to Terra,” NASA Publication-1999-10-169-GSFC, p. 19, 

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/156294main_terra_sw_guide.pdf (accessed November 4, 2005).

37 Michael D. King and Reynold Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook; A Guide to NASA’s Earth 

Science Enterprise and the Earth Observing System, EOS Project Science Office, NASA/Goddard Space Flight 

Center, NASA Publication-1999-08-134-GSFC, pp. 10–11.

23
3) Assess the composition and chemistry of the atmosphere to improve our understanding of the 

global-scale effects of natural and human processes on the chemical composition of the 

atmosphere, and determine the effect of such changes on air quality and human health

4) Investigate the global water cycle to improve our understanding of the movement of water 

through the land, atmosphere, and ocean, and determine how global change may increase or 

decrease regional water availability.

Planning for the EOS mission began in 1983 when the EOS Science and Mission Requirements 

Working Group (SMRWG) defined the science and mission requirements. The SMRWG looked 

particularly at the major Earth science questions for the next decade and the requirements for 

low-Earth-orbit observations needed to answer these questions on a comprehensive 

multidisciplinary basis. The direction and definition of the program were further refined by other 

advisory groups and steering committees, which also offered implementation strategies. 

The EOS study project had also been established at Goddard in 1983. During the early study 

periods, Goddard and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) performed mission, data system, and 

spacecraft studies that resulted in a conceptual design for a dual series of spacecraft missions to 

satisfy the EOS requirements. These polar-orbiting spacecraft were designated EOS-A and EOSB, with Goddard and JPL having respective managerial responsibilities. 

By the late 1980s, the EOS program had adopted the concept of an integrated Earth system as its 

scientific thrust. The program had also been included under the broader NASA MTPE initiative, 

which encompassed other NASA efforts, as well as Earth Probe missions and the Agency’s 

24
participation in the International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP) and the World Climate 

Research Program (WCRP)38 as well.

An announcement of opportunity (AO) for the selection of EOS instruments and science teams 

was issued in 1988. NASA received 455 proposals in response to the AO. In February 1989, 

NASA announced the selection of scientific investigations for EOS. The selections were made 

for three types of investigations: instrument investigations, research facility investigations, and 

interdisciplinary investigations.39 Early in 1990, NASA announced the selection of 30 

instruments to be developed for EOS-A and -B, along with their science teams. In addition, 29 

interdisciplinary science investigation teams were selected. 

The EOS Investigators Working Group (IWG) was formed in 1989. It consisted of instrument 

and interdisciplinary principal investigators (PIs) and team leaders to provide scientific advice 

and guidance for the program. The IWG played a leading role in defining the overall science 

thrust for the EOS program. 

In June 1989, the EOS Non-Advocacy Review (NAR) was held. The program was recognized as 

part of the presidential initiative MTPE in 1990 and received its “new start” from Congress in 

October, which allowed it to move on to the execution phase. Responsibility for developing the 

EOS-A platform was transferred from the Space Station program to the EOS project, and 

management for all elements of the project became centralized within the EOS project at 

38 “Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, Budget Summary, Office of Mission to 

Planet Earth, Mission to Planet Earth,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeb/budget/mtpe.html (accessed November 

3, 2005).

39 “NASA Announces Earth Observation System Investigations,” NASA News Release 98-15, February 8, 1989, 

NASA History Division electronic record, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

25
Goddard.40 The EOS program was initially funded under a continuing resolution; it received full 

funding with approval of the FY 1991 budget in January 1991. 

The baseline design consisted of two series of large observatories, EOS-A and EOS-B, in 1:30 

p.m. ascending, Sun-synchronous polar orbit, launched by Titan IV ELVs. Each observatory had 

a five-year life and each was to be replaced twice during the 15-year mission. At the time, the 

budget through FY 2000 was $17 billion.41 Additional instruments were also selected for the 

proposed Japanese and European polar-orbiting satellites, which at the time were referred to as 

the Japanese Polar-Orbiting Platform and the European Polar-Orbiting Platform.42 

The EOS polar platform had originally been part of the procurement package for the Work 

Package 3 components of Space Station Freedom awarded to GE Astro Space in 1987 by 

Goddard. NASA claimed this polar platform would use many of the same systems as the Station 

and be serviced by the Space Shuttle, although it would reside in a different orbit than the main 

Station complex. When the Space Station’s budget was reduced and Work Package 3 was 

eliminated in 1990, the joint contract was terminated, and a new contract with GE Astro for the 

EOS-A platform was written.43 The contract also included an option for a duplicate EOS-A 

spacecraft; however, this was never exercised.44 

40 “Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, Budget Summary, Office of Mission to 

Planet Earth, Mission to Planet Earth,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeb/budget/mtpe.html (accessed November 

3, 2005).

41 “Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, Budget Summary, Office of Mission to 

Planet Earth, Mission to Planet Earth,” p. SAT 3-9. 42 1993 EOS Reference Handbook, NASA Publication-202 (Washington, DC: NASA Earth Science Support Office, 

1993), p. 9.

43 “NASA GSFC Active Contract Register,” for contract no. NAS5-32500, http://gsfcaphrodite.gsfc.nasa.gov/acr/acrcontract.cfm (accessed 21 March 2006). 44 Telephone conversations with Kevin Grady, former Terra project manager, March 17, 2006, and James S. King, 

Contracting Officer, Goddard Space Flight Center, formerly EOS/Terra Observatory Contracting Officer, March 21, 

2005.

26
The EOS-A series was to provide a suite of measurements yielding information on global 

warming and other critical aspects of global change, including Earth’s radiation balance, 

atmospheric circulation, air-sea interaction, biological productivity, and land-surface properties. 

It was to be followed by the EOS-B mission, which would provide a suite of measurements 

related to potential global warming and other critical aspects of global change complementary to 

those provided by EOS-A. EOS-B would conduct an expanded study of stratospheric ozone, 

obtaining complete coverage of chemical species and winds, and achieving the first global 

monitoring of tropospheric chemistry. 

The Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) investigation, a facilities investigation planned for EOS-B, 

was identified as a candidate for separate program approval as an independent mission to be 

flown on a third dedicated spacecraft under the management of JPL. The EOS SAR mission was 

to monitor global deforestation and its effect on greenhouse gases, soil, snow, canopy moisture, 

and flood inundation, explore their relationship to the global hydrologic cycle, and assess sea ice 

properties and their effect on polar heat flux.45 

Over the next several years, the EOS program underwent several restructurings and rescopings. 

The first began in 1991 when NASA restructured and reduced the scope of the program as 

directed by congressional appropriations committees to adapt to potential funding constraints and 

to take advantage of new launch opportunities. 

45 McElroy and Williamson, in Logsdon, p. 458. Also 1991 EOS Reference Handbook, Goddard Space Flight 

Center, p. 33.

27
In July 1991, an EOS External Engineering Review (EER) committee convened in La Jolla, 

California. NASA and selected Interdisciplinary Science Investigation Principal Investigators 

(PI) briefed the EER committee on the congressional constraints, their opinions regarding 

reconfiguration, and options to be considered. The EER committee endorsed options for an EOS 

containing a “favorable measure of resiliency.”46 In August 1991, NASA discussed payload 

options at the Seattle EOS Instrument Working Group (IWG) meeting. In October, a formal 

review was conducted by the EOS Payload Advisory Panel in Easton, Maryland. This body, 

consisting of the EOS Interdisciplinary Science Investigation PIs, was formally charged with 

examining and recommending EOS payloads to NASA based on the scientific requirements and 

priorities established by the Earth science community at large. Concurrently, extensive 

engineering studies were conducted at Goddard to determine the most effective spacecraft 

configurations to accommodate the instruments on smaller platforms. The studies recommended 

that EOS be reconfigured to fly the 17 instruments required for the global climate change studies. 

The overall system would include three series of spacecraft: intermediate spacecraft (EOS-AM, 

EOS-PM, and EOS-CHEM) to be launched on intermediate ELVs, one smaller spacecraft 

(COLOR) to be launched on a medium ELV, and two small spacecraft (AERO-1 and AERO-2) 

to be launched on small ELVs (see figure 2-4). Attached payloads for Space Station Freedom

were no longer included. In December 1991, the NASA Administrator reviewed and approved 

the restructured program.47 

46 The report of the EER committee is partially reprinted in Logsdon, pp. 566–575.

47 1993 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 10.

28
Figure 2-4. Restructured EOS launch profile, March 1992. 

On 9 March 1992, NASA submitted its report on the restructuring of EOS to the House and 

Senate appropriations committees. Congress endorsed the report as being both comprehensive 

and fiscally responsible, with the final payload configurations for the restructured EOS satisfying 

all congressional constraints.48 As a result of the restructuring, 17 EOS instruments were to fly 

on a number of small and intermediate spacecraft before 2002 rather than on larger platforms, a 

reduction of seven instruments. The missions would launch on smaller ELVs in place of Titan IV 

launch vehicles. NASA dropped the measurement of mesospheric and ionospheric chemistry and 

solid earth processes. Instead, the Agency adopted the “a.m./p.m.” concept, permitting the study 

of daily variations.49 EOS-AM would be a “morning” satellite, having a descending equatorial 

crossing time in the morning, while EOS-PM would be an “afternoon” satellite, having an 

afternoon equatorial crossing time. Along with reducing the number of instruments, NASA 

48 1993 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 10.

49 U.S. General Accounting Office, Earth Observing System: Cost and Research Issues, Testimony Before the 

Committee on Science, House of Representatives, GAO/T-NSIAD-96-116, March 6, 1996, p. 2, NASA History 

Division folder 156355, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also available at 

http://archive.gao.gov/papr2pdf/156355.pdf. 

29
reduced overall EOS development costs from $17 billion to $11 billion through FY 2000 

primarily by focusing the mission on global climate change and altering the development 

schedule. NASA was also to integrate Earth remote-sensing activities with the Department of 

Energy (DOE) and DOD.50 

In June 1992, the National Space Council, chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle, issued 

National Space Policy Directive 7, which covered the space-based elements of the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program.51 The document directed NASA to implement the restructured EOS 

program as part of an overall space-based global-change observation system. 

 

In October 1992, the FY 1993 appropriations bill passed by Congress reduced the budget for 

EOS through FY 2000 to $8 billion, forcing NASA to further reconfigure EOS. Rescoping 

studies had already begun soon after the restructured EOS program had been endorsed by 

Congress. As part of an internal review of all major programs, NASA Administrator Goldin 

established “red” and “blue” teams in May 1992 to review program content, schedule, and cost. 

He also set a 30 percent reduction in budget as a target (from $11 billion to $8 billion). NASA 

Headquarters carefully considered the input of the teams and the EOS Payload Advisory Panel to 

arrive at the rescoped payloads.52 The rescoping was done without significant changes to the 

scientific complement. The program adopted a common spacecraft for all but the EOS AM-1 

mission, adopted a cost-driven approach to instrument development, reduced the number of data 

products required before launch, deleted one instrument, and relied more on other Agency and 

50 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1993, p. 46). Also 1993 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 10; King and 

Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, pp. 17–18.

51 Space-Based Global Change Observation, NSPD-7, May 28, 1992, 

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/nspd7.htm (accessed March 6, 2006).

52 1993 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 11.

30
international partners to meet some scientific requirements by flying international instruments.53

Program contingency funds were also reduced. It was believed that with the instruments being 

flown in five-year cycles, any problems that were discovered could be handled in the next 

version of the instrument.54 

In the fall of 1994, the EOS program was redesigned once more to respond to a reduced program 

budget. In response to federal budget constraints, the Agency took several steps to trim the EOS 

and EOSDIS budget through FY 2000 by approximately $750 million (9 percent) to a total of 

$7.25 billion.55 NASA’s objectives were to preserve the scientific integrity of EOS as a globalchange program and to maintain the target launch schedule for core EOS missions. Realigning 

the EOS program meant relying more on both domestic products and measurements. Some highpriority scientific items were added to the program or scheduled sooner, such as the flight of an 

additional SAGE instrument in 2000 and the incorporation of a Landsat-type instrument on the 

EOS AM-2 spacecraft. The redesign removed three instruments from the CHEM-1 mission and 

moved one instrument from the AM-2 mission to CHEM-1. Additionally, Landsat 7 was added 

to the EOS program, and EOS COLOR was canceled; the EOS-Altimetry mission was split into 

Laser and Radar components, and the Radar Altimetry segment was cost-capped.56 In September 

53 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities, p. 46. Also King and Greenstone, 

eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, pp. 17–18.

54 1993 EOS Reference Handbook, pp. 11–12. 55 King and Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 18. Also GAO, Earth Observing System: Cost and 

Research Issues, March 6, 1996, NASA History Division folder 156355, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also at http://archive.gao.gov/papr2pdf/156355.pdf. 56 King and Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 18. David P. Radzanowski and Stephen J. Garber, 

An Overview of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), CRS Report for Congress, 95-312 SPR, March 1, 1995, 

pp. CRS-3-CRS-4, NASA History Division folder 005704, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

31
1994, NASA released a major solicitation seeking proposals for a “common” spacecraft bus for 

several of the subsequent EOS flights, with selection expected in 1995.57

During the spring and summer of 1995, NASA focused on a series of important reshaping 

exercises for MTPE and EOS designed to chart the long-term implementation plans for the 

program while staying below the cost cap. In April 1995, Congress asked the National Academy 

of Sciences to review the MTPE/EOS program. Several study teams examined various ways to 

preserve the 24 science measurements while further reducing the system’s cost. This effort 

showed that the program could meet a long-term budget cap of $1 billion per year while 

maintaining the basic 24 measurements sets. To achieve this, it was proposed that the initial 

satellite in each EOS series be built as planned while succeeding satellites would be built smaller 

and at a lower cost using new technology developed under the New Millennium Program 

(NMP)—NASA’s cross-enterprise technology demonstration and infusion program. The process 

also proposed a third series of missions termed “continuity missions” also featuring missions 

from NMP. Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP)—concepts that would allow rapid 

deployment of new science instruments—was also proposed.58

In September 1995, the National Academy of Sciences’ Board on Sustainable Development 

released a strong scientific endorsement of EOS. The board concluded that MTPE should 

proceed with near-term EOS missions “without delay” and urged MTPE to continue infusing 

new cost-saving science and technology into later elements of the program. The board also 

57 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1994 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1995), p. 56.

58 King and Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 18. Also “The Earth Observing System: 

Understanding Planet Earth,” NASA Facts Online, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/fs-96(06)-009.htm (accessed March 7, 2006).

32
recommended that NASA transfer responsibility for information product generation, publication, 

and user services to a federation of partners selected through an open competitive process. With 

participation from the external research community, NASA began a study of the best approaches 

to implement these recommendations.59 

Also in September 1995, NASA awarded a $398.7 million contract to TRW, Inc., for the EOS 

Common Spacecraft, which would be used for the EOS-PM-1 and EOS-CHEM missions. The 

contract was for two spacecraft with separate options for two additional spacecraft. TRW, Inc. 

would design, fabricate, integrate, test, deliver, and provide launch support and flight operations 

support for the spacecraft. EOS PM-1 was to focus on climate-related measurements of Earth’s 

atmosphere, cloud cover, precipitation, terrestrial snow cover, and sea ice. EOS CHEM-1 was to 

measure a variety of chemicals in Earth’s atmosphere.60

In 1996, NASA initiated three efforts designed to help the future evolution of MTPE. First, 

NASA expanded implementation of NMP. In the spring of 1996, MTPE managers selected the 

first Earth-orbiting NMP mission, the Earth Observing (EO)-1, which would demonstrate an 

advanced land imager system and hyperspectral imaging technologies incorporating several 

innovative design features.61 The mission was planned to launch in 2000. Second, MTPE began 

the ESSP program to expedite the acquisition of key scientific data. The program would 

59 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, [no date]), p. 54. Also National Research Council (NRC), Committee on 

Global Change Research and Board on Sustainable Development. A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program and NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth/Earth Observing System (La Jolla report) (Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press, 1995).

60 “EOS Contract Highlights NASA’s New Business Practices,” NASA News Release 95-186, September 15, 1995, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/1995/95-186.txt (accessed March 6, 2006).

61 “NASA Will Study Ideas To Transform Earth Observations,” NASA News Release 99-30, March 2, 1999, 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1999/99-030.txt (accessed February 12, 2007).

33
accommodate new scientific priorities and infuse new scientific participation into MTPE. The 

first AOs were issued in July 1996. Third, MTPE conducted a joint workshop with the 

commercial sector to incorporate industry suggestions into the final version of MTPE’s 

commercial strategy.62

In late 1996, MTPE began the first of a planned series of biennial reviews to assess its planning 

and implementation of all elements of the MTPE program. The review, completed in the summer 

of 1997 in time to affect FY 1999 budget planning, helped define a new model for missions 

following the first EOS series that would have reduced costs and development times. It stressed 

NASA’s goal of making key decisions as late as possible to best take advantage of the most 

recent science and advanced technology available. It emphasized the philosophy of flexible 

mission designs that would grow from progress in MTPE’s five major science themes: landcover and land-use change, seasonal climate variability, long-term climate change, atmospheric 

ozone, and natural hazards such as hurricanes and earthquakes. The program committed to a 

combination of commercial off-the-shelf spacecraft and “aggressive instrument technology 

development.” It also stressed the need to focus more effort on infusing new technology into the 

EOS missions to follow the CHEM-1 mission.63 

The schedule for the first series of Earth science missions as of March 1999, including the EOS, 

NMP, and ESSP missions, is illustrated in figure 2-5. 

62 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, [no date]), p. 60.

63 McElroy and Williamson, in Logsdon, p. 463. Also “Major Review of Mission to Planet Earth Endorses Flexible 

Approach to Future Satellites, Steers Data System Development,” NASA News Release 97-180, August 21, 1997, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-180.txt (accessed March 9, 2006).

34
Figure 2-5. Earth Science mission profile 1999 (1999 EOS Reference Handbook). 

35
At the end of August 1998, EOS AM-1 reached a critical milestone when the last science 

instrument for the spacecraft was delivered, allowing completion of module testing and 

integration of the instruments and spacecraft at the Lockheed Martin production facility in 

Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. After testing was completed, the spacecraft was delivered to 

Vandenberg Air Force Base for launch processing.64

Launch of EOS AM-1 was originally planned for mid-1998, but because of performance 

problems with ground system software required to control, monitor, and schedule science 

activities on the spacecraft, NASA postponed its launch in April 1998.65 In February 1999, the 

launch date for the newly renamed Terra was set for July 15, 1999; however, launch was delayed 

again until December 18, 1999, when Terra was finally sent into a polar, Sun-synchronous 705-

kilometer (438-mile) orbit. Terra had a descending equatorial crossing time of 10:30 a.m.; at this 

time the daily cloud cover was typically at a minimum over land, and thus surface features could 

be more easily observed. 

EOS PM-1 (renamed Aqua) launched in 2002, followed by EOS CHEM-1 (AURA) in 2004. 

Additional observations were to be provided by Landsat 7, launched in April 1999, and several 

other missions.66

The Terra spacecraft consisted of a spacecraft platform provided under contract with Lockheed 

Martin Missiles and Space and five instruments procured under contracts with U.S. and 

64 “Major Earth Science Spacecraft Reaches Critical Milestone, NASA News Release 97-195, August 28, 1997, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-185.txt (accessed March 8, 2006).

65 “NASA Finds Problems in EOSDIS Flight Operations Software Development,” NASA News Release 98-60, April 

10, 1998, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1998/98-060.txt (accessed March 7, 2006).

66 “Science Writers’ Guide to Terra,” 19, http://terra.nasa.gov/Publications/terra_sw_guide.pdf (accessed February 

13, 2006).

36
international corporations (see figure 2-6). Raytheon (formerly Hughes Santa Barbara Remote 

Sensing [SBRS]) built the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) under 

contract to Goddard, TRW provided the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) 

instrument, and the Multi-Angle Imaging Spectro-Radiometer (MISR) instrument was built at 

JPL.67 Japan provided the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer 

(ASTER), which was built by Mitsubishi Electronics Company and Fujitsu, Ltd., and Canada 

provided the Measurement of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) instrument, which was 

built by COM DEV International.68 

Figure 2-6. Terra (EOS AM-1) platform and instruments (1999 EOS Reference Manual). 

67 CERES was also flown on the TRMM in 1997 and on the PM series spacecraft as a flight of opportunity. 

68 “Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, Budget Summary, Office of Mission to 

Planet Earth, Mission to Planet Earth,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeb/budget/mtpe.html (accessed November 

3, 2005). Also “Terra: Flagship of the Earth Observing System,” Press Kit, November 1999, p. 4, 

http://terra.nasa.gov/Publications/terra_press_kit.pdf (accessed March 7, 2006).

37
The spacecraft was constructed with a truss-like primary structure of graphite epoxy tubular 

members. This lightweight structure provided the strength and stiffness needed to support the 

spacecraft throughout its mission phases. The zenith face of the spacecraft housed equipment 

modules (EMs) containing the spacecraft bus components. The EMs were sized and partitioned 

to facilitate prelaunch integration and test of the spacecraft. A large single-wing solar array was 

deployed on the sunlit side of the spacecraft. Locating the array on this side maximized both its 

power-generation capability and the cold-space field of view available to instrument and 

equipment module radiators. A steerable high-gain antenna and associated electronics were 

mounted on a deployed boom extending from the zenith side of the spacecraft. This location 

maximized the amount of time available for communications with the Tracking and Data Relay 

Satellite System (TDRSS) via this antenna without obstruction by other parts of the spacecraft. 

All instruments were mounted on the nadir-facing deck of the spacecraft for a clear view of Earth.69

Terra’s instruments operated by gathering sunlight that was reflected by Earth or heat emitted by 

Earth. This energy was focused on specially designed detectors sensitive to selected regions of 

the electromagnetic spectrum, ranging from visible light to thermal infrared light.70 The science 

data generated by each instrument was sent to the spacecraft over high-bandwidth 

communication lines. These data were multiplexed and recorded in a solid-state recorder and 

then sent to the communication subsystem for transmission to the ground, where they were 

processed into images by computers. The solid-state recorder was designed to hold 

approximately two orbits of data, up to 140 gigabytes. 

69“Terra (EOS AM-1),” http://library01.gsfc.nasa.gov/gdprojs/projinfo/terra.pdf (accessed March 8, 2006). Also 

“EOS AM-1: The First EOS Satellite, NASA’s Earth Observing System,” NASA Publication NP-1998-03-018-

GSFC.

70 “Terra: Flagship of the Earth Observing System,” Press Kit, p. 12, 

http://terra.nasa.gov/Publications/terra_press_kit.pdf (accessed March 7, 2006).

38
Two communications capabilities were available for transmission to the ground. First, data was 

transmitted via the TDRSS on Ku-band to the TDRSS Ground Station at White Sands, New 

Mexico. Second, data were transmitted directly to the ground using the Direct Access System, 

which was composed of the Direct Playback, the Direct Broadcast, and the Direct Downlink 

subsystems. This backup option could transmit via an X-band transmitter should the satellite lose 

its TDRSS link.71 In both cases, transmission was scheduled to occur at specific times based on 

the availability of TDRSS or the proximity of a ground station. Continuous direct broadcasts of 

MODIS data were available on X-band and could be received by individuals around the world. 

The guidance, navigation, and control subsystem maintained the pointing accuracy of the 

spacecraft to within 150 arc seconds of the desired pointing direction and determined pointing to 

within 90 arc seconds using star trackers. Additionally, this subsystem provided safehold control 

in the event of a spacecraft operational anomaly.72

The spacecraft design supported an instrument mass of 1,155 kilograms (2,546 pounds), an 

average power for the spacecraft and instruments of 2.5 kilowatts, and an average data rate of 18 

Mbps (109 Mbps peak).73 The global climate change research emphasized by Terra included 

cloud physics, atmospheric radiation properties, and terrestrial and oceanic characteristics.74

Table 2-56 lists the measurements provided by the Terra instruments. See table 2-57 for further 

information.

71 King and Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 76.

72 “EOS AM-1: The First EOS Satellite, NASA’s Earth Observing System,” 22.

73 King and Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, pp. 75–76.

74 “Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, Budget Summary, Office of Mission to 

Planet Earth, Mission to Planet Earth,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeb/budget/mtpe.html (accessed November 

3, 2005).

39
EOS Data and Information System 

The MTPE/Earth Sciences Enterprise was strongly committed to making the vast quantity of 

Earth science data from NASA’s Earth science research satellites and field measurement 

programs easily available and affordable to a wide community of users. Consequently, 

concurrently with development of EOS, the Enterprise developed the Earth Observing System 

Data and Information System (EOSDIS), a system for acquiring, archiving, managing, and 

distributing Earth observation data to diverse users.75

EOSDIS was NASA’s contribution to the interagency Global Change Data and Information 

System (GCDIS), a collection of distributed information systems operated by government 

agencies involved in global-change research. The system had several functions. It managed data 

acquired from pre-EOS and EOS missions, as well as Earth-Sensing Legacy data, and provided 

data archiving/distribution and information-management services. It provided the missionoperation systems that commanded and controlled the spacecraft and instruments and monitored 

health and safety, in addition to performing mission planning and scheduling, initial data capture, 

and Level 0 data processing.76 The system supported the generation of datasets by assimilating 

satellite and observations into global climate models.77 All EOS spacecraft and instruments were 

commanded by the EOS Operations Center at Goddard. 

75 “Earth Observing System Data and Information System,” 

http://spsosun.gsfc.nasa.gov/eosinfo/Welcome/index.html (accessed February 13, 2006).

76 Level 0 data processing consists of instrument science data at full resolution, time ordered, with duplicates and 

transmission errors removed. “MER [Mars Exploration Rover] Analyst Notebook Users Guide,” Washington 

University citing NASA Planetary Data System, 

http://anserver1.eprsl.wustl.edu/anteam/mera/help/index.html?dataprocessinglevel.htm (accessed January 17, 2007). 77 “What Is EOSDIS?” http://spsosun.gsfc.nasa.gov/eosinfo/EOSDIS_Site/index.html (accessed February 13, 2006).

40
Researchers used Science Computing Facilities (SCFs) ranging from individual workstations to 

supercomputers to develop algorithms and models to generate data products, access services in 

EOSDIS, conduct scientific research, and achieve scientific quality control of the data products. 

Some SCFs supported the planning, scheduling, command and control, and analysis of 

instrument engineering data. Additionally, each EOS instrument team had its own SCF. 

Originally, EOSDIS was designed so that all functions would be centralized at Goddard. Users, 

however, believed that such an arrangement prevented them from having adequate input into 

system development. Based on a 1990 report by the EOS IWG, EOSDIS created a system of 

Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs), each with a particular area of expertise in Earth 

science. 

EOSDIS began operating in August 1994 at eight DAACs around the United States and 

interoperating with six foreign sites (table 2-58).78 These DAACs processed, archived, and 

distributed EOS and EOS-related data and provided a full range of user support. The systemwide EOSDIS Core System (ECS) provided uniform support across all DAACs for these 

activities. In 1996, an agreement was completed between NASA and the Russian Academy of 

Sciences Institute for Radioengineering and Electronics to extend EOSDIS to Russia. 

Through 1998, two versions of the EOSDIS were in use. EOSDIS Version 0 (V0) was a working 

prototype with some operational elements. Because this version was put in use before the major 

EOS missions were launched, satellite data from earlier missions served as a prototype of the 

78 “An Overview of EOSDIS,” http://spsosun.gsfc.nasa.gov/eosinfo/EOSDIS_Site/Overview.html (accessed January 

8, 2006).

41
data that would be gathered by the EOS spacecraft. This initial version interconnected existing 

Earth science data systems via electronic networks, interoperable catalogs, and common datadistribution procedures to improve access to existing and pre-EOS data. It did not have all the 

capabilities, fault tolerance, or reliability of later versions, but could support use by the scientific 

community in day-to-day activities. Development of V0 had been initiated in 1991 as a 

collaboration among the Earth Science Data and Information System Project, the DAACs, and 

the NOAA Satellite Active Archive (SAA). It became operational in August 1994. 

The Goddard and Langley DAACs extended V0 to Version 1 (V1), which has provided full 

support to TRMM since it was launched in November 1997. 

Version 2.0 was ready in March 1999 to provide early-orbit support for Landsat 7. It was 

augmented to be cable of providing early-orbit support for Terra by July 1999, and was 

providing full support for Landsat 7 and Terra by December 1999. Its functions included 

spacecraft command and control, data capture and backup archiving, and the production of atlaunch standard products. Version 2.0 also supported quality assessment of these products at the 

SCFs, and their archiving and distribution to users.79

Data from the Terra spacecraft flowed via TDRSS to the TDRSS ground terminals in White 

Sands, New Mexico, where the data were captured and recorded at 150 Mbps. The data were 

forwarded via a 45-Mbps communications link to the EOS Data and Operations System (EDOS) 

at Goddard, where it underwent Level 0 processing. Level 0 datasets for four of the five Terra 

79 King and Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, pp. 33–34. Also e-mail from H. K. Ramapriyan, 

ESDIS Project, to author, February 12, 2007.

42
instruments (MODIS, CERES, MISR, and MOPITT) were then transferred over the EOS 

networks to the appropriate DAAC for further processing, using algorithms provided by the 

Instrument Science Teams. Level 0 data for the ASTER instrument were sent via physical media 

to the ASTER Ground Data System (GDS) in Tokyo, Japan, for further processing. A set of 

ASTER Level 1 data products was sent via physical media from the ASTER GDS to the EROS 

Data Center (EDC), where it was processed to produce higher-level data products.80

Teams of scientists worldwide received the data to perform their research. Additionally, EOS 

data and products were available to all users, without restriction, at no more than the cost of 

dissemination and regardless of the intended use.81

SeaWiFS

SeaWiFS was a follow-on ocean color sensor to the Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS), which 

flew on Nimbus-7 from 1978 to 1986, and a precursor to EOS. It was the only scientific payload 

aboard the commercially built and operated OrbView-2 satellite (originally called SeaStar), 

owned by Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) (see figure 2-7). OrbView-2 was launched on 

August 1, 1997, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, aboard a Pegasus XL launch 

vehicle. Data collection began 30 days after launch. SeaWiFS was part of NASA’s MTPE (later 

the Earth Science Enterprise).

80 “EOS AM-1: The First EOS Satellite, NASA’s Earth Observing System,” 23–24.

81 “EOS AM-1: The First EOS Satellite, NASA’s Earth Observing System,” 23–24.

43
Figure 2-7. SeaStar spacecraft with solar panels deployed (“Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view 

Sensor,” NASA Facts Online, FS-97[03]-004-GSFC).

SeaWiFS represented a new way of doing business for NASA. Rather than building, launching, 

and controlling a satellite to study an important aspect of Earth’s environment, NASA purchased 

commercially available data acquired from a privately built satellite and used the data for 

environmental research. NASA’s SeaWiFS project specified the data it wanted to purchase, and 

the owner of the satellite retained the rights to sell the data to other clients.82 

Because the earlier CZCS had an anticipated two-year design life, planning for a replacement 

ocean color sensor began in the early 1980s. After considering a number of options during the 

1986–1989 period for maintaining continuity of ocean color data (including “piggybacking” on 

82 “First Global Ocean-Color Images From New Sensor Show Promise for Climate, Biological Studies,” NASA News

Release 97-211, 23 September 1997, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-211.txt (accessed January 23, 

2006). Also Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 24. “Mission to Planet 

Earth: Understanding Our Changing Planet,” February 7, 1994, NASA History Division folder 16434, Historical 

Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

44
Landsat 6), NASA, Hughes Santa Barbara Remote Sensing, and OSC explored a stand-alone 

“lightsat” solution for the mission that would be as commercially oriented as possible. This 

process led to a competitive procurement for an ocean color data stream in which NASA would 

pay in advance for data to be provided later to the scientific community. The cost of $43.5 

million for the data was generally considered to be lower than what would be required for NASA 

itself to develop and field the system. The commercial sale of the data would recoup additional 

costs. In March 1991, NASA selected OSC to build the spacecraft. In May 1991, OSC contracted 

with Hughes to build the SeaWiFS instrument. It was completed and ready for delivery 24 

months later, an exceptionally short time. 

Tests at the time revealed that the instrument specifications had failed to include an important 

requirement desired by the science community, resulting in the sensor having a significantly 

higher off-axis response that would degrade the scientific usefulness of the data. Although OSC 

and Hughes were under no obligation to do so since this was a firm fixed-price contract, the two 

companies modified the instrument at their own expense to improve its performance to satisfy 

the science community. Hughes delivered the modified and retested instrument to OSC for 

spacecraft integration in December 1993. However, OSC encountered problems with spacecraft 

development and the Pegasus launch vehicle, causing the launch to be delayed until August 

1997—more than three years after instrument delivery.83

The primary objective of the SeaWiFS project was to distribute SeaWiFS data to scientists 

conducting research into the role of oceans in cycling carbon throughout Earth’s land, sea, and 

83 Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board, The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth 

Observation Programs (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000), pp. 84–87.

45
life.84 The goals of SeaWiFS included determining the size and types of primary production by 

marine phytoplankton on a global scale and measuring the oceans’ role in the global carbon 

cycle and other bio-geochemical cycles. Other goals were to calibrate the SeaWiFS instrument, 

develop and validate methods of removing atmospheric effects that could degrade data quality, 

and develop and validate derived data, such as chlorophyll concentrations and the fluctuation of 

the amount of light penetrating the oceans. Finally, in preparation for future EOS missions, the 

scientific and technical experience gained from the SeaWiFS project advanced the applications 

of ocean color data and the technical capabilities required for processing, managing, analyzing, 

and distributing large amounts of data.85

SeaWiFS data illuminated one of the most poorly understood aspects of climate change. Oceans 

cover 70 percent of Earth’s surface, and SeaWiFS provided information on a large part of the 

global biosphere. It also provided important information for fisheries and coastal zone 

management. Additionally, SeaWiFS was useful for viewing plants on land, and its data could be 

combined with plant productivity data from other satellites (such as Landsat and some weather 

satellites operated by NOAA) to measure the total global carbon exchange.86 During its first year 

of operation, it provided insights into the impact of El Niño on ocean life and allowed scientists 

to witness the ocean transition from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the equatorial Pacific, 

specifically around the Galapagos Islands. The instrument also enabled scientists to observe the 

remarkable speed with which the ocean returned to its pre-El Niño state, including 

84 “NASA's Mission to Planet Earth: Space-Based Missions, 1997–2000,” NASA Facts Online, Goddard Space 

Flight Center, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/mtpe2000.htm (accessed January 

23, 2006).

85 “Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS),” NASA Facts Online, FS-97(03)-004-GSFC, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/seawifs.htm (accessed January 23, 2006).

86 “Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS),” NASA Facts Online, FS-97(03)-004-GSFC, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/seawifs.htm (accessed January 23, 2006).

46
unprecedented phytoplankton blooms stretching across the entire basin from the coast of South 

America to the Western Pacific warm pool.87

SeaWiFS could view the world’s oceans every two days. The SeaWiFS Data Processing System 

(SDPS) received approximately 381 megabytes of science data per day and generated science 

data products totaling up to three gigabytes (3,000 megabytes) per day. The SDPS computers 

were sized to perform preliminary data processing within 24 hours of collection and could 

reprocess the same data using additional information to increase the accuracy when required. 

SeaWiFS produced two types of science data: local area coverage (LAC) and global area 

coverage (GAC). The LAC provided coded data collected from the local area under the 

spacecraft’s flight path within a 1,500-mile (2,414-kilometer) swath, with three quarters of a mile 

(1.2 kilometers) as the smallest visible area. The data was coded for security and transmitted 

continuously when the satellite was in daylight. The GAC provided global coverage at 2.5-mile 

(4-kilometer) ground resolution. Every fourth LAC sample was stored on board the spacecraft to 

produce the GAC. These data were transmitted to a ground station at NASA’s Wallops Flight 

Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia, every 12 hours. The permanent data archive resided at 

Goddard’s EOSDIS DAAC. The data archive was planned to reach a storage capacity of six 

terabytes over the life of the mission.88 Users also could access the archive electronically and 

receive SeaWiFS data at reproduction costs.89

87 “SeaWiFS Completes a Year of Remarkable Earth Observations,” NASA News Release 98-170, September 17, 

1998, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1998/98-170.txt (accessed February 28, 2006).

88 A terabyte is equal to 1,000 gigabytes.

89 “Sea-Viewing Wide Fields of View Sensor (Sea-WiFS),” NASA Facts On-Line, FS-97 (03)-004-GSFC, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/seawifs.htm (accessed January 23, 2006).

47
NASA led an international group of more than 800 scientists representing 35 countries who 

registered to use SeaWiFS data. More than 50 ground stations worldwide received data from the 

spacecraft.90

Figure 2-8 shows a schematic of the SeaWiFS scanner assembly. See table 2-59 for further 

mission information.

Figure 2-8. The SeaWiFS scanner assembly scans from west to east (“An Overview of SeaWiFS 

and the SeaStar Spacecraft,” NASA-GSFC).

90 “SeaWiFS Completes a Year of Remarkable Earth Observations,” NASA News Release 98-170, September 17, 

1998, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1998/98-170.txt (accessed February 28, 2006).

48
Landsat 

The Landsat series of spacecraft has been the longest-running project for acquiring moderateresolution imagery of Earth from space. Since the 1970s, Landsat has provided regular 

observations of Earth’s surface, monitoring renewable and nonrenewable resources and 

supporting programs such as global change research, coastal zone monitoring, timber 

management, regional planning, and environmental monitoring. Through the 1990s, data from 

the Landsat 5 satellite (launched in 1984) continued to prove valuable for numerous practical 

applications, such as forest management; wheat yield, fisheries, and water resource development; 

earthquake and flood damage assessments; ecological, glaciological, hydrological, and 

agricultural research; and geological explorations. The commercial potential of Landsat data was 

demonstrated by their use in efforts to fight louse infestation damage to California grape 

vineyards; design a complex geographic database to access fire hazard assessments, pollution 

runoff analyses, and power-demand predictions in the San Francisco Bay area; identify specific 

crop types and assess crop health and potential yield in Kansas; identify areas of rapid 

Chesapeake Bay-area marsh loss in which remediation efforts might be effective; and help 

timber companies design and implement long-range sustainable forest management plans.91

History

Landsat was a joint initiative of the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

and NASA that was designed to gather Earth resource data from space. NASA developed and 

launched the spacecraft, while the USGS handled operations, maintenance, and management of 

91 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 53.

49
all ground data reception, processing, archiving, product generation, and distribution.92 The 

program began in the 1960s when the Department of the Interior, NASA, the Department of 

Agriculture, and other organizations, stimulated by success in planetary exploration using remote 

sensing satellites, embarked on an initiative to develop and launch the first civilian Earthobserving satellite to meet the needs of resource managers and Earth scientists. The USGS 

assumed responsibility for archiving the data acquired by the program and distributing the 

anticipated data product.93 The first satellite in the Landsat series (originally named the Earth 

Resources Technology Satellite [ERTS]) was designed to provide repetitive global coverage of 

Earth’s land masses and launched by NASA on July 23, 1972. The program was renamed 

Landsat in 1975.94 

During the 1980s, discussions about control of the Landsat system mirrored a fundamental shift 

in the country’s policy toward remote sensing of Earth. Intense debates focused on the respective 

roles of the government and the private sector. One view was that the private sector should 

perform all civilian remote sensing (meteorological, oceanic, and land) of Earth. An opposing 

view was that this was a proper function of government since it was for the common good. As a 

compromise, it was decided that the government would handle land remote sensing, while 

meteorological and oceanic remote sensing would go to the private sector. 

This compromise remained in place through the early part of the decade. NASA was responsible 

for operating the Landsat system, while the USGS had responsibility for archiving the data and 

92 “Landsat: A Global Land-Observation Project,” 

http://landsat.usgs.gov/project_facts/files/landsat_fact_sheet_20023-03.pdf (accessed February 14, 2006).

93 “Landsat: A Global Land-Observing Program,” Fact Sheet 023-03 (March 2003), 

http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs02303.html (accessed February 15, 2006).

94 “Science Writers’ Guide to Landsat 7,” March 1999, p. 1, 

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Landsat7_writer_guide.pdf (accessed January 31, 2007).

50
producing image products. In January 1983, a plan was made to transfer operation of the Landsat 

program (consisting of land remote sensing) to the private sector. The first step of this plan 

transferred the Landsat system from NASA to NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce 

DOC).95 The Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984 charged NOAA with 

transferring the Landsat program to the private sector. In October 1985, the Earth Observation 

Satellite Company (EOSAT), a partnership of Hughes and RCA (later Space Imaging), was 

selected by NOAA to operate the Landsat system under a 10-year contract. EOSAT would 

operate Landsats 4 and 5 and build two new satellites (Landsats 6 and 7) with government funds. 

EOSAT received exclusive rights to market Landsat data collected before the date of the contract 

through July 16, 1994—the contract’s expiration date—and data collected after the contract date 

for 10 years from the date of acquisition. It also received all foreign ground station fees. The 

primary effects of the commercialization of Landsat data was a substantial increase in the price 

and a loss of government control of the acquisition policy. Use of data declined with the price 

increase, and the systematic data acquisition was replaced by a policy of acquiring only 

requested data.96

This policy was in force until 1992, when President Bush signed into law the Land Remote 

Sensing Policy Act of 1992, which repealed the 1984 act and began to shift the Landsat program 

95 “Landsat: A Global Land-Observing Program,” Fact Sheet 023-03 (March 2003), 

http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs02303.html (accessed February 15, 2006).

96 “Landsat 7 Color Brochure,” http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/main/PDF/Landsat.pdf (accessed February 14, 2006). 

Also “Science Writers’ Guide to Landsat 7,” March 1999, p. 1, 

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Landsat7_writer_guide.pdf (accessed February 15, 2006); E.J. Sheffner, “The 

Landsat Program and Landsat Science,” http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/lswg.html (accessed March 20, 2006); 

U.S. Congress, Senate Report 104-081 “Landsat Amendments Act of 1995,” 104th Congress, 1st sess., May 15, 

1995, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp104&sid=cp104k3Hfz&refer=&r_n=sr081.104&item=&sel=TOC_2330& (accessed 

March 20, 2006).

51
from the commercial sector back to the federal government, transferring oversight from NOAA 

and operations by EOSAT to a joint NASA-DOD Landsat Program Management. The act also: 

• Directed Landsat program management to contract with the private sector for Landsat 7 

• Directed Landsat program management to negotiate with EOSAT for the phased 

introduction of a pricing system for data from Landsats 4–6 that would enable researchers to 

purchase the data at “the cost of fulfilling the user request”

• Provided that the outcome of negotiations with EOSAT should be a transition to a data 

policy consistent with the data policy established in the legislation for Landsat 7 data 

• Required a data policy for Landsat 7 data ensuring that such data would be available to 

all users at the cost of fulfilling user requests

• Authorized the Secretary of Commerce to license operators of private sector remote 

sensing systems

• Directed the President to establish a 5-year technology demonstration program to assess 

advanced technologies and approaches for their potential use on Landsat 897 

The basis for this reversal was the realization that a broad national constituency, including state 

and local governments, had become dependent on observations from meteorological satellites, 

and, therefore, the federal government needed to guarantee the availability of past, present, and 

future Landsat data. This act identified data continuity as the fundamental goal of the Landsat 

97 “Science Writers’ Guide to Landsat 7,” March 1999, p. 1, 

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Landsat7_writer_guide.pdf (accessed January 31, 2007).

52
program.98 The same year, Congress authorized the procurement, launch, and operation of a new 

Landsat satellite, Landsat 7.99

On October 5, 1993, NASA launched Landsat 6. This commercial program, developed by the 

Department of Commerce (NOAA) and the EOSAT Company, was designed to provide data for 

a wide range of Earth resources applications, including environmental monitoring, natural 

resource exploration, urban planning, and cartography. It differed from previous Landsat 

missions in that it carried only one remote sensing instrument—the Enhanced Thematic Mapper 

(ETM). The Landsat 6 spacecraft, built by GE Astro Space, was based on RCA’s Advanced 

Television Infrared Observation Satellite-N/Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (TIROSN/DMSP) spacecraft design, which was used for the operational NOAA and DMSP polarorbiting meteorological spacecraft.100 The spacecraft failed to achieve orbit, however, leading 

NASA to develop and carry out a plan to keep Landsats 4 and 5 operational well beyond their 

design life. Landsats 4 and 5 carried both the multispectral scanner system (MSS) and the 

thematic mapper (TM) sensors. The MSS sensors were identical to those carried on Landsat 3. 

The TM sensors on Landsats 4 and 5 were improvements over earlier instruments and operated 

in seven spectral bands at a spatial resolution of 120 meters (394 feet) for the thermal-infrared 

band and 30 meters (98.4 feet) for the six reflective bands. The band characteristics of the MSS 

and TM are shown in tables 2-60 and 2-61.101

98 “Landsat 7 Press Kit,” April 1999, NASA, USGS, p. 10, http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/announcements/landsat7.pdf

(accessed February 16, 2006).

99 “Landsat 7 Basic Facts,” http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/project/L7basix.html (accessed February 14, 2006).

100 “Landsat 6,” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/LNDSAT6.html (accessed March 20, 

2006).

101 “Landsat 6,” http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/landsat/landsat6.html (accessed January 5, 2006).

53
The failure of on-board electronics on Landsat 4 halted data collection by the satellite in August 

1993. The spacecraft was maintained on orbit as a testbed until it was decommissioned in June 

2001. Landsat 5 continued to orbit at an altitude of 705 kilometers (438 miles), providing a 16-

day, 233-orbit cycle. 

Table 2-62 presents Landsat 6 characteristics.

In May 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a Presidential Decision Directive to further stabilize 

the Landsat program.102 This directive clarified the roles of NASA and the Departments of 

Commerce, Interior, and Defense. In particular, it charged NASA with assuming responsibilities 

previously shared with DOD and developing a strategy to maintain the continuity of Landsattype data beyond Landsat 7. NOAA was to manage Landsat 7 mission operations. The USGS’s 

EROS Data Center, under the Department of the Interior (DOI), would maintain the national 

archive of existing and future Landsat-type remote sensing data within the United States, and 

would make this data readily available to the federal government and other users. DOD withdrew 

from the program, and NASA was named the lead agency in working with NOAA and USGS. 

The Space Imaging contract was transferred from NOAA to USGS in 1998, but Space Imaging 

continued to operate Landsats 4 and 5.103 Also in 1994, Landsat became part of the EOS 

program. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding Landsat 7 and EOS AM-1 (the 

first satellite in Phase 2 of the MTPE program) was signed in 1996. The MOU specified that the 

102 “Landsat Remote Sensing Strategy,” (National Science and Technology Council) NSTC-3, May 5, 1994, 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nstc3.htm (accessed February 15, 2006).

103 “Landsat: A Global Land-Observing Program,” Fact Sheet 023-03, March 2003, 

http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs02303.html (accessed February 15, 2006).

54
two spacecraft would be flown in “loose formation” covering the same ground track 15–60 

minutes apart. Significant benefits resulted from this arrangement.104

Meanwhile, in 1996, NASA began the New Millennium Program (NMP), designed to identify, 

develop, and flight-validate key instrument and spacecraft technologies that could enable new or 

more cost-effective approaches to conducting science missions in the next century. The first 

NMP Earth-orbiting mission, Earth Observing-1 (EO-1), would be an advanced land imaging 

mission demonstrating new instruments and spacecraft systems, and helping to ensure the 

continuity of Landsat-type data. It would validate technologies that could help reduce the cost of 

follow-on Landsat missions. The prime EO-1 instrument, the Advanced Land Imager, would 

have one-seventh the mass, power consumption, and volume of the Landsat 7 imager, the 

Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+).105 

Landsat 7 launched successfully on April 15, 1999 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

Its Sun-synchronous polar orbit allowed it to maintain a constant orientation between Earth and 

the Sun. As a result, the mean Sun time at each point in the orbit remained fixed. The 705-

kilometer (438-mile) Earth mapping orbit had a 16-day repeat cycle. The orbits of Landsats 5 

and 7 were offset, allowing eight-day repeat coverage.106 

Landsat 7 produced Landsat scenes based on the World Wide Reference System, a catalog of 

more than 57,000 land mass and coastal scenes, each 185 kilometers (115 miles) wide by 170 

104 George J. Komar et al., “The Landsat Program: Toward Landsat 7 and Beyond,” paper presented August 22, 

1996, http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/pecora.html (accessed February 20, 2006).

105 “Landsat 7 Press Kit,” April 1999, NASA, USGS, p. 10, 

http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/announcements/landsat7.pdf (accessed February 16, 2006).

106 “Landsat: A Global Land-Observing Program,” Fact Sheet 023-03, March 2003.

55
kilometers (106 miles) long.107 Its payload consisted of a single nadir-pointing instrument, the 

ETM+. The ETM+ provided for an eight-band multispectral scanning radiometer capable of 

providing high-resolution image information of Earth’s surface. It had a thermal infrared channel 

with 60-meter (197-foot) spatial resolution, a panchromatic band with 15-meter (49.2-foot) 

spatial resolution, and on-board, full-aperture, 5 percent absolute radiometric calibration, as well 

as the six reflective bands found on the earlier TM. The ETM+ provided scientists with critical 

data about Earth’s land surfaces, geological features, and vegetation cover.108 Band 

characteristics are shown in table 2-63. 

The Landsat 7 spacecraft was built by Lockheed Martin in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. The 

ETM+ instrument was a product of Hughes Santa Barbara Remote Sensing. Construction of both 

was managed through contracts between the manufacturers and Goddard.109 Figure 2-9 shows a 

drawing of Landsat 7. 

107 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 73, http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/handbook99.pdf (accessed February 

13, 2006).

108 “Landsat 7,” http://science.hq.nasa.gov/missions/satellite_48.htm (accessed February 15, 2006).

109 “Landsat 7 Comparison,” http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/project/Comparison.html (accessed February 20, 2006).

56
Figure 2-9. Landsat 7 satellite as viewed from the Sun side (Landsat 7 Science Data Users 

Handbook). 

Table 2-64 provides a Landsat program chronology from 1989 to 1998. See table 2-65 for further 

mission information. Table 2-66 lists members of the Landsat science investigation teams.

57
Laser Geodynamics Satellite II (LAGEOS II) 

LAGEOS II, a joint U.S.-Italian project, was designed to provide precise measurements of 

movements in Earth’s tectonic plate. It launched October 22, 1992 on STS-52 from the Space 

Shuttle Discovery. LAGEOS II was deployed on flight day 2 of the mission and boosted into an 

initial elliptical orbit by the solid-fueled Italian Research Interim Stage (IRIS), which was flying 

for the first time (see figure 2-10). Its apogee kick motor later fired to adjust the spacecraft’s 

orbit at an operational altitude of 5,616 kilometers by 5,905 kilometers (3,490 miles by 3,669 

miles).110

110 E-mail from Carey Noll; data provided by LAGEOS science contact Peter Dunn (November 25, 2005).

58
Figure 2-10. During STS-52 deployment activities, the Italian Research Interim Stage (IRIS), a 

spinning solid fuel rocket, lifts the Laser Geodynamics Satellite II (LAGEOS II) out of its support 

cradle and above the thermal shield aboard Columbia (NASA photo STS052-80-030). 

LAGEOS II was a dense 0.6-meter (2-foot)-diameter spherical satellite with an aluminum shell 

wrapped around a brass core and 426 cube-corner retroreflectors embedded in the satellite’s 

surface; 422 of these retroreflectors were made of fused silica glass, while the other four were 

59
made of germanium (see figure 2-11). The design was a compromise among numerous factors. It 

needed to be as heavy as possible to minimize the effects of non-gravitational forces but light 

enough to be placed in a high orbit. It also had to accommodate as many retroreflectors as 

possible while still minimizing the surface area to lessen the effects of solar pressure. The 

materials were chosen to reduce the effects of Earth's magnetic field on the satellite’s orbit.111 

Figure 2-11. LAGEOS II satellite in the apogee stage structure (Alenia Spazio brochure 

provided by Carey Noll, GSFC). 

111 “40+ Years of Earth Science: Laser Geodynamics Satellite-2,” 

http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/lageos/lageos2.html (accessed January 12, 2006).

60
A passive satellite, LAGEOS II had no onboard sensors or electronics and was not attitudecontrolled.112 The retroreflectors “bounced” pulses beamed from Earth stations back to their 

sources. Measurements of the time it took a pulse to travel to the satellite and back to Earth 

allowed high accuracy in determining specific positions, and such measurements over many 

years would tell scientists how far specific locations on Earth moved relative to one another. 

Since most earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur where plates meet, LAGEOS II shed light 

on how those events occurred and when they were likely to happen. A team of 27 international 

investigators representing the United States, Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and 

Hungary studied the data from LAGEOS II. The spacecraft was built by Alenia Spazio for the 

Italian space agency based on NASA’s LAGEOS I design. Alenia Spazio was also responsible 

for the thermal control and the structure of the LAGEOS apogee stage that held the satellite in 

place during launch. The system contained the apogee kick motor and electronics for transfer 

orbit control.113 See table 2-67 for further mission information and table 2-68 for a list of 

LAGEOS investigations. 

Radar Satellite (RADARSAT-1) 

The first radar satellite (RADARSAT-1), a joint program of the CSA, NASA, and NOAA, was 

an advanced EOS project developed by Canada to monitor environmental change and support 

resource sustainability. It provided detailed information on ice cover for climate research and 

radar imagery for applications in oceanography, agriculture, forestry, hydrology, and geology. 

The satellite also provided real-time data for Arctic Ocean navigation, including iceberg 

surveillance, and made the first full map of the Antarctic ice sheet.

112 “40+ Years of Earth Science: Laser Geodynamics Satellite-2,” 

http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/lageos/lageos2.html (accessed January 12, 2006).

113 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 52.

61
The RADARSAT-1 program involved both public and private Canadian sectors. The public 

sector included the CSA, the Canadian government, and the provincial governments of Quebec, 

Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. The satellite was fully owned and operated by the 

Canadian government, and Canada also provided the radar instrument and managed the mission. 

NASA provided the Delta II launch vehicle and arranged for launch from Vandenberg Air Force 

Base, California. NASA and NOAA participated in the data analysis.114 The information 

supplied by RADARSAT-1 supported commercial and scientific users in such fields as disaster 

management, interferometry, agriculture, cartography, hydrology, forestry, oceanography, ice 

studies, and coastal monitoring.115

RADARSAT-1 was the world’s first fully successful commercial synthetic aperture radar (SAR) 

satellite. Its active microwave sensor allowed 24-hour data collection regardless of weather 

conditions and illumination. The SAR sensor used a 5.6-centimeter (2.2-inch) wavelength (Cband) and had HH polarization (horizontal transmit, horizontal receive) and selective viewing 

angles that allowed a wide range of terrain conditions, applications, and ground coverage 

requirements to be accomodated.116 

The SAR sensor could image Earth regardless of the time of day, clouds, haze, or smoke over an 

area. The instrument was classified as “active” because it emitted the microwave energy 

necessary to image Earth’s surface. In contrast, “passive” or “optical” sensors relied on the Sun’s 

114 “NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth: Space-Based Missions, 1994–2000, NASA Facts, February 1994, NASA 

History Division folder 18482, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also 

“CSA—RADARSAT-1: Milestones,” http://radarsat.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/satellites/radarsat1/milestones.asp

(accessed February 13, 2006).

115 “RADARSAT-1 Celebrates Ten Years in Space,” Directions Magazine, November 4, 2005, 

http://www.directionsmag.com/press.releases/index.php?duty=Show&id=12953 (accessed May 23, 2007).

116 “RADARSAT,” http://www.crisp.nus.edu.sg/rsat/rsat.html (accessed February 15, 2006).

62
reflected energy to image Earth. The SAR sensor on RADARSAT-1 had the unique capability to 

acquire data in any of 25 possible imaging modes. Each mode varied with respect to swath 

width, resolution, incidence angle, and number of looks. Imaging modes for RADARSAT-1 

included Fine, Standard, Wide, ScanSAR (narrow and wide), and Extended Beam (high and low 

incidence angles).117 Because different applications required different imaging modes, 

RADARSAT-1 gave users tremendous flexibility in choosing the most suitable types of SAR 

data for their applications.118 Table 2-69 lists generalized RADARSAT-1 SAR applications. 

In 1994, the Canadian government established its Long-Term Space Plan. RADARSAT-1 was a 

main element of the plan. 

RADARSAT-1 was launched on November 4, 1995. Designed for a 5-year lifetime, it continued 

to operate into the next decade. The satellite traveled in a Sun-synchronous polar orbit. This orbit 

placed the satellite’s solar arrays in almost continuous sunlight, which ensured the satellite’s 

successful use of solar rather than battery power and provided users with the optimum number of 

viewing opportunities.119

RADARSAT-1 sent its first image on November 28, 1995, showing a portion of Cape Breton 

Island in Nova Scotia, Canada. Covering an area of 132 kilometers by 127 kilometers (82 miles 

117 “RADARSAT,” http://www.crisp.nus.edu.sg/rsat/rsat.html (accessed February 15, 2006).

118 “RADARSAT,” Australian Government, Geoscience Australia, 

http://www.ga.gov.au/acres/prod_ser/radadata.jsp (accessed May 23, 2007).

119 RADARSAT: Components and Specifications, 

http://radarsat.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/satellites/radarsat1/components.asp (accessed March 1, 2006).

63
by 80 miles), it revealed geological and land-use patterns, as well as wind and current patterns in 

lakes and the surrounding oceans.120 

In 1997, RADARSAT-1 was rotated in orbit so that its SAR antenna looked south toward 

Antarctica. This permitted the first high-resolution mapping of the entire continent of Antarctica. 

In less than three weeks, the satellite acquired a complete coverage of radar image swaths as part 

of the first Antarctic Mapping Mission (AMM-1). Swath images were assembled into an image 

mosaic depicting the entire continent at 25-meter (82-foot) resolution. The mosaic provided a 

detailed look at ice sheet morphology, rock outcrops, research infrastructure, the coastline, and 

other features of Antarctica. In addition, it provided calibrated radar backscatter data that could 

potentially provide insight into climate processes affecting the upper few meters of snow cover. 

The RADARSAT-1 Antarctic Mapping Project was a joint effort of NASA and CSA.121 Figure 

2-12 shows a drawing of the satellite. See table 2-70 for further information. 

120 “Milestones,” http://radarsat.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/satellites/radarsat1/milestones.asp (accessed March 1, 2006). 121 “RADARSAT Antarctic Mapping Project,” National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive 

Center, http://nsidc.org/daac/ramp/ (accessed February 15, 2006).

64
Figure 2-12. RADARSAT-1 (Canadian Space Agency, http://www.space.gc.ca)

Atmospheric Studies

NASA’s atmospheric studies concentrated on monitoring ozone depletion, primarily with UARS, 

the two Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition (AASE) satellites, and TOMS. NOAA 

meteorological satellites also monitored ozone along with their other functions. One area of 

special interest was the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in June 1991. Data from NASA 

instruments, such as TOMS aboard the Russian Meteor-3 satellite (launched in 1991), as well as 

NOAA instruments aboard balloons and the polar-orbiting NOAA-9 satellite, enabled scientists 

to study the global cooling effects and loss of ozone resulting from the eruption. These were the 

first unambiguous, direct measurements of large-scale changes in Earth’s radiation budget 

caused by a volcanic eruption.122 In addition, the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), 

which had been launched from STS-41-G in 1984, continued to monitor stratospheric aerosols 

and provide critical ozone data. 

122 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 55.

65
Earth Radiation Budget Satellite 

ERBS was designed as a two-year mission to gather radiation budget data, aerosol data, and 

ozone data to assess climate change and ozone depletion. The satellite was designed and built by 

Ball Aerospace Systems under contract to Goddard. It was the first spacecraft dedicated to 

NASA science experiments to be launched by the Space Shuttle.123

The satellite had three scientific instruments: SAGE II built by Ball Aerospace, the Earth 

Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner built by TRW, and yhe ERBS scanner also 

built by TRW. The spacecraft structure consisted of three basic modules: the keel module, the 

base module, and the instrument module. The keel module was a torque-box structure that 

provided structural support for the propulsion system, the solar array panels, and the antennas. 

The base module was a torque-box structure that provided a direct interface to the Shuttle. The 

ERBE nonscanning instrument and electronics were attached to the base module. The instrument 

module was mounted directly to the base module and housed the ERBS scanner and the SAGE II 

instrument. Each instrument had contamination doors that protected the sensitive detectors and 

optics from accumulating outgassing products from the spacecraft. 

The ERBS scanner failed on February 28, 1990; however, the nonscanning instrument and 

SAGE II functioned as late as 2005.124 Figure 2-13 shows the SAGE II Shuttle launch package. 

See table 2-71 for further mission information. 

123 “Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Solar Monitor Irradiance Langley ASDC Data Set Document,” 

Atmospheric Science Data Center, 

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/GUIDE/dataset_documents/erbe_tsi_erbs_dataset.html (accessed March 14, 2006). 124 “SAGE II Mission Status,” http://www-sage2.larc.nasa.gov/mission_status/ (accessed March 20, 2006).

66
Figure 2-13. The ERBE SAGE II Shuttle Launch Package was designed to measure and analyze 

fluctuations in the amount of heat energy emitted by the Sun and reflected or absorbed by Earth 

(NASA photo EL-2001-00409, NASA LaRC). 

Microlab-1 

Microlab-1 (renamed OrbView-1 in 1997) was launched from an airborne Pegasus launch 

vehicle on 3 April 1995.125 It carried two sensors: the Optical Transient Detector (OTD), 

provided by Marshall Space Flight Center and the GPS Meteorology (GPS Met) atmospheric 

monitoring instrument, sponsored by the NSF and the University Consortium for Atmospheric 

125 Two communications payloads—ORBCOMM-FM1 and ORBCOMM-FM2—were also deployed on this 

mission.

67
Research and developed by JPL. The Microlab atmospheric imaging satellite provided the 

world’s first broad-area cloud-to-cloud lightning data. 

The Microlab/OrbView program resulted from a government–industry partnership between 

ORBIMAGE (a company partly owned by Orbital Sciences Corporation) and NASA. Under this 

arrangement, NASA provided the OTD sensor for use on OrbView-1, and ORBIMAGE agreed 

to conduct an initial six-month experiment USING the sensor.126

The GPS Met, a modified commercial high-precision GPS receiver, proved that signals from the 

U.S. military GPS satellite constellation used for precision navigation could also be used to 

provide atmospheric data to researchers. By precisely measuring the GPS’s increasing travel 

time and fluctuating signal strength as the atmosphere caused the signal’s path to bend, observers 

could recover highly accurate profiles of atmospheric density, pressure, temperature, and, to 

some degree, turbulence and winds. GPS Met was also used to study the amount of water vapor 

in the lower atmosphere.127

The OTD was a highly compact combination of optical and electronic elements that increased 

our understanding of Earth’s atmosphere system by investigating the distribution and variability 

of total lightning over Earth. The instrument detected momentary changes in an optical scene 

that indicated the occurrence of lightning and detected, located, and measured the intensity of 

126 “ORBIMAGE’s Orbview-1 Imaging Satellite Celebrates Fifth Anniversary in Orbit,” Press Release, April 7, 

2000, Orbital Sciences Corporation, http://www.orbimage.com/news/releases/04-07-00.html (accessed May 23, 

2007).

127 “JPL Instrument Will Measure Earth’s Atmospheric Temperature, Jet Propulsion Laboratory,” Universe 25, no. 7 

(April 7, 1995): 1, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/95/release_1995_9524.html (accessed January 12, 2006). Also 

“ORBIMAGE’s Orbview-1 Imaging Satellite Celebrates Fifth Anniversary in Orbit,” Press Release, April 7, 2000, 

Orbital Sciences Corporation, http://www.spaceref.com:16080/news/viewpr.html?pid=1371 (accessed February 28, 

2006).

68
lightning during both daytime and nighttime with a detection efficiency ranging from 40 percent 

to 65 percent. Because the OTD never observed a given location for more than a few minutes 

each day, its data were more suitable for studying global lightning patterns and how they 

changed with time than for studying localized weather.128 Figure 2-14 shows the satellite. See 

table 2-72 for further mission information. 

Figure 2-14. OrbView-1 spacecraft (“Orbiew-1,” Earth Observation Portal 

http://directory/eoportal.org/pres_OrbView1.html). 

Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite S

The UARS program was the first major flight element of NASA’s MTPE. Its primary aim was to 

gather extensive data on the planet’s threatened ozone layer and provide details on chemical 

128 “Optical Transient Detector,” Space Research & Observations, http://thunder.nsstc.nasa.gov/otd/ (accessed 

February 28, 2006). Also “Background: Optical Transient Detector,” http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/otd_old.html

(accessed January 12, 2006).

69
processes taking place in the upper atmosphere, and the effect of humans on these processes. It 

performed the first systematic detailed satellite study of Earth’s stratosphere, mesosphere, and 

lower thermosphere, established the comprehensive database needed to understand stratospheric 

ozone depletion and to assess the role of human activities in atmospheric change, and laid the 

foundation for a broader study of the influence of the upper atmosphere on climate and climate 

variations. Carrying 10 instruments and weighing more than 7 tons, the spacecraft was the 

largest, most complex, and most expensive environmental satellite ever built. 

In 1976, Congress responded to the identification of new causes of ozone depletion by directing 

NASA in the 1976 NASA Authorization Act to “develop and carry out a comprehensive program 

of research, technology and monitoring of the phenomena of the upper atmosphere so as to 

provide for an understanding of and to maintain the chemical and physical integrity of Earth’s 

upper atmosphere.”129 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95-95) further 

directed NASA to “continue programs of research, technology, and monitoring of the 

stratosphere for the purpose of understanding the physics and chemistry of the stratosphere and 

for the early detection of potentially harmful changes in the ozone of the stratosphere.”130 A 

research initiative was established involving sounding rockets, aircraft, and balloons along with 

laboratory and theoretical studies. These investigations confirmed that manufactured chemicals 

were indeed depleting stratospheric ozone, and NASA identified requirements for a satellite to 

study the changing properties of Earth’s atmosphere on a global scale to spearhead a long-term, 

international space research program. Only remote sensing from space, it concluded, could 

129 A Bill To Authorize Appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for Research and 

Development, Construction of Facilities, and Research and Program Management, June 19, 1975, H.R. 4700, 

Public Law 94-39, 94th Congress, 1st sess. Quoted in “Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) Prelaunch 

Mission Operations Report,” Report No. S-678-48-91-01, April 30, 1991, p. 2, and in “All Information” reference to 

H.R. 4700 on http://thomas.loc.gov (accessed January 17, 2007).

130 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Public Law 95-95, August 7, 1977, 95th Congress, 1st sess. 

70
provide the temporal and spatial coverage needed to study such highly variable processes 

worldwide.

NASA officially announced its intent to develop UARS in 1979.131 In early 1980, a preliminary 

selection of candidate instruments was made from proposals solicited from national and 

international atmospheric physics communities. Following a definition study of candidate 

instruments, a final selection of nine instruments was made in November 1981 based on 

scientific merit for the mission and maturity of design. After selection, two additional 

instruments, the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SBUV) measurement system and the Active 

Cavity Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), developed for other flight programs, were added to the 

mission as mission-of-opportunity instruments to extend databases already begun as part of 

earlier flight programs.132 In 1984 the SBUV was removed from the payload complement 

because an identical instrument was designated to be flown in the same time frame on an 

operational NOAA satellite.133 The observatory instrument module structure completed its 

qualification testing in 1989, and all 10 of the instruments were delivered by January 1990. Full 

integration and testing of the spacecraft and instruments was completed in the summer of 

1990.134 

131 “UARS Science Highlights: A Summary of the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS),” 

http://uars.gsfc.nasa.gov/www_root/homepage/uars-science/science_highlights1.html#facts (accessed January 12, 

2006).

132 “Execution Phase Project Plan for the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite,” Goddard Space Flight Center, July 

1984, p. 4-1.

133 Carl A. Reber, “Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) Mission,” 430-1003-001, Goddard Space Flight 

Center, May 1985, p. 5, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066464_1990066464.pdf

(accessed January 31, 2007).

134 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, 1991), p. 21.

71
The $750-million UARS was carried aloft by the Space Shuttle Discovery on 12 September 1991 

and released on 15 September, the third day of the mission. NASA timed the UARS launch to 

coincide with the breakup of the ozone hole in 1991 and enable it to observe a full cycle during 

the following year. The satellite provided three-dimensional pictures of the ozone hole and the 

chemicals forming it.135 Figure 2-15 shows UARS at the end of Discovery’s robot arm during 

STS-48 pre-deployment checkout procedures. 

135 W. Henry Lambright, NASA and the Environment: The Case of Ozone Depletion, Monographs in Aerospace 

History No. 38 (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Special Publication-2005, 4538, 

2000), p. 29.

72
Figure 2-15. The UARS is grasped by the remote manipulator system end effector above the 

payload bay of Discovery. The UARS solar array is in the process of being deployed. Visible on 

the UARS are (top to bottom) the high-gain antenna, Solar Stellar Pointing Platform, outrigger 

truss, Microwave Limb Sounder, spectrometer, solar array, remote manipulator system grapple 

fixture, Particle Environment Monitor, Zenith Particle Environment Monitor, Nadir Particle 

Environment Monitor, magnetometer, outrigger truss and keel pin, and multimission modular 

spacecraft (NASA photo STS048-05-024). 

73
UARS carried 10 instruments: nine complementary instruments that enabled UARS to fulfill its 

program objectives, and a tenth instrument that continued to measure the solar constant (see 

figure 2-16).136 The common goal of these instruments was to the detailed study of energy inputs 

and vertical profiles of temperature, chemical species concentrations, and winds in the upper 

atmosphere. UARS instruments observed phenomena in the microwave, infrared, visible, and 

ultraviolet regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. In addition, the Particle Environment 

Monitor measured soft and hard x-rays, electrons, and protons, as well as magnetic fields. The 

infrared and microwave instruments measured atmospheric temperature and pressure and 

detected trace amounts of ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), nitrogen oxides, nitric acid, water, 

carbon dioxide, chlorine-containing radicals, methane, and other chemical species involved in 

stratospheric ozone depletion. Wind velocity was measured by observing Doppler shifts using 

Fabry-Perot and Michelson interferometry. With a total observatory mass of 6,540 kilograms 

(7.2 tons), including approximately 2,390 kilograms (2.6 tons) of scientific payload, UARS 

occupied most of the volume of the Shuttle payload bay before deployment. In addition to the 

instrument payload, the observatory consisted of a specially designed instrument module and the 

multimission modular spacecraft (MMS). The MMS incorporated standard modules for attitude 

control, communications and data handling, electrical power, and propulsion. Mission-unique 

components included a silicon-cell solar array capable of supporting a 1,600-watt load, and a 

high-gain parabolic antenna compatible with the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System.137

136 “Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) Prelaunch Mission Operations Report,” Report No. S-678-48-91-

01, April 30, 1991, 9.

137 “Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) Post Launch Mission Operation Report,” Report No. U-678-48-

91-02, September 1994, 5.

74
UARS was far larger and more complex and comprehensive than any of its predecessors, and 

had considerably greater resolving power.138

Figure 2-16. View of the UARS from the anti-Sun side, showing instrument placement, the solar 

array, and the multimission modular spacecraft. The HALOE and HRDI instruments cannot be 

seen from this view (Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite [UARS] Mission, 

Document 430-1003-001). 

138 “Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) Prelaunch Mission Operations Report,” 16, 33.

75
UARS has led to major scientific discoveries, several are listed below:

139

• Seasonal mapping of chlorine radicals and reservoirs in the lower stratosphere. A few 

months after launch, the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) mapped ClO (chlorine monoxide—an 

ozone-destroying radical) within the Arctic vortex, showing the extent of ClO formation and its 

close association with polar stratospheric cloud formation temperatures. This was important 

confirmation of earlier aircraft results and also showed the extent of the zone of elevated ClO. 

After these initial observations, UARS continued to monitor both the Arctic and Antarctic late 

winter-spring ozone depletions. The Northern Hemisphere depletion in January–March 1996 was 

one of the largest to date. 

• Containment of polar vortex chemistry within the vortex region. At the time of the UARS 

launch, some scientists speculated that ozone-destroying chemicals within the polar vortex would 

leak to mid-latitudes. Other scientists argued from a dynamical perspective that containment of 

the chemicals must occur. It was not until the UARS launch and trace species were mapped by 

UARS instruments that containment could be demonstrated. 

• Infrared mapping of aerosols and polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). Mt. Pinatubo erupted 

on June 15, 1991, injecting up to 20 megatons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) directly into the 

stratosphere. The reaction of SO2 with stratospheric hydroxide (OH) produced sulfuric acid that 

condensed into aerosols at stratospheric temperatures and pressures. UARS observations by the 

Cryogenic Limb Array Etalon Spectrometer (CLAES), Halogen Occultation Experiment 

(HALOE), and Improved Stratospheric and Mesospheric Sounder (ISAMS) were used to track 

the aerosol cloud from its infrared emissions. This was the first near-synoptic mapping of 

volcanic aerosol layers. 

139 “UARS Science Highlights; A Summary of the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS),” 

http://uars.gsfc.nasa.gov/www_root/homepage/uars-science/science_highlights1.html#facts (accessed January 12, 

2006).

76
• Descent in the center of the polar vortex. HALOE scientists were the first to notice very 

low concentrations of the long-lived trace gas methane (CH4) in the center of the spring 

Antarctic polar vortex. Analysis showed that very low values of methane existed within the mid 

and upper stratosphere in late fall, and these values descended to the lower stratosphere by late 

spring—a net change of 12–15 kilometers (7.5–9.3 miles) over six months. This amount of 

descent is remarkable in any part of the atmosphere and was later confirmed by measurements by 

CLAES (N2O, and CH4) and ISAMS (N2O and CO). 

• The first direct measurement of winds from space. Both the Wind Imaging Interferometer 

(WINDII) and High Resolution Doppler Imager (HRDI) on UARS measured winds from space. 

Although the techniques differed, both relied on the Doppler shift of an oxygen emission line in 

the mesosphere. HRDI additionally detected daytime stratospheric winds using the Doppler shift 

of an oxygen absorption line in the stratosphere. These were the first remote spaceborne wind 

sounders. HRDI and WINDII both provided the first complete global picture of the atmospheric 

tide. HRDI also measured the tropical quasibiennial oscillation winds in the stratosphere. 

• The first global maps of CFCs and their products from space. Some people outside the 

scientific community believe that CFCs are not responsible for ozone loss at the poles. They state 

that CFCs were heavy molecules and would never rise into the stratosphere. They credit the 

observed high levels of stratospheric chlorine were to volcanic activity. CLAES detected both 

CFCl3 (F11) (fluorotrichloromethane) and CF2Cl2 (F12) (difluorodichloromethane) in the 

stratosphere. Both were found to decrease strongly with altitude above the tropopause. As the 

CFCs broke down in the stratosphere, they released chlorine (Cl) and fluorine (F) that formed 

hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). (HF was a long-lived trace gas with no 

77
important natural sources.) HALOE detected HF and HCl in the stratosphere and found that both 

increased with altitude as the CFCs decreased and were increasing with time. 

• Tropical transport in the stratosphere. The long lifetime of the UARS mission has led to 

trace gas trend information showing the vertical transport of water vapor upward in the tropical 

stratosphere. The amount of water vapor entering the stratosphere changes throughout the year as 

the tropical tropopause becomes colder and warmer. These variations in water vapor climbed 

slowly into the stratosphere and appear coherent to about 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) from the 

previous 16 kilometers (10 miles). The water vapor observations indicates that the tropical region 

is quite isolated from the rest of the stratosphere, since otherwise these variations would be 

diluted. 

• Measurement of the ultraviolet and visible component of solar variability. The Active 

Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) recorded total solar irradiance, while the Solarstellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE) and Solar Ultraviolet Spectral Irradiance 

Monitor (SUSIM) measured ultraviolet flux from ~121.6-400 nanometers. SOLSTICE used the 

stars, and SUSIM used on-board calibration lamps to correct for instrument changes over time. 

UARS was launched near the end of the maximum of solar cycle 22. A comparison of energy 

changes over the period between the maximum of solar cycle 22 and the minimum between solar 

cycles 22 and 23 by these instruments showed that the ultraviolet variation accounted for a 

significant 40 percent of the change in the total solar irradiance. 

• The role of energetic particles in stratospheric chemistry. Energetic particle observations 

by the Particle Environment Monitor (PEM) showed that most of the relativistic electrons 

observed at geosynchronous altitudes (e.g., by GOES) were trapped. Only about 1–10 percent of 

the relativistic electron precipitations (REPs) measured at geosynchronous altitudes actually 

78
precipitated into Earth’s atmosphere. These measurements thus showed that REPs had a 

relatively small global effect on stratospheric odd nitrogen, which was a subject of controversy 

before the UARS launch. 

• Upper tropospheric water vapor in the presence of clouds. The MLS team noticed that 

they were getting some spectral interference from water vapor. Further analysis showed that they 

could use the MLS to actually measure upper tropospheric water. Since the MLS was a 

microwave emission instrument, the measurements could be made even if ice clouds were 

present. These new water vapor measurements were used to study how cirrus clouds affected 

climate. 

See table 2-73 for further mission information. 

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor 

ACRIM III was the third in a series of long-term solar-monitoring tools built for NASA by the 

JPL. The sensor extended the total solar irradiance (TSI) database first created by ACRIM I , 

which was launched in 1980 on the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) spacecraft, and followed by 

ACRIM II on UARS, launched in 1991 (see above). The Earth Radiation Budget instrument 

(launched on Nimbus-7 in 1978), the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (launched in 1984 and 

carrying the ERBE), and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) satellite (launched in 

1995 and carrying the Variability of Solar Irradiance and Gravity Oscillations [VIRGO] 

instrument) also contributed to a long-term TSI database.140 Space Shuttle flights STS-45, -56, 

140 “ACRIM: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Monitoring, http://www.acrim.com. Also “Instrument Heritage,” 

http://acrim.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/instrument_heritage.html (both accessed January 23, 2007).

79
and -66 also carried an ACR. ACRIM III was launched from the ACRIM satellite (AcrimSat) 

spacecraft.

The ACRIM experiment was accepted by NASA in the late 1980s as part of the EOS mission. 

Initially scheduled for launch as part of the EOS-CHEM platform payload, EOS restructuring 

removed it from the CHEM satellite in the mid-1990s and placed ACRIM III on “flight-ofopportunity” status. The implementation approach shifted to a “faster, better, cheaper” mode of a 

small, dedicated satellite and launch as a secondary payload. The instrument was redesigned, 

updated, and miniaturized to conform to the latest techniques and technology and to maximize its 

adaptability to a small-satellite environment. It embodied an optimized combination of the best 

features of the earlier ACRIM instruments along with new electronics and package design.141 

The ACRIM III instrument included three identical active cavity radiometers used in different 

cycles. One monitored the Sun continuously. Data from the second instrument were compared 

with data from the first instrument every few months. The third sensor’s data were compared 

with the other two instruments’ data every two months. This rotating system of data comparison 

allowed anticipated slow changes in the first sensor caused by exposure to the Sun and space to 

be calibrated and removed from its measurement results.142 Figure 2-17 shows an illustration of 

the spacecraft.

141 Willson, “The ACRIMSAT/ACRIM III Experiment, 14. 142 “AcrimSat Launch Press Kit,” December 1999, p. 17, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/acrimsat.pdf

(accessed January 23, 2007).

80
Figure 2-17. AcrimSat spacecraft (AcrimSat Launch Press Kit). 

Immediately after launch, the satellite experienced an unexpected four-month period during 

which the instrument could not gather scientific data because it was not pointing directly at the 

Sun; instead, it was pointing 16 degrees away from the Sun in a higher-than-expected orbit of 

443 miles (714 kilometers).143 A series of software commands corrected the problem and allowed

ACRIM III to successfully complete its mission of monitoring TSI over a five-year period.

The instrument was more than twice as light and compact as its predecessor, allowing the 

radiometer to be flown in a small, dedicated spacecraft such as AcrimSat. The octagonal-shaped 

143 Paul Hoversten, “Software Fix Puts Acrimsat Satellite Back on Track,” Space.com, 

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/acrimsat_000614.html (accessed January 23, 2007).

81
AcrimSat was carried as a secondary payload on the Taurus launch vehicle and launched into 

Sun-synchronous orbit.144 

The AcrimSat project was funded as part of the EOS program and managed by the Earth 

Sciences Program Office at Goddard. The principal investigator was Dr. Richard Willson of 

Columbia University. The AcrimSat Project Office at JPL managed the design, fabrication, and 

testing of the instrument and the subcontract with Orbital Sciences Corporation, builder of the 

spacecraft and the Taurus launch vehicle. See table 2-74 for further information. 

Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition (AASE) 

NASA and NOAA jointly coordinated two AASEs in 1989 and 1991–1992 to continue to study 

production and loss mechanisms for ozone in the polar stratosphere and to assess the growing 

human influence on the environment. The missions were elements of the Upper Atmospheric 

Research Program sponsored by NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications. The 

missions used the NASA ER-2, and DC-8 research aircraft, satellites, and balloons, which 

carried a number of detectors, samplers, spectrometers, and other instruments to analyze the 

stratospheric environment. 

First AASE

The first AASE, staged from Stavanger, Norway, from January 1 to February 28, 1989, began 

about 18 months after the 1987 Airborne Antarctic Ozone Experiment, which determined that the 

ozone hole that appears every year over Antarctica is caused by perturbed chlorine chemistry. 

The primary objectives of the expedition were to study the production and loss mechanisms of 

144 The primary payload was a South Korean satellite.

82
ozone in the north polar stratospheric environment and the effect on ozone distribution of the 

Arctic polar vortex and the cold temperatures associated with the formation of PSCs.145

Stratospheric conditions in the Southern Hemisphere winter differ in some important aspects 

from those of the Northern Hemisphere: the southern temperatures are colder (and the cold 

temperatures last longer), and the ring of winds circling the pole—the polar vortex—is more 

circular and isolates the polar air more. These differences affect the relevant chemical reactions 

that take place. AASE took measurements in the northern polar winter to determine whether the 

same kinds of processes observed in the Southern Hemisphere were occurring.146 

The AASE studied stratospheric chemistry and meteorology over the Arctic using NASA ER-2 

and DC-8 aircraft. The aircraft, which flew 28 missions over the Arctic as far as the North Pole, 

carried instruments similar to those used in the 1987 Antarctic expedition. 

The expedition investigated the chemical and dynamical processes controlling ozone in the 

Arctic polar stratosphere. The flights into the Arctic stratosphere took place during early winter, 

when polar stratospheric clouds are most likely to form. They revealed that large amounts of 

chlorine monoxide were found in the polar regions, and that chlorine monoxide and bromine 

monoxide were present at concentrations comparable to those observed over Antarctica in 

1987.147 Preliminary results from the study indicated that while no large ozone losses were 

observed in the Arctic, and scientists could not predict with certainty that a substantial loss of 

ozone would occur, strong perturbations in active chlorine were observed.148 The highly 

145 “AASE Mission Overview,” http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/aase/project/overview.html (accessed February 16, 

2006).

146 “The Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition (AASE),” GSFC Code 916: Atmospheric Chemistry and 

Dynamics Branch, http://code916.gsfc.nasa.gov/Public/Analysis/aircraft/aase/aase.html (accessed February 16, 

2006).

147 “The Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition (AASE).” 

148 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 22. Also Lambright, p. 26.

83
perturbed chemical composition of the Arctic polar stratosphere resembled the situation in the 

Southern Hemisphere winter, and these perturbations occurred over a wide range of altitudes in 

the stratosphere.149

In addition to NASA and NOAA, other participants in the AASE included the National Science 

Foundation and the Chemical Manufacturers Association.150

AASE II

AASE II consisted of several two-week data-gathering phases over eight months between 

October 1991 and April 1992. The expedition was staged from Moffett Field, California; 

Fairbanks, Alaska; Anchorage, Alaska; Stavanger, Norway; and Bangor, Maine.151 The mission 

used a high altitude ER-2 aircraft for in-situ studies of the lower stratosphere and a long-range 

DC-9 for remote sensing observations. AASE II involved 100 scientists from NASA, NOAA, the 

NSF’s National Center for Atmospheric Research, many universities, and an industry group.152

The extended aircraft campaign investigated the Arctic polar stratosphere over the complete 

annual lifetime of the Northern Hemisphere polar vortex.

AASE II consisted of four major program elements: a high-altitude ER-2 aircraft; a long-range 

DC-8 aircraft; extensive meteorological predictions and analyses, which included an array of 

computational programs to correlate and interpret the aircraft observations; and the TOMS on the 

Nimbus-7 satellite, which monitored the global distribution of total ozone. The instrument 

149 “Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition II, Mission Statement,” 

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/aase2/project/statement.html (accessed February 16, 2006).

150 Lambright, p. 26.

151 “Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition II, Mission Statement.”

152 Lambright, p. 30.

84
packages on the two aircraft measured an array of chemical species and other atmospheric 

parameters associated with the mechanisms that determine the distribution of ozone.153

Meteorological analyses from the NOAA National Meteorological Center (NMC) provided the 

historical context, analysis, and predictive capability for temperature, pressure, and wind fields 

for the Northern Hemisphere during the field deployment.154

Three questions defined the principal mission objectives for AASE-II:

• Will significant erosion of stratospheric ozone occur over the Arctic as stratospheric 

chlorine levels increase during the next decade? 

• What were the causes of mid-latitude stratospheric ozone decreases in late fall through 

early summer, as revealed over the past decade by ground and satellite observations? 

• What effects did volcanoes have on the chemical processes governing stratospheric 

ozone? In particular, could volcano aerosols modify the stratospheric ozone depletion associated 

with industrial halocarbons? 

On January 11, 1992, satellite data indicated high levels of chlorine in the northern latitudes, 

including regions around such cities as London, Moscow, and Amsterdam. On January 20, an 

ER-2 flew into the center of a polar vortex, making in situ measurements with instruments that 

could sample the air outside the aircraft in real time and obtain air samples that could be 

153 “End of Mission Statement, Second Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition (AASE-II), NASA Headquarters, 

30 April 1992, http://code916.gsfc.nasa.gov/Public/Analysis/aircraft/aase2/eom_aaseII.txt (accessed February 16, 

2006).

154 “Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition II, Mission Statement.”

85
analyzed on the ground later.155 When analyzed, the air samples showed the highest levels of 

chlorine monoxide—a compound that plays a critical role in polar ozone destruction—ever 

measured in the Arctic region. Data from UARS seemed to confirm the findings that chlorine 

monoxide molecules (thought to be derived primarily from chlorofluorocarbons) were building 

up in the vortex. This information verified what scientists had hypothesized from the 1989 

AASE mission.

Airborne Visible/InfraRed Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) 

The AVIRIS project provided calibrated data from an airborne sensor to customers at NASA, 

NOAA, EPA, and USGS, as well as in academia and industry. Its main objective was to identify, 

measure, and monitor constituents of Earth’s surface and atmosphere based on molecular 

absorption and particle scattering signatures. Research was directed toward understanding 

processes related to the global environment and climate change, and the AVIRIS instrument was 

used for investigations relating to ecology, mineralogy, forestry, snow hydrology, oceanography, 

and cloud and atmospheric studies.156 The instrument was carried on the ER-2 aircraft, which 

flies at approximately 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) above sea level at a speed of approximately 730 

kilometers per hour (454 miles per hour). AVIRIS was the second in a series of imaging 

spectrometer instruments developed at JPL for Earth remote sensing. It has flown across the 

United States, as well as in Canada and Europe. 

155 Lambright, p. 30.

156 “ER-2 No. 908 Is Out of the Shop and Into the Sky,” Dryden X-Press 48 (May 27, 1999): 1, 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1999/May 16/people.html. Also “What Is AVIRIS?” 

http://www.ltid.inpe.br/html/pub/docs/html/aboutAV.htm (both accessed January 23, 2007).

86
The 340-kilogram (750-pound) AVIRIS instrument contained 224 different detectors, each with 

a wavelength sensitive range (or spectral bandwidth) of approximately 10 nanometers (nm), 

allowing it to cover an entire range between 380 nm and 2,500 nm (see table 2-75). When the 

data from each detector were plotted on a graph, they yielded a spectrum. Comparison of the 

resulting spectrum with those of known substances revealed information about the composition 

of the area being viewed by the instrument. 

The AVIRIS scanning mirror swept back and forth in a “whisk-broom fashion,” producing 677 

pixels for the 224 detectors on each scan. The pixel size and swath width of the AVIRIS data 

depended on the altitude at which the data were collected. When collected by the ER-2 (about 20 

kilometers above the ground), each pixel produced by the instrument covered an area 

approximately 20 meters (65.6 feet) diameter on the ground (with some overlap between pixels), 

thus yielding a ground swath about 11 kilometers (6.8 miles) wide. The ground data were 

recorded on board the instrument along with navigation and engineering data and the readings 

from the AVIRIS on-board calibrator. When all of these data were processed and stored on the 

ground, they yielded approximately 140 megabytes for every 512 scans (or lines) of data. Each 

512-line set of data, or scene, corresponded to an area about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) long on 

the ground.157 Through 1994, the instrument had a data rate of 17 Mbps. Beginning in 1995, its 

data rate increased to 20.4 Mbps.158

Every time AVIRIS flew, the instrument took several “runs” of data (also known as flight lines). 

Originally, AVIRIS had an approximately 40-minute recording limit using a reel-to-reel tape 

157 “The AVIRIS Concept,” http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/html/aviris.concept.html (accessed January 23, 2007).

158 “AVIRIS Instrument,” http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/html/aviris.instrument.html (accessed February 1, 2007).

87
drive. In 1992, it upgraded to a Metrum VLDS recorder, which used VHS-style tape cartridges 

with a tape capacity of just over an hour. A full AVIRIS tape of this type could yield about 16 

gigabytes of data per day.159 In 1998, AVIRIS upgraded to a Metrum DLT tape drive with a 35-

gigabyte capacity, allowing about two hours of data collection.160 The AVIRIS Data Facility 

performed low-level processing, data archiving, and data distribution, and assisted the hardware 

team in judging the performance of the instrument and modeling instrument anomalies.161

AVIRIS began operating in the summer of 1987, with the first engineering/integration test flights 

using the ER-2 aircraft, three years after design and construction of the instrument began. The 

first season of operations was dedicated to a NASA-sponsored data evaluation and technology 

assessment program to determine the full performance potential of the AVIRIS system.162 An 

ER-2 deployment in June 1991 to Alconbury, England, brought the instrument to Europe. 

Multiple flights were flown over Iceland, Wales, England, France, Italy, Spain, Austria, 

Germany, and the Netherlands. When it returned to the United States, it conducted stratospheric 

sampling from Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, to the North Pole.163 

159 “The AVIRIS Concept,” http://www.ltid.inpe.br/html/pub/docs/html/concept.htm (accessed January 23, 2007).

160 Michael Eastwood, e-mail to author, February 12, 2007.

161 “The AVIRIS Data Facility,” http://www.ltid.inpe.br/html/pub/docs/html/adf.htm (accessed January 23, 2007).

162 Gregg Vane, editor, Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS): A Description of the Sensor, 

Ground Data Processing Facility, Laboratory Calibration, and First Results (Pasadena, CA: Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory Publication 87-38, 1987), p. 1, ftp://popojpl.nasa.gov/pub/docs/workshops/87_docs/JPLPUB87-38.pdf. 

(accessed January 22, 2007).

163 “ER-2 Program History,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/AirSci/ER-2/history.html (accessed 

January 23, 2007).

88
TOMS

NASA began using monitors in the 1970s to map the level of ozone in the atmosphere. During 

the decade from 1989–1998, four TOMS flew—two on NASA spacecraft and two on 

international spacecraft. Table 2-76 summarizes the four missions. 

Nimbus-7 TOMS

The TOMS program began with the launch of TOMS Flight Model #1 on the Nimbus-7 

spacecraft on October 24, 1978. Valid measurements started in November of the same year, and 

the instrument continued to return data until May 1993, long after all other on-board experiments 

on Nimbus had failed. The Nimbus TOMS provided daily global coverage of Earth’s total ozone 

by measuring backscattered Earth radiance in six 1-nm bands.164 This instrument offered the first 

opportunity for NASA and ESA to receive data concerning the global atmosphere in real time.165

In October 1990, data from TOMS indicated that a hole it had observed earlier in the ozone layer 

had reopened over Antarctica, and the depletion of ozone there seemed to be nearly as severe as 

it had been in the worst years of 1987 and 1989.166 On October 8, 1991, NASA announced that 

in its 13th year of monitoring ozone with the Nimbus-7 TOMS, preliminary data suggested that 

1991 would be the third consecutive year that severe ozone depletion had developed over the 

Antarctic.167

164 Richard D. McPeters et al., “Nimbus-7 Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) Data Products User’s 

Guide,” 5, http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/datainfo/n7usrguide.pdf (accessed March 1, 2006). Backscattered radiation is 

solar radiation that has penetrated to the Earth’s lower atmosphere. There it is scattered by air molecules and clouds 

back through the stratosphere to the satellite sensors.

165 “Nimbus-7, 40+ Years of Earth Science,” http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/nimbus/nimbus7.html (accessed 

March 1, 2006).

166 Lambright, p. 29.

167 “1991 Ozone Level Matches Three Previous Years,” NASA News Release 91-165, October 8, 1991, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1991/91-165.txt (accessed February 13, 2006).

89
Data relating to global ozone in late 1992 and early 1993 agreed with data from the Solar 

Backscatter Ultraviolet (SBUV/2) spectral radiometer flying on the NOAA-11 satellite and the 

TOMS on the Russian Meteor-3 satellite. Scientists from Goddard discovered that global ozone 

levels during this period were the lowest ever observed, substantially lower than the reduced 

values that had been predicted for 1992, and some 2–3 percent lower than in any previous year. 

Ozone amounts were low in a wide range of latitudes in both the Northern and Southern 

hemispheres, with the largest decreases in the regions from 10°S to 20°S and 10°N to 60°N. The 

data also agreed with preliminary findings from the Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet 

(SSBUV) instrument flying on the ATLAS-2 mission on the Space Shuttle in April 1993.168

Meteor-3 TOMS

The Meteor-3 TOMS project was conducted under the 1987 United States–Soviet Union 

agreement on “Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes,” 

as amended in May 1988 and the implementation agreement between NASA and the Soviet 

Union signed on July 25, 1990 to fly a TOMS on the Russian Meteor-3 spacecraft.169 A TOMS 

instrument on the Meteor-3 flight would be able to gather critical environmental data about the 

yearly variability of the ozone hole over Antarctica.170 

168 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 57. Also J.F. Gleason et al., 

“Record Low Global Ozone in 1992,” Science 206 (April 1993): 523–526, http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-427/011-

427.html (accessed March 1, 2006).

169 “Soviets To Launch NASA Instrument To Study Ozone Levels,” NASA News Release 91-127, August 12, 1991, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1991/91-127.txt (accessed March 1, 2006). Also “Agreement Between the 

United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration 

and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes, April 5, 1987, revised May 31, 1988 (but the revised version was not 

enacted), http://www.jaxa.jp/jda/library/space-law/chapter_3/3-2-2-7_e.html (accessed March 1, 2006).

170 Lambright, p. 29.

90
NASA refurbished a Nimbus-7 Engineering Model TOMS to flight status, adding an Interface 

Adapter Model (IAM) to make the TOMS compatible with the Meteor-3. The IAM converted the 

Meteor-3 power, commands, clock, telemetry, and data interfaces into a system compatible with 

TOMS. NASA also replaced the diffractions grating, resurfaced the mirrors, added flightqualified electronics, and replaced the tape recorder that had been used for Nimbus- with a solidstate data recorder. The most significant change was the replacement of the single diffuser plate 

of Nimbus-7 with a three-diffuser system on Meteor-3. Aside from the change in the diffuser, the 

optics of the Meteor TOMS had the same optics as the Nimbus-7 TOMS.171 

The Meteor-3 carrying TOMS launched on a Soviet Cyclone ELV from the Plesetsk facility near 

the White Sea on August 15, 1991. It was the first U.S.-built remote-sensing instrument, and the 

first NASA instrument of any kind, to fly on a Soviet spacecraft.172 Unlike Nimbus-7, the 

Meteor-3 orbit was not Sun-synchronous but had a precession period of 212 days.173 The 

instrument measured the solar irradiance and the radiance backscattered by Earth’s atmosphere 

in six selected wavelength bands in the ultraviolet region.174

Data from the Meteor-3 TOMS were gathered from August 22, 1991, to December 27, 1994, 

which was the last day useful data were received. At the time, spacecraft telemetry indicated a 

lack of steady electrical current to the instrument’s chopper motor. Attempts to revive the 

171 Jay R. Herman et al., “Meteor-3 Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) Data Products User’s Guide,” 

Goddard Space Flight Center, Scientific and Technical Information Branch, NASA Reference Publication, 1996, p. 

5, http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/datainfo/m3usrguide.pdf (accessed January 10, 2006).

172 “Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, Ozone Processing Team—NASA/GSFC Code 613.3, Meteor-3 TOMS 

Instrument and Satellite Information http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/m3toms/m3sat.html (accessed January 18, 2007). 

Also e-mail to author from Arlin Krueger, NASA TOMS scientist (retired) and proposer of TOMS instrument, 

January 19, 2007.

173 Herman et al., p. 5.

174 Herman et al., p. 1.

91
instrument failed.175 The Meteor-3 TOMS data were archived at the Goddard Distributed Active 

Archive Center.

TOMS-Earth Probe and ADEOS TOMS 

NASA launched a small EP spacecraft carrying TOMS-EP from a Pegasus XL launch vehicle in 

July 1996. Although the sensor had been ready for launch earlier, launch failures of the first two 

Pegasus XL vehicles led to a two-year delay, causing the mission to fly at the same time as the 

TOMS on the Japanese ADEOS. Consequently, the mission was altered and TOMS-EP was 

placed into a lower orbit than previously planned so that researchers could achieve higherresolution measurements and study ultraviolet-absorbing aerosols in the troposphere more 

thoroughly. The lower orbit complemented measurements taken from the ADEOS TOMS, 

launched only a month later, in August 1996.176

TOMS-EP was a second-generation backscatter ultraviolet ozone sounder that provided highresolution global mapping of total ozone on a daily basis. It measured “total column ozone” (the 

total amount of ozone in a “column” of air from Earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere) 

under all daytime observing and geophysical conditions. Like the earlier instruments, TOMS 

covered the near-ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum, where sunlight was 

absorbed only partially by ozone. 

175 “Successful U.S.-Russian Ozone-Monitoring Mission Appears Over,” NASA News Release 95-11, February 2, 

1995, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1995/95-11.txt (accessed January 10, 2006).

176 “Earth Probe TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer,” Ozone Processing Team—NASA/GSFC Code 613.3, 

http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/eptoms/eptech2.html (accessed March 1, 2006).

92
TOMS-EP measured total ozone by observing both incoming solar energy and backscattered 

ultraviolet radiation at six wavelengths. Every 8 seconds it made 35 measurements, each 

covering an area 30–125 miles (50–200 kilometers) wide on the ground along a line 

perpendicular to the motion of the satellite. Almost 200,000 daily measurements covered every 

spot on Earth except areas near the poles, where the Sun remained close to or below the horizon 

during the entire 24-hour period. In addition to housekeeping sensors to monitor the well-being 

of the instrument, TOMS-EP used several inflight calibration modes to assess system 

performance.177 Figure 2-18 shows global ozone on July 25, 1996, one of the first days that data 

were received from TOMS-EP.

Figure 2-18. Global ozone for 25 July 25, 1996, as detected by TOMS-EP. (GSFC/Code 916). 

New analysis techniques developed for earlier TOMS data provided the first global dataset on 

surface ultraviolet radiation. These results documented the first confirmation of global trends in 

177 “Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer/Earth Probe,” NASA Facts, September 22, 1997, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/toms.htm (accessed March 1, 2006).

93
increasing ultraviolet radiation related to stratospheric ozone depletion and provided the basis for 

improved assessments of the effects on health. Atmospheric ozone studies indicated a promising 

response to policy actions such as the Montreal Protocol, a 1987 agreement that challenged its 

international signatories to adopt rigorous environmental standards. NASA and NOAA groundbased measurements documented a continued decrease in the growth of ozone-depleting 

industrial chemicals in the lower atmosphere, confirming industry’s response to the Montreal 

Protocol. From these results, scientists expected stratospheric ozone to reach a minimum within 

the next decade and then begin to recover. In addition, NASA cooperated with private industry 

researchers to verify the environmental acceptability of the chemicals used to replace 

chlorofluorocarbons. 

TOMS-EP continued to be one of NASA’s most successful environmental programs, extending a 

15-year database of global ozone levels. TOMS data, along with data from aircraft and groundbased research, were instrumental in creating international agreements to phase out the use of 

ozone-destroying chemicals in many industries.

ADEOS, carrying a TOMS and the NSCAT, launched in August 1996. This TOMS provided its 

first global total ozone image on September 13, 1996. On October 7, 1996, near-real-time 

ADEOS-TOMS data became available on the TOMS Web site. The ADEOS TOMS, along with 

TOMS-EP, observed the unusual loss of Arctic polar ozone. TOMS-EP also provided highground-resolution research data from its lower orbit to complement global data from the 

94
spectrometer on ADEOS. The ADEOS-TOMS instrument performed well until June 1997, when 

the ADEOS satellite failed. The spacecraft was declared lost on June 30, 1997.178 

After ADEOS failed, NASA chose TOMS-EP in December 1997 to monitor ozone trends for an 

additional three years, filling the gap left by the loss of ADEOS. A series of thruster burns over 

nine days boosted TOMS-EP into a 740-kilometer (460-mile) Sun-synchronous orbit from its 

490-kilometer (320-mile) orbit, making possible contiguous Earth coverage for monitoring 

ozone and volcanic eruption clouds.179 The higher altitude widened the coverage of TOMS and 

exerted less atmospheric drag on the satellite, enabling it to continue providing measurements 

into the next decade, well beyond its two-year design life.180 

Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission 

TRMM was the first mission dedicated to measuring tropical and subtropical rainfall through 

microwave and visible infrared sensors; and it included the first space-borne rain radar.181

Tropical rainfall comprises more than two-thirds of global rainfall and is the primary distributor 

of heat through the atmosphere. Understanding rainfall and how it varies is crucial for 

understanding and predicting global climate change. 

TRMM was first proposed in the mid-1980s as a satellite project to be jointly conducted by 

Japan and the United States. Early in 1984, the NASA Headquarters atmospheric program 

178 “ADEOS Operations Status Report Meeting,” Earth Observation Center, Japan Space Exploration Agency, 

http://suzaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/GLI2/adeos/NewsLetters/newsletter10/status.html (accessed May 23, 2007).

179 “NASA Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), Education Program Update-July 1997,” 

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/education/edreports/mtpeedjul97.html (accessed February 1, 2007).

180 “NASA Redeploys Ozone Monitoring Satellite,” SpaceDaily, December 17, 1997, 

http://www.spacedaily.com/spacenet/text/adeos-j.html (accessed March 2, 2006).

181 “TRMM Background,” http://tsdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/tsdis/tsdis_redesign/TRMMBackground.html (accessed January 

12, 2006).

95
manager had held an informal competition for an inexpensive space mission that could answer 

focused science questions about the atmosphere and Earth environment. The winner, TRMM, was 

proposed by scientists at GSFC. In 1985, when the United States conducted aircraft experiments

together with Japan, it became clear that the two countries were both interested in measuring rain 

from space. The U.S. and Japan agred that Japan would build the Precipitation Radar instrument 

to fly on TRMM and provide the launch services with an H-II rocket, while the United States 

would provide the spacecraft and passive microwave and visible/infrared (VIS/IR) sensors.182 

In 1987, a feasibility study was performed, and development of a model began in 1988, 

continuing until 1993. In 1988, the TRMM Science Steering Group (SSG) issued a report called 

“TRMM: A Satellite Mission to Measure Rainfall,” as well as a shorter summary. The SSG 

report included the science background, requirements and “desirements,” ground truth validation 

plan, goals, and specific questions the mission was to address. It spelled out specifications of the 

rain instruments and suggested how they might complement each other.183

In late 1990, pressure exerted by the science community led to a congressional initiative to 

budget for a TRMM “new start” in 1991. TRMM was designated as one of the first missions in 

NASA’s Earth Probeseries, which was part of MTPE. In 1991, the TRMM project was staffed 

and organized, GSFC began the in-house design of the spacecraft , and the first science team of 

31 scientists was selected from more than 100 proposals submitted in response to a NASA 

research announcement.

182 J. Simpson et al., “On the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 

60 (1996): pp. 4–7, http://rain.atmos.colostate.edu/papers/kummerow/J_Simpson.pdf (accessed February 27, 2006). 

Also “NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth: Space-Based Missions, 1994–2000,” NASA Facts, February 1994, NASA 

History Division folder 18482, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

183 Simpson et al., pp. 4–7.

96
NASA began instrument development in 1991, and the instrument complement evolved between 

1991 and 1994. The TRMM observatory entered its integration and test phase in early 1995.184

On October 20, 1995, Japan and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding for 

TRMM, making the joint program official and stating the responsibilities of each party.185 Soon 

after, technicians integrated the spacecraft and payload of five instruments and began testing.186

In 1997, NASA completed instrument integration and delivered the satellite to Japan. Launch 

took place on November 27, 1997 from the Japanese Tanegashima Space Facility. Goddard 

developed and constructed the observatory, provided four instruments, integrated and tested the 

observatory, and operated the satellite via the TDRSS. TRMM was the largest spacecraft ever 

built in-house at Goddard.187 The spacecraft had a design lifetime of three years but continued to 

operate into the next decade.

TRMM provided unprecedented insights into rainfall cloud systems in the tropics and subtropics. 

TRMM’s all-weather sea-surface temperature data from September 1998 indicated a possibly 

waning La Niña event, a cooling phase of El Niño. In August 1998, TRMM provided spectacular 

images of Hurricane Bonnie over the Atlantic Ocean by capturing towering clouds extending up 

to 59,000 feet (17,983 meters) above the hurricane’s eye. Earth scientists also completed an 

experiment (the third Convection and Moisture Experiment [CAMEX-3]) off the coast of 

184 Simpson et al.: 14.

185 “Second Joint Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Science Team Meeting, The Earth Observer 8, no. 

2 (March/April 1996), http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_observ/3_4_96/p15.html (accessed February 27, 2006). Also 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Research of the 

National Science and Technology Council, Our Changing Planet FY 1996; The FY 1996 U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, http://www.gcrio.org/ocp96/ch3.html (accessed February 27, 2006).

186 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities, p. 68.

187“Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Source Document,” 

http://ghrc.msfc.nasa.gov:5721/source_documents/trmm_source.html (accessed January 18, 2007).

97
Florida, based at Patrick Air Force Base, fromAugust 6 to September 23, 1998. CAMEX-3 

successfully studied hurricanes Bonnie, Danielle, Earl, and Georges, collecting data for research 

on tropical cyclone development, tracking intensification, and landfalling impacts and 

measuring. It also measured the hurricanes’ structure, environment, and changes in intensity.188 

TRMM’s orbit ranged between 35°N and 35°S, which allowed the spacecraft to fly over each 

position on Earth’s surface at a different local time each day. Scientists used data from this orbit 

to calculate rain variations over a 24-hour period to provide a dataset that was vastly more 

informative than any previously available. Figure 2-19 shows a drawing of the on-orbit 

spacecraft. Table 2-77 provides further mission information. 

188 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1998 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, [no date]), p. 6. Also “3rd Convection and Moisture Experiment,” 

http://ghrc.msfc.nasa.gov/camex3 (accessed January 18, 2007).

98
Figure 2-19. TRMM on-orbit configuration (TRMM project/GSFC). 

Airborne Southern Hemisphere Ozone Experiment/Measurements for Assessing the Effects of 

Stratospheric Aircraft (ASHOE/MAESA) 

The ASHOE/MAESA mission consisted of a series of high-altitude flights by NASA ER-2 

aircraft in 1994. The flights obtained the first inflight measurements of the exhaust gases and 

particles produced by a supersonic aircraft.189 The mission’s primary objective was to investigate 

the causes of long-term reductions of ozone in the wintertime mid-latitudes in the Southern 

189 “FY96 Annual Operating Plan,” NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, http://www.al.noaa.gov/plans/planstextfy96.html

(accessed January 22, 2007).

99
Hemisphere, which had been observed by ground-based measurements and satellites for the last 

15 years. To meet this objective, ER-2 flights were designed to observe several aspects of ozone 

loss: the rapid ozone decline over Antarctica, the spread of this ozone-poor air to the midlatitudes, and the activation of ozone-destroying chlorine directly in the mid-latitudes by 

reactions on sulfate aerosols. The observations also allowed researchers to determine the rate of 

chemical ozone destruction by reactive trace chemicals in the nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and 

bromine chemical families and to test the amount of these chemicals in the reactive forms. Some 

flights focused on observations to study the mixing of air between the mid-latitudes and tropics 

because that process helped establish ozone distributions and rates of ozone change.190

The second objective was to obtain measurements to assess the atmospheric effects of future 

supersonic (high-speed civil transport) aircraft then being considered.191 ASHOE investigated the 

causes of lower stratospheric ozone loss in the Southern Hemisphere in the last 15 years to 

determine how the loss was related to polar, mid-latitude, and tropical processes. The MAESA 

campaign, conducted in parallel with ASHOE, focused on evaluating the potential environmental 

effects of emissions from a proposed fleet of high-altitude civilian aircraft. 

The mission was sponsored by NASA’s Upper Atmosphere Research Program and High Speed 

Research Program. NOAA and the NSF contributed, as did the meteorological services of New 

Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and others who signed the convention governing the 

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.192

190 “ASHOE/MAESA End of Mission Summary of Preliminary Results,” 

http://code916.gsfc.nasa.gov/Public/Analysis/aircraft/ashoe/eom_ashoe.txt (accessed January 20, 2007).

191 “ASHOE/MAESA Mission Statement,” http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/ashoe_maesa/project/statement.html

(accessed March 3, 2006).

192 “ASHOE/MAESA Mission Statement,” http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/ashoe_maesa/project/statement.html

(accessed March 3, 2006).

100
The aircraft carried as many as 16 instruments that provided new observations to diagnose the 

chemistry, physics, and fluid motion of air in the lower stratosphere. Measurements spanned 

February to November 1994, and from the edge of Antarctica at 70°S to upper Canada at 60°N, 

in conjunction with observations from the ground, balloons, and satellites, particularly the MLS 

and HALOE on UARS, and the TOMS on Meteor-3. Forty-five ER-2 flights were made.

Researchers used ASHOE data to investigate aspects of global atmospheric circulation and the 

transport of gases from the lower atmosphere to the stratosphere. The findings showed a smaller 

percentage of mid-latitude air in the tropical ascent region than global models had assumed, 

which suggested that ozone-layer reductions caused by a future fleet of supersonic transport 

aircraft would be smaller than was generally predicted. The findings also suggested that 

stratospheric ozone at the mid-latitudes might be more sensitive to depletion by halocarbons than 

many models currently predicted.193 

Observations from ASHOE/MAESA would be used to improve understanding of the processes 

leading to the Antarctic ozone hole and to ozone loss at the mid-latitudes. These processes 

include the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, the conversion of chlorine from its reservoir 

forms to its ozone-destroying reactive form on cold sulfate aerosols, and the return of chlorine to 

its inactive forms after all ozone is destroyed inside the ozone hole. The transport mechanisms 

redistributing the effects of these chemical processes, as well as the detailed mechanisms of the 

processes themselves, would also be better understood. This helped improve the numerical 

models used to simulate the stratosphere. Simultaneous measurement of reactive hydrogen, 

193 “FY 96 Annual Operating Plan,” NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, http://www.al.noaa.gov/plans/planstextfy96.html

(accessed January 22, 2007).

101
reactive chlorine, and reactive bromine showed that these species destroyed ozone faster in the 

lower stratosphere than did reactive nitrogen in the chlorine-laden stratosphere of the 1990s. 

Reactive nitrogen was then thought to be dominant only higher in the stratosphere, above 

altitudes sampled by the ER-2. Thus, the calculated effect of High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) 

exhaust on ozone was small ozone increases in the lower stratosphere. The importance of 

reactions on sulfate aerosols that converted reactive nitrogen to reservoir forms was confirmed 

for a stratosphere with the low aerosol amounts characteristic of the period three or more years 

after a major volcanic eruption.194

Meteorological Satellites

NASA and NOAA launched and operated two series of meteorological satellites during the 

decade from 1989 to 1998: a series of polar-orbiting satellites (given the name “NOAA”) and the 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites. NASA was responsible for procuring and 

developing the spacecraft, instruments, and associated ground stations; launching the spacecraft; 

and conducting on-orbit checkout of the spacecraft. NOAA had responsibility for establishing 

the operational requirements and operating the system.195 NASA’s Polar-Orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite (POES) project managed the polar-orbiting satellites. The GOES project 

managed the geostationary satellites. Both were headquartered at Goddard. 

Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites 

The POES system (the “NOAA” series) consisted of a pair of orbiting satellites operating in lowEarth orbit. These satellites provided global coverage of numerous atmospheric and surface 

parameters that affect weather and climate, and furnished quantitative measurements for input to 

194 “ASHOE/MAESA Mission Statement,” http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/ashoe_maesa/project/statement.html

(accessed January 22, 2007).

195 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 22.

102
global atmospheric and surface forecast models. They collected global data on cloud cover; 

surface conditions such as ice, snow, and vegetation; atmospheric temperatures and moisture; 

and aerosol and ozone distributions. They also collected and relayed information from fixed and 

moving data platforms. (See figure 2-20 for an example of a sea-surface temperature product.) 

Beginning in 1982, the satellites also supported an international search-and-rescue program that 

was credited with saving thousands of lives by detecting and locating emergency beacons from 

ships, aircraft, and people in distress.196 Between 1989 and 1998, NASA launched four polarorbiting meteorological satellites: NOAA-12 (D), NOAA-13 (I), NOAA-14 (J), and NOAA-15 (K).197

Figure 2-20. This image shows a sea surface temperature product produced from the NOAA-14 

satellite. It is an example of a global product produced at 50-km (31-mi) resolution, 

available twice weekly (NOAA).

The NOAA series of satellites circled Earth in a near-polar orbit. As Earth rotated beneath them, 

each satellite viewed Earth’s entire surface twice a day, with the two-satellite system viewing 

every part of Earth at least twice every 12 hours. Each satellite made about 14 orbits a day. One 

satellite was designated the “morning satellite,” meaning that it crossed over the Northern 

196 “NOAA-N,” Goddard Space Flight Center, NP-2004-8-666-GSFC, p. 4.

197 Spacecraft are first given a letter designation, e.g., NOAA-D. They receive a number, e.g., NOAA-12, when they 

achieve orbit.

103
Hemisphere traveling from north to south during the morning. The second satellite was called the 

“afternoon satellite,” meaning that it crossed the Northern Hemisphere traveling in a northward 

direction during the afternoon. Besides the two operational satellites, older satellites in orbit still 

collected some data and were available to provide limited backup to the operational satellites 

should they degrade or fail. Each satellite carried a suite of instruments that collected global data. 

The instruments carried on NOAA satellites are summarized in table 2-78. 

NOAA-12 (NOAA-D)

NOAA-12 was launched May 14, 1991—replacing NOAA-10, which had been orbiting since 

September 1986—in the morning orbit. It crossed the equator at 7:30 a.m. southbound and 7:30 

p.m. northbound, local solar time. NOAA-12 was the last of the Television Infrared Operational 

Satellite (TIROS)-N-class spacecraft and was shorter in length than the spacecraft in the followon Advanced TIROS-N (ATN) series. It also did not have a search-and-rescue package.198 The 

instrument systems provided both direct readout and on-board recording and playback of 

environmental data during day and night operations. NOAA-12 carried five primary instruments: 

the AVHRR/2, HIRS/2, SEM, MSU, and Argos DCS. NOAA-12 operated until it was placed in 

standby mode on 14 December 1998, when NOAA-15 became operational.

Operational ground facilities included command and data-acquisition stations in Fairbanks, 

Alaska, and Wallops Island, Virginia; the Satellite Operations Control Center and dataprocessing services subsystem facilities in Suitland, Maryland; and a data-receiving station in 

Lannion, France. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) provided launch support with its Atlas-E launch 

198 Earlier spacecraft in the TIROS-N series were NOAA-6 and NOAA-7. 

104
vehicle, built by the Space Systems Division of General Dynamics.199 See table 2-79 for further 

mission information.

NOAA-13 (NOAA-I)

NOAA-13 was launched August 9, 1993 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, into an 

afternoon orbit. On August 21,1993, the spacecraft suffered a power system anomaly. The 

spacecraft had operated normally on orbit 175, but when controllers communicated with the 

spacecraft on orbit 177, they noted low-voltage and high-temperature flags on all three 

batteries—the first indications of a problem. No further signals from the satellite were received, 

and all attempts to contact or command the spacecraft were unsuccessful. According to the report 

of an investigating board, released in September 1994, the probable cause of the failure was a 

short circuit that prevented the solar array current from powering the spacecraft and recharging 

the batteries. The board indicated that the most probable cause was a 1.25-inch (3.2-centimeter) 

screw that extended too far below an aluminum plate designed to dissipate heat. The screw end 

penetrated the insulation and made contact with a radiator plate, causing the short circuit.200

Since the failure of NOAA-13 occurred only two weeks after launch, the spacecraft was never 

declared operational. Other NOAA spacecraft in the constellation continued to provide data until 

they were replaced by later spacecraft.

199 “NASA To Launch NOAA-D Meteorological Satellite,” NASA News Release 91-72, May 9, 1991, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1991/91-060.txt (accessed February 22, 2006).

200 “Investigation Panel Releases Report on NOAA-13 Failure,” NASA News Release 94-157, September 20, 1994, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-157.txt (accessed February 23, 2006).

105
NOAA-13 was an Advanced TIROS-N (ATN) spacecraft. The ATN spacecraft was a “stretched” 

version of the earlier TIROS-N spacecraft and provided growth capability, particularly additional 

instruments. A principal operating feature of the ATN series was the centralized remote control 

of the satellite through the command and data-acquisition stations at Fairbanks, Alaska, and 

Wallops Island, Virginia, by NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 

Service (NESDIS) Satellite Operations Control Center (SOCC), located at Suitland, Maryland.201

See table 2-80 for further mission information. 

NOAA-14 (NOAA-J) 

NASA successfully launched the NOAA-J satellite on 30 December 1994 from Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, California. This satellite, which was renamed NOAA-14 once it achieved orbit, 

assumed the role as the primary afternoon spacecraft in the polar-orbiting satellite constellation, 

replacing NOAA-11. Following the initial spacecraft checkout, NOAA-14 assumed full 

operational capability in June 1995. The spacecraft provided temperature and humidity profiles 

for weather forecasting, imagery for cloud/frontal/snow cover analysis, warnings of tropical 

cyclones and volcanic eruptions, data for sea-surface temperature and ice analysis, and 

vegetation indices for climate and global change.202

NOAA-14 was an ATN spacecraft. It carried seven scientific instruments and two search-andrescue instruments. The instruments on board were the AVHRR; SBUV/2; the TOVS suite 

consisting of the SSU, HIRS/2I, and MSU; the SEM; and the DCS. The two search-and-rescue 

instruments were the SARR and the SARP with memory (SARM). NOAA-14 joined NOAA-9 

201 “Advanced TIROS-N (ATN), NOAA-J,” p. 19.

202 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, pp. 60–61.

106
(launched in December 1984), NOAA-10 (launched in September 1986), NOAA-11 (launched in 

September 1988), and NOAA-12 (launched in May 1991) in polar orbit. See table 2-81 for 

further mission information. 

NOAA-15 (NOAA-K)

NOAA-15, was launched on May 13, 1998, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. It 

replaced NOAA-12 on December 14, 1998, as the primary morning spacecraft.203 

This spacecraft was the first in an improved series of polar-orbiting satellites with better imaging 

and sounding capabilities. The Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and Stratospheric Sounding 

Unit (SSU) were replaced by the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A) and 

AMSU-B, dedicated microwave instruments that generated temperature, moisture, surface, and 

hydrological products in cloudy regions where visible and infrared instruments had decreased 

capability. The AMSU instruments had better spatial resolution and upper atmospheric sounding 

capabilities than the previous MSU.204 

The AVHRR, HIRS, Argos DCS, and SEM also added new capabilities. The AVHRR/3 

provided spectral and gain changes to the visible channels allowing improved low-energy light 

detection and added a sixth channel at 1.6 microns for improved snow and ice discrimination.205

Channel 3A was time-shared with the previous 3.7-micron channel, now designated 3B, to 

provide five channels of continuous data. An external Sun shield and an internal baffle were 

203 “NOAA-L,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

NASA Publication-2000-3-025-GSFC, p. NOAA-L/24.

204 “The NOAA-K, -L, -M Satellites,” http://www.wmo.ch/web/sat/en/ap9-13.htm (accessed February 23, 2006).

205 “The NOAA-K, -L, -M Satellites,” http://www.wmo.ch/web/sat/en/ap9-13.htm (accessed February 23, 2006).

107
added to reduce sunlight impingement into the instrument’s optical cavity and detectors.206

Figure 2-21 shows a drawing of the spacecraft. 

Figure 2-21. NOAA-15 configuration (“NOAA-K,” NASA/NOAA, 

NASA Publication-1997-12-052-GSFC).

The scan profile on HIRS/3 was modified to eliminate the viewing of the cold blackbody internal 

calibration target from the automatic calibration sequence. The additional time was used to 

perform another scan (38 per calibration sequence) of Earth. The DCS/2 increased the data 

transmission rate and the number of on-board data recovery units. The SEM-2 added inflight 

calibration capabilities and improved particle detection. The TED measured to a lower energy, 

and the MEPED added a fourth omnidirectional proton sensor. Also, the telemetry stream 

included more data.207 

206 “NOAA-K,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, NASA Publication-1997-12-052-GSFC, p. NOAA-K/4.

207 “NOAA-K (NOAA-15): A Brief Overview of Changes,” NOAA Polar Satellite Information, 

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/EBB/ml/nic121.html (accessed February 23, 2006).

108
The Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer was not carried on this mission.

See table 2-82 for further mission information. 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (N-POESS) 

Since the 1960s, the United States operated separate civil and military polar-orbiting 

environmental satellites that collected, processed, and distributed remotely sensed 

meteorological, oceanographic, and space environmental data. NASA and NOAA were 

responsible for the civil Polar-Orbiting Satellite program, which included collecting atmospheric 

data for weather forecasting, global climate research, and emergency search-and-rescue 

purposes. NASA had responsibility for designing, engineering, and procuring the satellites and 

launch services. Once a satellite was launched and checked out, it was turned over to NOAA for 

operations. DOD was responsible for DMSP. The mission of the DMSP was to collect and 

distribute global visible and infrared cloud data and other specialized meteorological, 

oceanographic, and solar geophysical data in support of military operations. NASA, through the 

development efforts of EOS, provided new remote sensing and spacecraft technologies with the 

potential to improve satellite operational capabilities.208

In 1992, a National Space Council study recommended convergence of the two separate weather 

satellite systems.209 The National Performance Review, created by President Bill Clinton in 

March 1993 and led by Vice President Al Gore, encouraged federal agencies to find more 

effective ways of operating. Its report called for converging the two operational satellite 

208 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Fact Sheet—Convergence of U.S. Polar Orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite Systems, 10 May 1994, http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/cnvrgprf.htm

(accessed February 24, 2006).

209 “The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS),” 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/grounders/npoess.html (accessed February 23, 2006).

109
programs—POES and DMSP—and incorporating appropriate aspects of EOS to reduce costs 

and duplication of effort.210 In 1993, NOAA, NASA, and DOD initiated studies to determine 

how to converge the two systems. The completed study stated that a converged system could 

reduce agency duplication and bureaucracy, substantially reduce costs, and satisfy both civil and 

military requirements for operational, space-based, remotely sensed environmental data. This triagency study formed the basis for development of the Implementation Plan for a Converged 

Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System issued in conjunction with the 1994 Presidential 

Decision Directive NSTC-2 signed by President Clinton on May 5, 1994. The plan and 

presidential directive called for a National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System (NPOESS). On October 3, 1994, NOAA, NASA, and DOD created an Integrated 

Program Office (IPO) to develop, manage, acquire, and operate NPOESS.211

The IPO concept provided each of the participating agencies with lead responsibility for one of 

three primary functional areas. NOAA had overall responsibility for the converged system and 

was also responsible for satellite operations. NOAA was also the primary interface with the 

international and civil user communities. DOD was responsible for supporting the IPO for major 

systems acquisitions, including launch support. NASA had primary responsibility for facilitating 

210 Al Gore, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, Report of the 

National Performance Review, September 7, 1993, Appendix A, Major Recommendations by Agency, 

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/nprrpt/annrpt/redtpe93/259e.html (accessed February 23, 2006). Also The 

White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Fact Sheet—Convergence of U.S. Polar Orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite Systems, May 10, 1994,” http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/cnvrgprf.htm

(accessed February 24, 2006).

211 “The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS),” 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/grounders/npoess.html (accessed February 23, 2006).

110
the development of new cost-effective technologies and incorporating them into the converged 

system.212

The primary tangible result of the NPOESS effort through 1998 was the transfer of Satellite 

Control Authority for the existing DMSP satellites from the USAF Space Command to the 

NPOESS IPO in May 1998.213 The command, control, and communications functions for the 

DMSP satellites were combined with the control for NOAA’s POES satellites at NOAA’s 

Satellite Operations Control Center in Suitland, Maryland, and the DMSP satellites were “flown” 

by civilian personnel. This was the first time in the 40-year history of this DOD program that the 

DMSP satellites were not flown by USAF personnel. The transfer of DMSP operations was 

accomplished in less than four years, on budget, and allowed the USAF to close DMSP satellite 

operations control facilities at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, and Offutt Air Force Base, 

Nebraska, three months ahead of schedule. A backup satellite operations center, staffed by USAF 

Reserve personnel, was established at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado. This interagency 

team effort provided the U.S. government with new, state-of-the-technology satellite control 

equipment and resulted in significant cost savings as well as uninterrupted service to the end 

users.214

212 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Fact Sheet—Convergence of U.S. Polar Orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite Systems, May 10, 1994,” http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/cnvrgprf.htm

(accessed February 24, 2006).

213 “The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS),” 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/grounders/npoess.html (accessed January 17, 2007). 214 “The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS),” 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/grounders/npoess.html (accessed February 23, 2006).

111
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites 

The GOES, a joint development effort of NASA and NOAA, have provided systematic, 

continuous observations of weather patterns since 1974. The pilot Synchronous Meteorological 

Satellite, SMS-A (SMS-1), launched in 1974, was the first in the series. It was followed by a 

second prototype, SMS-B (SMS-2), in February 1975, and an operational spacecraft, GOES-A 

(GOES-1), in October 1975. GOES-B (GOES-2) was successfully launched in 1977, and GOESC (GOES-3) launched in 1978.215 The GOES spacecraft obtained both day and night information 

on Earth’s weather through a scanner that formed images of Earth’s surface and cloud cover. The 

images were then transmitted to regional data-user stations for use in weather prediction and 

forecasting. 

GOES-4 through -7, launched during the 1980s, had similar configurations. Beginning with the 

launch of GOES-4 in 1980 and continuing throughout the series, the instrument complement 

included an improved Visible/Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer (VISSR). The new VISSR, called 

the VISSR Atmospheric Sounder, could receive the standard operational VISSR data and also 

sound the atmosphere in 12 infrared bands, enabling meteorologists to acquire temperature and 

moisture profiles of the atmosphere. 

Normally, two GOES satellites operated concurrently. GOES-East satellites were stationed at 

75°W longitude, and GOES-West satellites were located at 135°W longitude. GOES-East 

observed North and South America and the Atlantic Ocean. GOES-West observed North 

America and the Pacific Ocean to the west of Hawai’i. Together, these satellites provided 

coverage for the central and eastern Pacific Ocean; North, Central, and South America; and the 

215 NOAA assigns a letter to the satellite before it is launched and a number once it has achieved orbit.

112
central and western Atlantic Ocean.216 NASA had responsibility for designing, engineering, and 

procuring the satellites and launch services. Once a satellite was launched and checked out, it 

was turned over to NOAA for operations. 

In January 1989, GOES-6, which had been launched in 1983, failed, and GOES-7, launched in 

1987, became the only U.S. geosynchronous satellite tracking severe storms near the United 

States. From 1989 through 1991, GOES-7 covered both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans from 

108°W longitude in the winter and moving in the summer and early fall to 98°W longitude to 

observe the formation of Atlantic hurricanes. Beginning in January 1992, in compliance with a 

contract signed with ESA and the European Meteorological Satellite (EUMETSAT) program, 

Meteosat-3 was positioned at 50°W longitude to assist in providing Atlantic coverage and permit 

GOES-7 to remain farther west at 112°W.217

GOES-8 and subsequent GOES satellites were the prime observational platforms for dynamic 

weather and the near-Earth environment for the 1990s and beyond, providing significant 

improvements over the earlier spacecraft. GOES-8, launched in 1994, was the first three-axisstabilized satellite in the series. It carried separate and independently operating Imager and 

Sounder instruments, allowing researchers to gather both imaging and sounding data 

continuously without having to alternate between the two operating modes (see figures 2-22 and 

2-23). Image resolution also improved significantly. The improved resolution and dynamic range 

216 Judy Rumerman, NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VI, 1979–1988 (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration Special Publication-2000-4012, 2000), pp. 38–39. Also at http://history.nasa.gov/SP4012/vol6/vol_vi_ch_2.pdf (accessed February 27, 2006). 217 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities, p. 47.

113
of the GOES spacecraft allowed for the development of advanced image products and virtually 

real-time forecasting techniques. 

Figure 2-22. GOES Imager (NASA GOES Project).

114
Figure 2-23. GOES Sounder (NASA GOES Project). 

The spacecraft system acquired, processed, and disseminated imaging and sounding data, 

acquired and disseminated Space Environment Monitor (SEM) data , and received and relayed 

data from ground-based data collection platforms situated in selected urban and remote areas to 

the NOAA Command and Data Acquisition station. It also continuously relayed Weather 

Facsimile (WEFAX) and other data to users. The search-and-rescue system could relay distress 

signals from people, aircraft, and marine vessels to the search-and-rescue ground stations of the 

SARSAT system. 

The cubic spacecraft, approximately 2 meters (6.6 feet) by 2 meters on each side, had a deployed 

length of 27 meters (88.6 feet). It was derived from Space System/Loral’s communications 

115
satellites.

218 GOES-9 and GOES-10, which followed in 1995 and 1997 respectively, carried the 

same instrument complement and had the same capabilities as GOES-8. 

GOES-8 (GOES-I)

NASA successfully launched the GOES-8 satellite in April 1994. After it obtained orbit, GOES8 was moved to its final, operational position in February 1995, and on June 8, 1995, NOAA 

declared it fully operational. GOES-8 provided atmospheric images, temperature and humidity 

profiles, wind velocity data, and severe storm coverage of Earth’s Western Hemisphere. (Figure 

2-24 shows cloud cover from Texas to the Atlantic Ocean.) Some GOES-8 data were made 

available to climate-change researchers through NASA’s EOS Data Information System.

Figure 2-24. A blanket of clouds extends from southeastern Texas to the Atlantic Ocean in this 

GOES-8 image taken on 24 December 1998. This element brought a mixture of ice and snow to 

the southern Plains, the Southwest, and the Mid-Atlantic states (NOAA).

218 “GOES-8,” Destination Earth, 40+ Years of Earth Science, http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/goes/goes8.html

(accessed February 27, 2006).

116
The GOES-8 three-axis-stabilized design allowed its sensors to continuously observe Earth and 

thus obtain more frequent views of weather systems than the earlier spin-stabilized satellites, 

which viewed Earth only 5 percent of the time.219 See table 2-83 for further mission information. 

GOES-9 (GOES-J) 

On May 23, 1995, NASA successfully launched GOES-9, the second advanced satellite in the 

GOES 8-12 series, into a geostationary orbit at 135°W. NOAA assumed control on July 21, 

1995. 

NOAA removed the GOES-7 satellite from operational status in January 1996 after nine years of 

uninterrupted service and replaced it with GOES-9 when its on-orbit satellite and instrument 

checkout was complete. GOES-9 joined GOES-8 in providing the United States with full 

weather monitoring.220 With two new-generation GOES spacecraft in orbit, images could be 

obtained over the continental United States and coastal waters, Hawai’i, and Alaska once every 

15 minutes under normal operational modes and at approximately 7.5-minute intervals when 

severe weather threatened. In special cases, analysts obtained images over hurricanes at 1-minute 

intervals and over tornado thunderstorms every 30 seconds.221 A number of small improvements 

were made to GOES-9 to correct problems discovered during the construction, launch, and 

operation of GOES-8. The Earth sensors on GOES-9 were less sensitive to sunglint and thus 

produced better images.222

219 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 60.

220 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 60. 221 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities, p. 70. 222 “GOES-9,” Destination Earth, 40+ Years of Earth Science, http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/goes/goes9.html

(accessed February 27, 2006). Sunglint is sunlight deflected back to space from the surface of a body of water.

117
GOES-9 was deactivated on July 28, 1998, before it met its five-year design lifetime, because of 

failing bearings in the momentum wheels. It was moved to a storage position.223 See table 2-84 

for additional mission information. 

GOES-10 (GOES-K)

GOES-10 was launched April 25, 1997 and placed in orbit at 105°W.224 A month after launch, 

the GOES-10 solar array ceased rotating; however, the GOES government-industry team 

inverted the satellite, modified software, and operated the solar array in the reverse direction. In 

the spring of 1998, GOES-10 was shut down and designated an “on-orbit spare” until GOES-8 or 

GOES-9 failed and the new spacecraft was needed. Soon after, GOES-9 began experiencing 

problems with its momentum wheels, and GOES-10 was placed in active service as GOES-West 

at 135°W.225 See table 2-85 for further mission information. 

Oceanographic Studies 

Ocean Topography Experiment (TOPEX)/Poseidon

The TOPEX/Poseidon mission was a collaboration between NASA and CNES of France. It was 

a core element of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment, an international study conducted in 

the early 1990s to improve our understanding of global climate predictions and global ocean 

dynamics.226 NASA provided the spacecraft bus and five instruments with their associated 

ground elements. CNES furnished two instruments with their associated ground elements and a 

223 “GOES Project,” http://goespoes.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/timeline.html (accessed February 27, 2006). 224 “GOES Project,” http://goespoes.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/timeline.html (accessed February 27, 2006).

225 “GOES N, O, P—The Next Generation,” p. 35, http://www.osd.noaa.gov/GOES/GOES_NQBooklet.pdf (accessed 

February 26, 2006). 

226 “TOPEX/Poseidon,” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1992-

052A (accessed February 22, 2006).

118
dedicated launch on an Ariane 42P rocket. Both agencies provided precision orbit determination 

and processed and distributed data to the science investigators.227

The mission used radar altimetry to accurately observe oceanic sea-surface topography, 

including sea-surface height, over 90 percent of the world’s ice-free oceans. It bounced radar 

signals off the ocean’s surface to obtain precise measurements of the distance between the 

satellite and the sea surface. In combination with very precise determination of the spacecraft’s 

exact location in space, the altimetry data enabled the study and modeling of oceanic circulation 

and heat transport and its interaction with the atmosphere, yielding global maps of the oceans’ 

topography to within 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) ACCURACY. From these data, scientists could 

determine the speeds and directions of ocean currents worldwide, thus gaining a greater 

understanding of Earth’s climate. The data from this mission, along with ship and aircraft 

research, produced complex computer models of global climate. TOPEX/Poseidon 

measurements were supplemented by data from other spacecraft, such as the European Remote 

Sensing Satellite (launched in 1991), the Japanese ADEOS, and NASA’s EOS platforms.228

Every 10 days, scientists could produce a complete map of global ocean topography--the barely 

perceptible hills and valleys found on the sea surface.229 Figure 2-25 shows a map of the Pacific 

Ocean produced using TOPEX/Poseidon measurements. 

227 “TOPEX/Poseidon,” http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missioons/list_of_satellites/topex/index.html (accessed 

January 12, 2006).

228 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities, p. 46.

229 “TOPEX/Poseidon Helps Marine Biologists Study Whales,” NASA News Release 96-209, October 15, 1996.

119
Figure 2-25.This image of the Pacific Ocean was produced using sea-surface height 

measurements taken by the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite. It shows sea-surface height relative to 

normal ocean conditions on 29 November 1998, indicative of the changing amount of heat stored 

in the ocean. The image shows that an unusual large-scale warming (shown in red and white) of 

the western Pacific, first observed in early November, has spread to the central Pacific. The low 

sea level or cold pool of water (commonly referred to as La Niña), shown in purple, has 

remained essentially the same, changing very little in size and heat content 

(NASA-JPL photo PIA01498). 

TOPEX/Poseidon was a precursor to the EOS altimetry instruments and flew as part of NASA’s 

MTPE. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory began planning the TOPEX mission in 1979. At the 

same time, CNES was designing an oceanographic mission called Poseidon. The two space 

agencies decided to cooperate and pool their resources to form a single mission.230 The project’s 

Critical Design Review was successfully conducted in May 1989. Hardware fabrication of the 

satellite system and instruments took place in 1989 and 1990, and delivery occurred in 1991. The 

spacecraft was launched from the European Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana, on an 

Ariane 42P ELV in August 1992. 

230 “Missions—TOPEX/Poseidon Launch,” http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/tp-launch.html (accessed January 

12, 2006).

120
Measurements obtained by TOPEX/Poseidon provided the most accurate data yet available on 

global sea level changes, constituting the first map of ocean topography. Oceanographers used it 

to calibrate computer models to help forecast changes in climate. Using data from 

TOPEX/Poseidon in early 1993, scientists confirmed that conditions were ripe for development 

of an El Niño event in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean.231 Observations a few months later 

showing high sea-surface elevation, which reflected an excessive amount of unusually warm 

water in the upper ocean, confirmed that El Niño had returned and was getting stronger.232

Investigators analyzed a prominent “Kelvin wave” moving toward the western coast of South 

America in the TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data. This large, warm-water mass moving along the 

equator typically given rise to an El Niño event that dramatically affects fish harvests in the 

eastern equatorial Pacific and is believed to be responsible for meteorological events, including 

significant rainfall and temperature variations, across the United States. The seasonal change in 

sea level observed by TOPEX/Poseidon was about 50 percent greater in the Northern 

Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere. This previously unknown asymmetry indicated 

that the air–sea heat exchange was much stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than in the 

southern half of the globe. Satellite data also enabled scientists to track disturbances caused by 

the lingering effects of the 1991–1993 El Niño event, the longest in 40 years. Observations made 

by TOPEX/Poseidon in the North Pacific revealed a northward shift of the Kuroshio, the swift 

current southeast of Japan, that was traced back to the El Niño event of 1982–1983. 

Meteorologists believed that the position of the Kuroshio dramatically affected the weather of 

North America.233

231 “TOPEX/Poseidon Data Confirms El Niño Predictions,” NASA News Release 93-205, November 9, 1993.

232 “TOPEX/Poseidon Confirms El Niño Is Back and Stronger than in 1993,” NASA News Release 95-7, 24 January 

1995.

233 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1994 Activities, p. 58.

121
TOPEX/Poseidon challenged a fundamental oceanographic theory about the speed of large ocean 

waves, called “Rossby waves.” These waves, which span hundreds of miles from one wave crest 

to the next, can alter currents and their corresponding sea-surface temperatures, thereby 

influencing how oceans release heat to the atmosphere and thus affect weather patterns. More 

precise information about the speed in which these waves travel may help forecasters improve 

their ability to predict the effects of El Niño events on weather patterns years in advance. Using 

satellite data, scientists determined that the Rossby waves were moving two to three times faster 

than previously thought.234

In August 1995, TOPEX/Poseidon successfully completed its three-year primary mission, 

providing oceanographers with their first global dataset on Earth’s oceans, and began its 

extended mission, which ended in January 2006. The extended mission dealt with questions 

about long-term variations in the ocean and understanding the role oceans play in long-term 

global change.235

In 1996, NASA agreed to undertake a follow-on mission to TOPEX/Poseidon. The follow-on 

altimetry radar mission, called Jason-1, was initially scheduled for launch in 1999.236 France 

would provide the spacecraft and altimeter while NASA would provide the radiometer, ground 

system, and launch. 

Among the achievements of TOPEX/Poseidon was its determination of the patterns of ocean 

circulation, i.e., how heat stored in the ocean moves from one place to another. Since the ocean 

234 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities, p. 71.

235 “TOPEX/Poseidon Completes Prime Mission,” NASA News Release 95-146, August 29, 1995.

236 Jason-1 launched on December 7, 2001.

122
holds most of Earth’s heat from the Sun, ocean circulation is a driving force of climate. Another 

mission accomplishment was the first mapping of global tides. The mission also was the first to 

demonstrate that the Global Positioning System could be used to determine a spacecraft’s exact 

location and track it in orbit. Knowing a satellite’s precise position (to within 2 centimeters or 

less than 1 inch] in altitude) was key to making accurate ocean height measurements.237

The TOPEX/Poseidon spacecraft consisted of the multimission modular spacecraft (MMS) and 

the instrument module housing the sensors. The MMS was based on the existing MMS bus flown 

on the French/CNES SPOT 2 spacecraft, Landsats 4 and 5, the Solar Maximum Mission 

spacecraft, UARS, and the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer.238 It included 1) the command and 

data-handling subsystem containing the main on-board computer; 2) the attitude-determination 

and -control subsystem for maintaining the spacecraft’s attitude, and 3) the electrical-power 

subsystem containing the solar array and three batteries. The command and data handling 

subsystem housed three tape recorders for collecting engineering telemetry and instrument data. 

This subsystem also provided telecommunications using a steerable high-gain antenna dish and 

two omni antennas. During normal operations, the satellite communicated with the Tracking and 

Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). The 8.7-meter by 3.3-meter (28.5-foot by 10.8-foot) solar 

array was deployed about two minutes after the satellite separated from the Ariane launch 

vehicle. The batteries provided power before deployment of the solar array and during the 

nighttime part of the orbit.239 Figure 2-26 shows the spacecraft components. 

237 “TOPEX/Poseidon: Sails Off into the Sunset,” January 2006, Newsroom—Features, 

http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/features/200601-1.html (accessed February 20, 2006).

238 “TOPEX/Poseidon Spacecraft Features Fairchild’s Modular Design,” Fairchild News Release, NASA History 

Division folder 006502, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

239 “Topex/Poseidon,” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1992-052A

(accessed February 22, 2006).

123
Figure 2-26. TOPEX spacecraft (NASA/JPL-Caltech).

In August 1994, CNES honored members of the U.S.–French TOPEX/Poseidon management 

team from NASA Headquarters, JPL, and the CNES Project Office by awarding them the CNES 

Medal in recognition of their achievements.240 

See table 2-86 for further mission information. Table 2-87 lists mission investigations.

240 “French Space Agency Honors TOPEX-Poseidon Team,” NASA News Release 94-132, August 10, 1994.

124
NASA Scatterometer and Quick Scatterometer

The NASA Scatterometer (NSCAT), an active microwave satellite scatterometer, flew on the 

Japanese ADEOS spacecraft from September 1996 until the ADEOS spacecraft was lost in June 

1997.241 It shared the spacecraft with NASA’s TOMS, one French instrument, and several 

Japanese instruments. NSCAT was developed by JPL as part of the Earth Probe program of 

MTPE. 

The NSCAT program was first initiated in October 1984, and the mission was a key contributor 

to international ocean research. The Scatterometer was initially planned to launch aboard the 

Navy Remote Sensing Satellite (N-ROSS), but when N-ROSS was canceled in 1988, NASA 

proposed to the National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) that NSCAT fly as a 

payload on ADEOS as a follow-on to the Seasat-1 Scatterometer (SASS), flown in 1978. 

NSCAT was selected in August 1989 to fly on ADEOS.242 

Launched on August 16, 1996 on ADEOS, NSCAT was a precursor to the scatterometry 

elements of NASA’s EOS program. It measured the ocean surface wind velocity and provided 

data on air–sea interactions, calculations for large-scale fluxes between atmosphere and ocean, 

air–sea coupling, and interannual variability of Earth’s climate. 

241 Scatterometry is a form of radar remote sensing that can measure various geophysical properties of surfaces and 

volumes based on the amplitude of microwave electromagnetic pulses transmitted from and scattered back to an 

antenna aboard the spacecraft. It is called a scatterometer because it measures these backscattered pulses. “What Is 

Scatterometry?” http://cires.colorado.edu/~maurerj/scatterometry/what_is_scatterometry.htm (accessed February 5, 

2007).

242 Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, “Weather Programs of Other Agencies,” Appendix D in The 

Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, Fiscal Year 1997, http://www.ofcm.gov/fpfy97/text/app-d.htm (accessed March 2, 2006).

125
Every two days, under all weather and cloud conditions, NSCAT, flying in a near polar Sunsynchronous orbit, measured wind speeds and directions over at least 90 percent of Earth’s icefree oceans. Since oceans cover approximately 70 percent of Earth’s surface, NSCAT played a 

key role in scientists’ efforts to understand and predict complex global weather patterns and 

climate systems. Its systematic, high-resolution observations of wind over the oceans were 

critical for understanding the processes by which the oceans and atmosphere help moderate 

Earth’s climate.243 They were also valuable for understanding the interaction between the 

atmosphere and oceans and improving the prediction and tracking of severe storms.244 The 

NSCAT dataset has been used by climate-change researchers, operational weather forecasters, 

and commercial ship routing firms. Figure 2-27 shows a synoptic view of ocean surface wind 

produced by NSCAT measurements. 

243 “New Wind Data Improving Accuracy of Weather Forecasts,” NASA News Release 97-32, March 4, 1997. 244 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities, p. 71.

126
Figure 2-27. This image shows ocean surface wind speeds and directions over the Pacific Ocean 

on 21 September 1996, as measured by the NASA Scatterometer onboard Japan’s ADEOS. The 

background color indicates wind speed and the white arrows show the direction of the wind. Two 

typhoons are observed in the western Pacific. Typhoon Violet is just south of Japan. After this 

image was taken, Typhoon Violet struck the east coast of Japan, causing damage and deaths. 

Typhoon Tom is located farther east and did not land (NASA-JPL photo p47490). 

NSCAT transmitted continuous pulses to the ocean surface and received backscattered radiation 

from Earth. The radar cross section of the surface was used to derive the backscattered radiation 

as a function of both wind speed and direction and to determine the wind vector. NSCAT was the 

127
first spaceborne scatterometer to use on-board digital processing of a Doppler-shifted signal. 

NSCAT data were processed into science products directly from telemetry by the NSCAT Data 

Processing and Instrument Operations (DP&IO) on the ground.245 

The satellite consisted of three major subsystems: the Radio Frequency Subsystem (RFS), the 

Antenna Subsystem, and the Digital Data Subsystem (DDS). The RFS generated pulses at 13.995 

gigahertz (Ku-band) to each antenna beam. A low-noise amplifier of 3 dB amplified the return 

echo. The antenna subsystem consisted of an array of six stick-like, dual-polarization, fan-beam 

antennas, each approximately 10 feet (3 meters) long and calibrated to 0.25 dB before launch, 

that radiated microwave pulses in the Ku-band across broad regions of Earth’s surface. A small 

fraction of the energy in the radar pulses was reflected back and captured by the antennas. 

NSCAT’s antennas scanned two swaths of ocean—one on either side of the satellite’s near-polar, 

Sun-synchronous 500-mile (805-kilometer) orbit—for backscattered power. The swaths were 

each about 375 miles (603.5 kilometers) wide at nadir, and a gap of about 215 miles (347 

kilometers) directly below the satellite separated the swaths. No data collection was possible in 

the gap.246 Changes in small (centimeter-sized), wind-driven waves caused variations in the 

magnitude of backscattered power. Using Doppler processing, the measured backscattered power 

was separated into cells at specific locations on Earth’s surface, and the data were then 

transmitted to the ground for processing. During ground processing, wind direction and speed 

were determined from the variations. Within two weeks of receiving the raw data, the ground 

system processed the wind measurements.247

245 “NASA Scatterometer,” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1996-

046A&ex=3 (accessed March 2, 2006).

246 “New Wind Data Improving Accuracy of Weather Forecasts,” NASA News Release: 97-32, March 4, 1997, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/1997/97-32.htm (accessed March 2, 2006).

247 “Missions—NSCAT,” Winds—Measuring Ocean Winds from Space,” 

http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/nscat/index.cfm (accessed March 2, 2006).

128
From September 1996 to June 1997, NSCAT gathered 40 weeks’ worth of data before ADEOS 

was lost. To replace the valuable data gathered from NSCAT, in November 1997, NASA 

approved an immediate “new start” for the Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) mission and placed 

the first rapid spacecraft delivery order to Ball Aerospace for the satellite core systems. The 

mission was a unique collaboration between JPL and Goddard. JPL’s SCAT/Sea Winds Program 

Office had management responsibility and provided ground systems and a scatterometer 

instrument. GSFC was responsible for procuring the satellite under the newly instituted 

“indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ)” system, which enabled THE quick acquisition.248

The SeaWinds instrument, developed by JPL, was delivered to Ball Aerospace for integration 

into the satellite in June 1998. The instrument used specialized microwave radar that measured 

both the speed and direction of winds near the ocean surface.249 QuikSCAT was launched from 

Vandenberg Air Force Base atop a Titan II launch vehicle on June 19, 1999, into a near-polar 

orbit. Table 2-88 lists NSCAT mission characteristics.

Communications Program 

During the decade from 1989 through 1998, NASA participated in only two communications 

programs: the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) and the international 

SARSAT program.

248 “NASA Awards the First Rapid Spacecraft Delivery Order to Ball Aerospace for the Delivery of QuikScat 

Spacecraft, JPL Public Information Office, November 19, 1997, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/97/quikscat.html

(accessed February 12, 2007).

249 “SeaWinds Instrument Shipped for Integration on QuikSCAT,” JPL Media Relations Office, June 9, 1998, 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/98/quikship.html (accessed February 12, 2007).

129
Advanced Communications Technology Satellite 

The ACTS program was a NASA program that developed and flight-tested high-risk, advanced 

communications satellite technology for use in multiple-frequency bands and applicable to a 

wide range of future communications systems. These advanced communications technologies, 

intended for use by the private sector, were validated through the ACTS experiments program.250

The flight validation of the technologies allowed industry to adapt them to individual 

commercial requirements with minimal risk.251 The demonstrated technologies were expected to 

promote the creation of new telecommunications services, thereby improving the nation’s 

economy and enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the global telecommunications market. 

Until 1973, NASA had been involved in developing communications-satellite technology, and 

launching and operating communications satellites. That year, NASA sharply curtailed its 

satellite-communications program due to budget pressures and the belief that private industry 

could develop the technology that NASA had initially sponsored. In 1974, several organizations 

began to assess the consequences of this decision. In 1975, NASA asked the National Research 

Council to consider whether the federal government should resume research and development in 

the field of satellite communications, and, if so, what its role should be. The Council concluded 

that “communication satellite technology required government investment, particularly where 

high technical risks were involved.”252 Based on this report, increased demand, and foreign 

competition, President Jimmy Carter reinstated federal sponsorship of communications-satellite 

250 Richard T. Gedney, Ronald Schertler, Frank Gargione, The Advanced Communications Technology Satellite: An 

Insider’s Account of the Emergence of Interactive Broadband Technology in Space (Mendham, NJ: SciTech 

Publishing, Inc., 2000), p. xi.

251 “Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS),” http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/ (accessed January 12, 

2006). Also “Survey of Advanced Applications Over ACTS,” http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/docs/ACTS_2000_31.pdf

(accessed February 16, 2006).

252 Gedney, pp. 6–11.

130
technology. In October 1978, he issued Presidential Directive PD-42, stating: “NASA will 

undertake carefully selected communication technology R&D. The emphasis will be to provide 

better frequency and orbit utilization approaches.” As a result, NASA returned to 

communications-satellite research and development.

In 1979, NASA chose Lewis Research Center to lead the planning and execution of a 

commercial communications-satellite technology R&D program. The Agency conducted market 

studies that confirmed the need for increased capabilities and performed proof-of-concept 

development of identified technologies. 

During the 1980s, the program was threatened with cancellation as the Reagan administration 

and others argued that the federal government should not work to test and prove technology for a 

profitable commercial industry. Nevertheless, largely because of concerns about U.S. economic 

competitiveness, Congress kept the program alive. In May 1984, in spite of administration 

objections and after it had reduced funding to a level too small to sustain a flight program, 

Congress approved a $40 million increase for ACTS, clearing the way for a contract with RCA 

for the ACTS flight system. Other members of the contract team were also chosen. TRW was the 

selected subcontractor for the communications payload, and COMSAT given responsibility for 

the NASA ground station and master control station.253 

Each year through 1988, the Administration continued its attempts to end the program by 

deleting all funds for ACTS from the budget while Congress kept reinstating them, though 

253 Gedney, p. 184.

131
usually at a level lower than originally requested.254 This decreased funding resulted in extending 

the time needed for development, and ultimately led to higher total costs even though changes in 

technical scope cut more than $25 million from the cost. Through the first two years of 

operations, program costs grew from $329 million, as stated at the time of contract award, to 

$481 million due largely to funding constraints that lengthened development time and led to cost 

overruns. Most cost overruns occurred during 1986 and 1987 as a result of TRW’s 

communications-payload subcontract.255 In January 1988, Congress agreed to a cost cap of $499 

million. TRW was dropped from the contract team, and the program was restructured so that 

NASA’s Lewis Research Center became the integrating contractor. GE Astro (formerly RCA) 

used its second-tier subcontractors to complete the payload. In January 1989, OMB deleted funds 

for ACTS once more in the administration’s FY 1990 budget request to Congress, but Congress 

again reinstated them. This was the last time the OMB attempted to cancel the program.256

Launch had initially been planned for September 1989. However, funding cutbacks, development 

difficulties, and other problems delayed the launch until September 12, 1993, when NASA 

successfully launched ACTS from the Space Shuttle on STS-51 into geosynchronous orbit by 

means of a transfer orbit stage component. The satellite achieved geostationary orbit at 100°W 

longitude on September 28, 1993.257 

ACTS was the first high-speed, all-digital communications satellite. Once in orbit, it operated in 

the Ka-band (18–30 gigahertz) portion of the radio spectrum. ACTS technology integrated well 

254 Gedney, pp 19–24.

255 Gedney, pp. 186–189.

256 Gedney, pp. 190–191.

257 Gedney, p. 29.

132
with ground telephone network systems, allowing for high-speed transmission over great 

distances to even the most remote locations.258

A major component of the program was the ACTS Experiments Program, which had begun in 

1979—years before the ACTS launch. A carrier working group from various industry 

organizations helped NASA formulate the technology, flight system, and user-trial requirements, 

and provided overall guidance and advice. In June 1980, NASA issued the Experiments Planning 

document containing a list of 73 potential experiments submitted by NASA and the working 

group. In March 1983, NASA issued a formal Notice of Intent for Experiments that solicited 

expressions of intent to conduct experiments or user trials. Eighty-five organizations responded, 

and 122 experiments and user trials were proposed. Widespread publicity beginning in 1984 

made potential users aware of ACTS’s capabilities. Annual experiment conferences provided 

details of the spacecraft and ground terminal development and updates of the Experiments 

Program. An Industry Advisory Group, formed by NASA in December in 1988, advised NASA 

on the Experiments Program plan, the process and criteria for selecting experiments, ways to 

foster the telecommunication community’s involvement, approaches to providing experimental 

Earth stations, and the types of experiments and demonstrations to be performed.259 In August 

1991, NASA issued an Experiment Opportunity Announcement soliciting proposals for 

investigations to test and evaluate key technologies of the ACTS flight and ground systems and 

various applications services. Initially, 40 investigations were selected. 

258 “Switchboard in the Sky: The Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS),” NASA Facts, FS2002-06-013-GRC, June 2002, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs13grc.html (accessed February 16, 2006).

259 Gedney, pp. 108–109.

133
Satellite operations and the ACTS Experiments Program began on December 6, 1993, following 

completion of all spacecraft, ground-system, and network on-orbit checkouts.260 The program 

had an initial duration of two years. During this period, participants from industry, academia, and 

government investigated applications in medical imagery, long-distance education, business and 

supercomputing networking, high-definition television, and many other areas. An extensive 

network of ground stations supported the satellite. These stations operated in the Ka-band 

frequency and offered unique features that distinguished them from other current satellitecommunications ground stations.261 With the success of the program and a fully functional 

payload, the program was extended two more years. At the end of four years, experimenter 

interest and unresolved issues involving broadband satellite/terrestrial network protocol 

interoperability warranted further extension of the program. In August 1998, the spacecraft’s 

operations were altered to allow the system to drift on orbit in the north/south attitude so that 

extended operations could be carried out with the little remaining on-board fuel. New goals were 

also defined for the Experiments Program, providing a more focused program that emphasized 

support of the goals of NASA’s four strategic enterprises. These latest goals were to use ACTS 

as a testbed to 1) demonstrate NASA’s and other government agencies’ transition to commercial 

systems; 2) test and evaluate communications protocols for their interoperability with terrestrial 

systems; 3) evaluate narrow spot beam, Ka-band satellite operations in an inclined orbit; and 4) 

verify Ka-band satellite technologies.262 The Experiments Program ended May 31, 2000.263

260 Gedney, p. 112.

261 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, pp. 32–33.

262 “Survey of Advanced Applications Over ACTS,” http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/docs/ACTS_2000_31.pdf (accessed 

February 16, 2006).

263 “For ACTS Experiments—All Good Things Must Come to an End,” Glenn Research Center Release 00-032, 

May 30, 2000, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/news/pressrel/2000/00-032.html (accessed March 15, 2006).

134
From 1993 through March 2000, 104 experiments were initiated (59 during the years 1994–

1995, and 45 in 1996–2000). The 104 experiments were proposed by 61 unique PI organizations 

from government (26 percent), industry (43 percent), and academia (31 percent). The 

experiments fell into the general areas of technology verification, propagation, and 

applications.264 Examples include:

• Telemedicine: ACTS transmitted data-intensive imagery linking urban medical 

specialists to underserved areas of the United States

• Electric utility companies: ACTS controlled power grids by using ultra-small terminals to 

poll the grid in remote areas, demonstrating potential cost savings

• Distance learning: ACTS improved high-quality interactive video and audio for delivery 

of advanced-degree, continuing, and remedial training to people in remote locations 

• Business: ACTS used its high-speed links with major computers to integrate design teams 

using remote research equipment to explore natural resources. This process increased the 

possibility of saving millions of dollars in annual costs 

• Personal and airborne mobile communications services: ACTS demonstrated various 

practical technologies, such as enabling advanced communications services for passengers on 

board the U.S. commercial aircraft265

Table 2-89 lists the experiments.

264 “Survey of Advanced Applications Over ACTS,” http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/docs/ACTS_2000_31.pdf (accessed 

February 16, 2006).

265 “For ACTS Experiments—All Good Things Must Come to an End,” Glenn Research Center Release 00-32, 30 

May 2000, http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/docs/actscg28.PDF (accessed February 5, 2007).

135
The ACTS system consisted of a spacecraft and a ground segment. The ACTS multi-beam 

antenna consisted of separate Ka-band receive and transmit antennas. The main receiving 

antenna was 7.2 feet (2.2 meters) in diameter, and the main transmit antenna was 10.8 feet (3.3 

meters) in diameter. ACTS also incorporated beacons at 20.2 and 27.5 gigahertz.266 Figure

 2-28 shows the spacecraft’s on-orbit configuration. 

Figure 2-28. ACTS on-orbit configuration showing overall dimensions (STS-51 Press Kit).

ACTS’s multi-beam communications payload encompassed several key technologies that 

supported a full range of on-demand voice, video, and data communications services. Key ACTS 

technologies included: 

266 Advanced Communications Technology Satellite, Technology, Spacecraft,” 

http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/technology/spacecraft/index.shtml (accessed February 16, 2006).

136
• Ka-band Spectrum: Operation in the Ka-band radio spectrum (30/20 gigahertz), where 

2.5 gigahertz of spectrum were available for use (five times that available in lower frequency 

bands). 

• Multiple Hopping-Beam Antennas: Multiple high-gain, hopping-beam antenna systems 

that permitted the use of smaller dish Earth terminals.

• On-Board Digital Processing and Switching: On-board baseband processing and 

switching (BBP), which interconnected users at different Earth station locations at an individual 

circuit level. 

• Microwave Switch Matrix (MSM): The MSM enabled high-speed (gigabits per second) 

communications and data transfer between users. 

• Adaptive Rainfade Compensation: The effects of rain on the satellite signal (rain fades) 

were automatically compensated for on uplink and downlink transfers of information. The 

effects of rain remained transparent to the end-user.267 

A NASA ground station and master control station at Lewis Research Center transmitted 

commands to the satellite, received all spacecraft telemetry, performed ranging operations, and 

provided network control for all user communications. A satellite operations center was located 

at Lockheed Martin Astro Space in East Windsor, New Jersey, and connected to the ground 

station and control station by means of landlines. In June 1998, the Satellite Operations Center 

(SOC) was transferred to the Lockheed Martin Communications and Power Center facility in 

Newtown, Pennsylvania.268 The satellite was developed by GE Astro Space for NASA. It was 

first operated by GE Astro Space, then by Martin Marietta Astro Space, and finally by Lockheed 

267 Advanced Communications Technology Satellite, Technology, Spacecraft,” 

http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/technology/spacecraft/index.shtml (accessed February 16, 2006).

268 Gedney, pp. 29–31.

137
Martin after Martin Marietta and Lockheed merged.269 See table 2-90 for further mission 

information. 

Search and Rescue

NASA’s search-and-rescue program was part of the Cospas-Sarsat (Cosmicheskaya Sistyema 

Poiska Avariynich Sudov [Space System for the Search of Vessels in Distress]/Search and 

Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking) system, an international satellite-based search-and-rescue 

system that located distress beacons from endangered people, maritime vessels, and aircraft. The 

program was a joint venture of the United States, the Soviet Union, Canada, and France. U.S. 

participants included NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Air Force. 

In the Cospas-Sarsat system, a person on the ground with a PLB or on the water with an EPIRB 

transmitted a distress signal to a satellite overhead carrying SARSAT equipment. Distressed 

planes transmitted a signal using the emergency locator transmitter. The satellite relayed the 

message to a local user terminal (LUT) on the ground, which then relayed the message to a 

mission control center (MCC) in the country operating the LUT. Routed alerts included beacon 

location computed at the LUT if the alert was received by one of the system’s LEO satellites. 

Data received by system satellites in geosynchronous orbit provided instantaneous alerts and 

could include location information if the beacon was a self-locating type. The MCC alerted the 

Rescue Coordination Center (RCC), which radioed a search-and-rescue unit to look for the 

missing or distressed persons or vehicles. The U.S. RCCs were operated by the Coast Guard and 

the Air Force.270

269 Donald H. Martin, Communication Satellites, Fourth Edition (El Segundo, CA: Aerospace Press, American 

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2000), p. 49.

270 “Cospas-Sarsat System Operations,” http://searchandrescue.gsfc.nasa.gov/cospas_sarsat/system_overview.html

(accessed May 23, 2007).

138
The instruments on satellites carrying Cospas-Sarsat equipment could receive 121.5-, 243-, and 

406-MHz distress signals. Signals sent on the 121.5- or 243-MHz frequencies allowed locations 

to be determined within 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of the transmission site. These signals were 

received by the SARR and transmitted in real time over 1,544.5 MHz to the LUT on the ground. 

With four operational satellites in orbit (NOAA and Soviet satellites), the time until contact 

between an individual in an emergency situation and a satellite varied from a few minutes to a 

few hours. Figure 2-29 shows the search-and-rescue system.

Figure 2-29. Search-and-rescue system (GSFC).

The use of meteorological satellites for search-and-rescue operations was first envisioned in the 

late 1950s. NASA began to experiment with random-access Doppler tracking on the Nimbus 

139
satellites in the 1970s. The Cospas-Sarsat program became an international effort in 1976, with 

the United States, Canada, and France discussing the possibility of satellite-aided search-andrescue. This satellite system was initially developed under an MOU among agencies of the 

USSR, the United States, Canada, and France that was signed in 1979. Following successful 

completion of the demonstration and evaluation phase that began in September 1982, a second 

MOU was signed on October 5, 1984, by the CNES of France, the Department of National 

Defence (DND) of Canada, the Ministry of Merchant Marine (MORFLOT) of the USSR, and 

NOAA. The system, which then used LEO satellites, was declared operational in 1985.271

Cospas-Sarsat experimental operations began in 1982. The first satellite carrying SARSAT 

equipment, NOAA-8, was launched in 1983. Additional countries joined the system during the 

1980s. In 1984, NASA turned the U.S. Sarsat leadership over to NOAA but retained its role in 

the areas of research and development.272

On July 1, 1988, the four countries providing the space segment (United States, Canada, France, 

and the Soviet Union) signed the International Cospas-Sarsat Program Agreement, which 

ensured the continuity of the system and its availability to all countries on a non-discriminatory 

basis.273 In January 1992, the government of Russia assumed responsibility for the obligations of 

the former Soviet Union. A number of states that were non-parties to the agreement also 

associated themselves with the program.274

271 Introduction to the Cospas-Sarsat System, Issue 5—Revision 1, October 1999, p. 2-1, http://www.cospassarsat.org/DocumentsGSeries/g3oct29.pdf (accessed March 3, 2006).

272 Rumerman, NASA Historical Data Book, volume VI, pp. 47–49.

273 The International Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement, http://www.cospassarsat.org/Management/managementStructures.htm (accessed March 3, 2006).

274 “History of Cospas-Sarsat,” http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/Management/history.htm (accessed March 3, 2006).

140
The Cospas-Sarsat system used two different complementary types of satellites. The low-Earthorbit system provided coverage of the polar regions (which were beyond the coverage of 

geostationary satellites), could calculate the location of distress events using Doppler processing 

techniques, and was less susceptible to obstructions that might block a beacon signal in a given 

direction because the satellite was continuously moving with respect to the beacon.275 The 

geosynchronous satellite system could provide almost immediate alerts in the footprint of the 

satellite. Originally limited to polar LEO satellites, GOES-7—launched in 1987—as the first 

geosynchronous satellite to carry experimental search-and-rescue equipment. GOES-8—

launched in 1994—was the first geosynchronous satellite to carry an operational Sarsat system. 

The geostationary portion of Cospas-Sarsat was declared operational in 1998.276 

In 1994, testing of the first GPS-based prototype self-locating beacons began. In 1996, 

experiments were performed with beacon tracking in moving vehicles and airplanes.277 In 

September 1997, a Canadian study revealed that a constellation of mid-Earth orbiting (MEO) 

satellites could be used to augment the existing LEO and geosynchronous Cospas-Sarsat system 

by providing a vastly improved space-based distress alerting and locating capability. NASA, in 

coordination with the USAF GPS Program Office and Sandia National Laboratories, determined 

that the GPS constellation would be the best and most cost-effective MEO satellite constellation 

to host the search-and-rescue instruments. This project was called the Distress Alerting Satellite 

System (DASS). NASA committed funds to develop a proof-of-concept system for DASS, 

275 “System Concept,” http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/Description/concept.htm (accessed March 3, 2006).

276 “Cospas-Sarsat History,” http://searchandrescue.gsfc.nasa.gov/cospas_sarsat/history.html (accessed May 23, 

2007).

277 “Cospas-Sarsat History.” 

141
including the funds to modify up to 30 instruments for deployment on future GPS satellites and 

the installation of a proof-of-concept DASS ground station at GSFC.278

Attached Shuttle Payload Bay Applications Missions 

Every Space Shuttle mission provides a platform for performing scientific experiments. NASA 

used the Shuttle’s microgravity environment for a variety of large experimental missions, smaller 

experiments, and small, self-contained payloads. Among these experiments and payloads were 

the Spacelab missions and various commercial investigations, such as those carried in 

SPACEHAB modules. (See the individual Space Shuttle mission tables in chapter 3, “Human 

Spaceflight” of volume VII of the NASA Historical Data Book, 1989–1998.) Attached 

applications missions are described more fully in this section.279 

Life sciences and microgravity missions are neither Earth science nor applications missions. 

During NASA’s history, these missions have been dispersed among different NASA 

Headquarters functions and offices. In the first part of the 1989–1998 decade, these missions 

were managed by OSSA. In the second half of the decade, life sciences and microgravity 

missions were managed by their own organization, the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences 

and Applications (OLMSA). Life sciences and microgravity missions have always been closely 

tied to human spaceflight missions, since one of their primary purposes is to investigate how 

humans respond to the microgravity of space. A discussion of the management of OLMSA is 

included in chapter 3, “Human Space Flight,” of volume VII of this data book. However, 

because life sciences and microgravity missions have continued to be funded primarily by the 

278 “Distress Alert Satellite System,” http://searchandrescue.gsfc.nasa.gov/dass/index.htm (accessed March 3, 2006).

279 Attached missions or attached payloads are those carried on board the Space Shuttle (usually physically 

“attached” to the Shuttle’s structure).

142
Research and Development or the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology appropriation, rather 

than by Human Space Flight, full descriptions of the missions are given in this chapter. 

Spacelab Life Sciences Missions 

The Spacelab Life Sciences missions provided an opportunity for scientists to study the human 

body’s response to spaceflight, specifically by examining how microgravity and the return to 

Earth’s gravity affect particular body systems and parts. 

Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS)-1 

The SLS-1 mission, which launched aboard STS-40 on June 5, 1991, provided the first 

opportunity since the Skylab missions of the 1970s to comprehensively study adaptive changes 

in human physiology upon exposure to microgravity. It was the first mission dedicated to the life 

sciences with investigations to determine how living and working in space could affect the 

human body. The primary objective was to study the mechanisms, magnitudes, and time courses 

of certain physiological changes occurring during spaceflight, and to investigate the 

consequences of the body’s adaptation to microgravity and its readjustment to Earth’s gravity.280

Secondary objectives included test and verification of the hardware and protocols required to 

conduct animal research and carry on advanced medical care on humans in a space-based 

laboratory environment, conducting special operational medicine studies for the Extended 

Duration Orbiter Medical Program (EDOMP), maximizing the science return from the use of 

inflight animals by including domestic and international partners in a Biospecimen Sharing 

280 Lennard Fisk, memo to the NASA Administrator accompanying Spacelab Life Sciences-1 Prelaunch Mission 

Operations Report, May 16, 1991, NASA History Division folder 008885, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also Spacelab Life Sciences 1: First Space Laboratory Dedicated to Life Sciences 

Research, NASA Publication 120 (Houston: Johnson Space Center, 1989), p. vii.

143
Program, and performing microgravity sciences experiments in the Spacelab.281 Data collection 

emphasized inflight human cardiovascular and metabolic experiments, pre- and postflight human 

vestibular experiments, and pre- and postflight animal experiments.282 This nine-day mission was 

also the first flight since 1985 to use the Spacelab long module, which provided a pressurized 

“shirt-sleeve” environment for crew operations.283 

Preparation for the mission began in 1978 when NASA Headquarters issued an announcement of 

opportunity for flight experiments that would fulfill the goals of the SLS-1 mission. The 

international scientific community responded by submitting almost 400 proposals. From these, 

some 100 proposals were selected for further evaluation by a Life Sciences Steering Committee 

that rated each experiment’s scientific and technical merits and decided whether it related to the 

goals of the Life Sciences Flight Experiment Program. Based on this review, the NASA 

Headquarters Space Sciences Steering Committee recommended investigations to the NASA 

Associate Administrator for Space Science, who made the final decision to approve the SLS-1 

payload. 

Each experiment was then assigned to a NASA project office—human experiments to NASA’s 

Johnson Space Center (JSC), and non-human experiments to ARC. The PI for each experiment 

worked with the appropriate project office to define costs, schedules, and plans for designing, 

281 “Spacelab Life Sciences 1 Post Launch Mission Operation Report,” Report No. S-977-90-40-04, p. 2., NASA 

History Division folder 008885, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

282 “STS-58 Press Information and Mission Time Line,” October 1993, Rockwell International Space Systems 

Division, Office of Customer and Media Relations, p. 1, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/mrk/FLIGHT_058-STS-058_MRK.pdf (accessed January 25, 2006).

283 Lennard Fisk, memo to the NASA Administrator accompanying Spacelab Life Sciences-1 Prelaunch Mission 

Operations Report, May 16, 1991, NASA History Division folder 008885, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC. See chapter 3 of volume VII of this data book for a description of Spacelab 

components.

144
fabricating, and testing hardware. Overall SLS-1 management was assigned to Johnson 

Space Center.

About a year before launch, each piece of hardware was shipped to Kennedy Space Center, and 

the total payload was assembled and installed in the Spacelab. About a month before launch, the 

Spacelab was installed in the Shuttle. After launch, mission operations were handled from the 

Payload Operations Control Center at Marshall Space Flight Center.284

The research subjects of SLS-1 were the astronauts on board the Shuttle, 30 rodents, and 

thousands of jellyfish. The primary SLS-1 experiments studied six body systems: 

1. Cardiovascular/cardiopulmonary (heart, lungs, and blood vessels) 

2. Renal/endocrine (kidneys and hormone-secreting organs and glands)

3. Blood (blood plasma) 

4. Immune system (white blood cells) 

5. Musculoskeletal (muscles and bones) 

6. Neurovestibular (brain, nerves, eyes, and inner ear) 

Of the 18 investigations, 10 involved humans, 7 involved rodents, and 1 used jellyfish (see table 

2-91). Specific experiments were designed to validate the use of animal models for studying 

biomedical problems related to microgravity adaptation. Additionally, test and verification of 

hardware and protocols required to conduct animal research and advanced medical care on 

284 Spacelab Life Sciences-1: First Space Laboratory Dedicated to Life Sciences Research (Houston, TX: Johnson 

Space Center, NASA Publication 120, 1989), pp. 38–39.

145
humans in a space-based laboratory environment were performed.285 The seven-person crew 

worked one 12-hour shift each day and kept the same sleep/wake cycle throughout the mission. 

Figure 2-30 shows one of the experiments in progress. 

Figure 2-30. Astride the bicycle ergometer, NASA mission specialist Rhea Seddon breathes into 

the cardiovascular rebreathing unit during the exercise phase of an experiment on Spacelab Life 

Sciences-1. The investigation (Inflight Study of Cardiovascular Deconditioning) of the heart and 

lungs, and changes in cardiopulmonary function that occur upon return to Earth 

(NASA photo STS40-211-019). 

All primary and secondary mission objectives were met. The Research Animal Holding Facility 

and Animal Enclosure Modules demonstrated their capability to house and sustain inflight 

285 Lennard Fisk, memo to the NASA Administrator accompanying “Spacelab Life Sciences-1 Post Launch Mission 

Operations Report,” August 12, 1991, NASA History Division folder 008885, Historical Reference Collection, 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

146
research animals. All rodents flown on SLS-1 returned safely at the end of the mission.286 Table 

2-91 lists SLS-1 investigations. 

Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS)-2 

SLS-2 launched on STS-58 on October 18, 1993. During the 14-day mission, which used the 

Spacelab long module, the crew operated on 9-hour shifts to conduct a set of 14 primary life 

sciences experiments, as well as several additional experiments investigating the effects of 

weightlessness on humans and animals. Mission objectives were to: 

• Conduct an interdisciplinary study of the human and animal responses that occur when 

weightlessness is achieved, with major emphasis on cardiovascular and renal/endocrine 

responses to acute fluid shifts 

• Conduct an interdisciplinary set of studies of the most significant known problems of 

adaptation to microgravity and readaptation to Earth’s gravity, with special emphasis on issues in 

the cardiovascular/cardiopulmonary, neuroscience, regulatory physiology, and musculoskeletal 

disciplines

• Use microgravity to study biomedical questions relevant to medical problems on Earth 

and contribute to our understanding of basic biological processes287 

Eight of the primary experiments focused on the seven-person crew, and six focused on the 48 

rodents, the largest quantity flown on a single flight. The crew collected more than 650 different 

samples from themselves and the rodents, increasing the statistical base for life sciences 

286 “Spacelab Life Sciences 1 Post Launch Mission Operation Report,” Report No. S-977-90-40-04, p. 3., NASA 

History Division folder 008885, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

287 “Spacelab Life Sciences Post Launch Mission Operation Report,” NASA Office of Microgravity Sciences and 

Applications Report No. U-420-68-93-58, p. 1, NASA History Division folder 008891, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

147
research. The mission continued the life sciences investigations begun on SLS-1 in June 1991. 

Although 11 of the investigations were performed on SLS-1, this mission was designed to help 

NASA answer critical questions about human physiological functions in space to prepare for 

long-duration stays aboard a space station or for lengthy travel to Mars and other planets.288

The cardiovascular/cardiopulmonary experiments focused on understanding and quantifying the 

changes that occur on orbit and on the acute fluid shift and the long-term adaptation of the heart 

and lungs. Regulatory physiology experiments investigated the theory that the kidneys and 

endocrine glands adjust the body’s fluid-regulating hormones to stimulate an increase in fluid to 

be excreted. These experiments also investigated the mechanisms surrounding the decrease in 

red blood cells, which are responsible for carrying oxygen to the tissues, that occurs in 

spaceflight. Neuroscience investigations documented both physical vestibular (balance) changes 

and perception changes and investigated the mechanisms involved. Investigators also hoped to 

identify countermeasures to alleviate the effects of space motion sickness. Musculoskeletal 

investigations examined the effect of microgravity on the body’s bones and muscles, which are 

used less extensively in space than on Earth, and, as a result, decrease in mass during 

spaceflight.289 The absence of gravitational force results in changes to load-bearing tissues, 

causing a reduction of bone and muscle.290

288 “STS-58 Press Information and Mission Time Line,” October 1993, Rockwell International Space Systems 

Division, Office of Customer and Media Relations, p. 1, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/mrk/FLIGHT_058-STS-058_MRK.pdf (accessed January 25, 2006).

289 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-58 Press Kit,” September 1993, pp. 16–25, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_058_STS-058_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 22, 2006).

290 “Life Sciences Data Archive: Experiment,” Johnson Space Center, 

http://www.lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/mission/miss.cfm?mis_index=7&program_index=8 (accessed January 18, 

2007).

148
This mission included an Astronaut Science Advisor (ASA), a computer-based intelligent 

assistant designed to help astronauts work more efficiently and improve the quality of space 

science. The ASA supported the Rotating Dome Experiment, which measured how the visual 

and vestibular systems interact, and how this interaction is affected as humans adapt to 

microgravity.291 Table 2-92 lists SLS-2 investigations. 

International Microgravity Laboratory (IML) 

The International Microgravity Program was an international program dedicated to the study of 

life and materials sciences in microgravity. The missions explored how life forms adapt to 

weightlessness and how materials behave when processed in space.292 

International Microgravity Laboratory-1 

IML-1 was the primary payload on Space Shuttle mission STS-42, launched January 22, 1992. It 

was the first in a series of international Shuttle flights dedicated to fundamental life and 

microgravity sciences research.293 IML-1 science operations were a cooperative effort between 

the orbiting Discovery’s crew and mission management, scientists, and engineers in a control 

facility at MSFC. The eight-day IML-1 mission used the Spacelab long module 

Mission objectives for IML-1 were to conduct scientific and technological investigations in 

microgravity—specifically experiments on life sciences, materials sciences, and fluid physics 

using several experimental facilities (see table 2-93). To complete as many experiments as 

291 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-58 Press Kit,” September 1993, pp. 21–22.

292 “ESA—IML-1,” European Space Agency Public Relations, NASA History Division folder 008629, Historical 

Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

293 The flight was extended one day over the originally planned seven days to continue the investigations.

149
possible, the international crew divided into red and blue teams to work around the clock in two 

12-hour shifts. They conducted experiments on the human nervous system’s adaptation to low 

gravity and the effects of microgravity on other life forms, such as shrimp eggs, lentil seedlings, 

fruit fly eggs, and bacteria. Low-gravity materials processing experiments included crystal 

growth from a variety of substances, including enzymes, mercury iodine, and a virus (see table

 2-94). Much of the crew’s time during the mission was devoted to experiments measuring how 

their own bodies adapted to living in space.294

IML-2 

IML-2 was the primary payload on STS-65. Launched on July 8, 1994, the seven-person mission 

carried more than twice the number of experiments and facilities as the first IML mission in 

1992. More than 80 experiments representing more than 200 scientists from six space agencies 

were located in the IML Spacelab module in the payload bay. The space agencies represented 

were NASA, ESA, CSA, CNES, DARA, and NASDA. 

Two teams of crew members performed research around the clock on the behavior of materials 

and life in near weightlessness on the mission , which lasted almost 15 days. Fifty of the 

experiments related to life sciences, including bioprocessing, space biology, human physiology, 

and radiation biology. Some of the equipment used for these investigations had flown on 

previous Spacelab flights, such as ESA’s Biorack, which was making its third flight. The IML-2 

Biorack housed 19 experiments that featured chemicals and biological samples such as bacteria, 

mammalian and human cells, isolated tissues and eggs, sea urchin larvae, fruit flies, and plant 

seedlings. DARA provided the NIZEMI, a slow-rotating centrifuge used to study how organisms 

294 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-42 Press Kit,” January 1992, p. 16.

150
react to different gravity levels. Samples studied included jellyfish and plants. For the first time, 

researchers could determine how organisms reacted to forces one and one-half times Earth’s 

gravity. Figure 2-31 shows the inside of the IML-2 module. 

Figure 2-31. Astronaut Carl E. Walz, mission specialist, flies through the IML-2 science module. 

The mission explored how life forms adapt to weightlessness, and how materials behave when 

processed in space (NASA photo MSFC-9500974). 

Nearly 30 experiments in materials processing were conducted with nine different types of 

science facilities. DARA provided the TEMPUS (the Electromagnetic Containerless Processing 

Facility), which was flying for the first time on IML-2, to study the solidification of materials 

from the liquid state in a containerless environment. Solidification phenomena are of great 

interest to scientists and are also used in many industrial processes. Science teams detected for 

the first time a phase in a nickel-niobium sample that was masked by other forces on Earth. 

Another facility, the Advanced Protein Crystallization Facility developed by ESA, was flying for 

the second time. Housed in two middeck lockers, it operated autonomously after being activated 

on the first flight day. Some 5,000 video images were made of crystals grown during flight. 

151
The mission further advanced the concept of telescience, which enabled researchers on the 

ground to monitor in real time experiments on board the orbiter. The flight set a new record of 

more than 25,000 payload commands issued from Spacelab Mission Operations Control at 

Marshall Space Flight Center. Table 2-95 lists the IML-2 investigations. 

Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS) Missions 

ATLAS missions were part of Phase 1 of NASA’s MTPE, as well as an element of the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program. The program involved scientists from many Earth system 

science disciplines investigating terrestrial, climatic, atmospheric, and solar interactions.295 

The main objective of the ATLAS series was to study solar output and the chemistry and 

dynamics of the middle atmosphere and to contribute to scientific calibrated solar and 

atmospheric measurements over an 11-year solar cycle.296 Such measurements are important 

because even small changes in the Sun’s total irradiance or its spectral distribution can 

significantly influence Earth’s climate. Similarly, changes in the quantity of trace gases in the 

atmosphere could affect climate and have other impacts. Throughout the series, scientists 

gathered new information to gain a better understanding of how the atmosphere reacts to natural 

and human-induced atmospheric changes, with the aim of identifying measures to keep Earth 

suitable for life for future generations.297 Beyond its own science mission, a key goal of the 

ATLAS series was to provide calibration for UARS. Two ATLAS-1 instruments—ACR and the 

295 “ATLAS 1 Preflight Mission Operation Report,” NASA Office of Space Science and Applications Report No. S420-45-92-01, p. 1, NASA History Division electronic record 8642, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

296 “ATLAS 1 Preflight Mission Operation Report,” p. 11, NASA History Division electronic record 8642, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

297 “Atlas 1—Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science,”

http://users.skynet.be/on1cau/atlas.htm (accessed January 5, 2006).

152
SUSIM—had direct counterparts aboard UARS, while other instruments aboard each ATLAS 

mission were closely related. Repeated flights of the ATLAS instruments, which were carefully 

calibrated before and after each flight, provided long-term calibration datasets for comparison 

with data from many satellite instruments and for long-term trend studies.298

Each ATLAS flight crew was divided into two teams that worked approximately 12 hours 

followed by 12 hours off duty. This allowed for continuous payload operations 24 hours per day. 

At least one member of each team had special training in both Spacelab and experiment 

operations and supervised science activities on the shift.299 

ATLAS-1 

The first ATLAS mission launched on Space Shuttle STS-45 on March 24, 1992. There were 

two mission objectives. The first was to conduct experiments to study the chemistry, physics, 

and dynamics of the middle atmosphere; measure the energy output of the Sun; study how 

magnetic fields and electrified gases link the Sun and Earth; and examine sources of ultraviolet 

radiation in the Milky Way and other galaxies. The second objective was to obtain additional 

global ozone concentration data using the SSBUV/A investigation and to correlate data obtained 

from ATLAS-1, SSBUV/A, and UARS.300

298 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-45 Press Kit,” March 1992, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_046_STS-045_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 28, 2006).

299 “ATLAS 2,” NASA Fact Sheet, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA History Division folder 8686, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

300 SSBUV was comanifested with ATLAS-1. It was physically separate from the ATLAS payload, mounted in two 

Get Away Special (GAS) canisters in the Shuttle’s payload bay. SSBUV commands were sent from a Payload 

Operations Control Center at Johnson Space Center. SSBUV data were received at Johnson and at Marshall Space 

Flight Center. “ATLAS 1 Preflight Mission Operation Report,” p. 11, NASA History Division electronic record 

8642, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

153
Over nine days of investigations, researchers met all primary and secondary mission objectives. 

The scientific data collected comprised an impressive set of measurements for the highly 

calibrated atmospheric and solar radiation instruments that would be used as a basis for longterm solar-cycle investigations and to provide validation information and complementary science 

for several satellite projects.301 Among its investigations, the mission measured at various 

altitudes the concentrations of chemicals resulting from the breakdown of CFCs. These 

observations were the most direct confirmation that CFCs were the source of increased chlorine 

in the atmosphere.302

The ATLAS-1 mission used two Spacelab pallets in the orbiter’s cargo bay and an igloo to 

accommodate a payload of solar and atmospheric monitoring instruments plus reflights of some 

earlier Spacelab investigations. An international team of researchers from the United States, 

France, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Japan 

provided 13 instruments that performed 14 investigations in atmospheric chemistry, solar 

radiation, space plasma physics, and ultraviolet astronomy. The experiments are listed in table 2-96.

ATLAS-2 

ATLAS-2 was the primary payload on Space Shuttle mission STS-56, which launched April 8, 

1993, on a nine-day mission.303 The Spacelab pallet in the payload bay held six instruments, and 

301 Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, memo to NASA Administrator accompanying 

ATLAS-1 Post Launch Mission Operation Report, S-420-45-92-01, NASA History Division electronic record 8642, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

302 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-66 Press Kit,” November 1994, p. 14, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_066_STS-066_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 27, 2006).

303 The mission was extended from eight to nine days because of unacceptable weather conditions at the landing site 

at Kennedy Space Center. Spacelab was repowered to collect additional science measurements after the landing was 

deferred.

154
a seventh was mounted in two Get Away Special (GAS) canisters. Figure 2-32 shows ATLAS-2 

in the Shuttle’s cargo bay. 

Figure 2-32. ATLAS-2 in the cargo bay (STS-66 Press Kit).

The ATLAS-1 mission established a baseline of atmospheric data against which researchers 

could measure future global change. ATLAS-2 and subsequent missions tracked subtle year-toyear variations in solar activity and atmospheric composition. 

The ATLAS-2 experiments studied the chemistry, physics, and dynamics of the middle and 

upper atmosphere, and measured the Sun’s energy entering Earth’s atmosphere. Data were 

collected on the relationship between the Sun’s energy output and Earth’s middle atmosphere, 

and their effect on the ozone layer. ATLAS-2 measured middle-atmospheric ingredients over 

155
high northern latitudes during daylight hours, which helped scientists understand the 

atmosphere’s behavior following a winter of record low ozone levels. Indications were that total 

ozone decreased by 10 percent at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere during the period 

between the ATLAS-1 and ATLAS-2 flights.304 Unique investigations for ATLAS-2 involved 

the underflight of operating satellites so that correlative measurements could be made.305

Investigations are listed in table 2-97. 

ATLAS-3 

The third flight of the ATLAS payload took place in November 1994 on STS-66. From their 

location on a Spacelab pallet in the Shuttle cargo bay, seven instruments focused on the 

processes that could create and destroy ozone. The instruments, which included the Shuttle Solar 

Backscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer, provided checks on data from several identical or similar 

instruments flying aboard NASA and NOAA satellites.306 They measured precise levels of more 

than 30 chemicals in the environment, as well as global middle-atmosphere temperatures and 

trace-gas concentrations, providing these measurements to the science community for 

comparisons with those of other spacecraft.307 In addition, because of factors such as the time of 

year, orbital lighting conditions, the current state of knowledge about the atmosphere, and new 

instruments, some goals were unique to the ATLAS-3 mission. Atmospheric instruments on 

ATLAS-3 examined the response of the Southern Hemisphere to the Antarctic ozone hole and 

the change in Earth’s northern middle atmosphere from relatively quiet summer conditions to 

304 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-66 Press Kit,” November 1994, p. 14, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_066_STS-066_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 27, 2006).

305 S.G. Tilford, memo to the NASA Administrator accompanying the ATLAS 2 Post Launch Mission Operation 

Report, NASA Office of Space Science and Applications Report No. S-420-56-93-01, NASA History Division 

folder 8686, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

306 “NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth: Space-Based Missions, 1994–2000,” NASA Facts, February 1994.

307 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 60.

156
more active winter conditions. Furthermore, the presence of two additional instruments on the 

free-flying Cryogenic Infrared Spectrometers and Telescopes for the Atmosphere–Shuttle Pallet 

Satellite (CRISTA-SPAS), also flying on STS-66, enhanced ATLAS atmospheric data and 

provided more information on gas concentrations, including details of their physical distribution. 

The mission was exceedingly successful, with eight of the nine instruments performing nearly 

flawlessly. Since almost all of the science teams could turn data around in essentially real time, 

they could obtain preliminary atmospheric mixing ratio profiles, solar spectra, and total solar 

irradiance values during the mission. All of the instruments downlinked data and examined 

spectra in order to assess instrument performance. Through cooperation among the PIs, several 

comparison studies were performed for both atmospheric and solar objectives. The results were 

also compared with those from other spacecraft, particularly UARS. Additionally, several “joint 

experiments” were carried out during the mission, including some that were planned during the 

mission after investigators received preliminary data.308

The Millimeter-Wave Atmospheric Sounder (MAS) failed during the first day of the mission but 

still gathered 10 hours of data, enough to obtain nearly global maps of ozone and water vapor in 

the stratosphere and mesosphere, as well as some information on distribution of chlorine 

monoxide in the stratosphere.309 Table 2-98 lists the ATLAS-3 investigations. 

308 “Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS-3), Cryogenic Infrared Spectrometers and 

Telescopes for the Atmosphere—Shuttle Pallet Satellite (CRISTA-SPAS-1), Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet/A 

(SSBUV/A) Post Launch Mission Operation Report,” Office of Mission to Planet Earth, Office of Life and 

Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Report No. U-959-66-94-01, May 4, 1995, p. 3, NASA History Division 

folder 011051, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

309 “Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS-3) Post Launch Mission Operation Report,” 

Report No. U-959-66-94-01, May 4, 1995, p. 3, NASA History Division folder 011051, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

157
U.S. Microgravity Laboratory (USML) 

The USML program was an early step toward building a microgravity program linking NASA, 

researchers in fundamental and engineering sciences, and private industry. Established through a 

congressional charter, it brought together representatives from academia, industry, and the 

government to study basic scientific questions. The USML was located in the Spacelab in the 

Shuttle’s cargo bay and flew on orbit for extended periods. It provided greater opportunities for 

research in materials science, fluid dynamics, biotechnology, and combustion science while 

conducting experiments on nutrient and water transport for growing food in space, the behavior 

of fire in low gravity, and the effects of long-term space travel on humans.310 The USML 

missions worked to develop and test experimental flight equipment and lay the scientific 

foundation for extended-duration microgravity research. 

USML-1 

USML-1 was the first Spacelab mission dedicated entirely to microgravity science and the first 

in a planned series of flights fully dedicated to microgravity research. It was the primary payload 

on Space Shuttle mission STS-50 and used the Spacelab’s long pressurized module with its 

series of standard racks for holding furnaces to grow crystals, facilities for studying the behavior 

of fluids and performing combustion research, computers, and other equipment needed for the 

experiments. 

310 “The First United States Microgravity Laboratory,” Payload Projects Office, NASA Marshall Space Flight 

Center, 1992, p.2, NASA History Division folder 008662, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC. Also “Space Shuttle Mission STS-50 Press Kit,” June 1992, p. 10, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_048_STS-050_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 24, 2006).

158
The primary USML-1 mission objective was to establish a space laboratory program with longterm continuity to build U.S. leadership in microgravity science and applications. Other mission 

objectives were to:

• Use the space environment to address important scientific and technical questions 

regarding materials science, fluid dynamics, biotechnology, and combustion science 

• Enable cooperation among government, industry, and academia in an evolving 

partnership to explore and develop the potential of the space environment 

• Offer U.S. science and commercial communities access to the sophisticated research 

capabilities of the Spacelab

• Build a base of experience for space station operations311

This mission was the first to use the Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pallet, a system that 

provided equipment and fuel for extra energy production, additional nitrogen tanks for cabin air, 

and a regeneration system to remove carbon dioxide to enable the orbiter to remain in orbit up to 

16 days.312 The EDO medical program provided information about the effects of long-duration 

exposure to microgravity on humans. 

Three facilities debuted on USML-1: the Crystal Growth Furnace (CGF), the Surface Tension 

Driven Convection Experiment (STDCE) Apparatus, and the Drop Physics Module (DPM). 

311 “United States Microgravity Laboratory—USML-1,” Microgravity Science and Applications Division, June 

1992, NASA History Division folder 008662, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, 

DC. Also “United States Microgravity Laboratory 1 Mission Operation Report,” Report No. S-420-50-92-01, Office 

of Space Science and Applications, NASA History Division folder 008887, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

312 “United States Microgravity Laboratory—USML-1,” Microgravity Science and Applications Division, June 

1992, NASA History Division folder 008662, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, 

DC. Also “Space Shuttle Mission STS-50 Press Kit,” June 1992, p. 10.

159
The CGF was a reusable Spacelab facility for investigating crystal growth. It was developed 

specifically to study high-temperature directional solidification of materials (primarily 

semiconductors), which form the basis of electronic devices. The CGF was the first spaceflight 

furnace developed by the United States to process multiple large samples at temperatures above 

1,000°C (1,832°F), allowing scientists to conduct a wide variety of materials science 

investigations.313 

The STDCE Apparatus consisted of an experiment package and an electronics package located 

in a double Spacelab rack. The experiment package included a test chamber that was made of 

copper to ensure good thermal conductivity along the walls, and a silicone oil system consisting 

of a storage reservoir, and a fluid-management system for filling and emptying the test chamber. 

Two heating systems were part of the test chamber.314

The DPM, developed by JPL, was dedicated to the detailed study of the dynamics of drops in 

microgravity, including their equilibrium shapes, flow dynamics, and both stable and chaotic 

behaviors. It also demonstrated a potentially valuable processing technique known as 

containerless processing. The module and microgravity combined to remove the effects of the 

container, such as chemical contamination and shape, on the sample being studied. Sound waves, 

generating acoustic forces, held a sample away from the walls of the experiment chamber, which 

isolated the sample from potentially harmful external influences. A variety of fluids, including 

313 “Crystal Growth Furnace,” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/USML2/science/cgf.html (accessed January 27, 

2006).

314 “The First United States Microgravity Laboratory,” Payload Projects Office, NASA Marshall Space Flight 

Center, 1992, p. 14, NASA History Division folder 008887, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

160
very pure water, water with tiny amounts of contaminants, water with various amounts of 

glycerin to add viscosity, and silicone oils, flew on USML-1.315

The Spacelab Glovebox (GBX), obtained by NASA through a cooperative agreement with ESA, 

was a multi-user facility supporting 16 experiments in fluid dynamics, combustion science, 

crystal growth, and technology demonstrations. It complemented or enhanced the results from 

the USML science investigations and provided additional information for the design and 

development of future microgravity experiments.316 It also enabled crew members to handle, 

transfer, and otherwise manipulate materials in ways that would be impractical in an open 

Spacelab. Experiments were placed in the GBX via a central port, and crew members could 

access materials through that port and two glovedoors on each side of it. The GBX’s enclosed 

compartment offered a clean working space and minimized the risk of contamination to the 

Spacelab and the experiment samples. It provided physical isolation and a negative air-pressure 

differential between the enclosure and the rest of the Spacelab working area for small quantities 

of materials. An air-filtering system also protected the Spacelab environment from experiment 

products that could harm the crew. The GBX’s photographic equipment allowed crew members 

to make a visual record of experiment operations. It could also be used with accelerometers to 

characterize the low-gravity environment.317 Video data could be downlinked in real time. The 

315 “The First United States Microgravity Laboratory,” pp. 16–17.

316 “United States Microgravity Laboratory—USML-1,” Microgravity Science and Applications Division, June 

1992, NASA History Division folder 008662, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, 

DC.

317 “Glovebox,” NASA History Division folder 008887, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

161
GBX also provided electrical power for experiment hardware, a time-temperature display, and 

cleaning supplies.318

The mission also included the Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) and Orbital 

Acceleration Research Experiment (OARE), a special accelerometer system that measured 

accelerations inside Spacelab. Such measurements were important because disturbances could 

cause convection and disrupt sensitive experiments. This equipment allowed investigators to 

trace any vibrations from Shuttle engine firings, crew motions, or disturbances from other 

instruments.319 See table 2-99 for a list of USML-1 investigations. 

USML-2 

USML-2 was the primary payload on STS-73, which launched on October 20, 1995. Bringing 

together researchers from government, academia, and private industry, it was the second U.S. 

Spacelab mission dedicated to microgravity research. The mission consisted of 14 facilities 

performing 18 experiments and 7 investigations. Research concentrated on the same overall 

areas as USML-1, which flew aboard STS-50, including fluid dynamics, crystal growth, 

combustion science, biological science, and technology demonstrations. Many experiments flew 

for the second time, and some of the experiments arose from the outcome of investigations on 

USML-1. To maximize science on orbit and allow around-the-clock investigations, the sevenmember crew split into two teams, each working 12-hour shifts. 

318 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-50 Press Kit,” June 1992, p. 34, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_048_STS-050_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 24, 2006).

319 “United States Microgravity Laboratory 1 Mission Operation Report,” p. 11, NASA History Division folder 

008887, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

162
Along with investigations previously flown on USML-1, several new experiment facilities flew 

on this mission. The Advanced Protein Crystallization Facility (APCF) was the first facility to 

use three methods of protein crystal growth: liquid–liquid diffusion, dialysis, and vapor 

diffusion. The High-Packed Digital Television Technical Demonstration (HI-PAD) gave 

scientists on Earth the ability to view multiple channels of real-time video and to monitor and 

change experiment parameters as needed to improve the quality and quantity of downlinked data. 

It also enabled the PIs to take large quantities of video data from their experiments back to their 

research centers immediately after the flight. This technical demonstration could digitize up to 

six video input signals from experiments and Spacelab cameras on board USML-2 and downlink 

all of them. Without HI-PAD, only one video signal could be sent to the ground at a time.320

Ground-to-Air Television (GATV), which allowed the crew and scientists on the ground to both 

talk to and see each other, was first used on the this mission. The Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell 

(GFFC) experiment, which was used to study how fluids moved in microgravity as a means of 

understanding fluid flow in oceans, atmospheres, planets, and stars, was extensively refurbished 

for this mission. It had first flown on Spacelab 3 in 1985.321

Experiments measuring the microgravity environment provided a complete picture of the 

Shuttle’s environment and its disturbances. OARE provided real-time acceleration data to the 

science teams. The Microgravity Acceleration Workstation (MAWS) operated closely with 

OARE so that the environmental models produced by MAWS could be compared with the actual 

data gathered by OARE. The SAMS and the Three Dimensional Microgravity Accelerometer (3-

320 “The Experiments,” USML-2 Mission Archive,” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/USML2/science/exp.html

(accessed January 27, 2006).

321 “The Second United States Microgravity Laboratory 90-Day Science Report,” March 1996, pp. 8–9, 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/usml2/90-day/usml-2-90day.pdf (accessed January 26, 2006).

163
DMA) took measurements throughout the mission that were provided to the science community 

for analysis.322 

Highlights of the mission included the discovery that crystals grown in space without touching 

the walls of their containers were of markedly higher quality than Earth-grown crystals. This was 

expected to promote the use of these crystals in critical electronics applications. Another 

finding—that surfactants can change the hydrodynamics of droplets—could lead to new and 

improved technologies for manufacturing cosmetics and synthetic drugs, as well as for the 

recovery of oil and cleanup of the environment. Another investigation revealed that droplets hit 

with sound lost symmetry and began to rotate. This discovery had implications for improved 

technologies in the pharmaceutical industry and chemical processing and for increasing our 

understanding of rain formation and weather patterns.323 Figure 2-33 shows crew members 

working inside USML-2. Table 2-100 lists USML-2 investigations. 

322 “The Second United States Microgravity Laboratory 90-Day Science Report,” March 1996, pp. 8–9.

323 “Significant Discoveries from Space Shuttle Experiments To Be Presented at Conference,” NASA News Release 

97-23, February 5, 1997, NASA History Division folder 008860, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

164
Figure 2-33. On-board photo of Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-73) crew members Fred Leslie 

(foreground) and Catherine Coleman aboard the USML-2 conducting experiments in a 

microgravity environment available in the orbiter’s cargo bay while in low-Earth orbit 

(NASA photo MSFC-9515837). 

Spacelab J 

Spacelab J, the first Japanese Spacelab, was launched aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-47) 

on September 12, 1992. The mission was a cooperative effort by NASA and NASDA. Its 

scientific objectives were to conduct a variety of materials- and life-sciences experiments using 

the weightless and radiation environment of an orbiting Spacelab. Experiments were conducted 

in the Spacelab long module in the areas of microgravity science (materials processing, crystal 

growth, fluid physics, and acceleration measurement) and life sciences (physiology, 

developmental biology, radiation effects, separation processes, and enzyme crystal growth).324

The international crew was divided into red and blue teams for round-the-clock operations. The 

mission was successfully completed after eight days on orbit, which included an extra day of 

payload operations. Figure 2-34 shows Payload Specialist Mamoru Mohri from Japan preparing 

for the mission. 

324 Final Science Results, Spacelab J (Washington, DC: Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, 

NASA Headquarters, 1995), p. 1.

165
Figure 2-34. In the Operations and Checkout Building high bay at Kennedy Space Center, 

STS-47 Payload Specialist Dr. Mamoru Mohri participates in a Mission Sequence Test of the 

Spacelab-J (SL-J). Dr. Mohri was the first Japanese to fly on the Shuttle 

(NASA photo 92PC-1194). 

166
Thirty-seven experiments were sponsored by NASDA, NASA sponsored seven, and two were 

jointly sponsored. The test subjects included crew members, Japanese koi fish, cultured animal 

and plant cells, chicken embryos, fruit flies, fungi and plant seeds, and frogs and frog eggs. All 

experiments on board were activated. Investigations are listed in table 2-101. 

United States Microgravity Payload (USMP) 

The USMP program consisted of a series of missions that provided scientists the opportunity to 

conduct scientific and technological research in materials and fundamental sciences in the 

microgravity environment of the Space Shuttle’s payload bay. The USMP carrier of the 1990s 

built on the design of the Materials Science Laboratory (MSL), which flew on Space Shuttle 

mission STS-61-C in 1986. The new carrier consisted of two Mission Peculiar Equipment 

Support Structures (MPESSs) mounted next to each other and spanning the width of the orbiter. 

This carrier offered accommodations for twice as many investigations as the original MSL 

carrier, increased the resources available for each experiment, and improved data-handling and 

command capabilities. It could support up to six experiments with a total experiment mass up to 

2,268 kilograms (5,040 pounds). Standardized mounting provisions were located on the tops and 

sides of each MPESS for attaching the science instruments directly to the truss structure.325

The USMP was manifested as a primary half-bay Shuttle payload and was allocated up to 50 

percent of the total orbiter resources available for payloads. The experiments had access to datahandling, electrical-power, and thermal-control subsystems. All USMP carrier subsystems were 

located on the forward MPESS. 

325 “United States Microgravity Payload, Missions Dedicated to Microgravity Research” NASA History Division 

folder 11035, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

167
During a USMP mission, Shuttle crew members activated the USMP subsystems and 

instruments a few hours after launch. The experiments then functioned autonomously for the 

duration of on-orbit operations. At the same time, science teams worked on the ground at the 

Payload Operations Control Center at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, sending commands 

to their instruments to change experiment parameters and assess the performance of their 

investigations by analyzing data downlinked from the payload. After each mission, samples, 

instruments, and data were distributed to the investigators for analysis.326

Four USMP missions flew in the 1990s. MSFC was responsible for mission management and 

integration.

United States Microgravity Payload 

Space Shuttle mission STS-52, launched on October 22, 1992, carried USMP-1. It was activated 

on the first day of the flight. On-board studies focused on the influence of gravity on basic fluid 

and solidification processes. The mission included three experiments mounted on two connected 

MPESSs mounted in the cargo bay (see figure 2-35). The Lambda Point Experiment (LPE) 

studied fluid behavior in microgravity. The French-sponsored Matériel pour l’Étude des 

Phénomènes Intéressant la Solidification sur Terre et en Orbite (Materials for the Study of 

Interesting Phenomena of Solidification on Earth and in Orbit [MEPHISTO]) experiment studied 

metallurgical processes in microgravity. MEPHISTO was a cooperative effort by NASA, the 

French space agency (CNES), and the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). CNES 

developed the MEPHISTO experiment apparatus, and NASA provided the flight opportunities 

326 “United States Microgravity Payload, Missions Dedicated to Microgravity Research,” (NASA History Office 

folder 11035).

168
on the Space Shuttle. On this mission, the CEA solidification laboratory successfully used the 

MEPHISTO instrument in collaboration with the U.S. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology to collect data on the solidification of tin-0.5 atomic percent bismuth alloy.327 The 

Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) studied the microgravity environment on 

board the Space Shuttle. See table 2-102 for USMP-1 investigations. 

Figure 2-35. The USMP carrier consists of two Mission Peculiar Equipment Support Structures 

(MPESSs) that support the Lambda-Point Experiment, MEPHISTO, and Space Acceleration 

Measurement Systems apparatus (STS-52 Press Kit).

327 “Matériel pour l’Étude des Phénomènes Intéressant la Solidification sur Terre et en Orbite (MEPHISTO), 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp-3/exp/MEPHISTO.html (accessed January 31, 2006).

169
United States Microgravity Payload 

USMP-2 was one of two primary payloads on Space Shuttle mission STS-62, which launched on 

4 March 1994.328 USMP-2 carried experiments in materials science and condensed matter 

physics. It characterized the microgravity environment using acceleration data obtained in 

support of experiment activities, adding to the base of experience necessary for remote 

operations during the ground-tended phase of early space station science activities.329

The four major experiments on USMP-2 investigated materials processing and crystal growth in 

microgravity (see table 2-103). On this mission, the University of Florida, together with the 

CEA, collected data on a bismuth-0.1 atomic percent tin alloy in the MEPHISTO experiment.330

In addition, the SAMS measured and analyzed microgravity disturbances caused by crew 

movements, equipment operations, Shuttle maneuvers, and the slight atmospheric drag on the 

Space Shuttle. The USMP-2 carrier, which was developed at Marshall, consisted of two MPESSs 

spanning the payload bay. Experiment hardware was mounted on the support structures, and 

carrier subsystems providing electrical power, communications and data-handling capabilities, 

and thermal control were mounted on the front structure.331

328 The second primary payload was the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST-2) payload discussed 

in chapter 3 (“Aeronautics, Technology, and Exploration”) of this volume.

329 “STS-62, March 1994,” Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, p. 6, NASA History Division 

folder 11035, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

330 “Matérial pour l’Étude des Phénomènes Interessant la Solidification sur Terre et en Orbite (MEPHISTO), 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp-3/exp/MEPHISTO.html (accessed January 31, 2006).

331 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-62 Press Kit,” March 1994, p. 15, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_061_STS-062_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 31, 2006).

170
U.S. Microgravity Payload 

USMP-3 was one of two primary payloads flying on Space Shuttle mission STS-75, which 

launched on February 22, 1996.332 Major experiments included U.S. and international 

investigations that had flown at least once before. These primary experiments, located in the 

cargo bay mounted on the MPESS, investigated biotechnology, fluid physics, and materials 

science in microgravity. For the MEPHISTO experiment on this mission, the CEA collaborated 

with the University of Alabama in Huntsville to solidify a tin-1.5 atomic percent bismuth alloy. 

The USMP-3 experiments, which involved more concentrated alloys than those used in previous 

flights, studied the influence of composition on the transport process.333 In addition, two 

investigations—SAMS and OARE—precisely monitored and recorded vibrations and 

accelerations that could affect sensitive microgravity investigations. For the first time, SAMS 

allowed both the Shuttle crew and scientists on the ground to assess these disturbances and their 

influence on experiment results in real time by using a computer and monitor connected to a 

direct feed of SAMS sensor information.334

The mission also included three combustion experiments that used the Middeck Glovebox 

Facility (MGBX). This facility provided containment for crew safety while functioning as a 

laboratory workbench. It also had a multipurpose interface frame that provided electrical power 

conditioning and distribution and data collection.335 First developed and successfully flown on 

332 The second primary payload was the reflight of the Tethered Satellite System.

333 “Matériel pour l’Étude des Phénomènes Interessant la Solidification sur Terre et en Orbite (MEPHISTO), 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp-3/exp/MEPHISTO.html (accessed January 31, 2006).

334 “The Fourth United States Microgravity Payload,” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/usmp4/brochure.pdf

(accessed February 1, 2006).

335 “USMP-3 Experiments,” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp-3/exp/exp.html (accessed January 31, 

2006).

171
the USML-1 in 1992, the MGBX was designed to operate in the Shuttle middeck, the Mir space 

station, and the International Space Station.336 

Shuttle crew members activated the major USMP experiments on flight day 2. Once the 

microgravity experiments were running, most were remotely controlled in an operational mode 

known as “telescience.” Beginning on flight day 5, the crew carried out combustion experiments 

using the MGBX. While these experiments were underway, Columbia’s position was adjusted 

periodically to give the USMP experiments the best possible conditions based on measurements 

of microgravity disturbances by on-board sensors. During the mission, science teams on the 

ground monitored and adjusted the experiments as necessary based on data downlinked from 

Columbia.

337 The USMP-3 experiments are listed in table 2-104. 

United States Microgravity Payload 

The fourth U.S. Microgravity Payload of the decade, USMP-4, flew as a primary payload on Space 

Shuttle mission STS-87, launched November 9, 1997.338 Mission experiments focused on materials 

science, combustion science, and fundamental physics. The major experiments operated without 

crew involvement. Additional experiments were housed in the MGBX. On this mission, the 

Advanced Automated Directional Solidification Furnace (AADSF) solidified crystals of two 

different alloys (lead tin telluride and mercury cadmium telluride), in contrast to the single lead tin 

telluride alloy solidified in USMP-3. The Isothermal Dendritic Growth Experiment (IDGE), flying 

for the third time, used a different sample material (pivalic acid [PVA]) from that used in earlier 

336 “Middeck Glovebox (MGBX) Facility,” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/STS-75/mgbx/MGBX.html (accessed 

January 31, 2006).

337 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-75 Press Kit,” pp. 14, 22, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_075_STS-075_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 1, 2006).

338 The SPARTAN 201-04 satellite flew as second primary payload.

172
missions, allowing a more detailed study.339 The Confined Helium Experiment (CHeX) was 

performed for the first time on this mission. Table 2-105 lists USMP-4 investigations.

Spacelab D-2 

The second German Spacelab mission, designated D-2, launched on Space Shuttle mission STS55. Two crews working in round-the-clock shifts conducted approximately 88 experiments. 

Around 200 principals and co-investigators from 14 countries worldwide were represented.340

NASA sponsored four investigations. 

The D-2 mission augmented the German microgravity research program started by the D-1 

Spacelab mission in 1985. In addition to continuing research and scientific experiments from D1, the D-2 mission was multidisciplinary, covering experiments related to materials science, life 

sciences, technology applications, Earth observations, astronomy, and atmospheric physics. The 

experimental program of the mission was oriented toward Germany’s space-utilization program 

goals and the microgravity goals of ESA. Mission management was handled by the German 

Aerospace Research Establishment (DLR), and the German space agency (DARA) was in charge 

of program management. The DLR trained the astronauts and carried out flight planning, flight 

operations, and payload control and operations. The D-1 and D-2 missions were the only two 

Spacelab missions with payload-operations control located outside the United States.341

Experiments are listed in table 2-106. Facilities and contributors are listed in table 2-107. Figure 

2-36 shows the arrangement of the experiments in the Spacelab module.

339 “Isothermal Dendritic Growth Experiment (IDGE); The Fourth United States Microgravity Payload,” 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/usmp4/brochure.pdf (accessed February 1, 2006).

340 Manfred H. Keller et al., “For Earth into Space: Results of the German Spacelab Mission D-2,” AIAA-95-0891, 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.

341 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-55 Press Kit,” February 1993, pp. 4, 13, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_055_STS-055_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 1, 2006).

173
Figure 2-36. Arrangement of racks on Spacelab D-2 (NASA History Division Folder 008888, 

Historical Reference Section, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC).

174
Space Radar Laboratory (SRL) Missions 

The SRL missions on STS-59 and STS-68 carried two experiments: the Spaceborne Imaging 

Radar-C and X-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SIR-C/X-SAR) and the Measurement of Air 

Pollution from Satellites (MAPS). 

The SIR-C/X-SAR was a Space Shuttle experiment conducted as a cooperative effort by NASA, 

the German space agency (DARA), and the Italian space agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana 

[ASI]). The experiment began with the Seasat Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in 1978 and 

continued with the Spaceborne Imaging Radar-A (SIR-A) in 1981 and SIR-B in 1984. The SIRC/X-SAR was a part of NASA’s MTPE and a precursor to the EOS imaging radar system 

planned for later in the decade. The program also benefited from experience gained from the 

1989 Magellan mission to Venus, other international spaceborne radar programs, and prototype 

aircraft sensors.342

Germany’s imaging radar program began with the Microwave Remote Sensing Experiment 

(MRSE), a multimode X-band radar that was flown on the first Spacelab mission in 1983. The 

program continued with development of the X-SAR, with which Italy cooperated.343 

With its ability to acquire digital image simultaneousl a two wavelengths, SIR-C was more 

capable than Seasat, SIR-A, and SIR-B. SIR-C made unique contributions to Earth observation 

and monitoring due to its ability to measure radar signature of the surface at three different 

wavelengths from space, and measure for different polarizations at two of those wavelengths. 

342 “What Is SIR-C/X-SAR?” http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/desc/SIRCdesc.html (accessed February 2, 2006).

343 “SRL Science Mission Overview,” http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/science/missiono.html (accessed February 2, 

2006).

175
SIR-C image data helped scientists understand the physics behind some of the phenomena 

observed in radar images at just one wavelength/polarization such as those produced earlier by 

Seasat. Investigators on the SIR-C/X-SAR science team used the SIR-C/X-SAR radar image data 

to measure vegetation type, extent, and deforestation; soil moisture content; ocean dynamics; 

wave and surface wind speeds and directions; volcanism and tectonic activity; soil erosion and 

desertification; and topography. 

The SIR-C/X-SAR antenna structure consisted of three individual antennas: one operating at Lband (23.5-centimeter/9.3-inch wavelength), one at C-band (5.8-centimeter/2.3-inch 

wavelength), and one at X-band (3-centimeter/1.2-inch wavelength). The SIR-C/X-SAR antenna 

structure was composed of three leaves, each divided into four subpanels. Weighing a total of 

more than 10,500 kilograms (23,149 pounds) and measuring 12 meters (39.4 feet) by 4 meters 

(13.1 feet), it was the most massive piece of hardware ever assembled at NASA’s JPL.344

SIR-C, built by JPL and the Ball Communications Systems Division, provided multifrequency, 

multipolarization radar data. The instrument consisted of several subsystems: the antenna array, 

the transmitter, the receivers, the data-handling subsystem, and the ground SAR processor. The 

antenna had two planar arrays, one for L-band and one for C-band. Each array consisted of a 

uniform grid of dual-polarized microstrip antenna radiators, with each polarization port fed by a 

separate corporate feed network. The L-band and C-band antennas measured both horizontal and 

vertical polarizations and used phased-array technology that allowed the direction of the antenna 

beam to be adjusted electronically.345 

344 “What Is SIR-C/X-SAR?” http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/desc/SIRCdesc.html (accessed January 18, 2007).

345 “What Is SIR-C/X-SAR?” http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/desc/SIRCdesc.html (accessed February 2, 2006).

176
The X-SAR instrument was built by the Dornier and Alenia Spazio companies for DARA and 

ASI, respectively, and operated at X-band frequency. The X-SAR antenna used a mechanical tilt 

to change the pointing direction of the beam. 

Both SIR-C and X-SAR could be operated as stand-alone radars or together. Roll and yaw 

maneuvers of the Space Shuttle allowed data to be acquired on either side of the Shuttle ground 

track. The width of the imaged swath on the ground varied from 15 kilometers to 90 kilometers 

(9–56 miles) depending on the orientation of the antenna beams and the operational mode. Table 

2-108 presents a summary of SIR-C/X-SAR system characteristics.

These missions demonstrated the concept of “supersites,” geographic areas selected by the SIRC/X/SAR science team for intensive coverage). The team selected 19 supersites and 15 backup 

supersites. Interdisciplinary studies were conducted at each supersite (see table 2-109). Tropical 

forests in the Amazon Basin, boreal forests in northern Michigan, and temperate forests in North 

Carolina provided data relating to the global carbon and hydrologic cycles. Supersites in areas of 

Brazil, Italy, and the midwestern United States provided data that addressed the hydrologic 

cycle. Paleoclimate and geologic process studies were focused in arid North Africa, semi-arid 

areas in the southwest United States, tectonically active areas in the south-central Andes, and the 

volcanically active Galapagos Islands. Oceanography experiments were focused in the Gulf 

Stream, the eastern North Atlantic, and the Southern Ocean. Calibration ground equipment was 

deployed at various supersites, including those in southern Germany, the Netherlands, and 

Australia.346

346 “SRL Science Mission Overview,” http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/science/missiono.html (accessed February 2, 

2006).

177
The MAPS instrument provided a database of carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations over much 

of the globe. MAPS measured CO in the lower atmosphere between 2 and 10 miles (3.2–16.1 

kilometers) from Earth’s surface. Although not a greenhouse gas, CO is important to researchers 

because it is produced by human activities and, unlike other gases of interest, such as methane, 

CO can be detected and measured as it moves through the atmosphere. CO is also significant 

because it is oxidized by the same airborne hydroxyl radical that cleanses the atmosphere of 

greenhouse gases. Therefore, by directly measuring and mapping CO distribution, researchers 

can learn about concentrations of hydroxyl radicals and their distribution in the atmosphere, and 

provides an estimate of the atmosphere’s ability to cleanse itself. MAPS measurements were 

correlated with ground and aircraft measurements and other satellite images. The Shuttle crews 

also provided valuable information about the measurement area using observations and 

photography acquired during the missions.347

MAPS consisted of a gas correlation infrared radiometer, an optical camera system, and 

supporting electronics and mechanical mounting and cooling systems. It was carried in the 

orbiter cargo bay on an MPESS. The Shuttle crew activated and deactivated MAPS. All 

commands during science operations were performed through the MAPS support facilities in the 

Payload Operations Control Center (POCC) at JSC. During the mission, the MAPS science team 

monitored downlinked telemetry, and a digital tape recorder within one of the MAPS experiment 

containers also recorded data.348

347 “Space Radar Laboratory-2 (SRL-2) Pre Launch Mission Operation Report,” Office of Mission to Planet Earth, 

Report No. U 666-94-68-02, pp. 12–13, NASA History Division folder 11055, Historical Reference Collection, 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

348 “Space Radar Laboratory-2 (SRL-2) Prelaunch Mission Operation Report,” pp. 16–17.

178
The POCC at JSC was staffed by teams from JPL for SIR-C, Germany and Italy for X-SAR, 

Langley Research Center in support of MAPS, and the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns 

Hopkins University for the SRL wave spectra processor.349 During the missions, scientists in the 

POCC communicated daily with researchers who were part of the “ground truth” teams. The 

ground teams at several of the supersites repeated simultaneous measurements of vegetation, soil 

moisture, sea state, snow, and weather conditions during the missions. Data was also collected 

from aircraft and ships to ensure an accurate interpretation of the radar data taken from space. In 

addition, the Shuttle astronauts recorded their personal observations of weather and 

environmental conditions in coordination with SIR-C/X-SAR operations.350

Space Radar Laboratory 

SRL-1 was the primary payload on Space Shuttle mission STS-59, launched on April 9, 1994. 

The first of two Shuttle-based Earth remote sensing missions designed to refine research 

methods for investigating various Earth-changing processes, SRL-1 gathered data about Earth 

and the effect of humans on the planet’s carbon, water, and energy cycles. SRL-1 consisted of 

the SIR-C/X-SAR (the first spaceborne multiparameter radar in the MTPE program) and the 

MAPS instrument, which had flown twice before. SIR-C/X-SAR was located on a Spacelab 

pallet in the Shuttle’s payload bay. It was activated by crew members and operated by teams on 

the ground. (Figure 2-37 shows the location of the X-SAR panels and the SIR-C-band and Lband panels on the payload bay pallet.) Thirteen countries were represented in the project, and 49 

PIs and more than 100 scientists coordinated by JPL. 

349 “Space Radar Laboratory-1 Pre Launch Mission Operation Report,” NASA Office of Mission to Planet Earth, 

Report No. Y-666-94-59-01, p. 13, NASA History Division folder 11026, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

350 “Space Radar Laboratory-2 (SRL-2) Pre Launch Mission Operation Report,” p. 7, NASA History Division folder 

11055, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

179
Figure 2-37. The SIR-C and X-SAR located on a Spacelab pallet in the Shuttle’s payload bay on 

STS-59 (STS-59 Press Kit). 

The program’s objectives were to launch and operate the SIR-C/X-SAR system to obtain 

research-quality data from terrestrial and oceanographic sites for evaluation of spaceborne Earth 

sensing radar methodologies and techniques. An additional objective was to launch and operate 

the MAPS instrument. The SIR-C/X-SAR science objective was to acquire calibrated, highresolution, research-quality radar data simultaneously using L-, C-, and X-band radars in various 

polarizations to use in the study of the terrestrial global carbon cycle, the hydrological cycle, 

climate and geological processes, and ocean circulation and air/sea interactions. The MAPS 

180
science objective was to measure the concentration of CO in the lower atmosphere to use in the 

study of pollution distribution patterns and atmospheric dynamics.351

The SIR-C/X-SAR acquired high-resolution radar data and images of Earth surface features and 

vegetation cover. More than 400 sites were imaged, including 19 primary observation sites 

(supersites) in Brazil, Michigan, North Carolina, and central Europe. The total area covered was 

25.6 million square miles (~50 million square kilometers).352 Some 65 hours of data were 

collected. 

The MAPS experiment measured and mapped the global distribution and concentration of CO in 

the troposphere, or lower atmosphere.353 Data showed a trend of CO concentrations increasing 

from the Southern Hemisphere toward the Northern Hemisphere.354

SRL-1 acquired the first simultaneous multifrequency (C-, L-, and X-bands), multipolarization, 

phased-array imaging radar data in space for geoscientific studies of Earth in different seasons. 

SRL-1 was completely successful in achieving all science objectives. In addition to acquiring 

high-resolution data at all of the planned sites, the science team adjusted the mission timeline and 

observed events as they happened on the ground. The SIR-C/X-SAR obtained data of severe 

flooding inundating the midwestern United States and Germany, as well as three different views 

351 “Space Radar Laboratory-1 Pre Launch Mission Operation Report,” p. 4, NASA History Division folder 11026, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

352 “SIR-C/X-SAR Flight 1 Statistics,” JPL Fact Sheet, http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/sirc/getting_data/missions_stats.html (accessed 7 December 2005). Also e-mails from Bruce Chapman, JPL, December 

7, 2005.

353 “Space Radar Laboratory-1 Pre Launch Mission Operation Report”, NASA History Division folder 11026, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

354 “Space Radar Laboratory-2 (SRL-2) Pre Launch Mission Operation Report,” p. 12, NASA History Division 

folder 11055, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

181
of tropical cyclone Odille as it formed in the Pacific Ocean. Scientists also acquired a series of 

radar images over Canada documenting the annual spring thaw of snow, ice, and soil.355

Space Radar Laboratory 

SRL-2 flew on Space Shuttle mission STS-68, which launched on September 30, 1994. The 

SRL-2 payload was identical to SRL-1, consisting of the SIR-C/X-SAR and the MAPS 

experiments mounted in Endeavour’s payload bay. Flying the SRL-1 in mid-April and SRL-2 at 

the end of September allowed investigators to compare seasonal observations from the two 

flights. The mission tested the ability of SRL-2’s imaging radar to distinguish between changes 

caused by human-induced phenomena, such as oil spills, and those caused by naturally occurring 

events. Using interferometry, SAR scientists demonstrated their ability to measure the 

topographic surface of Earth and detect changes as small as a few centimeters. 

The SRL-2 mission demonstrated the orbiter’s maneuvering capability as the crew piloted 

Endeavour to within 30 feet (9.1 meters) of where it had flown during the first SRL mission. The 

total area covered on this mission was 32 million square miles (~83 million square 

kilometers).356 Using the SIR-C/X-SAR, the crew imaged an erupting volcano in Russia and the 

islands of Japan after an earthquake. The MAPS experiment revealed high concentrations of CO 

over the tropics and Southern Hemisphere and large sources of air pollution in the lower 

atmosphere (3–10 kilometers/1.9–6.2 miles above Earth’s surface) over southern Africa, the 

Indonesian Islands, and the grasslands and savannas in central South America.357 

355 “Space Radar Laboratory-2 (SRL-2) Pre Launch Mission Operation Report,” p. 7 (NASA History. Office folder 

11055).

356 “SIR-C/X Flight 2 Statistics,” http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/sir-c/getting_data/missions_stats.html (accessed 

December 7, 2005).

357 “Measurement of Air Pollution from Satellites (MAPS)—Understanding the Chemistry of the Atmosphere,” Fact 

Sheet, FS-1996-09-19-LaRC, September 19, 1996, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/MAPS.html

(accessed February 2, 2006).

182
Lidar In-space Technology Experiment (LITE)

LITE was a three-wavelength backscatter lidar developed by NASA’s Langley Research Center 

to fly on the Space Shuttle.358 It flew on Discovery in September 1994 as part of the STS-64 

mission. The goals of the mission were to: 

• Validate key lidar technologies for spaceborne applications 

• Explore the applications of space lidar 

• Gain operational experience to benefit the development of future systems on free-flying 

satellite platforms 

This technology experiment used laser optical radar for the first time to perform atmospheric 

research as part of NASA’s MTPE program. It operated for 53 hours and yielded more than 43 

hours (40 gigabytes) of high-rate data covering 1.4 million kilometers (0.9 million miles) of 

ground track. Sixty-five groups from 20 countries made validation measurements with groundbased and aircraft instruments to verify the LITE data. 

LITE was designed with the capability to measure the vertical profile of certain atmospheric 

parameters, including cloud top height, planetary boundary layer (PBL) height, tropospheric and 

stratospheric aerosols, temperature, and density. To obtain these measurements, LITE emitted 

laser energy into the atmosphere and measured the return signals scattered from the atmospheric 

constituents359. The data provided the first highly detailed global view of the vertical, multilayer 

structure of cloud and aerosol from Earth’s surface through the middle stratosphere; the first 

global observations of PBL height; and sensitive observations of the distribution of desert dust, 

358 LIDAR stands for light detection and ranging.

359 “SAREX Fact Sheet—CTS-64,” http://www.arrl.org/files/sarex/sts-64/sts64fct.txt (accessed September 24, 

2007).

183
smoke, and other aerosols.360 Unprecedented views were obtained of storm systems, dust clouds, 

pollutants, burning forests, and surface reflectance. Sites studied included the atmosphere above 

northern Europe, Indonesia, the South Pacific, Russia, and Africa. 

LITE was initiated in 1985 to demonstrate operation of a lidar in space. It was decided that the 

most convincing demonstration would be within the context of actual atmospheric investigations, 

and a LITE Science Steering Group was formed in 1988 to develop instrument performance 

requirements, guide development of the LITE experiment plan, and use the scientific data 

provided by the instrument. Technology issues included laser design and operation in space, 

thermal management, alignment and control, and autonomous system operation. Part of the 

technology objective was to validate the thermal/mechanical models used for design and 

performance prediction, as well as fabrication and test procedures.

The LITE instrument was designed to take measurements in the stratosphere between 25 

kilometers (15.5 miles) and 40 kilometers (24.9 miles) altitude. Additionally, limited 

measurements of the surface return strength over both land and ocean were collected to explore 

retrievals of surface properties. Most surface return data were collected at near-nadir angles; 

however, several landmark track maneuvers were also performed by Discovery to measure the 

angular dependence of the sea surface return. Table 2-110 lists the primary geophysical 

parameters measured by LITE.

NASA Mission Control in Houston had primary command of LITE. All commands went to the 

instrument controller, which parsed the commands and relayed them to the aft optics or boresight 

360 “LITE—A View from Space,” http://www-lite.larc.nasa.gov/ (accessed January 24, 2007).

184
assembly subsystems if required. Instrument-level commands were executed by the instrument 

controller. The LITE instrument command set was very versatile and included more than 200 

commands to control every facet of instrument operation. There were five predefined operating 

modes: standby, day datatake, night datatake, autonomous, and built-in test system (BITS).361

The LITE instrument was mounted onto a standard Spacelab pallet inside the open payload bay 

of Space Shuttle Discovery, which orbited with the bay pointed toward Earth and at 

approximately 5 degrees off-nadir.362 The instrument was integrated with the pallet avionics and 

a pump package connected to the Shuttle cooling system and mounted on an orthogrid platform 

attached to the pallet by 52 struts. Discovery, orbiting at an inclination of 57 degrees to the 

equator, passed over approximately 25,000 miles (40,234 kilometers) of Earth’s surface with 

each revolution. It flew at a relatively low altitude of about 260 kilometers (160 miles) for orbits 

1–90 so that each downward-pointing lidar pulse would be dispersed as little as possible as it 

passed through the atmosphere and at an altitude of approximately 240 kilometers (149 miles) 

for orbits 90–150 to optimize landing opportunities. The orbital velocity, laser pulse rate, and 

beam divergence produced a series of laser footprints on the ground spaced by 740 meters (2,428 

feet), center to center.363 

Instrument activation began soon after the payload bay doors were opened, about 3 hours after 

launch. The instrument was ready to operate for the first scheduled lidar operations 5.5 hours 

after launch. During the mission, there were 10 datatakes ranging from about 3.5 hours to 5 

361 “LITE Overview,” http://www-lite.larc.nasa.gov/n_overview.html (accessed January 24, 2007).

362 Nadir was defined to be along the geodetic local vertical, which was the line perpendicular to the geoid and 

passing through the orbiter center of gravity.

363 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-64 Press Kit,” September 1994, p. 16, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_064_STS-064_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 6, 2007). 

Also “LITE Instrument,” http://www-lite.larc.nasa.gov/n_instrument.html (accessed January 24, 2007).

185
hours in length and 32 short snapshots of 15–40 minutes each. When it was not lasing, the 

system was put into standby mode. Each datatake covered roughly three orbits and was located 

in the timeline to accommodate a mix of correlative measurement activities and studies of 

regional phenomena. The snapshots were focused on specific regional phenomena or correlative 

sites.

At each lidar pulse, a photon stream traveled from the lidar through the atmosphere to Earth’s 

surface. The path along this photon stream was referred to as the LITE pointing vector. The 

intersection of the LITE pointing vector with the surface of the geoid was used to define the 

geodetic latitude and longitude of the LITE footprint relative to a location on Earth’s surface.364 

During the mission, the instrument was powered continuously for more than 220 hours, with 53 

hours of lasing. In spite of a problem with the High Data Rate Recorder discovered on the first 

day of the mission, the operations team was able to downlink and archive in real time about 80 

percent of the high-rate data that were generated. Because the low-rate data stream was backed 

up on a different Shuttle recorder during the TDRSS loss-of-signal, 100 percent of the instrument 

status data and quick-look science data were obtained. A total of 43.5 hours of high-rate profiles 

and 53 hours of quick-look profiles were acquired. The ground tracks for the low-rate data 

provided good coverage between 57°N and 57°S. There was a gap in the high-rate coverage 

between 60°E and 85°E due to the “zone of exclusion,” where neither TDRSS satellite was in 

view. 

364 “LITE Measurement Geometry,” http://www-lite.larc.nasa.gov/level1doc/the_geometry_tmp.html#orb_char

(accessed January 24, 2007).

186
To verify the accuracy of the measurements made by LITE, a worldwide correlative 

measurements program was organized by the LITE Science Steering Group. This effort used 

airborne sensors and an extensive worldwide network of ground-based lidars. More than 60 

ground-based lidars, located in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, 

participated in the program. Airborne instruments were particularly valuable because of their 

ability to fly directly over the Shuttle ground track and to make observations in remote regions. 

NASA operated aircraft in the Atlantic and eastern Caribbean, extending as far south as Cape 

Town, South Africa. The Canadian Atmospheric Environment Services operated a Convair 580 

aircraft near the coast of California, and two aircraft were operated in northern Europe under the 

aegis of ESA. All aircraft carried at least one lidar, and several carried radiometers and in situ 

sensors.365 

Spacelab-Mir Mission

STS-71, launched from Kennedy Space Center on June 27, 1995, was the first in a series of 

Space Shuttle missions to dock with the Russian space station Mir.

366 The mission included joint 

scientific investigations, called the Shuttle-Mir Science Program, that were carried out inside the 

Spacelab module in Space Shuttle Atlantis’s cargo bay. The science program developed from 

agreements made in 1992 between the U.S. and Russian governments to cooperate in human 

spaceflight. It used the Space Shuttle, Spacelab, and Mir to conduct joint research activities in 

space.367 Spacelab-Mir (SL-M) followed the end of the Mir-18 mission, during which the crew—

an American astronaut and two Russian cosmonauts—had remained on Mir for 90 days, 

365 Source: “LITE Overview,” http://www-lite.larc.nasa.gov/n_overview.html (accessed January 24, 2007).

366 Details of the docking can be found in chapter 3 of volume VII of the NASA Historical Data Book, 1989–1998.

367 “Spacelab-Mir,” brochure, pp. 3–4, NASA History Division folder 008895, Historical Reference Collection, 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

187
participating in long-duration life-sciences experiments as well as other activities planned by 

NASA and the Russian space agency. The joint investigations on Mir and STS-71 provided 

information on how crews react to, benefit from, and operate in the space environment—all 

important to the design and development of space stations. They provided long-duration sciencegathering opportunities, as well as the perspectives and expertise of scientists from different 

countries and cultures, continued research, increased the number of subjects, and expanded the 

database on space-related science disciplines. The experiments advanced our understanding of 

factors involved in Earth-based conditions, such as anemia, hypertension, osteoporosis, kidney 

stones, and immune-system deficiencies. The program also provided researchers an early 

opportunity to learn how to increase productivity on the future International Space Station.368

Specifically, SL-M included investigations in seven medical and scientific disciplines: human 

metabolism; the cardiovascular and pulmonary system; the neurosensory system; hygiene, 

sanitation, and radiation; microgravity; behavior and performance; and fundamental biology. The 

science payload consisted of 28 experiments that took advantage of the cargo bay’s microgravity 

environment. The United States and Russia each supplied lead scientists and investigators for 

every experiment. In addition, many experiments that had begun during the Mir-18 mission 

continued on SL-M. Researchers increased their knowledge of the effects of spaceflight, 

especially the physiological changes the human body experiences in weightlessness.369 STS-71 

also carried several hundred protein samples frozen in a thermos bottle-like vacuum jacket, or 

dewar, to the Mir. After the samples were thawed, the proteins crystallized until the dewar was 

368 “Spacelab-Mir,” brochure., p. 6, (NASA History. Office folder 008895).

369 Roger D. Launius, Space Station: Base Camps to the Stars (Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution, 

2003), p. 163.

188
retrieved by the STS-74 crew.370 Data and samples collected during Mir-18 were also transferred 

from Mir to Atlantis for return to Earth. Additionally, 11 experiments remained on Mir to be 

carried out by the Mir-19 crew.371 Table 2-111 lists investigations performed on this mission. 

Life and Microgravity Spacelab (LMS) 

LMS was an ambitious scientific mission that planned, integrated, and performed a number of 

spaceflight experiments in half the time normally required for similar missions. The diversity of 

the experiments, the international participation, and the shortened time for performing the 

mission provided lessons applicable to scientific operations for the upcoming International Space 

Station. The mission objective was to conduct life and materials scienceS investigations that 

required the unique low-gravity environment created inside an orbiting space laboratory freefalling around Earth.372

LMS was manifested for STS-78 in September 1994 and flew aboard the Space Shuttle 

Columbia from June 20 through July 7, 1996. The planning and integration of the mission were 

performed in 21 months. This was the shortest planning period for any such Spacelab mission, 

which typically took three to four years. As a result, the payload costs were approximately half 

those of other Spacelab missions. At the time, the flight was the longest-duration Space Shuttle 

flight in the program’s history. The mission was planned for 16 days on orbit but was extended 

to 17 days to increase its scientific return.

370 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-71 Press Kit,” June 1995, pp. 26–28, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_069_STS-071_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 2, 2006).

371 “STS-71: First Docking, June 27–July 7, 1995,” in Clay Morgan, Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia 

Share History's Highest Stage (Washington, DC: NASA Special Publication-4225, 2001), 

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/sts71/sts-71.htm (accessed February 8, 2006).

372 “The Life and Microgravity Spacelab Mission,” foldout.

189
The mission was international in scope, and five space agencies took part. In addition to NASA, 

investigators from the European, French, Italian, and Canadian space agencies were involved. 

Research scientists from 10 countries worked together on the payload, which made use of the 

Spacelab long module. NASA astronauts were joined by crew members from Canada and 

France, and their alternates added Italy and Spain to the mix. The LMS payload experiments 

were monitored and commanded by investigator teams from sites around the world. The NASA 

sites included MSFC, Lewis Research Center, JSC, and KSC. The European sites involved were 

in Toulouse, France; Milan and Naples, Italy; and Brussels, Belgium. 

The international team developed 41 experiments to study the effects of gravity on the human 

body, the development of plants and animals, the processing of protein crystals and metallic 

alloys, and fluid behavior. Data from three accelerometers supported these investigations. 

The microgravity science experiments included interfacial fluid physics studies of 

thermocapillary flow and electrohydrodynamics performed in the Bubble, Drop, and Particle 

Unit (BDPU). Also the most extensive set of microgravity experiments to date regarding the 

morphology of semiconductors and metal alloys was performed in the Advanced Gradient 

Heating Facility. These materials were formed under different processing conditions to achieve a 

spectrum of morphologies, including single crystals, equiaxed dendrites, and columnar dendrites. 

The final microgravity experiments were performed in the Advanced Protein Crystallization 

Facility and consisted of protein crystal growth investigations that included inflight, in situ 

observations of growth, as well as postflight crystallography studies. The various life-scienceS 

investigations included studies on lignin formation in the Plant Growth Facility, the role of 

190
corticosteroids in bone loss (performed on rats in the Animal Enclosure Module), and the 

development of medaka fish eggs (performed in the Space Tissue Loss Module). In addition, a 

number of human physiology experiments involving musculoskeletal studies were performed on 

the Torque Velocity Dynamometer (TVD). Other human physiology investigations included 

neuroscience studies of torso rotation and canal and otolith function, metabolic experiments on 

calcium and caloric balance, behavior and performance studies of circadian rhythms and 

cognitive performance, and a study on pulmonary function. Taken together, these investigations 

gave the most complete characterization and understanding of human response and adaptation to 

spaceflight performed to date.373 A list of investigations is given in table 2-112. 

MSFC was the lead center responsible for the LMS science payload. It provided the mission 

manager, mission scientist, Spacelab Mission Operations Control Center, and Payload 

Operations Control Center.374

Microgravity Science Laboratory (MSL)

The MSL mission was designed to bridge the gap between the Shuttle-based approach to 

integrating experiments on Spacelab missions and space station processes. The space station 

would use new types of racks and install and connect them to the various power, data, and supply 

systems from the front rather than from the rear as in Spacelab missions. This new process would 

make it easier and more cost-effective to upgrade and replace equipment. The MSL provided 

researchers an opportunity to test the new racks, experiment hardware, and procedures before 

373 The information in the preceding paragraphs was taken largely from J. P. Downey, compiler, Life and

Microgravity Spacelab (LMS) Final Report, February 1998, NASA/Contractor Publication CP-1998-206960, pp. iii–

iv.

374 “The Life and Microgravity Spacelab Mission,” p. 2.

191
building the space station. MSL also brought together international academic, industrial, and 

governmental partners. The laboratory used new and existing facilities to expand previous 

research and serve as a testbed for new procedures designed to place scientific payloads into 

orbit in a shorter amount of time than was previously possible.375

Microgravity Science Laboratory

MSL-1 was launched on April 4, 1997, on STS-83. Mission managers cut the flight short after 

four days because of concerns about one of the three fuel cells that provided electricity and water 

to the orbiter. A decision was made after it landed to refly the mission in its entirety on STS-94. 

STS-83 was the first mission to end early since STS-44 in 1991. Only the Thermophysical 

Properties of Undercooled Metallic Melts, Liquid-Phase Sintering II, Laminar Soot Processes, 

and Structure of Flame Balls at Low Lewis-number (SOFBALL) experiments were carried out 

before the mission ended. 

Microgravity Science Laboratory-1 Reflight: STS-94 

Following a modified processing session at Kennedy Space Center, Space Shuttle Columbia flew 

again on July 1, 1997, completing the STS-83 MSL flight shortened by mission managers 

because of a fuel cell problem. The reflight of the MSL payload was designated STS-94 and 

involved the same vehicle, crew, and experiments as originally planned earlier in the year. It was 

the first time a payload remained in the orbiter between flights.376 

375 “NASA’s Microgravity Science Laboratory: Illuminating the Future,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 

Payload Projects Office, NASA History Division folder 17676, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also at http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/msl/brochure.pdf (accessed February 7, 

2006).

376 “Columbia Passes Milestone Toward Quick Reflight, NASA News Release 97-122, June 4, 1997, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-122.txt (accessed February 7, 2006).

192
The STS-94 MSL-1 crew remained in orbit more than two weeks conducting a variety of 

experiments in the fields of combustion, biotechnology, and materials processing to examine 

how various materials and liquids change and behave in the weightless environment of space.377

The crew maintained 24-hour/two-shift operations. Using the Spacelab module as a testbed, crew 

members tested some of the hardware, facilities, and procedures that would be used on the 

International Space Station. Scientists from NASA, ESA, the German space agency, and 

NASDA contributed the 25 primary experiments, 4 glovebox investigations, and 4 accelerometer 

studies. A record number of commands—more than 35,000—were sent from the Spacelab 

Mission Operations Control Center at Marshall Space Flight Center to the orbiting laboratory. 

The STS-94 mission flew some new experiment facilities. One new component was the 

“EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments to the Space Station” (EXPRESS) rack. The 

EXPRESS rack was designed for quick and easy installation of experiment and facility hardware 

on orbit. EXPRESS was a Space Station International Standard Payload Rack being flown as a 

precursor payload. It provided standard and simple interfaces to payloads, thereby simplifying 

the integration process of payloads into the rack. The rack accommodated payloads compatible 

with the Space Shuttle middeck, SPACEHAB, and Standard Interface Rack drawers.378 The rack 

replaced a Spacelab double rack, and special hardware provided the same structural and resource 

connections the rack would have on the space station. Two payloads—the Physics of Hard 

377 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-94 Press Kit,” p. 6, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_085_STS094_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 5, 2006).

378 “NASA’s Microgravity Science Laboratory: Illuminating the Future,” Experiment Fact Sheet D, “EXPRESS 

Rack,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Payload Projects Office, NASA History Division folder 17676, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also at 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/msl/brochure.pdf (accessed February 7, 2006).

193
Spheres experiment and the Astro/Plant Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus experiment—were 

flown to check the design, development, and adaptation of the EXPRESS rack hardware.379

Another advanced operational concept again being tested on STS-94 was the use of “expert” 

software systems. Designed to reduce the number of people required to support International 

Space Station operations, the software packages would help human controllers provide rapid 

response to changes in mission operations.380 

The Middeck Glovebox (MGBX), developed by Marshall, enabled crew members to handle, 

transfer, and manipulate experiment hardware and materials that were not approved for use in the 

open Spacelab. The original Spacelab Glovebox, provided by ESA, was part of the payload on 

USML-1 and -2 missions. The new facility, developed in 1995, was equipped with a video 

recording system that provided three simultaneous views of MGBX investigations and recorded 

five channels of digital and analog data. The new facility had a larger working area and 

improved lighting. It also supplied more status information on environmental factors, such as 

humidity.381 

The Large Isothermal Furnace (LIF) was a vacuum-heating furnace designed to heat large 

samples uniformly. First used by three investigations on the Spacelab J mission, the LIF had a 

maximum temperature of 1,600°C (2,912°F) and could cool a sample rapidly through the use of 

379 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-94 Press Kit,” p. 16, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_085_STS094_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 5, 2006).

380 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-94 Press Kit,” p. 6.

381 “NASA’s Microgravity Science Laboratory: Illuminating the Future,” Fact Sheet G, “Middeck Glovebox,” 

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Payload Projects Office, NASA History Division folder 17676, Historical 

Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also at 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/msl/brochure.pdf (accessed February 7, 2006).

194
a helium purge. For MSL-1, the furnace was modified to allow ground commanding of the 

heating and cooling processes so that investigators could make real-time changes to enhance 

science operations.

The Combustion Module-1 (CM-1) was developed by NASA as a way to test hardware and 

experiment approaches on Spacelab in preparation for research on the International Space 

Station. The key concept CM-1 demonstrated was the ability to accommodate a variety of 

combustion experiments by using experiment-unique chamber inserts called Experiment 

Mounting Structures (EMSs). Each investigator’s EMS was installed in the combustion chamber 

on orbit. CM-1 required two Spacelab racks (one double and one single rack) with a combined 

weight of more than 1,600 pounds (730 kilograms). At the heart of CM-1, the double rack 

housed the Experiment Package (EP), which contained the 90-liter combustion chamber, the gas 

chromatograph, and seven cameras. The EP chamber slide rails and quick disconnects enabled 

the crew to insert and connect the EMS for each investigation. Also housed in the double rack 

were a variety of experiment computers and support equipment. 

TEMPUS, an electromagnetic levitation facility allowing containerless processing of metallic 

samples in microgravity, first flew on the IML-2 Spacelab mission. During the MSL-1 mission, 

scientists performed refined IML-2 experiments, studying various thermodynamic and kinetic 

properties of up to 22 samples. An electromagnetic levitation facility was planned for the space 

station, and the knowledge provided by these Spacelab operations would allow scientists to 

improve facility design, refine experiment techniques, and verify initial results. Table 2-113 lists 

MSL-1 investigations. 

195
Neurolab 

The idea for Neurolab began on July 17, 1990, when President George Bush signed a 

proclamation declaring the 1990s the “Decade of the Brain” to recognize advances in our 

understanding of the basic structure and function of the brain.382 NASA proposed the Neurolab 

mission as its contribution to this mandate. In 1991, meetings began with the National Institutes 

of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation, and DOD, as well as several international 

space agencies. NASA also held a series of meetings with the neuroscience community to 

identify critical issues relating to gravity’s effect on the nervous system. The resulting 

announcement of opportunity for Neurolab in 1993 drew 172 proposals from scientists 

worldwide. International agencies, including CSA, CNES, DLR, ESA, and NASDA, partnered 

with NASA from the beginning in planning a space mission dedicated to neuroscience and 

establishing criteria for selecting proposals. After a peer review (managed by NIH), NASA 

selected 32 proposals, 26 of which flew on STS-90.383

The mission was a joint venture of six space agencies and seven U.S. research agencies. The 

agencies participating in this mission included the National Science Foundation, the Office of 

Naval Research, six institutes of the NIH, the ESA, and the space agencies of Canada, France, 

Germany, and Japan. The international agencies provided flight and ground hardware for 

Neurolab experiments and supported investigations from their respective countries. 

382 “Project on the Decade of the Brain,” Presidential Proclamation 6158,

http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/proclaim.html (accessed February 7, 2006).

383 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-90 Press Kit,” April 1998, p.5, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_090_STS-090_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 7, 2006).

196
The Neurolab mission launched on STS-90 on April 17, 1998, and spent almost 16 days in space. 

The prime mission objective was to conduct research that would contribute to a better 

understanding of the human nervous system, which faces major challenges in microgravity. 

Neurolab investigations studied the adaptation of the vestibular system and space adaptation 

syndrome, the adaptation of the central nervous system and the pathways that control the ability 

to sense location in the absence of gravity, and the effect of microgravity on the developing 

nervous system.384

Neurolab investigated five major research areas: the balance system; sensory integration and 

navigation; nervous system development in weightlessness; blood pressure control; and circadian 

rhythms, sleep, and respiration. Crew members served as both experiment subjects and operators 

and worked with a wide array of biomedical instrumentation, including some instruments and 

devices developed especially for the mission. Investigations were also carried out on animals—

rats, mice, crickets, snails, and two kinds of fish.385 Figure 2-38 shows an oyster toadfish like 

those used on the mission. Table 2-114 lists Neurolab investigations. 

384 “STS-90 Shuttle Mission Archive,” http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts90.html (accessed May 23, 2007).

385 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-90 Press Kit,” April 1998, p. 15.

197
Figure 2-38. An oyster toadfish like those that are part of the Neurolab payload on Space Shuttle 

mission STS-90 is shown in its holding tank in the Space Station Processing Facility. 

This fish is an excellent model for looking at vestibular function because the architecture 

of its inner and middle ear is similar to those of mammals with respect to the vestibular 

apparatus (NASA photo KSC-98PC-0415). 

Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SSBUV) Experiment 

The Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SSBUV) experiment, an element of the MTPE 

program, measured ozone concentrations and provided calibrations from the Space Shuttle to 

check data from NASA and NOAA free-flying satellite ozone instruments. This was done to 

ensure the most accurate readings possible when detecting atmospheric ozone. Space Shuttle 

Atlantis carried the first SSBUV on STS-34 in 1989. It subsequently flew on STS-41, STS-43, 

STS-45, STS-62, STS-66, and STS-72. The instrument was developed at Goddard. 

198
The SSBUV measured ozone concentrations by comparing solar ultraviolet radiation with 

radiation scattered back from Earth’s atmosphere. It used the Space Shuttle’s orbital flight path 

to assess performance on several other ozone-measuring SBUV instruments aboard NOAA 

polar-orbiting satellites, Nimbus-7, the Russian Meteor-3/TOMS satellite, and UARS by directly 

comparing the observations as the Shuttle and satellites passed over the same Earth location 

within an hour.386 These orbital coincidences could occur 17 times a day. 

The instrument’s value lay in its ability to provide highly accurate ozone measurements. The 

SSBUV underwent rigorous calibration to laboratory standards before, during, and after flight to 

ensure its accuracy. This rigorous calibration had been maintained since the beginning of the 

SSBUV flight series. Consequently, scientists could determine the reliability of ozone data 

gathered by other satellite instruments. 

Its impact on NASA’s ability to detect ozone trends accurately was realized after approximately 

four flights. Data from the first flight with an earlier satellite already had been used to estimate 

ozone trends in the upper stratosphere beginning in 1980. These results showed a depletion of 

about 8 percent over 10 years, which was consistent with predictions of ozone depletion. 

Data from the SSBUV’s first three Shuttle flights in 1989, 1990, and 1991 were used to update 

the calibration of the NOAA-11 SBUV/2 ozone instrument, which had been orbiting since late 

1988. The NOAA ozone data were reprocessed with a refined algorithm and new calibration 

factors based on SSBUV and SBUV/2 inflight calibration data. The reprocessing covered the 

386 SBUV instruments on board NOAA satellites estimated the amount and height distribution of ozone in the upper 

atmosphere by measuring the incident solar ultraviolet radiation and ultraviolet radiation backscattered from Earth’s 

atmosphere.

199
years of 1989–1993. The reprocessed data were checked against ground-based ozone 

observations, and the comparisons showed very good agreement. There was also excellent 

consistency between the refined NOAA-11 SBUV/2 data and the Nimbus-7 SBUV/TOMS 

dataset, which went back to 1978. The combined 15-year dataset represented an excellent 

resource for ozone climate and trend studies. The SSBUV detected and verified a significant 

decrease in the amounts of total Northern Hemisphere ozone between the STS-45/ATLAS-1 

(March 1992) and STS-56/ATLAS-2 (March 1993) missions. The depletion was also detected 

simultaneously by satellites and ground-based observations. Indications were that total ozone 

decreased during the same period on the order of 10–15 percent at mid-latitudes in the Northern 

Hemisphere. Scientists believed that this significant depletion resulted from the combined 

residual effects of Mt. Pinatubo aerosols in the stratosphere and cold stratosphere temperatures 

during the winter of 1992–1993. 

On STS-66, the SSBUV was comanifested with the ATLAS-3 payload, which carried a 

complement of atmospheric science experiments. UARS instruments also measured ozone. 

Simultaneous measurements by the SSBUV, ATLAS, and UARS instruments provided 

researchers a unique opportunity to connect the detailed observations of the physics and 

chemistry of the stratosphere made by UARS with the ongoing NOAA SBUV ozone 

observations. These datasets could be used as a baseline for detecting long-term changes in the 

stratosphere. 

The SSBUV instrument and its flight-support electronics, power, data, and command systems 

were mounted in the Space Shuttle’s payload bay in two flight canisters that together weighed 

200
900 pounds (410 kilograms). The Instrument Canister held the SSBUV instrument, its aspect 

sensors, and an inflight calibration system. Once in orbit, a motorized door assembly opened the 

canister, allowing the SSBUV to view the Sun and Earth. The canister closed, providing 

contamination protection while the SSBUV performed inflight calibrations. The Support 

Canister contained the avionics, including the power, data, and command systems. SSBUV 

obtained power from the Space Shuttle and received real-time ground commands and data 

acquisition. This assured enhanced SSBUV data-gathering capabilities and its ability to coordinate 

measurements with the ATLAS and UARS instruments. The SSBUV commands were sent from 

a Payload Operations Control Center at GSFC, and its data was received at GSFC and MSFC.387

Wake Shield Facility (WSF)

The WSF was a 12-foot (3.7-meter)-diameter stainless-steel, parabolic-shaped platform that 

included a communications and avionics system, solar cells and batteries, and a propulsion 

thruster. Launched from the Space Shuttle, it created a unique “ultravacuum” environment in its 

wake by a combination of pumping speeds and vacuum levels thousands of times greater than 

the best vacuum chambers on Earth. Built for eventual long-term autonomous operation, the 

WSF supported all of the processing and characterization instrumentation required for advanced 

molecular and chemical beam epitaxy materials processing. It was designed, built, and managed 

by the Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center (SVEC), a NASA Center for the Commercial 

Development of Space (CCDS) based at the University of Houston in Texas for the development 

of space-based manufacturing of thin-film materials.388

387 “Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SSBUV) Instrument,” NASA Facts Online, NASA Goddard Space Flight 

Center, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/ssbuv.htm (accessed January 23, 2006).

388 “Wake Shield Facility Program,” http://www.svec.uh.edu/wsfp.html (accessed February 7, 2007).

201
Program Overview

The space ultravacuum concept was first described at NASA in the 1970s, but no need was 

identified at the time for its use. Later interest by scientists and corporate researchers in epitaxial 

thin-film growth encouraged the use of space to create the ultravacuum as an environment in 

which to grow better thin films.

Recognizing this scientific opportunity as a new economic opportunity, SVEC formed a 

consortium of interested industries, academic institutions, and government laboratories in 1987 

to use the LEO vacuum environment for thin-film growth. In 1989, SVEC partnered with its 

industry members (led by Space Industries, Inc.) and JSC to build the WSF.389

Before 1989, preliminary studies indicated that the WSF should be a disk or shield about 12–14 

feet (3.7–4.3 meters) in diameter that would be deployed from the Shuttle payload bay on the 

Shuttle robot arm. The WSF hardware development program was soon projected to be complex, 

time-intensive, and quite costly, and NASA and SVEC mutually decided that a less expensive 

and time-consuming approach was needed. Consequently, using a fast-track, low-cost approach, 

commercial off-the-shelf components, and protoflight hardware, the developers moved the first 

WSF from the drawing board to orbit in less than 60 months for less than $15 million. This was 

approximately half the time and less than one-sixth the cost required under a traditional approach 

to an aerospace hardware development program.390 

389 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-60 Press Kit,” February 1994, pp. 16–17, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_060_STS-060_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 9, 2006).

390 “Wake Shield Facility Program,” Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center, University of Houston,

http://www.svec.uh.edu/wsfp.html (accessed February 9, 2006).

202
The primary objectives of the first WSF mission were outlined by SVEC in March 1989. They 

included characterization of 1) the ultravacuum environment generated by the WSF in lowEarth-orbit space and the flow field around the WSF, and 2) molecular beam epitaxy (the growth 

of a thin film of the compound gallium arsenide [GaAs]). Both of these primary objectives would 

be major firsts in space science and technology.391 

The first two flights of the WSF, in February 1994 and September 1995, produced the first 

characterizations of vacuum wake formation and epitaxial growth in that wake vacuum of 

record-purity GaAs and aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) thin films. In November 1996, 

WSF-3 continued experiments in advanced thin films for various applications, including highspeed transistors, lasers, and solar cells, by growing material for device fabrication.

The WSF also served as a spaceborne laboratory for exposure and microgravity experiments and 

as a test bed for instrument development. The three WSF flights carried 25 cooperative payloads 

to orbit, taking advantage of the WSF’s Free Flyer enhanced atomic oxygen flux, a true 

microgravity environment resulting from momentum bias attitude control, and interactive “Smart 

Cans” based on NASA’s GAS canisters.

Subsequently, the WSF program focused on demonstrating commercial viability and looked to 

significant commercial investment for future flights. WSF system enhancements were under way 

and an integration and test schedule was approved for WSF-4 when NASA’s funding ran out at 

the end of 1997. In May 1998, however, SVEC granted an exclusive license to SPACEHAB, 

Inc., to market, manage, and operate the WSF. This preserved the WSF program and created a 

391 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-60 Press Kit,” February 1994, p. 16.

203
partnership that combined commercial aerospace marketing knowledge and internationally 

recognized scientific research.392

Hardware Description

The WSF consisted of a Shuttle Cross Bay Carrier (SCBC) and a Free Flyer. The SCBC 

remained in the Shuttle and had a latch system holdig the the Free Flyer to the Carrier. The 

Shuttle Remote Manipulator System was attached to the Free Flyer for deployment and free 

flight in space. The SCBC had an extended-range, stand-alone radio-frequency communications 

system that let the WSF seem like a payload attached to the Shuttle’s systems, even when the 

Free Flyer was at its stationkeeping distance of 40 nautical miles (74 kilometers) from the 

Shuttle.

The Free Flyer was a fully equipped spacecraft with cold gas propulsion for separation from the 

Shuttle and a momentum bias attitude control system. Forty-five kilowatt-hours of energy, stored 

in silver-zinc batteries, were available to power the thin-film growth cells, substrate heaters, 

process controllers, and an array of characterization devices. Weighing approximately 9,000 

pounds (4,082 kilograms; the Free Flyer alone was 4,000 pounds/1,814 kilograms), the WSF 

occupied one-fourth of the Shuttle payload bay. The controlling electronics, attitude control 

system, batteries and solar panels, and Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) process control 

equipment were on the back of the WSF, while the avionics and support equipment were on the 

front. The commercial approach used to create the WSF facilitated the development of several 

critical pieces of supporting hardware that proved to be extremely useful on their own. The 

392 “Wake Shield Facility Program,” Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center, University of Houston,

http://www.svec.uh.edu/wsfp.html (accessed February 9, 2006).

204
development of an inexpensive carrier (the SCBC), a versatile ground link, and an innovative 

communications link between the Shuttle and the WSF were valuable spinoffs from the WSF 

program.393 Figure 2-39 shows the WSF at the end of the Shuttle’s robot arm. 

Figure 2-39. The Wake Shield Facility (WSF), pictured at the end of the Shuttle’s robot arm, is a 

free-flying research and development facility that uses the pure vacuum of space to conduct 

scientific research on the development of new materials. The thin-film materials technology 

developed by the WSF could some day lead to applications such as faster electronics components 

for computers (NASA photo MSFC-9901881). 

Wake Shield Facility

WSF-1 was carried on the STS-60 Space Shuttle mission. It was to be deployed by the remote 

manipulator system (RMS) arm and fly freely in formation with Discovery at a distance of up to 

46 miles (74 kilometers) from the orbiter for 56 hours. It was then to be retrieved from space, 

again using the RMS arm. However, after two unsuccessful attempts to deploy the facility 

393 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-60 Press Kit,” February 1994, p. 16.

205
because of difficulties in attitude control, it was decided that for the remainder of the mission, all 

WSF operations would take place at the end of the RMS arm and there would be no WSF freeflying operations. During the mission, five GaAs thin films were grown before the facility was 

berthed.394 Although the results of WSF-1 demonstrated wake formation and thin-film growth, 

water-vapor contamination from the Shuttle prevented researchers from achieving the 

ultravacuum necessary to grow semiconductor materials superior to those that could be grown on 

Earth.395 This was the first time internationally that the vacuum of space was used to process 

thin-film materials.396 

SVEC at the University of Houston, with its principal industry partner, Space Industries, Inc. 

(SII), designed and built the WSF. The WSF program was supported by six additional corporate 

partners: American X-tal Technology; AT&T Bell Labs; Instruments, S.A., Inc.; Ionwerks; 

Quantum Controls; and Schmidt Instruments, Inc. In addition, the University of Toronto, 

Johnson Space Center, USAF Phillips Laboratories (located at Hanscom Air Force Base), and 

the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory were members of the SVEC 

consortium. NASA’s Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology (OACT) sponsored the 

WSF-1 flight.397

Cooperative Experiments

A number of cooperative experiments had been planned for WSF-1. The University of Toronto 

Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS) was to perform exposure experiments aboard WSF-1 as 

394 “STS-60 Shuttle Mission Archive,” http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/shuttle/missions/sts-60/mission-sts60.html (accessed February 9, 2006).

395 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-69 Press Kit,” p. 15, http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-69/sts-69-presskit.txt (accessed February 9, 2006).

396 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-60 Press Kit,” February 1994, p. 14.

397 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-60 Press Kit,” February 1994, p. 14.

206
a follow-up to its Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) studies. A NASA CCDS, the Center 

for Materials for Space Structure (CMSS), based at Case Western Reserve University, 

Cleveland, Ohio, was to conduct an experiment to test different materials and coatings in space 

to determine how they degraded in the space environment. The experiment was known as 

MatLab-1 (for Materials Laboratory-1). Industrial contributors to the MatLab-1 experiment 

included Westinghouse-Hanford, Martin Marietta, TRW, Rosemount, 3M, Dow Corning, and 

McDonnell Douglas. Supporting government organizations included NASA’s Lewis Research 

Center and JPL. The MatLab-1 was mounted on the Materials Flight Experiment carrier on the 

front of the WSF. Materials scientists on Earth were to monitor the experiments in real time.

The Geophysics Directorate at the USAF Phillips Laboratory working with SVEC was to fly the 

Charging Hazards and Wake Studies (CHAWS) experiment on the WSF Free Flyer. The general 

purpose of the experiment was to learn about interactions between the space environment and 

space systems and the hazards such interactions posed, in order to enhance both the commercial 

and military utilization of space. 

Working with Johnson Space Center engineers, SVEC offered the WSF as a testbed for the 

development of highly sensitive accelerometers, called Microgravity Measurement Devices. 

Specifically, on WSF-1, the accelerometers were to characterize the microgravity environment of 

the WSF Free Flyer. 

Two Smart Cans attached to the WSF’s SCBC on WSF-1 were to conduct a Containerless 

Coating Process experiment. The U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory was 

207
to use the Smart Cans to investigate the deposition of hot-filament, thin-film metals on a variety 

of materials to give researchers information about applying reflective coatings to space structures 

while in space. 

In addition, two student experiments were to be a part of WSF-1. The Fast Plants experiment was 

coordinated by Hartman Middle School, Houston, Texas, to study the effects of space radiation 

on the generation of plants. Ninth-grade students at Gregory Jarvis Junior High School, Mohawk, 

New York, were to determine the orbital variation of Earth’s magnetic field from electron 

diffraction data obtained in the WSF thin-film growth experiments. 

WSF-2 

WSF-2, the second in a planned series of four missions, launched on Space Shuttle mission STS69 on 7 September 1995. Following the failure to deploy WSF-1, a WSF advisory committee had 

reviewed flight anomalies and approved corrective actions. Subsequently, a NASA independent 

review board evaluated all systems and unanimously agreed that WSF-2 was ready for flight.

The STS-69 crew successfully deployed WSF-2 on flight day 5. It flew separately from the 

Shuttle for three days and produced an ultravacuum in its wake, allowing experimentation in the 

production of advanced thin-film semiconductor materials.398 WSF-2 became the first spacecraft 

to maneuver itself away from the orbiter rather than the other way around by firing a small coldgas nitrogen thruster to move away from Endeavour. 

398 “STS-69 Mission Archives, Day 8 Highlights,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-69/sts-69-day-08-

highlights.html (accessed February 9, 2006).

208
The principal objectives of the WSF-2 mission were to 1) fly the WSF freely and far enough 

away from the orbiter to achieve and characterize for the first time an uncontaminated 

ultravacuum in low-Earth orbit, and 2) demonstrate the feasibility of epitaxial growth of highquality compound semiconductor thin films and heterostructures required for future advanced 

electronic and optoelectronic devices as part of the WSF proof-of-concept program. 

Unfortunately, the experiment had to be terminated and the spacecraft retrieved sooner than 

planned because of overheating problems.399

During the mission, four successful thin-film growth runs were completed.

400 The WSF flew 30 

nautical miles (55.6 kilometers) behind the Shuttle while the thin films were grown. During this 

time, it was operated from the POCC at Johnson Space Center. The SVEC team monitored and 

controlled all aspects of WSF operations along with the astronaut crew. Cooperative payloads 

were operated from the Commercial Payload Command Center at Space Industries a few miles 

from Johnson.401

In addition to SVEC and SII (the designers and builders of the WSF), ten corporate sponsors 

supported the WSF-2 mission: Advanced Modular Power Systems; American Xtal Technology; 

AKZO Chemicals, Inc.; Honeywell Satellite Systems; Ionwerks; International Stellar 

Technology, Inc.; Instruments, S. A., Inc.; Lockheed Martin; MKS Instruments; and S.I. 

Diamond, Inc. Other members of the SVEC consortium included Baylor University, Case 

Western Reserve University, Lamar University, the University of Texas at Dallas, the University 

399 “Wake Shield Facility 2,” NSSDC Master Catalog, 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1995-048C (accessed February 9, 2006).

400 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-69 Mission Archives,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-69.html (accessed May 23, 2007).

401 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-69 Press Kit.” 

209
of Texas at Austin, the University of Toronto, Johnson Space Center, Marshall Space Flight 

Center, Lewis Research Center, and the USAF Phillips Laboratories. NASA’s Office of Space 

Access and Technology sponsored the mission. 

The WSF Platform 

As a free-flying platform, the WSF’s wake side—the “ultraclean side”—was used on this 

mission primarily for ultrapure thin-film growth. The ram side—the “dirty side”—housed the 

avionics platform and also accommodated other experiments and space-technology applications. 

The ram side had more than 65 square feet (6 square meters) of usable surface in the form of an 

outer shield that could support other space payloads. 

Since the WSF was mounted horizontally in the Shuttle payload bay, the open volume below the 

WSF was effectively used by mounting Smart Cans on the Cross Bay Carrier. WSF power and 

data capabilities were extended to these canisters. The carriers enabled other payloads to fly with 

the WSF, and several additional experiments were undertaken on WSF-2.402

Cooperative WSF-2 Payloads: Free-Flyer Experiments

The GPS experiment dual-mode experiment from the University of Texas at Austin used a GPS 

receiver to determine the precise position and velocity of the WSF, while GPS signal-strength 

attenuation was used to determine atmospheric temperature profiles. Partially funded by a JSC 

regional university grant, the GPS experiment operated during the free-flight portion of the 

WSF-2 mission to record position, velocity, signal strength, and diagnostic information. The 

system was activated by ground command from the JSC POCC. Data were collected on board, 

402 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-69 Press Kit.”

210
stored in a unique solid-state recording device developed for this mission by JSC, and analyzed 

after the flight.

The Shuttle Plume Impingement Experiment supported space station development. A series of 

Shuttle thruster firings at a variety of distances from the WSF used the WSF’s response as a 

measure of the characteristics of the Shuttle’s thruster plumes.

The Neutral Mass Spectrometer (NMS), developed by Lamar University and the University of 

Texas at Dallas, tested a magnetic-sector field mass spectrometer designed to measure the 

ultravacuum created in the wake of the WSF. Located on the WSF’s outer shield, the NMS was 

ground-commanded for operations during the free-flight portion of the mission. 

The Cosmic Dust and Orbital Debris Experiment Monitor (CoDEM), from the Baylor University 

Space Science Laboratory, collected and characterized the near WSF environment with in situ 

measurements of dynamic and physical characteristics of particulate matter. It was a selfcontained experiment that required no interaction from the ground during on-orbit operations. 

The Earth Reference Attitude Determination System (ERADS), from Honeywell Satellite 

Systems, used Earth and Sun sensors in combination on the rim of the WSF. The sensor had an 

annular FOV that permitted Earth limb and star field viewing. ERADS was activated and 

controlled from the ground, and collected data in an on-board data recorder. The data were 

processed after landing. Real-time interaction was limited to state of health and system 

activation/deactivation. 

211
The Materials Exposure Experiment, developed by the University of Toronto Institute for 

Aerospace Studies, collected data on atomic oxygen interaction with various materials. This 

passive exposure experiment was mounted on top of the WSF batteries facing into the velocity 

vector (ram direction). The experiment exposed more than 150 samples of 26 different materials 

to the space environment and gathered data on how the materials were affected.

The Hyper Velocity Impact Capture Experiment, developed by JPL, was a passive debris 

collection/exposure experiment that had flown on previous Shuttle missions. The experiment had 

three collectors—two on the WSF free flyer, and one remaining on the SCBC in the Shuttle 

payload bay. The experiment measured space debris around the WSF and compared it with data 

collected on previous spaceflights. 

Charging Hazards and Wake Studies (CHAWS), an experiment from the Air Force’s Phillips 

Laboratory that had flown on WSF-1, measured ambient low-energy, positively charged 

particles, and studied the magnitude and directionality of the current collected by a negatively 

charged object in the plasma wake. Its goal was to increase understanding of the interactions 

between the space environment and space systems, and the hazards these interactions created for 

satellite systems. The CHAWS experiment collected its primary data while the WSF was 

attached to the Shuttle robot arm. 

Cooperative WSF-2 Payloads: SCBC Experiments 

The Iowa Joint Experiment on Microgravity Solidification, constructed by the Iowa Space Grant 

Consortium, was carried in a WSF Smart Can located on the SCBC. The overall objective of the 

212
experiment was to examine the effects of a microgravity environment on the solidification 

process of a tin-cadmium alloy imbedded with particulate matter. During the WSF-2 mission, the 

crew activated the experiment by using the Shuttle standard switch panel. All experiment events 

were pre-programmed and the experiment was autonomous. 

The Advanced Process Controller (APC) was a joint Space Industries and SVEC venture for 

development and space qualification of a PC-type process controller. The process controller was 

located in a Smart Can and was used to monitor temperature, current, and voltage, as well as to 

provide relay control functions. The APC was activated by the flight crew using the standard 

switch panel. Ground commands originated from the POCC at JSC. 

The Long Range AutoTRAC, developed by an engineering team at JSC, was a video system for 

testing light-enhanced photogrammetric ranging techniques on orbit. 

Other Experiments Supported by the WSF

The MagField Experiment, undertaken by tenth-grade students at Gregory Jarvis High School in 

Mohawk, New York, determined the variation of Earth’s magnetic field from magnetometer and 

electron diffraction data obtained during the WSF-2 mission. Data collected during the mission 

was given to the school for postflight analysis.403 

WSF-3 

The third flight of the WSF took place on Space Shuttle mission STS-80, launched 19 November 

1996. The facility flew the WSF at a distance of about 20–25 nautical miles (37–46 kilometers) 

403 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-69 Press Kit.” 

213
behind Columbia and no less than 25 nautical miles (46 kilometers) from the second Shuttle freeflying payload, the Orbiting and Retrievable Far and Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrograph-Shuttle 

Pallet Satellite (ORFEUS-SPAS), before its retrieval by Columbia on flight day 7.404 It was the 

first time two free-flying spacecraft were deployed and retrieved during a single Shuttle mission.

The major objective of this flight was to grow thin epitaxial films that could have a significant 

effect on the microelectronics industry. A number of cooperative payloads flew in conjunction 

with WSF-3.405 The flight was highly successful, with a maximum of seven thin-film growths 

achieved.406

Cryogenic Infrared Spectrometers and Telescopes for the Atmosphere-Shuttle Pallet Satellite 

(CRISTA-SPAS)

CRISTA-SPAS was a limb-scanning satellite experiment mounted on the free-flying ASTROSPAS satellite. It was deployed and retrieved by the Shuttle’s remote manipulator system arm 

when in orbit and operated at a distance of 20–100 kilometers (12.4–62.1 miles) behind the 

Shuttle. 

The CRISTA-SPAS experiment was designed and developed by the University of Wuppertal in 

Germany to measure infrared emissions of Earth’s atmosphere. Its primary scientific objective 

was to study small-scale dynamical structures seen in the global trace gas distributions. It was 

equipped with three telescopes and four spectrometers. CRISTA acquired global maps of 

404 “KSC Fact Sheet—STS-80,” KSC Release No. 124-96, October 1996, http://wwwpao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1996/124-96.htm (accessed February 9, 2006).

405 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Press Kit,” http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_080_STS080_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 9, 2006).

406 “STS-80 Mission Archives,” http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-80.html

(accessed March 27, 2006).

214
temperature and atmospheric trace gases with very high horizontal and vertical resolution. For 

improved horizontal resolution, the three telescopes sensed the atmosphere simultaneously at 

angles 18 degrees apart. To achieve high measuring speed and, consequently, high spatial 

resolution along the track, it used cryogenic helium to cool the detectors and optics.407 The 

design enabled the observation of small-scale dynamical structures at altitudes of 15–150 

kilometers (9.3–93.2 miles). The data were also used to test three-dimensional chemical-dynamic 

model predictions. 

CRISTA-SPAS flew together with the Middle Atmospheric High Resolution Spectrograph 

Investigation (MAHRSI), an ultraviolet spectrograph from the U.S. Naval Research 

Laboratory.408

The ASTRO-SPAS program was based on an MOU between NASA and the German space 

agency (DARA) and provided for several joint missions. The first of these missions—the 

Orbiting and Retrievable Far and Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrograph (ORFEUS)-SPAS—was 

launched in September 1993 aboard STS-51. CRISTA-SPAS was the second mission in the 

series.409 SPAS was a joint scientific program between NASA and DARA developed by 

Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm (MBB) in Germany. SPAS was used as a reusable carrier for 

short-duration missions.410

407 “CRISTA/MAHRSI Campaign 2 Handbook: Chapter II: CRISTA Experiment,” http://www.crista.uniwuppertal.de/campaigns/handbook/hb-ii.html (accessed February 9, 2006).

408 “CRISTA-SPAS 1, 2,” http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/cristaspas.htm (accessed 9 February 2006).

409 See chapter 4 in volume VII of the NASA Historical Data Book (1989–1998) for further details of the ORFEUSSPAS mission. Also “Space Shuttle Mission STS-66 Press Kit,” November 1994, p. 27, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/archives/sts-66.html (accessed February 9, 2006).

410 “CRISTA/SPAS,” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1994-073B

(accessed February 9, 2006).

215
CRISTA-SPAS-1 

CRISTA-SPAS-1 was one of two primary payloads on Space Shuttle mission STS-66. It was 

comanifested with the third flight of ATLAS-3, and both CRISTA and MAHRSI were integrated 

into the ATLAS-3 Science Plan. CRISTA-SPAS was released from the Shuttle’s cargo bay on 4 

November 1994, the second day of the mission, and retrieved eight days later using the Shuttle’s 

remote manipulator system arm. It was then reberthed and returned to Earth with the Shuttle. 

CRISTA-SPAS flew at a distance of 25–44 miles (40–70 kilometers) behind the Shuttle, 

collecting data that was then stored on tape. Batteries powered the carrier.

CRISTA-SPAS-1 consisted of two instruments: the CRISTA for observing the atmospheric limb 

and the MAHRSI for dayglow studies. CRISTA was a German telescope/cryostat assembly 

sensitive in the 4–70-micrometer range for making infrared observations of Earth’s atmosphere. 

This limb-sounding instrument used three independent telescopes. CRISTA contained on-board 

batteries and cryogenic and nitrogen cold-gas maneuvering subsystems. The instrument gathered 

the first global information about medium- and small-scale disturbances in trace gases in the 

middle atmosphere, which could lead to better models of the atmosphere and Earth’s energy 

balance.411 MAHRSI measured amounts of ozone-destroying hydroxyl and nitric oxide in the 

middle atmosphere and lower thermosphere from altitudes of 24–72 miles (40–120 kilometers). 

MAHRSI yielded the first complete global maps of atmospheric hydroxyl.412

411 “Cryogenic Infrared Spectrometers and Telescopes for the Atmosphere (CRISTA),” NSSDC Master CatalogExperiments, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1994-073B&ex=1 (accessed February 9, 

2006). 412 “STS-66 Mission Archive,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/archives/sts-66.html

(accessed February 9, 2006).

216
CRISTA-SPAS-2 

CRISTA-SPAS-2 was deployed from STS-85 on August 8, 1997. It flew freely for more than 

200 hours before being retrieved using Discovery’s robot arm. This was CRISTA-SPAS’s 

second flight and the fourth in a series of cooperative ventures conducted by DARA and NASA. 

CRISTA consisted of three telescopes and four spectrometers. The three telescopes collected 38 

full atmospheric profiles of the middle atmosphere. The payload also included the MAHRSI and 

a passive experiment, the Surface Effects Sample Monitor (SESAM). Two additional 

experiments mounted on the SPAS were activated during free flight. The Mini Dual Earth Sensor 

gathered operational data about Earth horizon positions, and Interferometry Program 

Experiment-II measured the vibration of the SPAS structure.413 

This CRISTA instrument offered researchers the opportunity for latitudinal coverage of the 

atmosphere beyond that achieved during STS-66. It aquired data about summer conditions at 

high northern latitudes and the polar night at high southern latitudes. Specifically, it provided 

• Increased horizontal resolution (100 kilometers by 100 kilometers, or 62 miles by 62 

miles) in selected areas at the equator 

• Increased latitudinal coverage (74°S to 74°N) 

• Increased altitude range (scanned below the tropopause)

• Increased sensitivity (improved measurements of carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, 

temperature, and pressure) 

413 “CRISTA-SPAS 2” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1997-039B

(accessed February 9, 2006).

217
• Increased validation measurements (by rocket salvoes, instrumented rockets, and aircraft 

with “zero miss distance”)

• High-resolution measurements in the winter Southern Hemisphere414 

CRISTA’s detailed high-horizontal-resolution information complemented less well resolved but 

longer-duration data from other free flyers, such as UARS. During Discovery’s flight, groundbased researchers conducted extensive balloon, aircraft, and sounding-rocket campaigns to 

gather data that were compared with CRISTA telescope data.415 Figure 2-40 shows the CRISTASPAS being prepared for flight. 

414 “CRISTA/MAHRSI Campaign 2 Handbook: Chapter II: CRISTA Experiment,” http://www.crista.uniwuppertal.de/campaigns/handbook/hb-ii.html (accessed February 9, 2006).

415 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-85 Press Kit,” August 1997, p. 16, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_086_STS-085_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 10, 2006).

218
Figure 2-40. The final tasks to prepare the CRISTA-SPAS-2 payload for the STS-85 mission are 

completed aboard Discovery at Launch Complex 39A (NASA photo KSC-97PC-1192). 

. 

219
CHAPTER 3: AERONAUTICS, TECHNOLOGY, AND EXPLORATION

Introduction

This chapter describes NASA’s aeronautics, research and technology (R&T), and exploration 

activities. It includes an overview of Agency programs, a description of the management 

structure and personnel, budget information, and an account of specific activities in these areas. 

The National Aeronautics and Space Act included the following among NASA’s goals: 

. . . (2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of 

aeronautical and space vehicles; . . . (4) The establishment of long-range studies of the 

potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in 

the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes; (5) 

The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space 

science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities 

within and outside the atmosphere; . . . [and] (9) The preservation of the United States’ 

preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology 

development related to associated manufacturing processes.1

NASA’s activities during the decade of 1989 to 1998 supported these goals. 

NASA’s aeronautics, R&T, and exploration activities were built on a foundation that was 

established during the era of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), 

1 The National Aeronautics and Space Act, As Amended, Public Law 85-568, 72 Stat. 426, 438, July 29, 1958, 

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY (accessed June 8, 2006).

220
NASA’s predecessor agency. Its aeronautics activities focused on meeting national goals in the 

subsonic, transatmospheric, and supersonic regions of flight. The Agency worked to improve 

global civil aviation and advance aeronautical technology. Space R&T initiatives supported and 

provided technology related to the Space Shuttle, America’s launch systems, satellites, and space 

station. These activities focused on future civil space missions, improving access to space, and 

providing a base of R&T to support all national space goals. Exploration activities grew largely 

out of recommendations made by a committee chaired by former NASA astronaut Sally Ride to 

the NASA Administrator in 1987, and presidential initiatives of the late 1980s and early 1990s 

that addressed the importance of regaining America’s leadership in space endeavors after the 

Challenger accident. 

As is customary in these data books, most of the material in this chapter is based on primary 

NASA documents and Web-based materials produced by NASA. These include press releases, 

key personnel announcements, various reports and plans issued by the Agency, budget 

documents, and the annual Aeronautics and Space Report of the President. Most of the budget 

material comes from the annual budget estimates generated by the NASA Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer and from federal budget legislation. Measurements are presented in the unit 

used in the original reference (metric or English); conversions are in parentheses.

The Last Decade Reviewed

During the decade from 1979 to 1989, NASA carried out aeronautics and space R&T activities 

through its Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST). Disciplinary research centered 

on aerodynamics, materials and structures, propulsion, aerothermodynamics, energy conversion, 

controls and human factors, computer science, and information sciences. Systems work was 

221
often multidisciplinary and had more immediate applications than other research. It usually 

supported other NASA projects, such as the Space Shuttle, developed technologies to enable 

future projects, such as the space station, and supported the military and other federal agencies. 

NASA’s aeronautics activities were centered at Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, 

California, Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, 

Ohio, and Dryden Flight Research Facility in Edwards, California.2 All NASA centers were 

involved with the Agency’s space R&T programs. 

Aeronautics 

In the early part of the 1980s, OAST emphasized flight efficiency and the development of 

improved energy technology. It supported national energy needs through its Energy Technology 

program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other federal agencies. The 

Aircraft Energy Efficiency program worked to improve flight efficiency and develop solutions to 

problems faced by current aircraft, as well as those expected within a few years, and to plan new 

fuel-efficient classes of aircraft. Turboprop research, new composite materials, more 

aerodynamically efficient wing shapes, and different wing configurations all contributed to 

improving flight efficiency. Aircraft safety was a particular focus. NASA carried out research on 

windshear, icing, heavy rain, lightning, and combustible materials on aircraft, often 

cooperatively with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and aircraft manufacturers. It also 

worked with the FAA, the Department of Transportation, and aircraft manufacturers to lessen 

any harmful effects of flight on the environment. 

2 Dryden Flight Research Center was an independent NASA center until October 1981, when it became a directorate 

of Ames Research Center with the name Dryden Flight Research Facility. It became an independent NASA center 

again in 1994.

222
Other research targets were the large-capacity short takeoff and landing (STOL) and vertical 

takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft. These aircraft were planned for use at airports near 

populated areas. Quieter engines were also needed in these locations, and NASA, along with 

members of the industry, developed an experimental engine that generated significantly less 

noise. Related developments advanced vertical and short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) and 

short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) technologies. 

Rotary wing aircraft for both civilian and military applications was another primary focus. The 

Tilt-Rotor Research Aircraft (TRRA) had twin rotors and engines mounted at the ends of a high 

wing. Its rotors could be tilted, permitting both vertical and horizontal flight. The Sikorsky Rotor 

Systems Research Aircraft (RSRA) used helicopter rotor heads as the basic lifting system but 

was designed to test a variety of rotor systems. This aircraft could be configured to fly as a 

conventional helicopter or as a compound helicopter with fixed wings, and could be fitted with a 

variety of experimental and developmental rotor systems for research purposes. 

OAST supported the military in the area of high-performance aircraft technologies, frequently 

partnering with the Department of Defense (DOD). The Highly Maneuverable Aircraft 

Technology (HiMAT) program tackled problems associated with combining high 

maneuverability, high speed, and a human pilot. NASA researchers studied the interrelated 

problems of all aspects of typical advanced-fighter flight configurations and contributed to the 

design of future fighter aircraft by furnishing fundamental aerodynamic and structural-loads data 

to assist designers. The X-29A flight research program was another program that was developed 

in cooperation with the military. It demonstrated the forward-swept-wing configuration as well 

223
as digital fly-by-wire technology and an innovative flight-control system. NASA used an F-18 

Hornet fighter aircraft in its High Angle of Attack Research Vehicle (HARV) program.3 This 

program attempted to expand an aircraft’s “stall barrier”—the tendency of an aircraft to become 

uncontrollable and stall at low speeds and high angles of attack (AoAs). 

A major program during this decade involved the National Aerospace Plane (NASP), designated 

the X-30. The goal of this hypersonic aircraft program, which was proposed by President Ronald 

Reagan and initiated by the military, was to develop and demonstrate the technologies needed to 

fly an aircraft into orbit by using air-breathing propulsion instead of rockets. The developers 

envisioned an actual experimental transatmospheric vehicle that would take off horizontally from 

a conventional runway, reach speeds as high as Mach 25, leave Earth’s atmosphere and enter 

low-Earth orbit, reenter the atmosphere, and finally land horizontally. As the decade ended, 

however, technical difficulties and competition for funds made the program more controversial. 

Space 

NASA’s space R&T program provided advanced technologies to develop more capable and less 

costly space transportation systems, large space systems with growth potential (such as the space 

station), geosynchronous communications platforms, lunar bases, crewed planetary missions, and 

advanced scientific Earth observation and planetary exploration spacecraft. Some space 

technology programs investigated the problems related to providing power, controls and 

structures, and assembly of large space structures. Other research areas included spacesuit 

studies, research related to more efficient reentry into Earth’s atmosphere from space, advanced 

power systems for future lunar and Mars bases, and lighter tanks for cryogenic fuels. Still other 

investigations dealt with control systems for future large, lightweight spacecraft and the 

3 This was sometimes called the High Alpha Research Vehicle program.

224
assembly of large space structures with teleoperated manipulators, as well as a program to allow 

free-flying telerobots to grapple and dock with gyrating satellites to stabilize and repair

spacecraft. Other space-related research areas included the development of improved batteries, 

solar cells, and solar arrays.

OAST programs developed and demonstrated the Space Shuttle’s thermal protection system 

(TPS) and continued to improve the composition and durability of the materials. OAST 

developed the experiments on the Orbiter Experiments program, which debuted on the first 

Shuttle mission. These experiments evaluated the aerodynamic, aerothermodynamic, acoustic, 

and other stress-related phenomena encountered in spaceflight, particularly during the Shuttle’s 

hypersonic return to Earth’s atmosphere. OAST participated in several Shuttle payloads, 

including the experiments that flew on the Long-Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) on mission 

STS 41-C and the OAST-1 mission on STS 41-D.

OAST’s technology initiatives were applied to the development of the space station. The mobile 

workstation that enabled astronauts to assemble the station in space was developed by OAST 

researchers, as were the innovative assembly techniques and structures. Automation and robotics 

were important research areas.

NASA’s Civilian Space Technology Initiative (CSTI) began in 1988. It addressed the highpriority national and Agency needs of the 1990s and aimed to advance the state of technology in 

key areas where capabilities had eroded and stagnated. Its prime focus was space transportation, 

space science, and space operations.

225
Aeronautics and Space R&T Overview (1989–1998) 

From the early 1970s until 1993, aeronautics and space R&T activities were managed by a single 

organization— OAST. In 1993, space technology was assigned to a new organization— the 

Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology (OACT), which also incorporated programs from 

the former Office of Commercial Programs. In 1994, OACT was disbanded, and space 

technology and commercial programs were moved to the Office of Space Access and 

Technology (OSAT). During both of these restructurings, aeronautics programs remained in the 

separate Office of Aeronautics. In 1997, the aeronautics, space technology, and commercial 

programs were combined into the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology 

(OASTT), which in 1998 was shortened to the Office of Aerospace Technology (OAT). 

At the national level, aeronautics and space technology development was coordinated through 

the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which was established on November 23, 

1993 by executive order of President William Clinton. The Cabinet-level Council, which acted 

as a “virtual” agency for science and technology, was the principal means by which the President 

could coordinate science, space, and technology policies across the Federal government. An 

important objective of the NSTC was to establish clear national goals for federal science and 

technology investments in a broad array of areas spanning virtually all mission areas of the 

executive branch. The President chaired the NSTC and its membership consisted of the Vice 

President, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Cabinet secretaries, 

Agency heads with significant science and technology responsibilities, and other senior White 

House officials. 

226
NASA’s aeronautics and space R&T programs provided technological results in advance of 

specific application needs and conducted long-term independent research without the payoff of 

immediate known mission applications. Its programs were derived from several fundamental 

disciplines and from systems and classes of vehicles. Disciplinary research applied to more than 

one class of vehicles and sometimes related to as-yet undefined capabilities. Systems and vehicle 

research enhanced the capabilities of specific classes of vehicles in both aeronautic and spacebased transportation areas, and also crossed boundaries between the two. 

Aeronautics4

For much of the decade, NASA’s aeronautics program consisted of two complementary program 

areas: an R&T base of critical disciplines, and a series of focused programs. In addition, a group 

of advanced aeronautical research facilities was a major component of NASA’s aeronautical 

research. The aeronautics R&T base included work in the critical disciplines of aerodynamics, 

propulsion, materials and structures, information sciences and human factors, and flight systems 

and safety. 

NASA’s aeronautics and R&T programs continued to be conducted at four NASA centers: Ames 

Research Center (ARC) at Moffett Field, California; Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) at 

Edwards, California; Langley Research Center (LaRC) in Hampton, Virginia; and Lewis 

Research Center (LeRC) in Cleveland, Ohio. 

4 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA Aeronautics: 

Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, [no date], c. 1990. Also National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology, Aeronautics & Space Transportation 

Technology, Three Pillars for Success, Annual Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 12.

227
Ames had distinctive facilities for aerodynamic testing and flight simulation that were used to 

validate analytical methods and conduct research investigations of small- and large-scale 

aeronautical vehicle configurations. The center also conducted research on human factors, 

aircraft automation, flight dynamics, guidance, and digital controls.5 Ames’ areas of aeronautical 

excellence encompassed computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and computer science applications 

that focused on the development of new analytical methods to use the growing power of 

advanced computers. During the first part of the decade, flight operations were centered at Ames. 

In 1995, as part of the Agency’s Zero Based Review, the branch was disbanded. All aircraft in 

the NASA fleet—both operational and experimental—were consolidated at Dryden.6 Ames was 

the Agency’s Center of Excellence for information technology and led in astrobiology and 

aviation system safety and capacity.7 

Dryden complemented Ames’ ground-test capability. Key systems technology areas at the two 

centers included propulsion/airframe integration, powered-lift technology, and rotorcraft 

aeromechanics. In 1994, Dryden again became an independent NASA center. 

Langley’s areas of aeronautical excellence included fundamental aerodynamics and fluid 

dynamics, computer science, unsteady aerodynamics, and aeroelasticity. Aerodynamic testing to 

support research in each of these areas was a major focus. Langley was also a leader in structures 

and materials research, with a primary focus on developing and validating structural analysis 

methods and research in airframe metallic and composite materials. It also conducted 

5 NASA Aeronautics, Research and Technology Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 50.

6 Glenn E. Bugos, Atmosphere of Freedom: Sixty Years at the NASA Ames Research Center (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP-4314, 2000), pp. 226–227. 7 Ibid., p. 227.

228
fundamental research on fault-tolerant electronic systems and flight control. Special areas of 

research included simulation and evaluation of advanced operational aircraft systems, acoustics 

and noise reduction, and propulsion/airframe integration.8 

Lewis’ area of excellence was propulsion, divided into the areas of aeropropulsion, space 

propulsion, space power, and space science/applications. 

A number of documents helped shape aeronautics objectives and policy. For the first part of the 

decade, aeronautics policy and objectives were largely determined on the basis of two reports 

issued by the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy in 1985 and 1987. The 1985 

report, “National Aeronautics R&D Goals: Technology for America’s Future,” described specific 

goals in subsonics, supersonics, and transatmospherics. The subsonic goal was to provide 

technology for an entirely new generation of fuel-efficient, affordable U.S. aircraft operating in a 

modernized national airspace system. The supersonic goal focused on developing “pacing 

technologies” to achieve a sustained supersonic cruise capability for efficient long-distance 

flight. The transatmospheric goal was to pursue research leading to the capability to routinely 

cruise and maneuver into and out of the atmosphere with takeoffs and landings from 

conventional runways. The report recommended a restructuring of federal contracting 

procedures, a regulatory policy to encourage cooperation among U.S. companies, federal tax 

legislation to stimulate private investment, and continuity of R&T development activities among 

all involved branches of government.9

 The 1987 report recognized the progress that was taking 

8 NASA Aeronautics, Research and Technology Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 51.

9 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, “National Aeronautics R&D Goals: 

Technology for America’s Future,” March 1985, http://www.aero-space.nasa.gov/docs/nstc85.htm (accessed June 

26, 2006).

229
place toward meeting the 1985 goals, but stated that “greater achievement by all sectors—

government, industry, and academia” was needed to meet the “challenge to our competitiveness” 

so that the United States could “remain a viable competitor in the world aviation marketplace.” It 

made eight recommendations for action to guide the “agenda for achievement”:

1. Increase innovative industry research and development efforts given the certainty of 

intensifying global competition and the importance of new technology for U.S. 

competitiveness.

2. Aggressively pursue the National Aerospace Plane program, assuring maturation of critical 

technologies leading to an experimental airplane.

3. Develop a fundamental technology, design, and business foundation for a long-range 

supersonic transport in preparation for a potential U.S. industry initiative. 

4. Expand domestic research and development collaboration by creating an environment that 

reflects the new era of global competition. 

5. Encourage government aeronautical research in long-term emerging technology areas that 

provide high payoffs. 

6. Strengthen American universities in the areas of basic research and science education 

through enhanced government and aerospace industry support and cooperation. 

7. Improve the development and integration of advanced design, processing, and computerintegrated manufacturing technologies to transform emerging research and development 

results into affordable U.S. products. 

230
8. Enhance the safety and capacity of the National Airspace System through advanced 

automation and electronics technology and new vehicle concepts, including vertical and short 

takeoff and landing aircraft.10

In 1995, the NSTC issued a report presenting the “framework for a government, industry, and 

university partnership in aeronautics research and technology development” needed for the 

United States to maintain its leadership in aeronautics technology and manufacturing. It 

identified three goals to be pursued by this partnership: 

1. Maintain the superiority of U.S. aircraft and engines. 

2. Improve the safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of the global air transportation system.

3. Ensure the long-term environmental compatibility of the aviation system.11

This report was followed in 1997 by the first Transportation Science and Technology Strategy 

issued by the NSTC. The new report offered a strategic planning process and framework to help 

Congress, the White House, and federal agency heads establish national transportation research 

and development priorities and coordinated research activities. This document presented (1) a 

vision of the transportation enterprise, (2) a likely transportation scenario for the year 2020, and 

(3) a set of national transportation goals and measures encompassing safety, security, 

environmental quality and energy efficiency, economic productivity, and accessibility and 

mobility. It took a four-tiered approach consisting of (1) strategic planning and assessment, (2) 

10 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, “National Aeronautics R&D Goals: 

Technology for America’s Future,” February 1987, http://www.aero-space.nasa.gov/docs/nstc87.htm (accessed June 

23, 2006).

11 Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, “Goals for a National Partnership in Aeronautics Research and Technology,” September 11, 1995, 

http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/OSTP/html/aero/cv-ind.html (accessed June 23, 2006).

231
strategic partnership initiatives, (3) ways to enable research, and (4) transportation education and 

training.12

In May of 1999, the NSTC released a new National Transportation Science and Technology 

Strategy that built on the first Strategy. It also used a four-tiered approach consisting of (1) 

strategic planning and assessment to support national transportation goals, (2) private-public 

technology partnerships, (3) ways to enable research, and (4) education and training. The 

document identified strategic goals encompassing safety, mobility and access, economic growth 

and trade, the human and natural environment, and national security that would be necessary to 

build the transportation system of the 21st century. The goals were to: 

• Promote the public health and safety by working toward the elimination of transportationrelated deaths, injuries, and property damage; 

• Shape America’s future by ensuring a transportation system that is accessible, integrated, and 

efficient, and that offers flexibility of choices; 

• Advance America’s economic growth and competitiveness domestically and internationally 

through efficient and flexible transportation; 

• Protect and enhance communities and the natural environment affected by transportation; 

• Advance the nation’s vital security interests by ensuring that the transportation system is 

secure and available for defense mobility and that our borders are safe from illegal 

intrusion.13

12 Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, “Transportation Science and 

Technology Strategy,” September 1997, pp. 10–25.

13 National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, “National Transportation Science and 

Technology Strategy,” April 1999, http://www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/strtplns/nstc/strategy99/ntsts99-bw.pdf

(accessed June 26, 2006).

232
R&T Base

The R&T base focused on several critical disciplines.

Aerodynamics provided the technological base upon which vehicular advancements could be 

made throughout all speed regimes and aerospace vehicle classes. Research in aerodynamics was 

structured in a program encompassing theoretical analyses, numerical simulation, wind tunnel 

tests, instrumentation development, and selected flight research projects. A major emphasis was 

placed on developing and validating CFD methods and codes to advance the understanding and 

prediction of complex aerodynamic phenomena. The computational power of NASA’s large 

Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator (NAS) supercomputer facility made such research possible.14 

Propulsion system technology relied on a base of focused discipline research in the areas of 

internal fluid mechanics (IFM), advanced control concepts, and new instrumentation techniques. 

The scope of propulsion research included small turbine engines, powered-lift concepts in 

support of Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) aircraft configurations, and 

propulsion for supersonic cruise and hypersonic aircraft.15

In the area of materials and structures, NASA increasingly emphasized computational 

structural mechanics (CSM), optimization techniques, active flutter suppression, and advanced 

high-temperature materials research. This was because evolving material and structural 

14 NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 29.

15 Ibid., p. 34.

233
requirements were permitting the development of new civil and military aeronautical vehicles 

with improved performance, durability, and economy.16 

NASA’s information sciences and human factors program contributed to new missions that 

stretched the pilots’ capabilities, and integrated systems that demanded high-speed 

computational processing. New technologies in this area helped researchers understand, control, 

and optimize a new family of aeronautical vehicles, including high-performance aircraft that 

could maneuver at ultrahigh AoAs, safer transports, and future transatmospheric vehicles that 

were planned to operate routinely across the boundaries of the atmosphere and space.17 

Fundamental computer science studies of new architectures and the algorithms needed to 

exploit the full power of computers were conducted at the Research Institute for Advanced 

Computer Science at Ames Research Center. These studies significantly accelerated the 

development of CFD, computational chemistry, and other disciplines.18

Flight systems focused on validating research in other areas through actual flight-testing of new 

components and systems. Such inflight validation was frequently achieved by using highperformance aircraft, often provided by the DOD under long-standing agreements with NASA, 

as test platforms. NASA used these aircraft primarily in flight research programs at Dryden 

Flight Research Center.19 The F-106 aircraft was flown with a leading-edge vortex flap to 

investigate low-speed handling qualities, stability and control, structural dynamics, and 

16 NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, pp. 37–38

17 Ibid., p. 40.

18 Ibid., p. 42.

19 Ibid., p. 43.

234
maneuver loads. Data were obtained to validate potential improvements in the lift/drag ratio, as 

well as improved stability, control, and maneuverability. A preproduction F-15A loaned to 

NASA by the U.S. Air Force was used in the Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control 

(HIDEC) program to develop, demonstrate, and evaluate potential improvements in aircraft 

performance and mission effectiveness that were made possible by proper integration of the 

engine, inlet, and airframe systems.20

The investigation of atmospheric phenomena critical to the operational safety of civil and 

military aircraft was an important part of NASA’s aeronautical R&T program. Areas of special 

concern included storm hazards, lightning, gusts, turbulence, rain effects, icing, and windshear. 

In accordance with NASA’s charter, safety-related research supported and was coordinated with 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which had primary responsibility for aircraft 

safety.21

Flight-test instrumentation activity was the only way to simultaneously duplicate specific 

combinations of variables, such as temperature, pressure, density, viscosity, and Reynolds 

number, that were representative of real atmospheric flight conditions.22 The goal of the flighttest instrumentation program was to significantly improve the efficiency of flight tests, increase 

the accuracy of flight data, and develop techniques for acquiring necessary information that was 

previously unobtainable during flight. NASA used existing prototype or production aircraft as 

20 NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlight,” NP-129, pp. 43–44. 21 Ibid., p. 44. 22 “Reynolds number is named for the 19th century British engineer Osborne Reynolds. It is a flow-similarity 

parameter that describes forces acting on a body in motion with respect to the fluid in which it is immersed. The 

number is directly proportional to the size of the body and the density and relative speed of the fluid and inversely 

proportional to the viscosity of the fluid.” From Alex Roland, Model Research, volume 2 (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP-4103, 1985), pp. 509–510. Available at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4103/sp4103.htm (accessed August 5, 2006).

235
test platforms for evaluating new flight-testing techniques and instrumentation. The F-104 

aircraft, flown at Ames-Dryden, was used to determine the feasibility of using piloted aircraft 

rather than weather balloons to obtain more timely data on winds aloft before Space Shuttle 

launches.23

Focused Systems Research

Focused systems R&T centered on subsonic transports, advanced rotorcraft technology, highspeed transport, hypersonic cruise/transatmospheric vehicles, and high-performance aircraft. 

Efforts in the subsonic transport area focused on the technology needed to develop a new 

generation of fuel efficient, affordable aircraft and to improve the safety and productivity of the 

National Airspace System.24 Key technology challenges involved reducing fuel consumption, 

viscous drag, and structural weight, and developing fully integrated flight-control and operating 

systems that would interface with a flexible and modernized National Airspace System.25 During 

the decade, NASA reordered its research, shifting from an emphasis on systems such as 

propulsion to research corresponding to “pillars” and goals representing technical challenges (for 

example, improving safety). Consequently, oversight of some of the activities described below 

may have been moved from systems-level organizational elements to goal-oriented 

organizations. However, the actual focus of the research typically remained unchanged. 

23 NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 45. 24 The National Airspace System is America’s network of airspace, airport, air navigation facilities, air traffic 

control facilities, communication, surveillance and supporting technologies, and operating rules and regulations. 

25 NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 6.

236
In the area of advanced rotorcraft technology, NASA’s objective was to provide the validated 

technology of new rotorcraft with high-speed capabilities for civil and military applications and 

develop quiet, jet-smooth, highly automated rotorcraft, including tiltrotor aircraft. The 

technological challenges included

• reducing wing download in hover operations; 

• reducing cruise drag in high-speed configurations; 

• reducing external noise and airframe vibrations; 

• reducing crew workload in performing complex piloting tasks; 

• developing convertible propulsion systems for efficient cruise and takeoff operations; 

• integrating new technologies in materials, controls, and aerodynamics into innovative 

configurations that would combine the vertical lift utility of the rotor with the high-speed 

capability of a fixed wing.26

NASA’s high-speed research efforts explored ways to develop future high-speed transport 

aircraft that would be economically competitive with long-haul subsonic aircraft, taking into 

account current environmental concerns about atmospheric impact, airport noise, and sonic 

booms. The atmospheric impact research included long-term atmospheric chemistry assessments 

and low-emission combustor research. Airport noise reduction research included investigations 

of alternative engine cycles and jet noise suppression technology to meet FAR 36-Stage III noise 

levels, the same levels attained by the quietest subsonic aircraft. Sonic boom reduction research 

26 NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 7.

237
included analyzing and testing low sonic boom design options, as well as evaluating human 

response characteristics to define sonic boom acceptability criteria.27

Hypersonic technology research focused on vehicle configuration studies, propulsion, and 

materials and structures. It merged aeronautics and space technologies that could potentially 

provide for a new class of flight vehicles ranging from hypersonic aircraft to a single-stage-toorbit space transportation system. Key research involved the development of air-breathing 

propulsion system technology, horizontal takeoff, acceleration through the transonic and 

supersonic speed ranges, and sustained operation at hypersonic speeds, as exemplified in the 

NASP program that ended in 1995. The NASP program, which was jointly funded by the DOD 

and NASA, focused on developing a flight research vehicle to validate and demonstrate the 

integration of aeronautics and space technologies across the speed range from takeoff to orbital 

velocities.28 

NASA’s high-performance aircraft research program was structured to develop and mature 

technologies that would have long-term military applications. Its objective was to develop 

technological options that would enable a new generation of fighter aircraft with improved 

maneuverability and agility, and capabilities for sustained supersonic cruise and short takeoff 

and vertical landing (STOVL). Important technological challenges included achieving effective 

post-stall flight at AoAs of about 60 degrees, increasing propulsion system thrust-to-weight 

ratios, and developing a STOVL capability within an efficient supersonic cruise vehicle.29

27 NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, pp. 7–8.

28 Ibid., p. 18.

29 Ibid., p. 8. 

238
NASA’s national facilities for aeronautical research were among the program’s most important 

tools. During the 1990s, its wind tunnels continued their basic engineering mission of validating 

new aircraft designs and subsequent refinement of configurations. Additionally, wind tunnel 

validation of new theoretical concepts was an integral part of aerodynamic progress. Other 

facilities were used to check out aircraft components and assess how components and integrated 

systems interacted during operations.30

Space 

The overall goal of the space R&T program was to provide advanced technologies for future 

space missions. It achieved this by developing technical strengths in the engineering disciplines 

within NASA, industry, and academia, and performing critical technology validations to 

facilitate the transfer of new technology with a high level of confidence to future space missions. 

Marshall Space Flight Center was a “Center of Excellence” in NASA’s Aerospace program for 

the mission areas of space propulsion and transportation system development. Langley Research 

Center (NASA’s Center of Excellence for aeroscience), Lewis Research Center, and Ames 

Research Center were also often lead centers in various space technology development 

activities.31

Space R&T activities during this decade were shaped partly by the recommendations of the 

Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program. In 1991, the Office of 

Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) developed an Integrated Technology Plan (ITP) for 

the civil space program. Its purpose was to serve as a strategic plan for the OAST space R&T 

30 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA Aeronautics:

Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP 159, [no date], c. 1992, pp. 64–65. Also Donald D. Baals and 

William R. Corliss, Wind Tunnels of NASA (Washington, DC: NASA SP-440, 1981), p. 146.

31Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology: Three Pillars for Success, Annual Progress Report 1997–1998, 

pp. 14, 74.

239
program and as a strategic planning framework for other NASA and national participants in 

advocating and conducting technology developments supporting future U.S. civil space 

missions.32 The plan named the organizations that would be the most responsible for planning 

and implementing the majority of government-led civil space missions: the Office of Space 

Science and Applications, the Office of Exploration, the Office of Space Flight, and the Office of 

Space Communications. It then identified several technology needs of these organizations. It 

recognized that many of the specific technologies identified as needs were common to several 

different users and their respective mission plans, differing in some cases only in the projected 

timing or performance requirements of specific technology program deliverables. The plan noted 

that while some technologies were very important to several users, so, in many cases, were the 

needs identified by only a single user that might enable a particular mission.33 The ITP 

incorporated substantial changes in the processes, structure, and content of NASA’s space R&T 

program. Major aspects of the processes recommended in the plan included using a technologyuser-driven process to establish program content, using well-defined decision rules and 

evaluation criteria to establish program priorities, and creating an annual cycle for program 

planning that would involve both user office participation and external review of proposed plans. 

It identified “success” in the space R&T program as the incorporation of a technology into an 

operational mission.34

32 1991 Integrated Technology Plan for the Civil Space Program, (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, 1991), p. ii, 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920022390_1992022390.pdf (accessed June 27, 2006).

33 1991 Integrated Technology Plan for the Civil Space Program, pp. 2-20–2-21, 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920022390_1992022390.pdf (accessed June 27, 2006).

34 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, pp. 66–67.

240
The space R&T program consisted of two complementary program areas: the R&T base and 

focused projects. The R&T base program emphasized gaining knowledge and understanding of 

the fundamental aspects of phenomena in critical disciplines. This program was the foundation 

for developing new technologies, enhancing capabilities, and generating more highly missionfocused technology programs. Although they varied slightly during the decade, the basic 

disciplines studied were typically aerothermodynamics, space energy conversion, propulsion, 

materials and structures, space data and communications, information sciences, controls and 

guidance, human factors, spaceflight, and systems analysis. In 1993, the space communications 

R&T program was moved from the Office of Space Science and Applications and added to the 

R&T base. In addition, the R&T base supported the University Space Research program. This 

program supported interdisciplinary research centers, provided grants to individuals doing 

research on highly innovative space technology concepts directed toward far-term mission use, 

and funded advanced systems study courses at the senior and graduate levels to foster 

engineering design education and to supplement NASA’s in-house efforts in advanced planning 

for space systems design.

Focused programs drew on requirements provided by potential users of a technology. They 

developed technologies for specific future applications and delivered products in the form of 

proven hardware, software, and design techniques and data. In general, they focused on 

improving access to space, performing exploration missions outside Earth’s orbit, advancing 

space technology, and furthering proficiency in space robotics and automation. 

241
The types and names of NASA’s focused space R&T programs changed several times during the 

decade. Early in the decade, the two major focused space programs were the Civil Space 

Technology Initiative (CSTI) and the In-Space Technology Experiments Program (In-STEP). 

CSTI addressed current high-priority national and Agency needs aimed at advancing the state of 

technology. Elements within CSTI included automation and robotics, propulsion, vehicle, 

information technology, large structures and control, and high-capacity power. In-STEP played 

an important role in the transition of technology from research and development into flight 

systems. It began in 1990 and ended in 1993, when it was moved into the space R&T base. Both 

programs are discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

In 1993, the Office of Commercial Programs and the space R&T program of OAST were merged

to create a new organization, the Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology (OACT). OACT 

was NASA’s focal point for technology innovation and transfer. Its mission was to “pioneer 

innovative, customer-focused space concepts and technologies, leveraged through industrial, 

academic, and government alliances to ensure U.S. competitiveness and preeminence in 

space.”35 In 1994, to correspond with OACT’s strategic goals, or thrusts, CSTI dropped its 

former structure and adopted the program areas of space science technology, planetary surface 

technology, transportation technology, space platforms technology, and operations technology. 

Later in 1994, a major restructuring of OACT took place. The CSTI designation was dropped 

entirely and a new advanced space transportation program was established. It combined space 

transportation technology activities that were formerly split among several programs. These 

35 “Objectives and Justification,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology, p. RD 

7-2.

242
included space transportation, advanced transportation, the Solid Propulsion Integrity Program 

(SPIP), advanced launch technology, and single-engine Centaur technology. Other reconfigured 

programs included spacecraft and remote sensing, flight programs, space communications, 

advanced small-satellite technology, and space processing. In addition, OACT added programs 

that were formerly associated with the Office of Commercial Programs.

In the area of commercial programs, technology transfer supported the infrastructure and 

networks needed to transfer technology from NASA laboratories to U.S. industry. The industry 

technology program goal was to advance aerospace technologies in U.S. industry that had a high 

probability of leading to commercial products and applications, or to non-aerospace industry 

applications that might be important to NASA applications.

In August 1994, OACT was disbanded and the Office of Space Access and Technology (OSAT) 

was formed. OSAT took over many of the functions and programs of OACT. A primary change 

that occurred at OSAT’s inception was its inclusion of expendable launch vehicle (ELV) 

services. However, in January 1996, ELV services were dropped from OACT and moved to the 

Office of Space Flight. Initially, OSAT’s goals were to

• develop technology to revitalize access to space consistent with the National Space 

Transportation Policy; 

• provide new and innovative space technologies to meet the challenges and lower the cost of 

future space missions; 

• nurture and expand commercial space industries by proactively developing, demonstrating, 

and transferring NASA technology to aerospace and non-aerospace applications;

243
• provide successful, on-schedule ELV space launch services for all civil U.S. government 

missions at the best price and value possible. 

In late 1994, in response to national space policy, NASA established the Reusable Launch 

Vehicle (RLV) Technology program to develop and flight-test experimental RLVs. This effort 

included a series of flight demonstrators: the Delta Clipper Advanced, X-33, and X-34 

(discussed later in this chapter). 

In 1997, NASA disbanded OSAT and recombined its aeronautics and space transportation 

technology activities and its commercial technology programs into a single organization, the 

Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Enterprise. The Space Transportation 

Technology program reflected efforts to develop and demonstrate next-generation technologies 

to enable the commercial launch industry to provide affordable and reliable access to space early 

in the 21st century. 

OSAT was organized into three “pillars” with 10 technology goals as stated by the Office of 

Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology. 

Pillar One: Global Civil Aviation

• Reduce the aircraft accident rate by a factor of five within 10 years, and by a factor of 10 

within 20 years. 

• Reduce emissions of future aircraft by a factor of three within 10 years and by a factor of five 

within 20 years. 

244
• Reduce the perceived noise levels of future aircraft by a factor of two from today’s subsonic 

aircraft within 10 years, and by a factor of four within 20 years. 

• While maintaining safety, triple the aviation system throughput, in all weather conditions, 

within 10 years. 

• Reduce the cost of air travel by 25 percent within 10 years, and by 50 percent within 20 

years.

Pillar Two: Revolutionary Technology Leaps

• Reduce the travel time to the Far East and Europe by 50 percent within 20 years, and do so at 

today’s subsonic ticket prices. 

• Invigorate the general aviation industry, delivering 10,000 aircraft annually within 10 years, 

and 20,000 aircraft annually within 20 years. 

• Provide next-generation design tools and experimental aircraft to increase design confidence, 

and cut the development cycle time for aircraft in half.

Pillar Three: Access to Space

• Reduce the payload cost to low-Earth orbit by an order of magnitude, from $10,000 to $1,000 

per pound, within 10 years.

• Reduce the payload cost to low-Earth orbit by an additional order of magnitude, from 

$1,000s to $100s per pound, by 2020.36

36 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 2–6, http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/docs/3pillars2.pdf (accessed June 22, 2006).

245
Pillars One and Two related primarily to aeronautical R&T. Pillar Three focused largely on 

space R&T. 

Exploration 

NASA’s Office of Exploration was formed in June 1987 to meet the need for specific activities 

that would support the long-term goal of expanding human presence and activity beyond Earth’s 

orbit in the solar system. It was believed that a move in that direction could energize the U.S. 

civilian space program and stimulate the development of new technologies.37 Activities focused 

on identifying viable alternatives and recommending approaches to human exploration of the 

solar system. Beginning in 1988, four case studies along three “pathways”—the human 

expeditions pathway, the science outpost pathway, and the evolutionary expansion pathway—

were carried out:38

• Human Expedition to Mars: This case study, in the human expeditions pathway, emphasized 

a quick, visible, nonpermanent effort to use current technologies and knowledge to achieve 

the first human exploration of Mars. Over three missions, the first human explorers of the 

Martian surface would capture early leadership in piloted interplanetary exploration. The 

crew would scientifically explore the local terrain and formations, put in place long-lived 

geophysical instruments, and collect samples for return to Earth. The Martian moons, Phobos 

and Deimos, would also be explored.39

37 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1988 Activities (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, 1990), p. 66.

38 “Beyond Earth's Boundaries: Human Exploration of the Solar System in the 21st Century, 1988 Annual Report to 

the Administrator,” NASA Office of Exploration, November 1988, synopsis in David Portree, Romance to Reality, 

Mars Institute, http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/8811-01.html (accessed June 9, 2006).

39 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1988 Activities, p. 67. Also Aeronautics and Space Report of the 

President, 1989–1990 Activities (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1991), p. 58.

246
• Lunar Observatory—Lunar Evolution: This case study, in the science outpost pathway, 

examined ways to gradually consolidate a permanent astronomical observatory on the Moon, 

allowing life-sciences research and providing scientific opportunities in astronomy, geology, 

physics, and other fields. This lunar observatory would include large, more stable 

instruments and arrays that enabled astronomers to avoid the limitations of observing objects 

from Earth or from Earth orbit, and to obtain better (by orders of magnitude) observations. 

The outpost would consist of optical telescope arrays, stellar monitoring telescopes, and radio 

telescopes, enabling near-complete coverage of the radio and optical spectra. It would also 

serve as a base for geological exploration and for a modest life-sciences laboratory.40

• Lunar Outpost to Early Mars Evolutions: This case study, in the evolutionary expansion 

pathway, sought to build a capability leading to a nearly self-sufficient, sustained human 

presence beyond low-Earth orbit. It aimed to build a “bridge between worlds” in the inner 

solar system so as to establish a human presence on the Moon and Mars. An underlying goal 

was to learn to live off the lunar land and eventually also the Martian land. The evolutionary 

approach would drive broad advances in technology, evolutionary experience in outpost 

development and habitation, and use of local resources, and the development of facilities to 

stimulate further growth.41 

• Human Expedition to Phobos: This case study, in the human expeditions pathway, combined 

a human expedition to Phobos with rovers operated by a crew flying in Mars orbit. These 

first human travelers to the Martian moon would explore, conduct resource surveys, and 

establish a science station. It would also provide opportunities to conduct enhanced robotic 

exploration of Mars itself from Mars orbit using teleoperated rovers, penetrators, balloons, 

40 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 58. Also Aeronautics and Space Report 

of the President, 1988 Activities, p. 67. 41 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1988 Activities, p. 68.

247
and sample collectors, and to return samples of Mars and Phobos to Earth for detailed 

analysis.42

The results of the 1988 study effort were released in a report titled “Beyond Earth’s Boundaries: 

Human Exploration of the Solar System in the 21st Century.” One conclusion of the report was 

that the U.S. must begin detailed research, technology development, and concentrated studies 

independently of which future exploration endeavor was chosen. It also emphasized the 

importance of near-term investments and studies that kept promising options and opportunities 

open. The report noted that the strategy must effectively build on current programs, keep the 

demand for exploration-unique resources at a modest level, and still preserve the capability to act 

in the first decade of the 21st century.43

In 1989, the Office of Exploration continued to analyze the lunar evolution, Mars evolution, and 

Mars expedition case studies. It evaluated requirements for human exploration of the Moon and 

Mars in areas such as Earth-to-orbit transportation, planetary transfer, and planetary surface 

operations.44

The Pathfinder program, later called the Exploration Technology program, began in 1989. The 

goal of this focused technology program was to strengthen the “technology foundation of the 

civil space program and the nation’s technology leadership.” It was considered a prerequisite to 

any decision to proceed with ambitious civil space missions. Initially, the program was organized 

into the areas of surface exploration, in-space operations, humans in space, and space transfer. 

42 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1988 Activities, pp. 66–67.

43 Ibid., p. 68. 44 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, pp. 57–58.

248
Additionally, mission studies were conducted to support “the detailed formulation of mission 

requirements and technology options.”45 In 1991, the areas of lunar and Mars science, 

information systems and automation, nuclear propulsion, and innovative technologies and 

systems analysis were added. In 1993, Exploration Technology activities moved to the planetary 

surface technology and transportation technology areas of the CSTI program; other exploration 

activities moved to the new Office of Exploration. 

On July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, President George Bush 

announced plans for a Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). In his speech, he looked ahead to the 

planned Space Station Freedom and called first for the establishment of a permanent human 

presence on the Moon and then a human mission to Mars. He asked Vice President Dan Quayle 

to lead the National Space Council (NSC) in determining the money, workforce, and 

technologies needed to carry out these missions.46 The President’s remarks added details to the 

goal stated in the 1988 Presidential Directive on National Space Policy (“to expand human 

presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system”).47 No cost for the program was 

mentioned by the President, but Richard Darman, Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget, stated at a press conference the same day that fulfilling the goals would cost $400 billion 

45 “Space Research and Technology,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, Fiscal Year 1989 Estimates, p. 

RD 15-70. Also “Space Research and Technology,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, Fiscal Year 1990 

Estimates, p. RD 14-30.

46 “Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing,” July 20, 1989,

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1989/89072000.html (accessed June 8, 2006). Also Steve Dick, 

“Summary of Space Exploration Initiative,” http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm (accessed June 8, 2006).

47 “Report of the 90-Day Study on Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars,” National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, November 1989, p. 1-1, http://history.nasa.gov/90_day_study.pdf (accessed June 6, 2006).

249
over 30 years.

48 The new national space policy released on November 2, 1989, called for the 

establishment of “a permanently manned presence in space.”49 

On July 26, NASA Administrator Richard Truly and Assistant Administrator for Exploration 

Frank Martin briefed NASA employees on the new initiative. On August 4 at NASA’s Johnson 

Space Center, Martin launched the 90-Day Study to outline NASA’s plan for accomplishing the 

Bush program. 

The Bush initiative immediately preempted other planning efforts, and many NASA employees 

were reassigned to a team called the Precursor Task Team (PTT). Its goal was to develop a set of 

robotic Moon and Mars missions to pave the way for piloted missions that would follow. The 

PTT based its proposed missions on requirements from the Mission and Systems Engineering 

element of the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Lunar/Mars Exploration Planning Office and the 

NASA Headquarters (HQ) Office of Exploration, many of which were developed during four 

workshops held in late August. The team briefed the HQ Office of Space Science and 

Applications on its plan on September 25, 1989. The 90-Day Study team, chaired by JSC 

Director Aaron Cohen, incorporated a streamlined version of the PTT plan into its November 

report titled “Report of the 90-Day Study on Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars.”50 

48 Marcia S. Smith, “Space Exploration: Overview of President Bush’s ‘Vision for Space Exploration,’ and Key 

Issues for Congress,” CRS Report for Congress, RS21720, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, p. 

CRS-4, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/41129.pdf (accessed June 8, 2006). 49 “National Space Policy Directive (NSPD)-1,” National Space Policy, November 2, 1989, 

www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/nspd1.htm (accessed March 1, 2005).

50 “A Robotic Exploration Program: In Response to the NASA 90-Day Study on Human Exploration of the Moon 

and Mars,” JPL D-6688, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, December 1, 1989, synopsis 

in Portree, Romance to Reality, http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/8912.html (accessed June 8, 

2006).

250
The report drew from much of NASA’s exploration work conducted over the previous years. It 

examined five reference approaches to human exploration of the Moon and Mars, each of which 

had a particular emphasis: (1) balance and speed, (2) the earliest possible landing on Mars, (3) 

reduced logistics from Earth, (4) schedule adapted to Space Station Freedom, and (5) reduced 

scale. The findings provided reference material regarding potential requirements in technology 

and other areas. The report also examined the scientific opportunities and other potential 

benefits. It did not contain specific recommendations or any estimates of total mission costs.51 A 

separate cost summary issued at the same time as the study estimated the SEI’s long-term cost at 

approximately $500 billion, spread out over 20 to 30 years.52 NASA Administrator Truly briefed 

the NSC’s Blue Ribbon Panel on the report on November 29, 1989. Vice President Quayle asked 

the National Academy of Sciences to assess the scope and content of the NASA study, as well as 

alternative approaches and technology issues. The Academy largely concurred with the NASA 

study, although the White House, as represented by the NSC, did not. The staff director of the 

NSC, Mark Albrecht, stated that the goal of the SEI was to take an innovative approach, to do 

things “better” than before. Council members pointed to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) as 

an example of this new approach.53 

On December 21, 1989, Truly announced he would merge the Office of Exploration into OAST 

to form the Office of Aeronautics, Exploration, and Space Technology to “ensure tight 

51 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 58. Also “Report of the 90-Day Study on 

Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, cover news release, 

“NASA Moon/Mars Database Report,” November 20, 1989, http://history.nasa.gov/90_day_study.pdf (accessed 

June 6, 2006).

52 “Report of the 90-Day Study on Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars; Cost Summary,” November 1989, p. 

3, http://history.nasa.gov/90_day_cost_summary.pdf (accessed June 20, 2006).

53 Steve Dick, “Summary of Space Exploration Initiative,” http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm (accessed June 8, 

2006). Also Howard E. McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper: Low-Cost Innovation in the U.S. Space Program

(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), pp. 45–46.

251
coordination in the creation of plans for human exploration of the solar system and the actual 

development of new technologies required to accomplish the goal.”54 The merger was completed 

at the end of February 1990.55 The organization incorporated the Exploration Mission Studies 

program. 

On February 16, 1990, President Bush approved the following policy for the SEI:

• It would include lunar and Mars program elements and robotic and human science missions. 

• The near-term focus would be on technology development, with an emphasis on new or 

innovative approaches and technology with the potential to make a major impact on cost, 

schedule, and/or performance.

• Mission, concept, and system analysis studies would be conducted in parallel with 

technology development. 

• A baseline program architecture would be selected after several years of defining two or 

more reference architectures while developing and demonstrating broad technologies. 

• NASA would be the principal implementing agency while the Department of Defense and 

the Department of Energy would have major roles in technology development and concept 

definition.56

In March 1990, President Bush announced his intention to enter discussions with Europe, 

Canada, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other nations in an effort to obtain international support for 

the program.57 However, he was unsuccessful in garnering the support of other nations.58

54 “NASA To Combine Exploration and Technology Organizations,” NASA News Release 89-185, December 21, 

1989, NASA History Division folder 16436, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, 

DC.

55 Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1986–1990; A Chronology (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4027, 1997), p. 255.

56 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 58.

252
On May 11, 1990, at a commencement speech at Texas A&I University in Kingsville, Texas, 

President Bush announced his belief that humans would stand on Mars by July 20, 2019, “before 

Apollo celebrates the 50th anniversary of its landing on the moon.”59 

The SEI was intended to be a national effort and consequently in 1990 and 1991, NASA 

executed agreements with other federal agencies. In July 1990, it signed a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) with the DOE to provide the necessary framework for collaboration 

between NASA and DOE in implementing SEI. Collaboration would take the form of 

information exchange and coordination of research and development activities.60 In January 

1991, NASA and the National Science Foundation signed a memorandum of agreement covering 

potential research activities in Antarctica that would benefit future SEI missions. Potential 

Antarctic activities included research into the effects of long-duration isolation and the conduct 

of scientific investigations in hostile environments.61 In August 1991, NASA and DOD agreed to 

collaborate in the areas of information exchange and coordination of research and development 

activities.62

57 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by Press Secretary Fitzwater on International 

Cooperation in the President's Space Exploration Initiative” March 30, 1990, 

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1990/90033004.html (accessed June 20, 2006).

58 Steve Dick, “Summary of Space Exploration Initiative,” http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm (accessed June 8, 

2006).

59 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President in Texas A&I University 

Commencement Address,” May 11, 1990, http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1990/90051100.html

(accessed June 20, 2006).

60 Memorandum of Understanding Between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department 

of Energy, July 9, 1990.

61 Memorandum of Agreement Between the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration on Antarctic Activities, January 23, 1991. Also Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 

Fiscal Year 1991 Activities (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1992), p. 68.

62 Memorandum of Understanding Between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department 

of Defense, August 21, 1991.

253
At the request of Vice President Quayle, in the summer of 1990, NASA began a nationwide 

search for new and innovative concepts and technologies for SEI “to ensure that all reasonable 

space exploration alternatives” had been evaluated before the program began. In August 1990, 

the Vice President and NASA Administrator Truly chartered the SEI Synthesis Group, chaired 

by former astronaut Thomas Stafford, to review inputs from thousands of individuals and 

organizations inside and outside NASA. In June 1991, the group distributed 40,000 copies of its 

report, titled America at the Threshold. It outlined four SEI architectures based on a number of 

technical strategies, including developing a heavy-lift launch capability, limiting on-orbit 

assembly, developing nuclear technologies, using the Moon as a testbed for Mars, using the same 

systems and operations for the Moon and Mars, using a complementary mix of human and 

robotic resources, and emphasizing technologies with terrestrial applications.63 The major 

objectives of the architectures were to

• explore Mars and provide scientific returns, using the Moon as preparation for the Mars 

mission;

• perform exploration and scientific activities using complementary human and robotic 

missions to obtain balanced scientific returns from both the Moon and Mars; 

• establish a permanent human presence on the Moon along with exploring Mars, providing 

terrestrial spinoffs to improve life on Earth and increasing knowledge of the solar system and 

humankind; 

• make maximum use of available resources to directly support the space exploration missions, 

and develop a large class of available resources for a broader range of transportation, 

habitation, life sciences, energy production, construction, and other long-term activities to 

63 America at the Threshold: America’s Space Exploration Initiative, Report of the Synthesis Group on America’s 

Space Exploration Initiative, May 1991, p. 32. Also America at the Threshold, summary in Portree, Romance to 

Reality, Mars Institute, http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/9105.html (accessed June 20, 2006).

254
reduce the direct expense of travel to the Moon and Mars and build toward establishing selfsufficient, long-duration space bases, and eventually return energy and resources to Earth.64

Around the same time, in August 1990, President Bush established an advisory committee, 

headed by Norman Augustine, to make recommendations on the future of the U.S. space 

program. In its wide-ranging report, issued in December 1990, the committee recognized the 

importance of long-term human exploration and shared the President’s view that Mars was the 

“long-term magnet for the manned space program.” But it also stated that “human exploration of 

Mars should be tailored to the availability of funding, rather than adhering to a rigid schedule” 

and could be “spread over many years.”65 It emphasized that if funding could not be provided at 

a sufficient level, the exploration program should be delayed. The committee also recommended 

that an associate administrator for exploration be put in charge of both robotic and human 

exploration of the Moon and Mars. President Bush ordered NASA to implement these 

recommendations, and in October 1991 the Agency established a new Office of Exploration, 

headed by Michael Griffin, primarily to plan and execute the President’s initiative.66 

Because of conflicting priorities for federal funds, NASA initially planned two precursor 

missions to provide resource, terrain, and gravity maps for later missions. It also initiated studies 

relating to lunar exploration. In accordance with the National Space Policy Directive issued by 

64 America at the Threshold: America’s Space Exploration Initiative, pp. 34–52.

65 Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of 

the U.S. Space Program, December 1990, p. 6.

66 Steve Dick, “Summary of Space Exploration Initiative,” http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm (accessed June 8, 

2006). An earlier Office of Exploration, established in 1987, had been folded into the Office of Aeronautics and 

Space Technology in 1989 to form the Office of Aeronautics, Exploration, and Technology.

255
President Bush on March 13, 1992, NASA, as the principal implementing agency for SEI, began 

discussions with the DOD and DOE about executing the policy directive.67 

The Office of Exploration issued a draft Space Exploration Initiative Strategic Plan, “Building 

Tomorrow’s Program Today,” on May 22, 1992. It reflected a “firm commitment to a lunar 

return” and presented “an ambitious though plausible schedule for SEI, outlining a plan for 

human exploration of the Moon before the year 2000.”68 According to the plan’s authors, the 

plan was based on three strategic themes: it was evolutionary, it was economically sound, and it 

required “excellence in management.”69 The plan emphasized the importance of proceeding in a 

way that would reflect the current constrained budgetary environment, and of “doing the right 

things the right way.” It outlined NASA’s efforts to determine the needs of the scientific 

community and obtain the participation of other federal agencies, and its intent to use innovative 

procurement approaches. The Agency’s near-term exploration strategy was to “start small: to 

develop and conduct small-scale, robotic, automated precursor missions designed to fill the gaps 

in...scientific and technological knowledge.” The near-term program plan called for developing 

a resource and a terrain/gravity mapper and using a robotic lander on the lunar surface as 

preparatory steps for longer-term missions.70 Essential initial flight elements and elements of the 

first surface lunar outpost were sketched out with a timetable extending through 1997, as well as 

67 “Space Exploration Initiative,” NSPD-6, March 13, 1992, 

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/nspd6.htm (accessed June 20, 2006).

68 Margaret G. Finarelli, memo to NASA Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator, “SEI Strategic Plan,” May 22, 

1992.

69 NASA Office of Exploration, “Space Exploration Initiative Strategic Plan: Building Tomorrow’s Program 

Today,” May 1992, p. 2.

70 “Space Exploration Initiative Strategic Plan: Building Tomorrow’s Program Today,” pp. 6–7.

256
an exploration program planning timeline up to 2020 (see figure 3-1). New technologies and 

advanced development activities were also identified.71

Figure 3-1. Exploration program planning timelines from the Space Exploration Initiative 

Strategic Plan, May 1992. 

The initiative received extensive publicity, but it had been announced during a period when 

Congress was attempting to cut government spending to reduce the federal deficit. Congress did 

not view the initiative favorably, and even though the National Academy of Sciences had largely 

concurred with the NASA study, reactions to NASA’s plan by both the White House and 

Congress were hostile, primarily because of the cost estimate. In April 1992 the President 

71 “Space Exploration Initiative Strategic Plan: Building Tomorrow’s Program Today,” pp. 8–15.

257
brought in a new NASA Administrator—Daniel Goldin, a proponent of “faster, better, cheaper” 

missions—who witnessed the demise of the exploration program. Congress repeatedly rebuffed 

NASA’s efforts to gain support for the plan. Funding for SEI was requested in the fiscal year 

(FY) 1991, 1992, and 1993 budgets, though what constituted “SEI funding” changed 

significantly during those years. For SEI in FY 1991, NASA requested $953 million. The FY 

1991 NASA authorization bill approved almost full funding, but the appropriations bill 

essentially eliminated it. Congress subsequently allowed NASA to reprogram $37 million into 

SEI for FY 1991. For FY 1992, NASA requested $94 million. Congress approved $32 million. 

For FY 1993, $64 million was requested. The FY 1993 NASA authorization bill approved 

approximately half of that, and the appropriations bill essentially eliminated all funding.72

By early 1993, under the new Clinton administration, it became apparent that President Bush’s 

SEI would not go forward. In an Agency reorganization, the functions of NASA’s Office of 

Exploration were absorbed into the Office of Space Science. In President Clinton’s 1996 

National Space Policy, human exploration was officially removed from the national agenda. 

Management of NASA’s Aeronautics and Space R&T and Exploration Programs 

Phase I (1989–1991)

Until February 1990, NASA managed both its aeronautics and space R&T programs under a 

single organization called the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST, designated 

Code R within NASA). William F. Balhaus, Jr., served as the acting Associate Administrator of 

72 Marcia S. Smith, “Space Exploration: Overview of President Bush’s ‘Vision for Space Exploration,’ and Key 

Issues for Congress,” CRS Report for Congress, RS21720, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 

pp. CRS-4–CRS-5, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/41129.pdf (accessed June 8, 2006). The FY 1991 

Authorization Bill became P.L. 101-611. The FY 1991 Appropriations Bill became P.L. 101-507. The FY 1993 

Authorization Bill became P.L. 102-588. The FY 1993 Appropriations Bill became P.L. 102-389.

258
OAST from February 1988 through April 1989, and Robert Rosen was Deputy Associate 

Administrator. In April 1989, Rosen became acting Associate Administrator. At the start of 

1989, the divisions within OAST and their heads were as follows: 

• Aeronautics: Cecil Rosen III (acting) 

• Space: Frederick Povinelli

• NASP Office: Duncan E. McIver

• Propulsion, Power, and Energy: Gregory Reck 

• Aerodynamics: Paul Kutler (acting)

• Information Sciences and Human Factors: Lee Holcomb

• Flight Projects: Jack Levine 

• Aerodynamics: Paul Kutler (acting)

• Materials and Structures: Samuel Venneri 

• Institutions: Martin Stein 

• Resources and Management Systems Office: Edmund L. Sanchez 

In 1989, Lana N. Crouch became acting Director of the Space Division, replacing Povinelli, and 

L. Michael Weeks became acting Director of the NASP Office, replacing McIver. Gregory Reck 

also became Director of the Mars Initiative Technology Team. In October 1989, Arnold Aldrich 

replaced Robert Rosen as Associate Administrator. 

During the same period, NASA managed the exploration initiative through the Office of 

Exploration (designated Code Z within NASA), which had been established in 1987. Code Z was 

259
the lead NASA organization for implementing President Bush’s SEI.73 At the start of 1989, Code Z 

was headed by Associate Administrator Franklin D. Martin and Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Douglas O’Handley. Jimmy Underwood headed the Technology and Infrastructure Division, Ivan 

Bekey was acting Director of the Mission Studies Division, and Carl Pilcher was acting Director of 

Science Studies. The position of Director of Special Projects was vacant. 

On December 21, 1989, NASA Administrator Truly announced his intent to merge the Office of 

Exploration into OAST. The new organization, called the Office of Aeronautics, Exploration, 

and Technology, would combine analysis of exploration mission alternatives with innovative 

technologies. Truly stated that it would encourage “tight coordination” between planning for 

human exploration of the solar system and developing the new technologies required to 

accomplish that goal.74 

Truly announced the merger’s completion on February 28, 1990. The new organization was 

headed by Aldrich. The Deputy Associate Administrator was Robert Rosen, and the Assistant 

Associate Administrator for Exploration was Franklin Martin, subordinate to the Code R 

associate administrator (see figure 3-2). The division heads were as follows: 

• Aeronautics: Cecil C. Rosen III

• Space Technology: Lana M. Couch (acting) 

• Institutions: Martin Stein

• Resources and Management Systems Office: Glenn C. Fuller

73 “Space Exploration Initiative,” http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c07sei_1.htm (accessed June 2, 2006).

74 Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology, 1986–1990 (Washington, DC: NASA-SP 4027, 1997), p. 255. Also 

“NASA To Combine Exploration and Technology Organizations,” NASA News Release 89-185, December 21, 1989, 

NASA History Division folder 16436, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

260
• NASP Office: H. Lee Beach, Jr. (acting)

• Information Sciences and Human Factors: Lee B. Holcomb 

• Aerodynamics: Louis J. Williams

• Materials and Structures: Samuel Venneri

• Propulsion, Power and Energy: Gregory Reck

• Flight Projects: Jack Levine

• Space Exploration Office: Vacant

Figure 3-2. Office of Aeronautics, Exploration, and Technology, 1990–1991 (Derived from 

NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129). 

261
In early 1991, Mark K. Craig took the position of acting Director of the Space Exploration Office 

and Earl E. VanLandingham became Director of the Propulsion, Power, and Energy Division. 

In December 1990, the Augustine Committee issued a report on the future of NASA. In response 

to the report, which recommended the establishment of an office headed by an associate 

administrator for exploration, in August 1991, NASA reestablished the Office of Exploration 

(this time designated Code X within NASA).75 Truly appointed Michael Griffin, a recruit from 

the Defense Department’s Strategic Defense as Associate Administrator to direct, integrate, and 

oversee activities involving NASA’s exploration goals, including program, technical, and fiscal 

management for matters relating to the office.76 On October, Jay H. Greene was appointed 

Deputy Associate Administrator for the Exploration Office. The Space Exploration Division was 

removed from the Office of Aeronautics, Exploration, and Technology (Code R), which was 

again named the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST). Richard ‘Pete’ H. 

Petersen became its head in December (see figure 3-3).77 

75 Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of 

the U.S. Space Program, December 1990, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/augustine/racfup1.htm

(accessed March 15, 2005).

76 “NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Appointed,” NASA News Release 91-139, August 23, 1991, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1991/91-139. txt (accessed June 1, 2006). 77 “New Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology,” Key Personnel Change, December 2, 

1991, NASA History Division folder 16436, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, 

DC.

262
Figure 3-3. Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, 1991 (Derived from NASA 

Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP 159). 

Vincent L. Rausch was appointed Director of the NASP Directorate on December 4, 1991, 

effective January 12, 1992. Richard A. Reeves became Director for Institutions, Cecil Rosen 

remained as head of Aeronautics, and Reck remained as Director for Space Technology. The 

High Performance Computing and Communications Division, headed by Holcomb, replaced the 

Information Sciences and Human Factors Division. The Aerodynamics, Materials and Structures, 

and the Propulsion, Power and Energy Divisions were eliminated. The High Performance 

Aircraft Division and Flight Projects Division were merged into a single organization—the High 

Performance Aircraft and Flight Projects Office—in the Aeronautics Division. In July 1992, 

Robert Rosen left his position as Deputy Associate Administrator and relocated to Ames 

Research Center at Moffett Field, California. 

263
Phase II (1992–1996) 

On October 15, 1992, NASA Administrator Goldin announced a series of organizational changes 

to “improve management and bring focus to programs essential to America’s future.”78 He stated 

that NASA needed a better balance of programs among subsonics, NASP hypersonics, and highspeed civil transport (HSCT). In addition, he noted that NASA needed to develop a strategic plan 

to ensure it had the proper facilities to keep the United States the aerospace industry’s world 

leader. 

To meet these goals, OAST was restructured and divided. Pete Petersen became Special 

Assistant to the Administrator, charged with developing a comprehensive and integrated longterm plan to identify the critical facilities for aeronautics and space. Cecil Rosen, Director for 

Aeronautics, became acting Associate Administrator for the Office of Aeronautics (Code R). A 

new Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology (OACT, Code C within NASA) was formed 

in October 1992, replacing the Office of Commercial Programs and assuming many of the 

activities associated with space R&T (see figure 3-4). Commercial Programs became a division 

within OACT. OACT was to (1) function as a systems engineering team capable of judging the 

feasibility and cost of highly innovative ideas, (2) serve as NASA’s “front door” for businesses 

seeking NASA’s expertise in developing new ideas and technologies, (3) transfer technology 

into the commercial sector at a faster pace, and (4) stimulate commercial space activity.79 Reck, 

who had led OAST’s Space Technology Division, was appointed acting Associate 

78 Daniel Goldin became NASA Administrator in April 1992.

79 “Goldin Describes NASA’s New Commercialization Office,” NASA News Release 92-201, November 10, 1992, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1992/92-201.txt (accessed 2 June 2006).

264
Administrator, and Courtney Stadd was selected acting Deputy Associate Administrator for the 

new organization.80

Figure 3-4. Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology (Derived from NASA HQ Telephone 

Directory).

On March 25, 1993, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin announced the disbanding of the Office 

of Exploration and immediate absorption of its activities by the Office of Space Science. The 

Exploration Associate Administrator, Michael Griffin, was reassigned as NASA’s Chief 

Engineer.81

In January 1993, Wesley L. Harris was appointed Associate Administrator of the Office of 

Aeronautics, and Kristin A. Hessenius became Deputy Associate Administrator. New divisions 

80 “Goldin Announces Changes in NASA Organization to Focus and Strengthen Programs and Management,” NASA 

News Release 92-172, October 15, 1992, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1992/92-172.txt (accessed June 20, 

2006).

81 “Exploration Effort Shifted to Office of Space Science,” NASA News Release 93-54, March 25, 1993, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1993/93-054.txt (accessed June 20, 2006).

265
were established from organizations that had formerly been part of the Aeronautics Division in 

OAST: Subsonic Transportation headed by Robert E. Whitehead, High-Speed Research headed 

by Louis J. Williams, High-Performance Aircraft and Flight Projects headed by Richard S. 

Christiansen (acting), and Strategy and Policy headed by John J. McCarthy. A new division—

Critical Technologies, headed by Douglas Dwoyer (acting)—was also established.

The following list shows the divisions and acting directors of OACT: 

• Advanced Communications: Robert L. Norwood 

• Spacecraft and Remote Sensing: Samuel Venneri

• Flight Projects: Jack Levine

• Administration and Resources: Susan Fruchter 

• Program Planning and Integration: Robert L. Norwood 

• Transportation: Earl VanLandingham 

• Space Processing: Richard H. Ott 

• Commercial Development and Technology Transfer: Vacant

By October 1993, most of the division director positions in OACT had been filled. Venneri, 

Levine, Fruchter, Norwood, VanLandingham, and Ott had become directors of the Spaceflight 

and Remote Sensing, Flight Projects, Administration and Resources, Program Planning and 

Integration, Transportation, and Space Processing Divisions, respectively. Norwood continued as 

acting Director of Program Planning and Integration, James R. Ramler became acting Director of 

the Advanced Communications Division, and Reck stepped in as acting Director of the 

266
Commercial Development and Technology Transfer Division. Late in the year, Thomas D. 

Brown became acting Director of the Administration and Resources Division, replacing Fruchter. 

In the Office of Aeronautics, the only change in late 1993 was the addition of John R. Facey as 

acting Director of Critical Technologies, replacing Dwoyer. In early 1994, changes made to the 

Office of Aeronautics included the appointment of Whitehead as Deputy Associate 

Administrator, Remer C. Prince as acting Director for Institutions, Ray V. Hood as acting 

Director of Subsonic Transportation, and Jay M. Henn as Director of Strategy and Policy. In the 

summer of 1994, Woodrow Whitlow, Jr., became Director of Critical Technologies. 

A reorganization was announced on August 23, 1994 that merged OACT (along with the Office 

of Space Systems Development) into the new Office of Space Access and Technology (OSAT, 

Code X within NASA; see figure 3-5). John E. Mansfield was selected as the new NASA 

Associate Administrator for OSAT, and Reck became the Deputy Associate Administrator 

(effective September 6, 1994). A number of divisions and individuals moved from OACT to the 

new organization. The divisions and their directors were as follows: 

• Flight Integration Office: Jack Levine 

• Advanced Concepts Senior Executive: Ivan Bekey 

• Launch Vehicles Office: Charles Gunn

• Commercial Development and Technology Transfer: Robert L. Norwood 

• Spacecraft Systems: Samuel Venneri

• Space Processing: Edward A. Gabris

• Management Operations: Martin Stein

• Space Transportation: Vacant

267
Figure 3-5. Office of Space Access and Technology (Derived from NASA HQ Telephone 

Directory).

Late in 1994, the NASP program was canceled and its program office in the Office of 

Aeronautics was eliminated. 

On April 28, 1995, Aeronautics Associate Administrator Harris was named Deputy Chief 

Engineer (Aeronautics). Whitehead, the Deputy Associate Administrator, moved to the position 

of acting Associate Administrator and was appointed Associate Administrator on June 26, 1995. 

Christiansen moved to the position of acting Director of Critical Technologies, and also 

continued in his position as Director of High Performance Aircraft and Flight Projects. 

Changes to the Office of Aeronautics in the fall of 1995 included the selection of Douglas G. 

Kirkpatrick as acting Director for Institutions, and Ray V. Hood as acting Director of the 

Subsonic Transportation Division. In early 1996, several divisions within the Office of 

Aeronautics were eliminated:

268
• High Performance Aircraft and Flight Projects, headed by Richard Christiansen 

• High-Speed Research, headed by Vincent L. Rausch 

• Institutions, headed by Douglas G. Kirkpatrick 

• Strategy and Policy Office, headed by Jay M. Henn

• Critical Technologies, headed by Richard Christiansen 

• Subsonic Transportation, headed by Ray V. Hood 

Three organizations were created: 

• Aerospace Research Division, headed by Richard Christiansen 

• Alliance Development Office, headed by Louis J. Williams

• Management Support Office, headed by Cathy H. Mangum 

The High Performance Computing and Communications Office, headed by Holcomb, became 

the Aviation Systems Technology Division, also headed by Holcomb. 

In OSAT, Col. Gary E. Payton became head of the Space Transportation Division in June 1995. 

In the fall, Charles J. Arcilesi became acting Director of the Launch Vehicles Office, replacing 

Charles Gunn. 

Phase III (1996–1998) 

Late in 1996, OSAT was eliminated. The Office of Aeronautics assumed some of the 

responsibilities of the Space Access Office, becoming the Office of Aeronautics and Space 

Transportation Technology. NASA also replaced the program office structure with an enterprise 

269
structure headed by an enterprise associate administrator (see figure 3-6).82 Responsibility for 

particular areas of advanced technology development was split among the four enterprises and 

was coordinated by a chief technologist in the Office of the Administrator. The Mission to Planet 

Earth (MTPE) assumed responsibility for the small spacecraft technology initiative (the 

Advanced Smallsat program) and the commercial remote sensing program.83 Whitehead became 

the Enterprise Associate Administrator of the larger aerospace organization, and Richard Reeves 

became Deputy Associate Administrator. Payton was Deputy Associate Administrator for Space 

Transportation Technology. The divisions and directors within the Aeronautics and Space 

Transportation Technology Transportation Enterprise were as follows: 

• Resources Management Office: Glenn C. Fuller

• Aviation Systems Technology: Lee B. Holcomb 

• Alliance Development Office: Louis J. Williams 

• Aerospace Research: Richard S. Christiansen 

• Management Support Office: Kathryn C. Ferrare 

• Space Transportation: Gary E. Payton 

• Commercial Technology: Robert L. Norwood 

82 NASA Headquarters telephone directories continued to use the former “Office” designation.

83 “Budget Summary, Office of Mission to Planet Earth,” Science, Aeronautics, and Technology, FY 1998 

Estimates, p. SAT 3-5.

270
Figure 3-6. Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology (Derived from NASA 

HQ Telephone Directory). 

In mid-1997, Anngienetta Johnson replaced Ferrare in the Management Support Office. 

Associate Administrator Whitehead retired at the end of 1997 and Christiansen became acting 

Associate Administrator.84 On March 2, 1998, Wallace Sawyer moved from NASA’s Langley 

Research Center, where he had been Program Manager for the High Speed Research Program, to 

become acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation 

Technology. On May 11, Michael B. Mann became Deputy Associate Administrator of the 

Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Enterprise. Spence M. Armstrong became 

Associate Administrator. Payton was Deputy Association Administrator for Space 

Transportation Technology. Other directors in the Enterprise were: 

• Resources Management Office: Glenn C. Fuller

• Research and Technology: Terrence J. Hertz (acting)

• Alliance Development Office: Louis J. Williams 

84 In 1997, NASA moved from the program office organizational structure to the strategic enterprise structure.

271
• Aerospace Research: Richard S. Christiansen 

• Commercial Technology: Robert L. Norwood 

On October 14, 1998, the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology (OASTT) 

was renamed the Office of Aerospace Technology (OAST). The Aeronautics and Space 

Transportation Enterprise became the Aerospace Technology Enterprise.

Money for Aeronautics, Space Technology, and Exploration 

At the end of the decade in 1998, funding for NASA’s aeronautics and space R&T programs was 

at a higher level than it was at the beginning of the decade. In particular, aeronautics funding 

grew from $309.2 million in FY 1989 to $920.1 million in FY 1998—an increase of more than 

66 percent (without considering inflation), excluding funding for commercial programs, which 

was budgeted with advanced transportation beginning in FY 1993. Although funding decreased 

three times during the decade, the decreases were small (2.4 percent in FY 1993, 2.5 percent in 

FY 1995, and 1.1 percent in FY 1997). 

Space R&T, however, did not fare nearly as well. Even though total funding increased by 31 

percent from the beginning of the decade to the end, decreases in funding were much more 

dramatic than in the aeronautics area. The first decline of the decade was minor: in FY 1990 

funding fell by a mere 0.6 percent. However, it fell significantly in FY 1995 from its decade high 

of $502.4 million to $435.7 million, and even more drastically in FY 1996 to $234 million from 

the previous year. Funding in FY 1998 was still below the level attained in FY 1993. 

272
The FY 1995 decrease reflected a dramatic reduction in flight-program funding from $140.9 

million in FY 1994 to $3.5 million in FY 1995 following the transfers of the In-STEP program to 

Spacecraft and Remote Sensing, and the Space Station Utilization program to Space Processing. 

At the time, only the Launch Voucher program, an inflatable-flight experiment, and the 

Commercial Middeck Augmentation Module (CMAM) contract with SPACEHAB, Inc., 

remained. The Launch Vehicles Support program also was no longer funded in this area. An 

even greater decrease in available funds for space R&T that occurred in FY 1996 reflected the 

program’s almost complete focus on developing “affordable and reliable access to space early in 

the 21st century,” as Spacecraft and Remote Sensing, Flight Programs, Space Processing, and 

Advanced Small-Satellite Technology were no longer funded programs.85 

The transatmospheric program funded the National Aerospace Plane (NASP), or X-30, program, 

which was a joint NASA- DOD activity. It was canceled in 1994 after funding problems 

increased and efforts to develop the necessary technology became more challenging than 

anticipated.

Table 3-1 shows programmed amounts for the years 1989–1998. Tables 3-2 through 3-29 show 

budget requests and programmed amounts for the programs within aeronautics, space R&T, and 

exploration. Since NASA typically submits both an original and a revised budget request before 

Congress acts on a budget, both amounts are indicated, separated by a “/.” Where no amount 

appears, there was no submission. Programmed amounts reflect the amounts actually available to 

be spent. Occasionally, a budget category is established during a fiscal year. When this happens, 

there will be a programmed amount but no budget request for that budget category. Funds for 

85 “Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology,” FY 1998 Estimates, p. SAT 4-2.

273
these activities often were transferred from another project’s budget through a “reprogramming” 

of funds during the year. All amounts come from the annual budget requests prepared by the 

NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer. An explanation of NASA’s budget process can be 

found in chapter 1 of volume VII of this data book. 

Aeronautics R&T

NASA’s aeronautics program focused on theoretical and computational R&T (its R&T base), 

various classes of aircraft (subsonic aircraft, rotorcraft, high-speed air transportation, highperformance aircraft, and hypersonic vehicles), and maintaining and operating national facilities 

in support of other NASA programs, as well as industry and DOD projects. Safety and 

environmental issues were particular concerns. Many programs were conducted jointly with the 

Federal Aviation Administration or the DOD to benefit commercial aviation and develop new 

military capabilities. Industry was a vital partner at all levels of involvement, and an important 

emphasis was placed on transferring NASA-developed aeronautical technology to the private 

sector.

R&T Base: Critical Disciplines

The R&T base provided a strong fundamental foundation for future aviation advances. Major 

areas of emphasis included developing a fundamental understanding of a broad range of physical 

phenomena and computational methods to analyze and predict the physical phenomena and 

perform appropriate experimental validations. 

274
Aerodynamics 

Aerodynamics was a critical discipline that explored a wide range of fluid-flow phenomena from 

basic fluid mechanisms to applied aerodynamics. Validated aerodynamics technologies were 

developed through theoretical, computational, and experimental efforts that applied to civil and 

military aircraft across all speed ranges. The advanced computational methods developed as a 

result of this research enabled more accurate and efficient prediction of an aircraft’s aerodynamic 

performance and the exploration of fluid-physics phenomena. CFD provided powerful analytical, 

simulative, and predictive tools to describe the complex physics of aerodynamic flow. Research 

included flow diagnostics using modern CFD tools to improve understanding of the detailed 

mechanisms associated with induced drag. In some cases, CFD supplanted wind tunnels for 

evaluations of aircraft.86 Figure 3-7 shows a CFD image of the Hyper-X vehicle at Mach 7.

86 “Research and Technology Base,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, p. 

RD 12-4. Also NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 29.

275
Figure 3-7. This computational fluid dynamics (CFD) image is of the Hyper-X vehicle with the 

engine operating under the Mach 7 test condition. The image illustrates surface heat transfer on 

the vehicle surface (red is highest heating) and flowfield contours at the local Mach number 

(NASA-Dryden photo ED97-43968-01).

Propulsion and Power R&T 

The Propulsion and Power program explored physical phenomena at the disciplinary, 

component, and subsystem levels to provide a basis for improved propulsion systems. Ongoing 

disciplinary research in instrumentation, controls, and internal fluid mechanics provided the 

foundation necessary for continued advancement at the component and subsystem levels, with 

tools developed at Ames Research Center. Propulsion research was centered at Lewis Research 

Center.87

87 “Research and Technology Base,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, p. 

RD 12-5.

276
Materials and Structures 

The Materials and Structures program developed advanced materials, analysis and test methods, 

and structural concepts to enable the design of safe, lightweight airframes and lightweight, 

durable, fuel-efficient engines. Analytical research focused on advanced computational methods 

from the micromechanics level through global response of full-scale aircraft, aeroelastic response 

and control, and multidisciplinary design and optimization. Airframe materials and structures 

research focused on investigating the fundamental behavior of materials, and fabrication 

technologies for light metals and composites. Promising technologies and structures included the 

geodesic stiffened spar web airframe design and enhanced diffusion bonding (EDB) for 

fabricating lightweight, high-temperature structures. Researchers at Langley Research Center 

also developed an advanced capability to computationally predict the unsteady transonic 

aerodynamic loads on realistic aircraft configurations using a faster and more stable procedure 

compared to previous computational approaches.88

Information Sciences and Human Factors 

Encompassing controls and guidance, the Information Sciences and Human Factors program 

provided a technology base that supported future aircraft designs for safer and more efficient 

operations, and greatly expanded flight envelopes. Human Factors focused on flight 

management, human engineering methods, and cockpit automation aids. Controls and guidance 

research focused on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of future fixed-wing and rotary 

aircraft, advanced aircraft control methodologies, reliability and validation techniques, and 

guidance and display concepts. The return of the Advanced Transport Operating System 

(ATOPS) B-737 research aircraft to flight status after it underwent a modernization upgrade 

88 “Research and Technology Base,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, p. 

RD 12-6. Also NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, pp. 37–38.

277
resulted in a number of successful research projects, including the inflight application of artificial 

intelligence to flight-control-system software. New approaches to minimize windshear hazards 

were addressed, with the F-Factor hazard index becoming an industry standard.89 

Flight Systems

The Flight Systems program supported aviation safety, flight-test methodologies, and air vehicle 

advanced technology-demonstration validation. In FY 1991, a three-year effort was initiated in 

the icing program to assemble and assess an overall airplane computational code to predict the 

effects of ice on the performance and stability of swept-wing and commuter aircraft. A joint U.S. 

Air Force/NASA test of advanced, low-power deicer systems on the B1-B engine inlet 

components was also conducted. This followed the test program on several advanced, low-power 

deicer systems conducted during FY 1991 to determine the more effective candidate deicer 

systems. In other activities, concepts for improving air traffic control were studied, and a 

research program investigating the character and effect of lightning strikes on aircraft was 

completed. More flexible electronic displays and a variety of automated flight-management 

devices that provided fully automated routine flight management from takeoff to landing, 

regardless of weather and with a reduced inflight workload, were introduced. However, because 

the air traffic control system had not been sufficiently upgraded to permit the full use of 

automated flight-control systems, certain problems resulted that required further study. Field 

tests of the Traffic Advisory and Collision Avoidance System verified the adequacy of the 

system.90

89 “Research and Technology Base,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, p. 

RD 12-6. Also NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 40.

90 “Research and Technology Base,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, pp. 

RD 12-6–RD 12-7. Also NASA Aeronautics: Research and Technology, Program Highlights, NP-129, p. 41.

278
Systems Analysis

Researchers in the aeronautics Systems Analysis program conducted long-term technology 

assessments, identified technology applications, and performed sensitivity analyses and trade-off 

studies from which effective R&T programs could be developed to meet future civil and military 

aeronautics requirements. Studies focused on defining influential, long-range R&T needs for 

specific vehicle classes. Efforts included conceptual design studies and economic benefit 

analyses for advanced rotorcraft and subsonic transports. Other studies investigated technology 

trade-offs for hypersonic vehicles, supersonic transport, and high-performance aircraft to enable 

the most effective use of resources.91

Focused Systems Research

Subsonic Transport 

NASA’s subsonic transport research focused on the technology required to develop a new 

generation of fuel-efficient, affordable aircraft and improve the safety and productivity of the 

National Airspace System, including the fleet of aging aircraft. Principle areas included aviation 

safety, environmental impact, aviation system capacity, and the cost of air travel. 

Safety

A major goal was to reduce the fatal aircraft accident rate by 80 percent in 10 years and by 90 

percent in 25 years. Safety activities typically were related to weather conditions in the air and 

on the ground, turbulence, human factors (particularly the use of automation to improve safety), 

and issues involving the increasing age of the nation’s fleet of aircraft. 

91 “Research and Technology Base,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, p. 

RD 12-7.

279
Runway safety. In support of a national goal to reduce the aircraft fatal-accident rate by 80 

percent in 10 years and by 90 percent in 25 years, NASA partnered with Transport Canada and 

the FAA in an ongoing five-year program called the Joint Winter Runway Friction Measurement 

program. Beginning in January 1996, the study, which was led by Langley Research Center, used 

instrumented aircraft, friction-measuring ground vehicles, and test personnel from around the 

world to investigate technology concepts to increase understanding of runway friction and 

develop improved tire designs, better chemical treatments for snow and ice, and new types of 

runway surfaces to minimize the effects of bad weather. 

Data collected from 1996 to 1999 included nearly 400 instrumented aircraft test runs and more 

than 8,000 ground vehicle runs. Surface conditions were artificially varied to expand the range of 

the data collected, and many different runway friction-measuring ground vehicles—vans, 

trailers, and modified cars—took readings with continuous and fixed slip devices under similar 

runway conditions for comparison with each other and with the braking performance of the two 

instrumented aircraft. 

Since testing began, five instrumented aircraft and 13 ground test vehicles have been evaluated at 

sites in Canada, the United States, and Norway. The test aircraft included the Canadian National 

Research Council’s Falcon 20, the FAA’s B-727, a De Havilland Dash 8, and NASA’s B-737 

and B-757 research aircraft. The friction-measuring ground devices came from a number of 

international partners. Transport Canada’s surface friction tester and electronic recording 

decelerometer; the Scottish GripTester; the French IMAG; Norway’s RUNAR, ROAR, and 

airport surface friction tester; the FAA’s runway friction tester and BV-11 trailer; the American 

280
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E-274 skid trailer; and NASA’s instrumented tire-test 

vehicle and diagonal-braked vehicle all contributed data. 

Researchers also took manual measurements to monitor conditions before and after a test run 

series (see figure 3-8). They recorded ambient temperature; temperatures of pavement surface 

and snow, slush, or ice; the depth of the cover material (water, snow, slush, or ice); and (in the 

case of snow or slush) the density of the cover material. From these data the team developed an 

international runway friction index to standardize friction reporting from different devices and to 

help pilots make critical takeoff and landing decisions.92

92 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 21. Also “Winter Runway Safety Subject of New Study,” NASA News Release 96-

018, March 1996, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/1996/Mar96/96_18.html (accessed July 5, 

2006). “Research Aims To Prevent Accidents on Hazardous Runways,” FS-1999-07-45-LaRC, July 1999, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/WinterRunway.html (accessed July 5, 2006).

281
Figure 3-8. Joint Winter Runway Friction Measurement program, North Bay, Ontario, Canada. 

Researchers took manual measurements of ambient runway conditions before and after a test 

run series (NASA-LaRC photo EL-2000-00311). 

Anti-Icing Fluid. In 1997, Ames Research Center developed a patented anti-icing fluid to keep 

ice from building up on aircraft wings. The fluid was so environmentally safe it was referred to 

as “food grade.” When applied to a dry surface, the fluid prevents ice from forming a surface 

bond, thus saving deicing time and money, and preventing excessive use of chemical solvents. If 

applied after ice has formed, it serves as a traditional deicing formula. The new fluid contains 

propylene glycol, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in food, 

instead of ingredients such as ethylene glycol and other additives that could sicken or kill water 

life, animals, or people. The fluid, which is effective in temperatures as low as –70°F (–56°C), 

282
was also adopted for use on runways, bridges, ships, train tracks, and automobiles. It works by 

“grabbing” onto an airplane’s surface better than current fluids when a plane is at rest. When the 

plane takes off, the fluid becomes thinner and blows away so the wings remain clean, increasing 

the amount of lift as the plane rises.93

Tailplane Icing Program (TIP). The NASA/FAA TIP was a four-year icing research program

that began in 1994 and used facilities at NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel, a De Havilland DHC-6 

Twin Otter Icing Research Aircraft at Lewis Research Center, and Ohio State University’s Low 

Speed Wind Tunnel. The comprehensive program improved understanding of aircraft 

aerodynamics and performance under iced-tailplane conditions. It developed training aides and 

analytical tools to help discriminate tailplane sensitivity to icing and expand awareness of the 

aviation threat known as “ice-contaminated tailplane stall.” The program included icing wind 

tunnel tests, dry-air aerodynamic wind tunnel tests, flight tests, and analytical-code development. 

It developed a comprehensive database on tailplane aeroperformance, identified dominant 

drivers leading to tailplane stall, demonstrated effective tailplane stall recovery procedures, and 

provided inflight demonstrations for guest pilots. Fifteen guest pilots and engineers flew the 

Twin Otter and witnessed the flying qualities of an aircraft with an ice-contaminated tailplane.94 

Ice “Zapping” System. A new ice removal system was developed to include with the first new 

general aviation aircraft introduced in the United States in 15 years. The Electro-Expulsive 

93 “NASA Ames ‘Food Grade’ Anti-Icing Fluid Also Reduces Auto Rust, NASA News Release 97-133, June 12, 

1997, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-133.txt (accessed July 5, 2006). Also “New Fluid Prevents 

Railway Ice,” Spinoff, 2001, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff2001/ps3.html (accessed July 7, 2006); “Ice Free 

Originating Technology/NASA Contribution,” Spinoff, 2006.

94 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 22–23. Also Thomas P. Ratvasky et al., “NASA/FAA Tailplane Icing Program 

Overview,” NASA Technical Memorandum-1999-208901, AIAA-99-0370, NASA Lewis Research Center, January 

1999, http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1999/TM-1999-208901.pdf (accessed July 5, 2006).

283
Separation System, or “ice zapper,” pulverizes ice into small particles and removes layers of ice 

as thin as frost or as thick as an inch of glaze. It uses 0.001 the power and is 0.1 the weight of 

electro-thermal ice removal systems. In less than a millisecond, an electric current runs through 

parallel layers of flat copper ribbon bonded to the aircraft’s wings, engine inlets, and other 

airplane parts where ice could form. A repelling magnetic field is created, causing a high 

acceleration to break the ice into tiny particles that fall from the plane’s surface. The system can 

run continuously during flight, pulsing once or twice a minute to keep airplane surfaces ice-free. 

In 1995, NASA licensed the ice zapper to Ice Management Systems, Inc., for development and 

marketing. The company agreed to develop the system for Lancair Inc., which tested the system 

with the Lancair IV aircraft.95

Windshear. Beginning in 1986, Langley Research Center carried out windshear studies 

consisting of analyses, simulation, and flight tests in a joint effort with the FAA to reduce the 

number of fatal accidents caused by this hazardous weather condition. Using the NASA B-737 

research aircraft, NASA flight-tested three detection systems. The first, microwave radar, sent a 

microwave radar signal ahead of the aircraft to seek raindrops and other moisture particles. The 

return signal represented the motion of those particles and was translated into wind speed. 

Langley developed the research signal-processing algorithms and hardware for this windshear 

application. 

95 “NASA Lightweight ‘Ice Zapper” To Be Used on New Aircraft,” NASA News Release 98-104, June 16, 1998, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1998/98-104.txt (accessed July 5, 2006). Also Aeronautics & Space 

Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual Progress Report 1997–

1998, p. 23.

284
The second detection system was the Doppler lidar, which reflected energy from minute particles 

called aerosols. Its advantage was that it avoided picking up the signals from “ground clutter,” 

such as moving cars, and had fewer interfering signals. This system did not work as well in 

heavy rain as microwave radar. 

The third detection system used an infrared detector to measure temperature changes ahead of 

the airplane. It monitored the thermal signatures of carbon dioxide to look for cool columns of 

air that could be characteristic of microbursts. This system was less costly and complex, but did 

not measure wind speeds directly. The system was flight-tested beginning in 1991 and the results 

showed that the forward-looking Doppler radar was able to provide pilots with a 20- to 40-

second warning of upcoming microbursts. 

Information from Langley’s tests contributed to a database on microbursts and detection systems. 

The data gathered from analyses, simulations, laboratory tests, and flight tests helped the FAA 

certify predictive windshear detection systems for installation on commercial aircraft.96 In 1992, 

the NASA-FAA windshear program was nominated for a Collier Trophy, the highest honor an 

aviation program could receive. Hastened by FAA regulations mandating that airliners install 

windshear-detection devices, the technology quickly moved to the commercial sector.97 In 1994, 

Continental Airlines became the first commercial airline to adopt the new system.

96 “Making the Skies Safe from Windshear; Langley-Developed Sensors Will Help Improve Air Safety,” Langley 

Research Center Fact Sheet, June 1992, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Windshear.html

(accessed May 25, 2006).

97 Lane Wallace, Airborne Trailblazer: Two Decades with NASA Langley’s 737 Flying Laboratory (Washington, 

DC: NASA SP-4216, 1994), p. 73.

285
In the mid and late 1990s, avionics companies rapidly provided advanced windshear-detection 

systems. By June 1996, a number of vendors, including Allied Signa/Bendix, Rockwell Collins, 

and Westinghouse Electric, produced FAA-certified forward-looking windshear radar systems. 

By the end of the decade, foreign and domestic carriers, as well as the U.S. Air Force, had placed 

more than 2,000 orders for the systems. These windshear-detection systems worked by issuing 

microburst warnings within a specific distance and within a specific angular sector of the 

aircraft’s heading. A warning icon appears on the radar display and a voice synthesizer issues an 

aural warning. The program was an outstanding example of cooperation between government 

agencies, manufacturers of aircraft and sensors, airlines, research organizations, and academia.98

Air Turbulence Research. In the spring of 1998, Dryden Flight Research Center completed its 

first series of flight tests of a sensor to detect clear air turbulence. The sensor device, called 

Airborne Coherent Lidar for Advanced Inflight Measurement (ACLAIM), was designed and 

built for NASA by Coherent Technologies of Lafayette, Colorado. ACLAIM relied on Light 

Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) technology to detect changing velocities of tiny particles in 

turbulent air. In the first tests, the experiment team located turbulent conditions before the 

aircraft flew through the disturbed air, and used the infrared laser radar to measure the changes in 

wind speed (a measure of turbulence). The crew members then compared the pre-encounter 

measurements with the effects of the turbulence they experienced, exploring the relationship 

between the laser radar-measured turbulence characteristics and the actual turbulence 

experienced by the aircraft. The tests provided an efficient checkout of the flight hardware and 

helped characterize turbulence measurements, enabling researchers to construct a database to 

98 Joseph R. Chambers, Concept to Realty; Contributions of the NASA Langley Research Center to U.S. Civil 

Aircraft of the 1990s (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4529, 2003), p. 198.

286
learn more about accurately detecting and forecasting turbulence. The ACLAIM sensor could 

alert pilots to turbulence 20 seconds to 1 minute away, giving them time to take safety 

precautions and warn the crew and passengers.99 Experiments were flown on three separate 

flights for a total of more than 7 hours at altitudes as high as 25,000 feet (7,620 meters).100

Modeling of Trailing Vortices. Wake vortex issues were evaluated as an element of 

investigating reduced separation requirements between aircraft. Wake vortices can be dangerous 

when aircraft are within a particular distance of each other. Improved aircraft design may 

produce vortices that dissipate more quickly and are less hazardous to nearby aircraft. In 1997, 

Langley Research Center conducted a study to improve the modeling of vortex flows off aircraft 

wing tips and vortex breakdowns.101 The results showed that the class of models known as 

Reynolds-stress turbulence models gave much more accurate calculations than other models, 

yielding significantly better predictions of the breakdown location.102 

Engine-Monitoring and Control System (E-MACS). In the research area of automation and 

human factors, automated piloting and air traffic control aids were developed and evaluated 

during this decade. At Langley Research Center in 1990, pilots evaluated E-MACS, an 

information concept that summed up engine performance in columnar displays and showed 

variances between real and ideal values. Pilots preferred this format over the round dials and 

99 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 24.

100 “Forty Years: NASA’s Aviation Safety Efforts Soar,” Aerospace Technology Innovation 6, no. 3 (May/June 

1998): 8, 

http://ipp.nasa.gov/innovation/Innovation63/innov63.pdf#search=%22Forty%20Years%3A%20NASA%E2%80%99

s%20Aviation%20Safety%20Efforts%20Soar%22 (accessed August 2, 2006).

101 Trailing vortices are invisible, thin, tornado-like cones that can potentially be hazardous in heavy air traffic 

around airports.

102 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 24.

287
gauges found in many aircraft cockpits. In one test comparing the two types of displays, pilots 

missed 43 percent of engine faults with the conventional round displays but detected every single 

fault with the E-MACS display. In February 1991, the system was tested on the Transport 

Systems Research Vehicle (TSRV) under realistic flight conditions. Although the technology 

seemed promising, aircraft manufacturers were concerned about the system’s ability to judge an 

engine’s performance over time, since what was considered “normal” typically changed as an 

engine aged and its maximum performance lessened. The system was first adopted by a 

manufacturer of aviation avionics rather than by the air transport industry.103 Researchers at 

Langley began to design an “error-proof flight deck” concept based on “human-centered” design. 

The research focused on developing methods to identify and control factors that lead to human 

error. Implementing such a design would allow for human error without jeopardizing the safety 

and efficiency of a mission.104

Fly-By-Light/Power-By-Wire. The goal of this focused research area was to develop 

technologies for lightweight, highly reliable, electromagnetically immune control and power 

management systems for advanced subsonic civil transport aircraft. In FY 1994, an experimental 

laboratory designed to assess the effects of high-intensity radiated fields on electronic systems 

and avionics was completed and used to validate the behavior of electromagnetic (EM) flight-test 

instrumentation. Critical optical and power components, such as electrical actuators and fiberoptic sensors and cables, were exposed to a simulated flight environment. In FY 1995, the EM 

103 Lane Wallace, Airborne Trailblazer (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4216, 1994), pp. 84–85. 

104 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 25.

288
instrumentation was ground-tested on the TSRV and flight-tested later in 1995.105 Four fly-bylight aircraft control architecture concepts were evaluated by means of simulation and analysis to 

assess safety issues, databus configurations, and life-cycle costs. An architecture that was 

determined to be safe and equivalent in performance to the most modern airplane fly-by-wire 

control systems was selected for detailed design.106

Neural Network Software. A major milestone in the development of neural network software 

was reached in February 1998 when the NeuroEngineering Group at Ames Research Center 

delivered the final version of the real-time Dynamic Cell Structure neural network learning 

software to Boeing, its partner in the project. The software allows a pilot to regain some control 

after the simulated loss of part of a control surface, such as a wing or elevator, or some other 

type of damage to the airplane by comparing what actually is happening in flight (using the 

airplane’s sensor data) with how the airplane should fly. If a failure or accident causes a 

mismatch, the neural net rapidly learns to trim or adjust the stick, engines, or control surfaces to 

correct the aircraft’s flying pattern for the pilot in less than one-sixth of a second. A preliminary 

performance evaluation using an F-15 test aircraft was successful, and Boeing began 

incorporating the software into the newly redesigned F-15 flight processor board.107 

Tests of the software were conducted at Dryden Flight Research Center in early 1999 using a 

highly modified F-15 aircraft that operated with a neural adaptive flight controller. Fourteen test 

flights over a four-week period with the new software demonstrated how a preliminary version 

105 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96-sat_4.html (accessed June 19, 2006).

106 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates,” p. SAT 4-40.

107 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 26–27.

289
of the neural network software that was “pretrained” to the F-15’s aerodynamic database could 

correctly identify and respond to changes in aircraft stability and control characteristics, 

immediately adjusting the control system to maintain optimal flight performance under normal 

and simulated failure conditions. The neural network software may eventually be installed in 

commercial jets with digital fly-by-wire flight-control systems to help pilots recover aircraft 

control during emergencies. The project was among 27 finalists for the 10th Annual Discover 

Awards from an international field of thousands of entrants.108

Aging Aircraft Program. Beginning in 1992, the Aging Aircraft program focused on 

accelerating development of nondestructive evaluation (NDE) technology to ensure the longterm structural integrity and safe operation of aging civil transport aircraft. The program built on 

NASA’s expertise in acoustic and thermal inspection methods, fatigue of metallic materials, and 

stochastic modeling for structural life prediction. It developed computational methods to predict 

multisite fatigue crack growth and the residual strength of aluminum airplane fuselages.109

During 1992, cost-effective, large-area NDE technologies with advanced sensor and signal 

processing concepts were initiated. Of high priority was the development of a technology that 

would enable rapid, automated, wide-area inspections of disbonds, fatigue cracking, and 

corrosion damage in older transport aircraft. A methodology for analyzing fatigue and fracture in 

aircraft structures that contained riveted joints with multisite fatigue damage was developed. In 

108 :NASA Testing New Aircraft Safely Flight Control Software,” NASA Ames Research Center News Release 99-

21AR, April 14, 1999, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/1999/99_21AR.html (accessed July 6, 

2006). Also “Three NASA Projects Chosen as ‘Discover Award’ Finalists,” NASA Ames Research Center News 

Release 99-41AR, June 22, 1999, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/1999/99_41AR.html (accessed 

July 6, 2006). “NASA Testing New Aircraft Safety Flight Control Software,” NASA Ames Research Center News 

Release 99-21AR, April 14, 1999, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/1999/99_21AR.html (accessed 

July 6, 2006).

109 “Office of Aeronautics, Exploration, and Technology, “Fiscal Year 1992 Estimates, p. RD 12-25.

290
addition, global and local analysis procedures for relating localized failure mechanisms to overall 

structural integrity and verification of the structural fatigue analyses were established. These 

activities were carried out cooperatively with the FAA and the air transport industry.110 

In FY 1994, the program completed the development of computational methods for predicting 

multisite fatigue crack growth and the residual strength of aluminum airplane fuselages. In 

cooperation with several U.S. airlines and the U.S. Air Force, NDE techniques used on large 

fuselage surface areas were verified.111 Efforts also focused on developing and verifying an 

analytical methodology for predicting when small fatigue cracks would become so widespread 

that the residual strength of the fuselage would be reduced below a safe level, and establishing 

requirements for in-service inspection technology. NASA worked cooperatively with several 

U.S. airlines to develop and demonstrate advanced, large-area NDE methods that could lower 

costs while maintaining inspection reliability. A new thermal method to detect disbonds 

identified corrosion that might be present in disbonded regions.112

In 1996, Langley Research Center developed and evaluated a technology for rapidly and reliably 

detecting fatigue damage (typically microscopic cracks in aircraft structures) caused primarily by 

the repeated stresses experienced during takeoff and landing. Such cracks could potentially cause 

catastrophic failures. The technology was integrated into a small handheld, battery-operated 

electromagnetic probe, called a Rotating Self-Nulling Eddy Current Probe. This probe could 

detect cracks in thin-sheet aluminum that were 70 percent smaller than those detected with other 

techniques. It used eddy currents to detect cracks caused by fatigue with a 90 percent certainty 

110 “Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, pp. RD 12-27–RD 12-28. 111 “Office of Aeronautics,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. RD 9-37. 112 “Office of Aeronautics,” Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates, pp. SAT 4-29–SAT 4-30.

291
rate, giving airlines increased confidence in the accuracy of NDE inspections. The probe was 

field-tested by aircraft manufacturers and the FAA NDE Validation Center, and made 

commercially available (see figure 3-9).113 

Figure 3-9. The Crack Finder, a commercially available instrument with a 0.5-inch Self-Nulling 

Eddy Current Probe developed from NASA technology, uses a probe to detect fatigue cracks in 

conducting materials. The probe technology enables the device to be manufactured in a very 

small package and eliminates the complicated calibration and test setup procedures commonly 

required by other eddy-current techniques (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1996-00145). 

113 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 26. Also “New NASA Langley Device Keeps the Skies Safe,” Fact Sheets, FS1996-08-02-LaRC, August 1996, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Probe.html (accessed July 6, 

2006).

292
Environmental Impact

A primary goal of NASA’s aeronautics research was to reduce the impact of aircraft on the 

environment. In its 1995 “Goals for a National Partnership in Aeronautics Research 

Technology,” the Office of Science and Technology Policy proposed the goal of reducing 

emissions of future aircraft by a factor of 3 within 10 years, and by a factor of 5 within 25 years. 

In response, NASA’s aeronautics program focused on ensuring that future aircraft and other 

aviation products would be environmentally friendly, particularly by conducting research to 

reduce nitrogen oxides emitted from jet engines. NASA worked to understand the atmospheric 

chemistry and impact of emissions, and to reduce engine combustion by-products. 

Propulsion. Propulsion technology activities, conducted cooperatively with U.S. industry, were 

aimed at improving competitiveness and the market share of the nation’s propulsion industry, 

and lessening the environmental impact of future commercial engines through reduced 

combustor emissions. Lewis Research Center sponsored studies by engine manufacturers Pratt & 

Whitney, General Electric, and Allison Engine Company on the potential benefits of advanced 

core technology. The studies predicted that advanced cores could reduce fuel consumption by 

20–30 percent and might reduce operating costs by 6–14 percent (at early 1990s’ fuel prices). 

The manufacturers also found that advanced technology would provide more accurate thermal 

efficiency, accounting for expected performance improvements of 60 percent.114

In FY 1994, researchers completed engine-system studies on the propulsion element to define the 

optimum engine cycles and associated technology needed for large-engine manufacturers, and 

began similar studies for commuter-sized aircraft. Advanced combustor concepts were identified 

114 NASA Aeronautics, Research and Technology Program Highlights, NP 159, pp. 13–14.

293
and evaluated experimentally, and materials for high-temperature sections of the engine were 

investigated.115 Researchers at Lewis examined factors such as clean and efficient fuel burning 

and the testing of engine components developed through design and analysis in facilities that 

simulated engine-operating conditions. The goal was to achieve a 50 percent reduction in 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) levels from the 1996 international emission standards in effect for the 

turbofan engines that powered large commercial aircraft. An equivalent goal was to reduce NOx

levels for the smaller turbofan engines used in regional aircraft. 

From October 1997 to January 1998, four combustor designs were tested in Lewis’ Advanced 

Subsonic Combustion Rig. The studies simulated gas turbine combustion conditions typical of 

future engines and provided information about NOx formation and other emissions, including 

carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbons, at actual combustor operating 

conditions for future engine cycles.116 The tests evaluated designs with (1) production fuel 

injectors, (2) elliptic-shaped swirlers, (3) macro-laminate fuel injectors, and (4) a premix 

chamber. The configuration with elliptic-shaped swirlers produced the lowest levels of NOx in all 

test conditions.117 Researchers developed a new combustor liner, a ceramic matrix composite 

(CMC) material, that survived for more than 9,000 hours at 2,200°F (1,204°C) in laboratory 

tests. Achieving that lifetime was a major accomplishment in durability. At the start of the 

project, the state-of-the-art CMC had a less than 10-hour lifetime at 1,800°F (982°C).118

115 “Office of Aeronautics,” Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates, pp. SAT 4-29–SAT 4-31.

116 “Safeguarding Our Atmosphere: Glenn Research Reduces Harmful Aircraft Emissions,” NASA Fact Sheet FS2000-04-010-GRC, March 2000, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fx10grc.html (accessed July 6, 2006).

117 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 28.

118 “Safeguarding Our Atmosphere: Glenn Research Reduces Harmful Aircraft Emissions,” NASA Fact Sheet FS2000-04-010-GRC, March 2000, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fx10grc.html (accessed July 6, 2006).

294
Researchers also used computer modeling to determine the relationship between high 

temperatures and increased emissions. Computer predictions of the flowfield inside a jet engine 

combustor could help show the locations of high-temperature-NOx-producing regions so that 

they could be reduced through improved combustor design. Lasers were also being used to 

visualize fuel-airflow patterns and make nonintrusive measurements in the combustion zone.119

Lewis also studied new materials that were able to withstand the higher temperatures needed to 

reduce carbon dioxide emissions for large aircraft by 8–15 percent. The new materials allowed 

engines to run hotter and cleaner without adding weight. Newly developed disk and airfoil blade 

materials enabled subsonic engines to run at higher operating pressures and temperatures, which 

reduced carbon dioxide emissions and operating costs by reducing fuel consumption.120

SONEX Mission. The Subsonic Assessment Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide Experiment (SONEX) 

was an airborne field campaign that was conducted in October and November 1997 and 

completed in 1998. This NASA research project focused on understanding the effects of aircraft 

emissions on the environment. The mission used direct atmospheric measurements and 

theoretical models to assess the effects of NOx emissions from subsonic aircraft on atmospheric 

ozone. 

The mission, led by Ames Research Center, consisted of a payload of 16 instruments flying on 

NASA’s DC-8 during February 1997 in the North Atlantic flight corridor. Investigators from 

NASA, other federal laboratories, and universities participated. SONEX activities were closely 

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid.

295
coordinated with the European POLINAT-2 (Pollution from Aircraft Emissions in the North 

Atlantic Flight Corridor) program, which used a Falcon-20 aircraft.

Science priorities included characterization of air masses, chemical climatology for standard 

tropospheric constituents, reactive nitrogen source apportionment and photochemistry, and 

testing of nitric acid instrumentation. Measurements of carbon monoxide, methane, nitrogen 

dioxide, carbon dioxide, and water vapor provided data on the physical and chemical structure of 

the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere for each set of in situ aircraft measurements. A 

state-of-the-art modeling and meteorological support system, which allowed targeted sampling 

of air parcels with desired characteristics, helped achieve specific sampling goals. The mission 

successfully collected a comprehensive body of data over the North Atlantic for testing and 

validating global models of transport and photochemistry. The researchers concluded that 

“increased aircraft nitrogen oxide emissions in the future will likely lead to additional ozone 

formation but the rate will vary greatly depending on the state of the atmosphere.”121

Noise Reduction. Langley Research Center led the noise impact reduction effort in close 

partnership with Ames and Lewis, as well as with industry, academia, and the FAA. With 

international treaty organizations actively considering more stringent noise standards, NASA’s 

noise-reduction element worked to develop technologies to ensure that new noise standards 

would not affect the growth of the air transportation system or the U.S. aircraft industry’s 

121 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 30. Also H. B. Singh, A. Thompson, and H. Schlager, “SONEX Airborne Mission 

and Coordinated POLINAT-2 Activity: Overview and Accomplishments,” Geophysical Research Letter, 26, no. 20 

(October 15, 1999): pp. 3053–3056.

296
competitiveness in the world market.122 The primary effort began in 1994 when analytical 

computational methods and demonstrated noise-reduction concepts to reduce the impact of 

aircraft noise were developed. Studies focused on understanding controlling source noise 

mechanisms and propulsion/airframe installation aerodynamics, and developing improved 

aerodynamic, structural, and acoustic analysis techniques for ultra-high bypass subsonic 

propulsion systems. Testing and validation of selected fan and nacelle configurations to address 

the impact of engine/airframe integration was completed. Activities included validating an 

aerodynamic and performance design code, defining baseline engine noise sources, 

demonstrating active noise-reduction concepts for a selected nacelle configuration, evaluating 

novel installation concepts, and assessing current airframe noise prediction capabilities.123 

Engine and Nozzle Noise. Engine fan blades and the jet exit, or nozzle, are the dominant 

sources of engine noise. Such noise can be reduced by altering the fan blade and nozzle designs 

or by using acoustic liners on the nacelle to absorb the sound. In FY 1994, the first integrated fan 

noise source and propagation prediction code was developed and provided to industry.124 In one 

project, Lewis Research Center teamed with the Allison Engine Company to investigate ways to 

reduce fan noise from turbofan engines. In 1997, the program met a major milestone with a 

demonstrated “Effective Perceived Noise Level” (3-EPNdB) fan noise reduction. This was a 

subjective noise metric used to measure noise impact during an aircraft flyover. A 22-inch (56-

122 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. SAT 4-30.

123 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. RD 9-37. 124 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96-sat_4.html (accessed June 19, 2006).

297
centimeter) scale model was used to test the concept in Lewis’ 9- by 15-foot (2.7- by 4.6-meter) 

low-speed wind tunnel. It used highly swept and leaned stator vane technology.125

A joint research effort that included NASA, Pratt & Whitney, Northrop Grumman, Hersh 

Acoustical Engineering, and E. J. Rice Consulting demonstrated improved noise suppression in 

wind tunnel tests using a low-speed fan with advanced acoustic liners. An advanced active noise 

control concept demonstrated the technical feasibility of reducing fan tones by as much as 10 dB. 

In FY 1995, simulations demonstrated that adaptive noise control (ANC) varied the absorptive 

characteristics of an acoustic liner to optimize its performance for different engine operating 

conditions. A 20-dB noise reduction was demonstrated at a single frequency, indicating that 

ANC was a viable noise-reduction concept that offered a significant reduction in technical risk. 

Other activities included selecting an active noise control concept for engine demonstration, 

completing an engine noise database, releasing the community noise impact model, and 

demonstrating an active structural acoustic control on a business aircraft.126

Airframe/Interior Noise. The landing gear and wing flaps and slats are the major contributors 

to airframe noise. During landing, airframe noise almost matches the level of engine noise. 

NASA, in partnership with industry, academia, and the FAA, demonstrated a reduction of 4 dB 

in flap noise in a program that involved several of NASA’s wind tunnels with unique 

performance capabilities.127 In FY 1994, methods for reducing noise levels in aircraft interiors 

were validated in laboratory tests. In FY 1995, activities included the use of computational 

125 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 31–32.

126 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 4-41.

127 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 32.

298
aeroacoustics to design quieter landing gear and other aircraft components. Acoustic imaging 

was used to locate the optimal locations of active noise control actuators to reduce interior 

noise.128 Figure 3-10 shows Boeing 757 landing gear used in a landing gear noise study at 

Langley Research Center.

Figure 3-10. Main landing gear on the Boeing 757 was used in a landing gear noise study at 

NASA Langley Research Center in 1996 (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1996-00264). 

128 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96-sat_4.html (accessed June 19, 2006).

299
Aviation System Capacity 

Terminal-Area Productivity. In 1994, NASA began investigating terminal-area productivity. 

The goal was to safely increase air traffic capacity in the terminal area during poor weather to the 

same level achieved during good weather. In cooperation with the FAA, NASA worked to 

develop and demonstrate technology and procedures in the aircraft and on the ground to safely 

reduce aircraft spacing in the terminal area, enhance air traffic management and reduce controller 

workload, improve low-visibility landing and surface operations, and perform systems analyses 

to ensure compatible integration of new aircraft and air traffic systems.129 In FY 1994, the 

program evaluated the potential for ground-to-aircraft data communications and dynamic spacing 

capabilities based on NASA’s air traffic control automation efforts. It investigated reduced 

separation requirements by evaluating wake vortex issues and community noise constraints, as 

well as enhanced aircraft flight management systems.130 It also evaluated the potential of having 

air traffic controllers communicate with aircraft via digital data communications technology to 

allow for more adaptable aircraft-spacing capabilities.131

In FY 1995, installation of an existing simulator and associated computer systems began on the 

TSRV in preparation for future flight tests (see figure 3-11). Two-dimensional laminar wake 

vortex models were developed and partially validated, resulting in a recommendation to the FAA 

for an interim matrix approach of wake vortex separation according to aircraft classification.132

129 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates,” p. SAT 4-30.

130 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates,” p. RD 9-37.

131 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates,” p. SAT 4-30

132 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates,” p. SAT 4-41.

300
In 1996, the objectives of the Terminal Area Productivity (TAP) initiative were expanded, in 

cooperation with the FAA, to include the development of critical air traffic technologies that 

would enable new U.S. air traffic capabilities and provide innovative concepts for countries with 

immature systems. The benefits of the Advanced Air Transportation Technology (AATT) 

initiative were reduced costs and a larger aviation market both domestically and abroad.133

Figure 3-11. This photo shows the eight CRT displays on the Transport Systems Research 

Vehicle Simulator. The simulator was used as a research tool for projects such as the Cockpit 

Weather Information (CWIN) displayed on the center lower right CRT 

(NASA-LaRC photo EL-1996-00095). 

133 Ibid., p. SAT 4-35.

301
Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS). Research for CTAS began in the late 1970s. 

In the early 1980s, Ames Research Center began adapting trajectory analysis studies that had 

been performed for on-board flight-management systems to the ground controller’s point of 

view. The development of graphics-oriented computers inspired the idea of making tools 

available to controllers that would enable them to display trajectory information and make 

predictions conveniently. In the early 1990s, NASA and the FAA tested the CTAS software with 

live radar data at the Denver and Dallas/Fort Worth airports. They fine-tuned the software that 

would provide decision-making assistance to air traffic controllers by optimizing arrival traffic 

flow and generating advisories. The software underwent thousands of hours of simulation testing 

and extensive field evaluations.134

Passive FAST (pFAST) and FAST were CTAS decision-support tools for terminal area air traffic 

controllers and were part of an automated system to manage terminal area traffic.135 They 

provided advisories to help air traffic controllers manage arriving aircraft and achieve an 

accurately spaced traffic flow on final approach. Their goal was to increase airport capacity 

without compromising safety. The advisories recommended which runway and landing sequence 

to use. The system accurately predicted arrival times based on knowledge of the aircraft type, 

weather conditions, and airport landing procedure. The tool also advised air traffic controllers on 

how to accurately meet a schedule and maintain the aircraft separations required for safety. 

134 TRACON stands for Terminal Radar Approach Control. NASA Aeronautics, Research and Technology Program 

Highlights, NP 159, pp. 12–13. Also Katharine K. Lee and Beverly D. Sanford, “The Passive Final Approach 

Spacing Tool (pFAST) Human Factors Operational Assessment,” 2nd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D 

Seminar, December 1-4, 1998, 2, http://www.ctas.arc.nasa.gov/publications/papers/lee_12_98.pdf (accessed July 6, 

2006).

135 Passive FAST provided runway and sequence number advisories with the information displayed on the arrival 

controllers’ radar displays. The “active” phase of FAST additionally displayed heading, speed, and turn advisories. 

Lee and Sanford, “The Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST) Human Factors Operational Assessment,” 

2nd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, December 1-4, 1998, 2, 

http://www.ctas.arc.nasa.gov/publications/papers/lee_12_98.pdf (accessed July 6, 2006).

302
Typically, air traffic controllers added an extra buffer of approximately one-half mile to the FAA 

separation criteria. FAST and pFAST allowed controllers to safely reduce that buffer by 0.2–0.3 

mile (0.3–0.5 kilometer), which substantially increased an airport’s capacity to handle arriving 

aircraft by perhaps as much as 20–30 percent while reducing arrival delay times by 20 percent.

In 1996, NASA tested pFAST at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport’s Terminal Radar 

Approach Control Facility. The automated system generated advisories for air traffic controllers 

to help them manage aircraft arrivals starting at about 200 miles (322 kilometers) from the 

airport and continuing to their final approach.136

On February 15, 1999, pFAST began 16-hours-per-day operational use at Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport. This was a major milestone for the pFAST Free Flight Phase One effort as 

it demonstrated that pFAST could be independently adapted and run operationally by an FAA 

contractor without substantial NASA oversight or input. In the two weeks of operation, more 

than 80 percent of the possible arrival rushes were run using pFAST. Controller acceptance of 

the runway advisories was 96.9 percent, and acceptance of the sequence advisories was also 

high, although it was not specifically tracked. Air traffic controllers and airport TRACON 

management described the first week of operations as “very positive.” Controllers in the 

Dallas/Fort Worth tower reported that airport traffic balance was at an all-time high, and that 

rushes seemed to begin and end earlier, potentially pointing to reduced delays. Dallas/Fort Worth 

controllers also reported an increase in surface traffic operational efficiency due to the improved 

overall balance of traffic on the ground. During the next three years, only one software change to 

136 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 34.

303
address improved sequencing of low-speed general aviation aircraft was required, and the 

resulting modification was transferred to Dallas/Fort Worth for operational use, with positive 

results.137

Surface Movement Advisor (SMA). SMA increases awareness of traffic flow into an airport, 

giving ramp control operators precise touchdown times. This updated information helps airlines 

manage ground resources (e.g., gates, baggage handling, food services, refueling, and 

maintenance) at the terminal more efficiently. With information regarding an aircraft’s identity 

and position in the terminal airspace, gate and ramp operators using SMA can reduce taxi delays. 

The system provides aircraft arrival information to airline ramp towers and operation centers. 

This includes an aircraft’s identity and position in TRACON airspace, which can be used to 

compute an aircraft’s estimated time to touchdown. The shared situational awareness provided 

by SMA affords airlines greater efficiency and productivity with respect to aircraft arrivals in the 

terminal airspace and on the ground.138

Development of the SMA Prototype System (ATL SMA) began in 1994. The design team, in 

conjunction with Ames Research Center, established the basic system requirements in December 

1994. Field tests were conducted at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport in 1995.139 In 

February 1996, after system development, testing, and integration were completed, the tool was 

demonstrated to the airline industry. In June 1996, after further evaluations and field tests, Delta 

137 “Final Approach Spacing Tool,” Center-TRACON Automation System, 

http://www.ctas.arc.nasa.gov/project_description/fast.html (accessed July 7, 2006).

138 “SMA Overview,” http://sma.tc.faa.gov/overview.htm (accessed July 7, 2006).

139 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 34–35.

304
Air Lines began daily use of the system. The system was commissioned at the Atlanta Hartsfield 

Airport tower in January 1997. In 1998, other airports began to use the system. Feedback from 

the airlines that used SMA was very positive. 

SMA consists primarily of a set of computers and software that electronically connects 

information gathered by the local airport authority that manages the airport’s ramp areas, the 

airlines that manage the gates, and the FAA’s air traffic controllers. SMA is the first automated 

system to provide all of the gathered information to each group, helping them to collaborate 

better on operational decisions. The system reduces group-operation bottlenecks, allowing planes 

to be serviced and dispatched more quickly. It has reduced airline taxi departure times by more 

than 1 minute per flight, benefiting passengers. With more than 1,000 departures each day from 

Atlanta, a savings of 1,000 minutes or more means a daily savings to the airlines of at least 

$40,000 to $50,000 in direct operating costs at that airport.140

Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness (T-NASA) System. The T-NASA system was 

developed by Human Factors psychologists at Ames Research Center. It is a suite of cockpit 

displays that provide navigation and situational awareness information to pilots in order to 

increase the safety and efficiency of airport surface operations. Its goal is to safely get the 

aircraft from the gate to the runway, and from the runway to the gate, as efficiently as possible, 

even when visibility is poor. 

140 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 35.

305
T-NASA consists of three components: 

• The Taxi Head-Up Display (HUD), a glass visor in front of the cockpit windshield, shows 

the cleared taxi route in a “virtual reality” format and depicts the edges of the taxiway with a 

series of virtual “cones” and the centerline with virtual centerline markers. As the plane 

moves, the cones and markers move and change as if they were actual objects on the airport 

surface, so the pilot’s cleared route looks like a virtual highway on the ground. 

• The Electronic Moving Map (EMM) on the instrument panel shows the current ground 

position of the pilot’s aircraft and other aircraft present. It depicts the pilot’s cleared route 

with a magenta ribbon. Both the pilot and copilot cam determine their aircraft’s location with 

respect to the cleared route.

• The three-dimensional (3-D) audio Ground Collision Avoidance Warning (GCAW) system 

provides traffic warnings produced via virtual audio techniques. The warning sounds as if it 

emanates from the direction of the hazard, and greatly enhances a pilot’s awareness of 

potential traffic hazards.

The T-NASA system was designed following a human-centered design process. In total, more 

than 300 commercial pilots participated in part-task studies, high-fidelity simulations, and flighttest studies. These studies demonstrated that T-NASA

• eliminated hold location errors and failure to hold errors (compared to 20 percent errors 

without T-NASA); 

• allowed increased taxi speeds (~16 percent faster than without T-NASA); 

• eliminated taxi navigation errors in low-visibility and night conditions (compared to 17 

percent errors without T-NASA);

306
• enabled better awareness of airport traffic; 

• improved pilot–air traffic controller communications regarding clearance; 

• improved captain–first officer intracockpit communications; 

• helped determine the basis for cockpit standard operating procedures for surface 

operations.141 

In the summer of 1997, a joint flight test was conducted at Atlanta Hartsfield International 

Airport under the NASA-FAA Low-Visibility Landing and Surface Operations (LVLASO) 

program to evaluate the HUD and EMM components of the T-NASA system (see figure 3-12). 

Langley Research Center conducted the integration of T-NASA into NASA’s 757 aircraft, and 

the FAA developed the airport surveillance and datalink technologies. Fifty-three flights were 

conducted under simulated low-visibility conditions by two NASA test pilots and four 

commercial pilots from different airlines. The pilots completed taxi trials with three different TNASA configurations. Their reports indicated that T-NASA reduced overall taxi times by 

allowing for increased taxi speeds, less route-planning time, less time spent at confusing 

intersections, fewer stops while taxiing, improved situational awareness, and greater confidence 

of position on the airport surface. These subjective reports were supported by objective velocity 

data collected during the flight tests. All of the commercial pilots agreed that T-NASA 

technology would improve taxi safety, primarily by reducing the likelihood of incursions. TNASA allowed the pilots to spend more time looking out the window and less time head-down 

consulting charts. Furthermore, pilots noted that T-NASA improved communications with 

141 “HSCL Research: Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness System (T-NASA) Overview,” HumanCentered Systems Lab, http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/ihi/hdsl/T-NASA.html (accessed July 7, 2006). Also 

Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 35–36

307
ground control and among crew members in that less communication was needed and 

communications were clearer.142

Figure 3-12. This photograph was taken from the cockpit window of NASA’s 757 research 

aircraft during flight demonstration of airport capacity and safety enhancement technologies at 

Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport in August 1997. As the 757 approached the runway, 

computer-generated graphics outlined the correct runway and its precise location on a “head-up 

display” mounted between the pilot and the windscreen (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1998-00111). 

Affordable Travel 

NASA’s research focused on innovative design techniques and structural concepts to accomplish 

its goal of reducing the cost of air travel by 25 percent within 10 years and by 50 percent within 

25 years. A number of research areas focused on reducing the cost of air travel, including 

142 “Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness System (T-NASA) Empirical Research,” Human-Centered 

Systems Lab, http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/ihi/hcsl/T-NASA_studies.html (accessed July 7, 2006).

308
developing lightweight but strong composites, improving the aerodynamic qualities and reducing 

the weight of aircraft structures, developing and improving short-haul aircraft, and increasing 

fuel efficiency in all types of aircraft. 

Fewer Parts. Reducing the number of parts and assembly steps in aircraft manufacturing is one 

way to reduce costs. Researchers at Langley Research Center, along with industry personnel, 

built and tested two metal panels to demonstrate the damage tolerance of an integrally stiffened 

fuselage structure. The panels were fabricated with curvature and stiffener spacing representing a 

typical fuselage structure. The process involved fewer parts than conventional construction, and 

potentially could also reduce the weight and fuel requirements of the aircraft.143

Composites. NASA initiated the composites element in FY 1995. Its objective was to develop 

and verify at full scale the composite-structures technology. It also sought to verify the design 

concepts, structural materials, and manufacturing methods required to join composite wings to 

composite fuselages while saving weight and costs compared to conventional metal commercial 

transports.144 The use of composites offered the potential to reduce airframe production and 

operating costs by reducing weight, increasing efficiency, and decreasing the cost of airframe 

structures. 

A new machine for stitching composites became operational at Boeing’s Stitched Composite 

Development Center in 1997. The Advanced Stitching Machine could stitch one-piece aircraft 

wing cover panels 40 feet (12.2 meters) long, 8 feet (2.4 meters) wide, and 1.5 inches (3.8 

143 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 41. 144 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates,” p. SAT 4-33.

309
centimeters) thick at rates of up to 3,200 stitches per minute. The process also eliminated the 

need for thousands of metal fasteners because the skin, stiffeners, intercostals, and spar caps 

could be stitched into one piece. The estimated cost savings from this technology compared to 

conventional aluminum-wing structures was 20 percent.145

Integrated Wing Design. NASA initiated the integrated wing program in FY 1994. It focused 

on technology that treated aircraft aerodynamics in an integrated manner. Transport flight-test 

data were used to validate computational codes for evaluating high-lift systems. Additionally, a 

semispan, large-scale, transonic wind tunnel test evaluated propulsion airframe integration.146 In 

FY 1995, the aerodynamic design cycle was completed and an industry baseline for performance 

measurement was established. Top-level integrated wing design objectives were defined as (1) a 

50 percent reduction in the aerodynamic design cycle time leading to a one-year reduction in the 

overall development cycle, and (2) a 4 percent reduction in total aircraft-related operating costs 

compared with the baseline. Technical requirements to meet these objectives were defined.147 In 

1997, Langley Research Center performed wind tunnel tests on a blended wing body to evaluate 

the performance characteristics of the unconventional configuration and assess its potential. An 

aircraft with this configuration could potentially carry 800 passengers over 7,000 miles (11,265 

kilometers) at a cruise speed of approximately 560 miles (901 kilometers) per hour, but it would 

require advanced flight-control systems.148

145 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 38.

146 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates,” p. RD 9-37.

147 “Office of Aeronautics, Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates,” p. SAT 4-42.

148 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 39.

310
Laminar Flow. The way in which air flows over the surface of an aircraft affects the amount of 

aerodynamic drag that is generated and is a major factor in how much fuel is used by the aircraft. 

Flow in which the fluid (air) near the aircraft surface moves in smooth-flowing layers is referred 

to as “laminar flow.” Laminar flow control is a technology that offers more potential for 

improvements in aircraft fuel usage, range, and endurance than any other known aeronautical 

technology.149 The combination of natural laminar flow control, which results from a particular 

sweep of the leading edge of the lifting surfaces, and active laminar flow control, which is 

usually attained by removing a small amount of the boundary-layer air (the air closest to the 

surface) by suction through porous materials, is called hybrid laminar flow control (HLFC).150 

In 1987, NASA and the U.S. Air Force signed an MOU establishing a NASA-Air Force program 

to study and evaluate HLFC. They awarded a contract to Boeing for flight tests on its 757 

prototype aircraft. The program was managed by Langley and costs were shared by the 

participants (NASA, the Air Force, and Boeing). Boeing modified a 22-foot (6.7-meter) section 

of the aircraft’s wing outboard of the left engine, and in 1990 began flight tests to assess the 

effectiveness of HLFC. Citing “better-than-expected finds” and “one of the most significant 

events in the history of boundary-layer control,” the team announced that laminar airflow was 

achieved over the first 65 percent of the upper surface of the modified wing section (measured 

from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing) on all flights during the five-month test 

period. The team stated that if the entire span of both wings could be modified, a reduction in 

total airplane drag of up to 10 percent or more could be realized, resulting in savings of millions 

149 Albert L. Braslow, A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight Research, 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 13 (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

1999), p. 1, http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/Publications/PDF/Laminar.pdf (accessed July 29, 2006). 

150 This is a vastly simplified explanation. See Braslow (above).

311
of dollars annually for the entire U.S. transport fleet.151 In all, 20 research flights were conducted 

in 1990 and 10 additional flights were performed in 1991. The demonstration showed that 

production-manufacturing technology could meet laminar-flow surface tolerance requirements, 

and that a practical HLFC system could be integrated into a commercial transport wing leading 

edge.152 

Following the 757 aircraft flight tests, Langley analyzed the benefits of HLFC for a 

representative advanced transport aircraft. The results indicated the HLFC-equipped aircraft 

burned 13 percent less fuel compared to a conventional transport. Boeing conducted its own 

analysis in 1991 and concluded that the total operating cost benefit projected for HLFC at fuel 

prices of the time was positive but insufficient to warrant the risks involved in applying HLFC to 

commercial aircraft. Not all conditions had been considered, and HLFC had not been applied to 

aircraft larger than the 757. No further tests of the concept were made.153

In FY 1994, knowledge of laminar flow was applied to wing design. A large laminar-flow sweptwing model was designed and fabricated, establishing the state of the art and identifying 

deficiencies in current methods for designing wings and high-lift devices. The next year, testing 

of the laminar-flow model was completed in the 8-foot transonic-pressure wind tunnel at 

Langley. Improvements were made in wing-design methods based on identified deficiencies, and 

a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of wing-design concepts and methods on aerodynamic 

151 “Flight Tests Prove Concept for Jetliner Fuel Economy, NASA News Release 90-115, August 23, 1990, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1990/90-115.txt (accessed July 27, 2006).

152 Joseph R. Chambers, Innovation in Flight; Research of the NASA Langley Research Center on Revolutionary 

Advanced Concepts for Aeronautics (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4539, 2005), pp. 142–143, 146.

153 Chambers, Innovation in Flight Research, pp. 146–149.

312
design cycle time, aircraft performance, and costs was made.154 In FY 1995, the high-Reynoldsnumber test phase on the 10-foot-chord hybrid laminar-flow control swept wing was completed 

on time and within budget, and the data were transferred to NASA’s industry partners. The final 

design review for the high-wing transport scale model was completed.155

Reducing Skin Friction. One of the most challenging areas of research in aerodynamics is the 

reduction of skin friction, especially for turbulent flow. Reducing skin friction leads to less drag. 

For aircraft, less drag can lead to less fuel burned or to a greater flight range for a fixed amount 

of fuel. Many techniques and methods have been tried; however, none have significantly reduced 

skin friction in the flight environment. 

The Microblowing Technique (MBT), an innovative technique to reduce skin friction on both 

aircraft and marine vehicles, was invented in 1993. With MBT, an extremely small amount of air 

(or water in the case of marine vehicles) is blown vertically at a surface through very small holes. 

Microblowing reduces the surface roughness and changes the flow velocity profile on the 

surface, thereby reducing skin friction. In 1995, a Phase I proof-of-concept experiment was 

conducted in Lewis Research Center’s Advanced Nozzle and Engine Components Test Facility. 

In 1996, a Phase II experiment to evaluate the increased pressure drag penalty associated with 

this technique was conducted in the same facility. In September 1997, a program conducted 

jointly by NASA Lewis, United Technologies Research Center, Northrop Grumman 

Corporation, and Pratt & Whitney was completed. A 30-inch (76-centimeter) engine nacelle with 

an MBT skin was tested in United Technologies’ wind tunnel. The results of the experiment 

154 “Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/sat_4.html (accessed June 19, 2006).

155 “Office of Aeronautics,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 4-42.

313
indicated that skin-friction reductions of 50–70 percent over portions of the nacelle could be 

achieved with the addition of only small amounts of blowing air.156

High-Stability Engine-Control (HISTEC) System. The advanced HISTEC system sponsored 

and managed by Lewis Research Center was expected to significantly increase future propulsion 

system performance in both military and commercial turbine engines. The system (also known as 

Distortion Tolerant Control) underwent flight tests at Dryden Flight Research Center on a highly 

modified F-15 jet that explored a variety of advanced control system technologies. It 

incorporated an aircraft-mounted, high-speed processor that sensed changes in airflow at the 

front of the engine and allowed the system to command trim changes to the engine automatically 

to accommodate changing distortion conditions. The primary benefit of Distortion Tolerant 

Control was its ability to set the margin of stability on line and in real time. This could allow the 

built-in stall margin to be reduced, which could then be “traded” for decreased weight, increased 

performance, or both. The result would be higher-performance military aircraft and more fuelefficient commercial aircraft. Pratt & Whitney, Boeing Phantom Works, and the Air Force 

Wright Laboratories partnered in the research.157 On March 27, 1996, NASA began flight-testing 

a new thrust-vectoring concept on the F-15 research aircraft to improve performance and aircraft 

control (see figure 3-13). The new concept could lead to significant increases in performance of 

both civil and military aircraft flying at subsonic and supersonic speeds. 

156 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 40–41. Also “Microblowing Technique Demonstrated To Reduce Skin Friction,” 

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1997/5000/5850hwang.htm (accessed July 7, 2006).

157 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 40.

314
Figure 3-13. The F-15 ACTIVE in flight over the Mojave desert during a High Stability Engine 

Control (HISTEC) flight. The twin-engine F-15 is equipped with new Pratt & Whitney nozzles 

that can turn up to 20 degrees in any direction, giving the aircraft thrust control in the pitch and 

yaw directions. NASA pilot Rogers Smith and photographer Carla Thomas fly the F-18 chase to 

accompany the flight (NASA photo EC97-44177-15). 

Short-Haul Aviation (General Aviation/Commuter) 

In FY 1994, NASA conducted an economic analysis of the status of the general aviation (GA) 

industry and the areas in which technology could contribute to its revitalization.158 NASA, in 

cooperation with the U.S. aviation industry and the FAA, began two major initiatives—the 

General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) program and the Advanced General Aviation Transport 

158 “Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates,” 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/sat_4.html (accessed June 19, 2006).

315
Experiments (AGATE) consortium—to create the technological basis for revitalizing this 

segment of air travel.

The GAP program was a partnership between industry and the FAA to develop new, low-cost 

propulsion systems. GAP researchers planned to develop an intermittent combustion engine for 

entry-level GA aircraft and a new turbofan engine for higher-performance GA aircraft.

Lewis Research Center teamed with Teledyne Continental Motors and its industry partners to 

develop, fabricate, and test an extremely advanced intermittent combustion piston engine. The 

engine incorporated a horizontally opposed, four-cylinder, liquid-cooled, two-stroke 

compression ignition (diesel) engine. Such engines are usually very efficient and reliable but 

relatively heavy. The new design used lightweight construction techniques and produced 200 

horsepower at an engine weight comparable to that of current 200-horsepower aircraft engines. 

The engine used jet fuel rather than leaded gasoline and was about 25 percent more fuel-efficient 

than gasoline engines. Its single-level power-control operation allowed the pilot to give full 

attention to flying the aircraft.

NASA teamed with Williams International and its industry partners to develop a new low-cost 

turbofan engine, designated FJX-2. Williams also commissioned Scaled Composites to build the 

V-Jet II aircraft to be a testbed for demonstrating the FJX-2 engine. The new design, 

technologies, and manufacturing methods used for FJX-2 resulted in an engine that was much 

316
less costly, as well as quieter and more fuel-efficient, than existing turbine engine propulsion 

systems.159

The AGATE consortium began in 1994 to develop affordable new technologies as well as 

industry standards and certification methods for airframes, cockpits, flight training systems, and 

airspace infrastructure for future single-pilot, four-to-six-place, near all-weather light airplanes. 

The consortium was a cost-sharing partnership among more than 70 members from industry, 

academia, the FAA, and other government agencies. NASA and AGATE demonstrated a number 

of NASA technologies for navigation, weather, terrain, traffic, and system-status information 

systems. These cockpit systems technologies were developed by a group of 10 companies led by 

Rockwell Collins and AvroTec. The experiments resulted in the first successful combination of a 

number of new technologies in a single aircraft. An experimental-certificate Beech Bonanza 

F33C owned and modified by Raytheon Aircraft served as an “integration platform” testbed for 

the new technologies being developed by AGATE (see figure 3-14).160 

159 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 54–55.

160 Ibid., pp. 54–56.

317
Figure 3-14. This photo illustrates an AGATE advanced concept airplane. The pusher 

propeller-driven configuration seats four to six people (including the pilot) in a midwing, threesurface, twin-tailboom configuration. The design concept incorporates natural laminar flow, ice 

protection, winglets, and stall-departure-resistant flight dynamics 

(NASA LaRC photo EL-1996-00214). 

Civil Tiltrotor (CTR). A tiltrotor aircraft has two major benefits for civil use because of its 

ability to take off and land vertically: it can increase an airport’s capacity, and it can shorten 

delays by significantly reducing door-to-door trip times for passengers by circumventing ground 

and air congestion. Expanding capacity and reducing runway congestion at the busiest airports 

by permitting some short-haul traffic (trips of less than 500 miles [805 kilometers]) to shift to 

tiltrotors would free runway space for larger aircraft.161 

161 “Tiltrotor,” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/tiltrotor.htm (accessed July 27, 2006).

318
In the late 1980s and 1990s, NASA worked to develop the CTR, a direct descendant of the XV3, XV-15, and V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. 

Research into tiltrotor technology had begun in the 1940s. The XV-3, built in 1953, flew until 

1966. It proved the fundamental soundness of the tiltrotor concept and provided data about the 

technical improvements needed for future designs. The XV-15 Tiltrotor Research Aircraft began 

development in 1972. One of the most versatile aircraft ever designed, the aircraft combined 

standard aircraft cruise flight with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) and short takeoff and 

landing (STOL) capabilities. Two XV-15s were tested. One aircraft was used in a flight research 

program at Ames Research Center. The second was operated by the Bell Helicopter Company in 

Arlington, Texas, and was used for tiltrotor development and military and civil demonstrations. 

Funded by NASA and the U.S. Army, the XV-15s served as testbeds to refine tiltrotor concepts, 

prove new components and systems, and demonstrate the controllability, performance, and 

community compatibility of tiltrotors.162

In 1981, using experience gained from the XV-3 and XV-15, Bell Helicopter and Boeing 

Helicopters began developing the V-22 Osprey, a twin-turboshaft military tiltrotor aircraft.163

The first flight of the Osprey took place on March 19, 1989, at Bell’s Flight Research Center in 

Texas, the site of the first XV-15 flight 12 years earlier. Five full-scale development aircraft 

were completed. Although two crashed and were destroyed during flight tests (one crash killed 

all on board), it was determined “that these accidents were not due to the inherent characteristics 

162 “XV-15 Tiltrotor Research Aircraft,” NASA Ames Research Center Simulation Laboratories, 

http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/library/tiltrotor/ctr20th.html (accessed July 28, 2006).

163 “XV-15 Tiltrotor Research Aircraft,” http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/library/tiltrotor/ctr20th.html (accessed 

July 28, 2006). 

319
of this vehicle type,” and the program continued. On September 8, 1999, the first production V22 took part in a demonstration at the Pentagon for Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen. In 

late 1999, the V-22 Osprey underwent operational testing by the U.S. Navy.164

The development of the V-22 Osprey and the initiation of flight-testing encouraged tiltrotor 

advocates to press for civil application of this new type of aircraft. FAA- and NASA-funded 

studies showed that tiltrotor aircraft had a potential worldwide market and could benefit both 

manufacturers and operators economically. In late 1992, the study results were brought to the 

attention of Congress, which, in the Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, 

and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992, directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish 

a Civil Tiltrotor Development Advisory Committee (CTRDAC) to examine the costs, technical 

feasibility, and economic viability of developing CTR aircraft. The CTRDAC was also to 

consider issues associated with integrating CTR aircraft into the national transportation system 

and assess the resulting national economic benefits.165 Furthermore, the Committee was charged 

with determining the required additional research and development and the regulatory changes 

needed to integrate the CTR into the transportation system, and how CTR aircraft and related 

infrastructure development costs should be allocated between government and industry.166

The findings of the Committee, issued in December 1995, stated that the CTR was technically 

feasible and could be developed by U.S. industry. However, additional research and development 

164 Martin D. Maisel, Demo J. Giulianetti, and Daniel C. Dugan, The History of the XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research

Aircraft: From Concept to Flight, Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 17 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-2000-

4517, 2000), pp. 107–108.

165 Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992, Public 

Law 102-581, 102nd Congress, 2nd sess., October 31, 1992. 

166 Maisel, Giulianetti, and Dugan, pp. 110–111.

320
and infrastructure planning were needed before industry could make a CTR production decision. 

Also, under the assumptions made during the study, it was concluded that a CTR system could 

be economically viable and operate profitably without government subsidies in heavily traveled 

air corridors. The CTR, the Committee found, could reduce airport congestion, create jobs, and 

positively affect the balance of trade.167 The Committee recommended that an integrated CTR 

aircraft and infrastructure research, development, and demonstration program be conducted 

through a government-industry partnership, with costs shared by both. Work should begin on 

regulatory and certification issues and on changes to the air traffic control system to safely and 

effectively use the capabilities of the CTR.168

The CTR series had begun in 1989 following military-focused air combat investigations using a 

simulation model of the XV-15 and the Ames Simulation Laboratory in 1988–1989. Until 1994, 

these tiltrotor activities were included in NASA’s rotorcraft R&T base program. In 1994, the 

CTR program began as a subelement of the Advanced Subsonic Transport initiative. 

The CTR program, which included 10 primary CTR simulation experiments conducted in the 

Ames Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), addressed the fundamental research issues underlying 

the critical technologies required for civilian 40-passenger tiltrotor aircraft. The program also 

conducted moderate- to large-scale wind tunnel tests of tiltrotor models. The test data confirmed 

the performance and aeroacoustic prediction methodologies needed to investigate and 

demonstrate advanced CTR and high-speed rotorcraft technologies. 

167 Ibid., p. 111. 

168 Ibid., p. 111.

321
The first CTR experiment (CTR-1) in October 1989 was conducted at the request of and in 

coordination with the FAA to investigate issues regarding steep instrument approaches (6–25 

degrees) for civil operations using a large, 40,000-pound tilt-rotor model. In the next pair of 

experiments (CTR-2 and CTR-3), researchers explored a more limited range of approach angles 

and began developing appropriate cockpit displays and guidance. They developed instrument 

guidance to support Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) approach and landing operations.169 

During this time, NASA and the U.S. Army increased their ability to test tiltrotor configurations. 

In 1991, Ames, Langley, and the U.S. Army jointly initiated the development of two modular, 

hardware-compatible test stands to test tiltrotor models in two different configurations: an 

isolated rotor configuration located at the Duits-Nederlandse Wind Tunnel in the Netherlands, 

and a full-span model located at the National Full-Scale Aerodynamic Complex at Ames. The 

two configurations together were called the Tilt Rotor Aeroacoustic Model (TRAM).170

The CTR-4 experiment in November–December 1993 shifted the focus to a more complete 

investigation of approach and landing beginning from a cruise configuration of the aircraft 

(airplane mode). The experiment featured the development of terminal-area operations suitable 

for current aircraft designs, with a particular concern for single-engine failures. It emphasized the 

development of conversion procedures, a discrete nacelle control system, and airport operations 

for vertical-flight aircraft (vertiports) as suggested by then-current thinking on vertiport design. 

The vertiports were placed in a visual scene based on the San Francisco Bay Area at three sites 

169 William Decker, aeronautical engineer, e-mail message to author, July 31, 2006.

170 Larry A. Young, “Tilt Rotor Aeroacoustic Model (TRAM): A New Rotorcraft Research Facility” (paper 

presented at the American Helicopter Society International Meeting on Advanced Rotorcraft Technology and 

Disaster Relief, Gifu, Japan, April 21-23, 1998).

322
that could have been developed for that purpose, lending additional “authenticity” to the 

simulation and helping promote discussions among researchers, FAA regulators, and industry 

representatives.171 

As the project progressed, it concentrated more on noise-abatement issues. Concurrently with the 

CTR simulation experiments, in FY 1994, three- and four-bladed wind tunnel tests in the 14- by 

22-foot (4.3- by 6.7-meter) Subsonic Tunnel at Langley were used to evaluate CTR noisereduction concepts. These tests showed significant variations in both noise level and directivity 

as a function of rotor operation condition. They also provided acoustic and aerodynamic data to 

establish baselines and trends for noise and aerodynamic performance, and viable noisereduction concepts were identified for further research.172 Three acoustic flight tests in 1995, 

1997, and 1999 used the XV-15 to evaluate the noise-reduction potential for tiltrotor aircraft 

during terminal-area operations. At a remote site in Texas, a NASA-U.S. Army-Bell Helicopter 

team evaluated noise reduction during the flight tests by altering the nacelle angle, airspeed, and 

altitude. The test results showed that no single approach profile was best for all landing sites; 

rather, the approach profile needed to be tailored to the type of landing site used (such as the top 

of a building or a more remote site).173 

171 William Decker, aeronautical engineer, e-mail to author, July 31, 2006.

172 David A. Conner et al., “NASA/Army/Bell XV-15 Tiltrotor Low Noise Terminal Area Operations Flight 

Research Program,” AIAA-2000-1923, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2. Also “Fiscal Year 

1996 Estimates, Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” 

http://www.hq.nasa.govoffice/budget/fy96/sat_4.html (accessed June 19, 2006).

173 Conner et al., p. 21.

323
The Short Haul Civil Transport (SHCT) project began in 1994.174 This project addressed the 

critical barrier to including CTR operations in the National Transportation System: excessive 

noise during the approach to landing (called blade vortex interaction [BVI] noise). The project’s 

goal was to attain a noise level 12 decibels below that of the military V-22 Osprey.175 The fifth 

CTR experiment (November–December 1994) investigated one-engine inoperative terminal-area 

operations (takeoff and landing). CTR-6, in March–April 1996, continued the terminal-area 

operations investigations with a new focus on more complex approach profiles intended for noise 

abatement.176 A Variable Diameter Tiltrotor simulation experiment was conducted with Sikorsky 

Aircraft in the VMS in September–October 1996. 

The CTR-7 VMS experiment in November–December 1997 sought to further develop terminal 

area guidance for complex operations, including guided takeoff and go-around. Control system 

issues, particularly for the power-engine control, placed this effort in the “developmental” 

category. This experiment also marked the introduction of the NASA baseline CTR transport 

model and a new side-by-side transport simulation cockpit that was developed jointly by the 

NASA tiltrotor and HSCT programs. This cockpit enabled researchers to investigate crew 

interactions in a typical civil transport cockpit.

Further acoustic wind tunnel tests were conducted in 1998 in Langley’s 14- by 22-foot (4.3- by 

6.7-meter) Subsonic Tunnel to evaluate industry-developed low-noise tiltrotor designs using a 

174 “Short Haul Civil Tiltrotor—The Story of Technology Transfer,” NASA Aeronautics News 3, no. 2 (June 14, 

2002), http://www.aero-space.nasa.gov/news/vol3_iss2/tiltrotor.htm (accessed August 28, 2006).

175 John Zuk, “Creating Friendlier Skies; Noise Reduction Project Enhances Acceptance of the Short-Haul Civil 

Tiltrotor.”

176 “XV-15 Tiltrotor Research Aircraft,” NASA Ames Research Center Simulation Laboratories, 

http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/library/tiltrotor/ctr20th.html (accessed July 28, 2006).

324
one-quarter-scale isolated rotor. Two versions of a Sikorsky Variable Diameter Tiltrotor (VDTR) 

and two Boeing five-bladed advanced rotor configurations were compared with a “baseline” V22 rotor system. The results indicated that the Boeing five-blade rotors substantially reduced 

noise for some conditions, while the Sikorsky VDTR configurations met or exceeded the SHCT 

goal of a 6-decibel noise reduction for most conditions tested.177

The CTR-8 VMS experiment in April–May 1999 marked the sole use of an XV-15 simulation 

model during this series of experiments. The model was used to assist noise-abatement operation 

developments in coordination with flight tests. It also provided a means to work with researchers 

from Georgia Technological University who were formulating advanced control methods for a 

tiltrotor. Finally, a preliminary investigation was conducted to examine control law adaptations 

for the use of a sidestick controller instead of the traditional center stick. The results of this 

experiment fed into a later XV-15 noise-abatement flight operations flight test at Bell Helicopter 

in September 1999, conducted by the same Ames-Langley-Bell team that did the 1997 tests.

The final two CTR experiments, conducted in October–November 2000 and July–August 2001, 

pushed civil terminal-area operations investigations toward a more complete “full-mission” 

focus, with competing air traffic, vectoring diversions, and simultaneous, noninterfering 

operations at a vertiport conceptually located atop the parking structure at San Francisco 

International Airport. The objective was to develop and demonstrate flight operations at a 

congested hub airport that could be conducted without interfering with conventional large 

177 Conner et al., p. 2.

325
transport aircraft. The tiltrotor operations were designed to minimize noise while maintaining the 

desired level of safety.178 

The SHCT program concluded with the last two simulation experiments in 2000 and 2001. 

High-Speed Transport 

One area identified for aeronautics research was the potential for using supersonic aircraft to 

travel to Pacific Rim countries from the United States more quickly than was currently possible. 

In the mid-1980s, NASA asked McDonnell Douglas and Boeing to conduct studies to define the 

potential market for a next-generation supersonic airliner, and the engineering advances needed 

to make it financially successful and environmentally safe. McDonnell Douglas studied a Mach 

3.2 design that could carry approximately 300 passengers a distance of 7,500 miles (12,070 

kilometers). Boeing studied a Mach 2.4 concept that could transport 250 passengers up to 5,800 

miles (9,334 kilometers). The studies, released in late 1989, concluded that an economically 

viable HSCT could be built beginning around the year 2000 if noise and emission problems 

could be resolved satisfactorily and the vehicle’s speed was limited to between Mach 2 and 

Mach 3.2.179 They predicted that transpacific air travel would increase fourfold by 2000 and the 

number of transatlantic passenger trips would double. However, both studies found that 

substantial demand for an advanced supersonic transport would occur only if the plane had no 

harmful atmospheric effects and met allowable airport noise standards. The transport also needed 

to be economically competitive with future long-distance subsonic airliners.180 

178 William Decker, e-mail message to author, July 31, 2006.

179 Erik M. Conway, High Speed Dreams; NASA and the Technopolitics of Supersonic Transportation, 1945–1999

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), p. 220.

180 NASA Aeronautics, Research and Technology Program Highlights, NP 159, p. 23.

326
High-Speed Research (HSR) Program. In 1990, NASA initiated the HSR program as a followon to the Boeing and McDonnell Douglas studies. The goal of this focused technology 

development program was to identify and develop technical and economically feasible solutions 

to the environmental concerns surrounding supersonic civil transport. It ran from 1990 until it 

was canceled at the end of FY 1999, and cost approximately $1.8 billion.181 The program 

initially received bipartisan support from Congress and funding of $25 million in the FY 1990 

budget. At the time, Congress cited the importance of the initiative to the American aircraft 

industry and the threat to U.S. aeronautical leadership posed by foreign advances in 

aeronautics.182 Langley Research Center led the multicenter program with support from Dryden, 

Ames, and Lewis. Langley was responsible for policy and program implementation, project 

planning and funding allocation, systems engineering and integration, and direct contractor 

interface and management.183 It also led airframe-related research and advanced flight-deck 

development activities. Ames provided significant support directly to Langley in advanced 

flight-deck development, computer modeling and simulation, and economic analysis. Lewis 

managed propulsion efforts, and Dryden provided support for flight-related activities, including 

the F-16-XL and Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program.184

Industry partners included advanced flight-deck, airframe, and propulsion-system companies that 

were responsible for researching, developing, and validating specific technologies; developing 

and assessing a next-generation HSCT concept and configuration; and conducting associated 

181 Conway, p. ix.

182 “Fiscal Year 1991 Estimates, Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” p. RD 12-36. Also Conway, pp. 

221–222.

183 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 4-28.

184 Joseph R. Chambers, Innovation in Flight; Research of the NASA Langley Research Center on Revolutionary 

Advanced Concepts for Aeronautics (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4539, 2005), p. 50.

327
tasks, such as mission analysis and database development, as well as system-level integration of 

the developing advanced technologies.185

The program consisted of two phases. Phase I of the program focused on environmental 

concerns, particularly problems relating to ozone depletion, airport and community noise, and 

sonic boom. Phase II, which began in 1994, focused on developing the advanced technologies 

needed to ensure the economic viability of the aircraft.

To retain Congress’ support for the project, NASA needed to prove that the HSCT was ozoneneutral and could meet current airport noise requirements, and that the sonic boom the aircraft 

generated could be made acceptable for flights over land or water. From 1989 to 1991, 

researchers tested the most reliable atmospheric computer models against existing atmospheric 

data to calculate the effects of emissions by a high-speed transport fleet. Although the results 

varied, calculations showed there were potential operating areas in the lower stratosphere where 

reduced engine emissions would deplete ozone by less than 1 percent. NASA used ER-2 aircraft 

and a modified DC-8 jetliner to collect improved stratospheric measurements. In late 1991, an 

ER-2 and DC-8 acquired the first ozone data geared specifically to the HSR program as an 

adjunct to the Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition II, a polar-ozone mapping project.186 In 

FY 1995, the first phase of the Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft flight campaign and 

analysis was completed. This study also used the NASA ER-2 high-altitude aircraft carrying a 

full complement of atmospheric sampling instrumentation. The instruments obtained new 

observations to diagnose the chemistry, physics, and fluid motion of air in the low stratosphere. 

185 “Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/sat_4.html (accessed June 19, 2006).

186 NASA Aeronautics, Research and Technology Program Highlights, NP 159, p. 26.

328
Enhancements to atmospheric models were used to assess the potential environmental effects of 

a fleet of HSCTs, as well as emission scenarios for a 1,000-aircraft fleet.187 The results from this 

flight campaign and from other studies by industry and NASA provided convincing evidence 

that advanced low-emission engines would have virtually no impact on stratospheric ozone, and 

that advanced technology could solve the airport noise problem.188 However, research on 

achieving acceptable noise levels resulted in configurations that had a lower boom but were not 

economically viable; thus, no solution to the sonic-boom issue was forthcoming and supersonic 

flights were limited to over water. Subsequent sonic-boom research was directed toward 

understanding the effects of sonic booms on marine animals, and determining how to avoid 

exposing humans and animals to the booms. Questions also remained about the aircraft’s 

economic viability and the acceptability of the advanced technology costs.189 

In an effort to reduce the sonic boom, beginning in 1990, researchers designed Mach 2 and Mach 

3 twisted wing-body-nacelle concepts to produce tailored “flat-top” or “ramp”-type signatures. 

Wind tunnel tests of these models encountered unpredicted shocks coming from the flowthrough nacelles. The next series of tests in 1991 used nonlinear CFD methods to a greater extent 

to compare directly with wind tunnel data. The use of CFD had become more necessary as wind 

tunnel models became larger in order to incorporate increasingly realistic features such as twist 

and camber, and nacelles.190 During 1995, a NASA team at Dryden conducted flight tests near 

Edwards Air Force Base with an SR-71 aircraft to study sonic-boom characteristics (see figure 3-

15). During these missions, an F-16XL probed the shock waves generated by the SR-71, while a 

187 “Office of Aeronautics, Aeronautical Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 4-32.

188 “Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. RD 9-31.

189 Chambers, Innovation in Flight Research, p. 52. Also “High Speed Research,” Office of Aero-Space Technology 

FY 1998 Technical Accomplishments, January 22, 1999.

190 Chambers, Innovation in Flight Research, p. 55.

329
NASA F-18 and YO-3A, flying at lower altitudes, were used to augment ground-based 

measurements from the same shock wave and help in the analysis.191 

Figure 3-15. The single-seat F-16XL (in the foreground) flies in formation with an SR-71A 

on one of the flights in the sonic boom research program conducted by Dryden Flight 

Research Center (NASA-DFRC photo EC95-43024-5).

The second phase of the HSR program, which ran concurrently with Phase I, began in 1994.192

Phase II focused on the technology advances needed to ensure economic viability and 

environmental compatibility. Its objective was to develop and validate, in cooperation with U.S. 

industry, designs, design methodologies, and manufacturing-process technologies for subsequent 

191 Ibid., p. 56.

192 “High Speed Research,” Spinoff 1995, http://neurolab.nasa.gov/er/seh/pg34s95.html (accessed July 24, 2006).

330
application by industry in future HSCT programs.193 The technology advances identified for 

economic viability included reducing weight in all areas of the baseline configuration, trimming 

the baseline airframe, minimizing drag, improving critical engine components, and developing 

advanced control systems, flight-deck instrumentation, and displays.194 In August 1994, NASA 

awarded Boeing and McDonnell Douglas a $440 million contract to develop technologies as a 

team in the areas of airframe technologies for aerodynamics, flight systems, and materials and 

structures for the HSCT. The Critical Propulsion Components contract went to a General 

Electric-Pratt & Whitney team, and the Advanced Flight Deck contract was awarded to 

Honeywell International. These teaming arrangements enabled the companies to reduce 

duplication and costs and accelerate research.195 

In December 1995, NASA chose a single aircraft concept—the Technology Concept Aircraft 

(TCA)—to focus the intensive technological development planned for the next three years of the 

program. The TCA was not an actual design or airplane that would be built; rather, it was a 

common reference point for HSR technology development. The TCA evolved from separate 

Boeing and McDonnell Douglas HSCT designs.196 In July 1996, researchers at Langley tested 

the initial wind tunnel model of the TCA in the Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT). 

Experimental results confirmed the analytical supersonic optimized nonlinear aerodynamic 

design of the twist and camber of the double-delta wing. The nonlinear optimization of the total 

193 “Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. RD 9-32. Also “Fiscal Year 1996 

Estimates, Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/sat_4.html

(accessed June 19, 2006).

194 Chambers, p. 54.

195 “Boeing, McDonnell Douglas Awarded Technology Contracts,” Dryden X-Press, August 1994, 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/xp-94-08.html (accessed June 8, 2006). Also “Office of Aeronautics 

and Space Technology,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/sat_4.html

(accessed June 19, 2006).

196 “NASA’s High-Speed Research Program, Developing a Future Supersonic Passenger Jet,” NASA Facts Online, 

FS-1998-05-15-LaRC, May 1998, http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HSR-General.html (accessed July 24, 2006).

331
configuration continued over the next two years, leading to improvements over linear 

optimization methods.197 Later wind tunnel tests using the aircraft took place in Langley’s 16-

foot transonic tunnel (see figure 3-16). 

Figure 3-16. This photo shows a 1.5 percent High-Speed Research Technology Concept 

Aircraft (TCA) baseline aft body model in Langley’s 16-foot transonic tunnel 

(NASA photo EL-1999-00196). 

The technological advances required to ensure the economic viability of an HSCT included 

reducing the weight, trimming the baseline airframe, and minimizing drag. The benefits of 

laminar flow control included increased range, improved fuel economy, and reduced weight—all 

by-products of reduced drag. Wind tunnel, computational, and flight studies of supersonic 

197 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities, (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, no date), p. 46.

332
laminar flow control (SLFC) were performed in an effort to improve cruise efficiency for HSCT 

configurations. Boeing and McDonnell Douglas conducted analyses to determine the potential 

mission and economic benefits of SLFC. Dryden used an F-16XL prototype aircraft to conduct 

exploratory investigations of laminar-flow technology during 1992. Results from the SLFC 

experiment on the F-16XL demonstrated that wing suction at supersonic speeds could 

significantly reduce drag and thus offer a potential 6 percent reduction in HSCT gross takeoff 

weight.198 In the spring of 1992, Boeing began working with Langley, Dryden, Rockwell, and 

McDonnell Douglas on an HSR project for designing and testing a hybrid SLFC glove on a 

second F-16XL aircraft. The glove covered about 75 percent of the upper wing surface and 60 

percent of the wing’s leading edge. Air was sucked through more than 10 million tiny laserdrilled holes in the glove by means of a manifold system with 20 valves. The glove was 

instrumented to determine the extent of laminar flow and measure other variables, such as the 

acoustic environment, that might affect laminar flow in various flight conditions. Wind tunnel 

tests in Langley’s UPWT in 1994 verified design pressure distributions for the flight experiments 

and provided simulator coefficients for stability and control investigations (figure 3-17). The 

flight-test portion of the program ended November 25, 1996, after 45 flights. It demonstrated that 

laminar airflow could be achieved over a major portion of a wing at supersonic speeds with the 

use of a suction system.199 However, based on the results of the SLFC flight tests, the planners 

decided not to incorporate this technology into the baseline airplane because it involved too 

many technical risks and would have an extensive impact on the system.200

198 “Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology,” p. SAT 4.1-29.

199 Chambers, Innovation in Flight Research, pp. 155–156.

200 “Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology,” p. SAT 4.1-29. Also 

“Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Enterprise FY 1999 OMB Budget Estimate,” p. 18.

333
Figure 3-17. This is a multiple-exposure image of the F-16XL Supersonic Laminar Flow 

Control (SLFC) model in Langley’s Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel taken in April 1994. This windtunnel test was conducted to verify design pressure distributions for the SLFC flight experiment 

(see the modified port wing) and to obtain simulator coefficients for stability and control 

investigations. (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1996-00141). 

334
Late in 1992, discussions had taken place at Langley about the possibility of refurbishing and 

using a Russian Tu-144 supersonic jet as a flying laboratory and for supersonic flight research 

with the aircraft’s manufacturer, Tupolev. NASA Headquarters and Tupolev had also discussed 

the idea informally at the Paris Air Show. In August 1994, Vice President Albert Gore and 

Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin signed an agreement to use the Tu-144 aircraft as 

a flying laboratory for flight research to develop enabling technologies as part of the HSR 

program.201 Using a Tu-144LL that had been modified by its developer/builder (Tupolev 

ANTK), NASA, a team of U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers, and Tupolev conducted six 

on-board experiments and two ground experiments. Their goal was to obtain data to develop 

technologies for an environmentally compatible and economically viable future supersonic 

transport (see table 3-30). In the first ground test, eight configurations were tested to determine 

the effect of aircraft inlet structures on the quality of the airflow entering the engine. In the 

second engine ground test, 22 transient configurations were tested to determine what happened to 

inlet and engine performance and stability of operation when supersonic shock waves rapidly 

changed position in the inlet.202

 Between January 1997 and March 1998, the Tu-144LL completed 18 research flights involving 

six flight experiments (in aerodynamics, thermodynamics, structural and cabin noise, propulsion 

systems environment, aircraft handling qualities, and landing characteristics). Researchers

compared the results from this supersonic aircraft with results from models in wind tunnels, 

201 “Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology,” 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/sat_4.html (accessed June 19, 2006).

202 “Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Enterprise FY 1999 OMB Budget Estimate,” p. 18.

335
computer-aided techniques, and other flight tests.203 A shorter follow-up program consisting of 

seven flights began in September 1998 and ended in April 1999. All flights took place in Russia 

at Tupolev’s facility near Moscow. Langley’s Robert A. Rivers and Dryden’s C. Gordon 

Fullerton became the first American pilots to fly the modified Tu-144LL during the 1998 

experiments. Figure 3-18 shows the Tu-144LL Flying Laboratory in Russia. 

Figure 3-18. The Russian Tu-144LL SST Flying Laboratory landing with drag chutes at the 

Zhukovsky Air Development Center near Moscow, Russia, in July 1997 (NASA photo no. 

EC97-44203-2, NASA/IBP).

In June 1997, a series of flight tests were performed with the NASA 737 research aircraft to 

determine how well pilots could adjust to an external vision system accompanied by side 

203 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 49–50. Also Chambers, Innovation in Flight Research, p. 60.

336
windows. The view out the forward cockpit windows would be replaced by large sensor displays 

using video images, enhanced by computer-generated graphics.204 The system would guide pilots 

to an airport, warn them of other aircraft near their flight path, and provide additional visual aids 

for airport approaches. The goal was to develop an aircraft without the heavy and expensive 

“nose-droop” design of the Concorde, saving an estimated 20,000 pounds (9,072 kilograms) in 

gross weight. A longer fixed-nose design could reduce drag, which would result in additional 

fuel and weight savings. An external vision system could also provide safety and performance 

capabilities exceeding those of unaided human vision.205

Flight control was also an important concern. In December 1997, a real-time piloted simulation 

was developed at Langley to represent the expected flight and structural-dynamics behavior of a 

supersonic aircraft during key mission tasks. The purpose was to determine the requirements for 

a structural mode control system that would minimize cockpit vibration so that the pilot could 

perform required tasks. The test results would be used to develop advanced flight-control laws 

for future supersonic transports. An understanding of aeroelastic flying qualities and control 

criteria would also help guide the design of other future advanced, highly flexible, piloted 

aerospace vehicles.206

New high-temperature materials and structural concepts for various subcomponents in the TCA’s 

fuselage and wings were selected for fabrication and testing. Materials durability was a critical 

204 “NASA’s High-Speed Research Program, Developing a Future Supersonic Passenger Jet,” NASA Facts Online, 

FS-1998-05-15-LaRC, May 1998, http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HSR-General.html (accessed July 24, 2006).

205 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 49.

206 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology: Three Pillars for Success, Annual Progress Report 1997–

1998, p. 51.

337
area. It was necessary to develop tests that could predict how well candidate materials would 

withstand the mechanical and environmental factors that contribute to long-term degradation of 

properties under conditions simulating high-speed flight because not all candidate materials 

could be subjected to adequate long-term tests. The HSCT was intended to have a lifetime of 

60,000 flight hours. At speeds of Mach 2.4, the maximum operating temperature could reach 

350°F (177°C). In 1995, after examining more than 200 possible materials, researchers at 

Langley decided that a new composite material—phenylethynyl terminated imide (PETI-5)—

could meet the temperature and durability requirements of a future supersonic transport flying at 

speeds greater than 1,500 miles per hour (2,414 kilometers per hour), altitudes of 65,000 feet 

(19,812 meters), and surface temperatures as high as 350°F (177°C). In tests, two 40- by 80-inch 

(102- by 203-centimeter) panels made of the composite material were subjected to a force of 

more than 400,000 pounds (1,779 kilonewtons) before cracking occurred. The tested structure 

showed promise as the primary wing and fuselage material for a supersonic transport. However, 

the unacceptably high manufacturing cost was a major barrier to application of the technology. 

Adequate developmental testing was not accomplished during the lifetime of the HSR program. 

Nevertheless, its use for other applications was recognized, and the material received the NASA 

Commercial Invention of the Year award for 1998, and Research and Development Magazine’s 

R&D 100 award.207

In early 1998, Langley researchers completed more than 15,000 hours of flight-profile tests on 

structural samples of new high-temperature materials that resembled PETI-5. Two polymeric 

matrix composites, called IM7/5260 and IM7/K3B, performed as expected without experiencing 

207 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology: Three Pillars for Success, Annual Progress Report 1997–

1998, pp. 47–48. Also Chambers, Innovation in Flight Research, pp. 57–58.

338
any degradation. Researchers were to continue testing the samples until more than 60,000 flightprofile hours were achieved, the equivalent of the expected 20-year lifespan of an airplane. The 

tests were designed to simulate the forces and temperatures an aircraft would experience during 

an entire flight, and the results had to demonstrate that the materials would perform as needed 

before they could be used to build a future commercial supersonic transport.208

To address future noise requirements, a new type of supersonic engine nozzle was developed and 

tested at Lewis Research Center. The Large-Scale Model 1 (LSM-1) test looked at nozzle design 

in a realistic engine environment. Earlier, the designs had been tested only on a small scale in 

wind tunnels without the severe operating conditions found behind a jet engine core. The LSM-1 

test provided the first opportunity to evaluate new HSR-developed materials for the nozzle. A 

noise-quieting liner panel made from a ceramic matrix composite material survived testing for 22 

hours with no signs of degradation.209

HSR activities also focused on the effects of radiation exposure on the aircrew and passengers of 

an HSCT. To refine and validate the data and models associated with the high-altitude radiation 

environment, NASA and the DOE Environmental Measurements Laboratory created the 

Atmospheric Ionizing Radiation (AIR) project under the auspices of the HSR program. For the 

AIR project, international investigators were solicited to contribute instruments to fly on an ER-2 

aircraft at altitudes similar to those proposed for the HSCT—between 52,000 and 70,000 feet 

(15,850–21,336 meters). The flight series took place at solar minimum (radiation maximum) 

208 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology: Three Pillars for Success, Annual Progress Report 1997–

1998, p. 48.

209 Ibid., p. 52.

339
with northern, southern, and east–west flights.

210 Although exposure levels are higher at HSCT 

cruise altitudes compared to current subsonic flight altitudes, passengers would actually receive 

less radiation exposure on HSCT flights because they would spend less time in the air due to the 

higher aircraft speed.211 Further, researchers proposed to minimize long-term radiation exposure 

for crew members who might work many hours at cruise altitudes up to 68,000 feet (20,726 

meters) by rotating the crew schedules.

During the early 1990s, industry and NASA together received strong support from a Congress 

that was concerned about the level of the country’s investment in advanced technology. 

However, the 1994 elections produced a Congress that was more concerned with deficit 

reduction than “national competitiveness.” The Republican-controlled Congress demanded a 

balanced budget amendment and a balanced federal budget within seven years, with tax cuts and 

increased military spending at the same time.212 NASA, as the recipient of a portion of federal 

“discretionary” funds, took a large cut in FY 1994 below its FY 1993 budget.213 Also, by 1998, 

the corporate alliance among Boeing, General Electric Aircraft Engines, Pratt & Whitney, and 

McDonnell-Douglas was beginning to break down. The number of aerospace companies had 

declined through a series of mergers, and the shrinking defense budget produced a decline in 

aerospace research and development spending for defense-related aeronautics that was offset 

only slightly by the increase in NASA’s aeronautics spending.214 

210 Chambers, Innovation in Flight Research, p. 61. Also “NASA’s High-Speed Research Program; Research—the 

Environmental Effects of a Supersonic Passenger Jet,” FS-1998-03-33-LaRC, March 1998, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HSR-Environ.html (accessed May 25, 2006). 211 “NASA’s High-Speed Research Program, Developing a Future Supersonic Passenger Jet,” NASA Facts Online, 

FS-1998-05-15-LaRC, May 1998, http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HSR-General.html (accessed July 24, 2006). 212 Conway, pp. 286–287.

213 Discretionary spending applies to programs whose funding must be provided each year in appropriations 

legislation; their spending is thus subject to the annual “discretion” of Congress. 214 Conway, pp. 287–288.

340
In July 1997, NASA had proposed an extension to the HSR program, called Phase IIA, to focus 

on answering the remaining technological questions related to whether U.S. industry would be 

able to build a viable, economical, and environmentally sound HSCT. Planned to begin in FY 

1999, Phase IIA was to further mitigate risk in the areas of propulsion and airframe materials and 

structures. Its objective was to deliver well-defined products, including propulsion component 

rig tests, fabrication and ground tests of a full-scale engine and exhaust nozzle, and fabrication 

and durability tests of major fuselage and wingbox subassemblies using optimized preproduction 

materials and structures processes. An additional $836.5 million was to fund the work. In July 

1998, funding was reduced to $500 million, and the program content was scaled down partly in 

response to known changes in Boeing’s position concerning the manufacture of a high-speed 

aircraft.215 

By this time, Boeing had concluded that key HSR technologies had not advanced far enough, 

especially in the areas of propulsion, noise, and fuel-tank sealants. These concerns, along with a 

long airline recession followed immediately by an unexpectedly large boom, production 

problems with its existing line of subsonic transports, major commitments to its new B777 

aircraft, and other considerations, led the company to reexamine its participation in the program. 

It decided to reduce its commitment to the program and scale back its investments.216 Market 

analyses and technology requirement assessments indicated that a commercial HSCT could not 

reasonably be introduced before 2020. Industry and NASA also questioned whether the 

technologies being pursued would adequately address environmental standards and other 

215 “Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Enterprise FY 1999 OMB Budget Estimate,” p. 18. Also 

“Appendix A—Changes of Program Commitment Agreement,” High-Speed Research (HSR) Program, May 10, 

1999, p. A-2.

216 Conway, p. 288. Also “Office of Aero-Space Technology Fiscal Year 2000 Estimates,” p. 4.1-29.

341
challenges in 2020. In February 1999, after Boeing dramatically reduced its support for the 

project, NASA announced it would terminate the HSR program at the end of FY 1999. The 

Agency redirected $600 million from the HSR program to the International Space Station 

budget.217

High-Performance and Experimental Aircraft 

Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles 

The term “unmanned [or uninhabited] aerial vehicle” (UAV) came into general use in the early 

1990s to describe robotic aircraft, generally replacing the term “remotely piloted vehicles.”218

The DOD Dictionary defines a UAV as: 

A powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces 

to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or 

recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. Ballistic or semiballistic 

vehicles, cruise missiles, and artillery projectiles are not considered unmanned aerial 

vehicles.

A series of remotely piloted vehicles developed by NASA and industry flew out of Dryden 

Flight Research Center in the mid to late 1990s. 

Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) Program 

NASA’s ERAST program aimed to develop aeronautical technologies for a new generation of 

remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft for a variety of upper-atmospheric science missions 

217 Chambers, Innovation in Flight Research, pp. 61–62.

218 Laurence R. Newcome, Unmanned Aviation; A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, (Reston, VA: 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2004), p. 1. Also “DOD Dictionary of Military Terms,” 

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/ (accessed August 5, 2006).

342
and commercial applications. Its goals were to foster new materials and propulsion, control, 

instrumentation, and sensor technologies that would enable the development of a variety of slowflying, high-altitude aircraft to perform long-duration science missions in the upper stratosphere. 

The missions, flown either autonomously or remotely by a pilot in a ground control station, 

could include Earth-sciences studies, storm tracking, atmospheric sampling, and spectral imaging 

for agricultural and natural-resource monitoring. Such “atmospheric satellite” aircraft would also 

have potential for commercial use, serving as relay platforms for telecommunications systems. 

Management and operations were led by Dryden Flight Research Center. Lewis and Langley 

contributed to the ERAST program in the areas of propulsion, energy-storage systems, 

structures, and systems analysis. NASA also worked closely with the FAA to develop 

operational plans to ensure that the remotely operated aircraft could be safely flown in national 

airspace.

NASA began the program in FY 1994 to develop UAV technology and sensors that could be 

carried by these aircraft. Four concepts (or testbeds) were considered for ERAST: (1) Perseus A 

and B, (2) Pathfinder, (3) GNAT 750, and (4) Raptor Demonstrator (D-2). Apex was also to have 

been part of the program, but was canceled before the aircraft was assembled and flown. In 1999, 

the Proteus aircraft was adopted into the ERAST program. 

Perseus A and B. Designed and built by Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, Perseus was a 

propulsion/performance testbed. The Perseus A and B models were identical pusher-prop designs 

except for the landing gear (the A had tandem fuselage wheels, while the B had tricycle gear). 

343
Perseus was initially developed as part of NASA’s Small High-Altitude Science Aircraft 

(SHASA) program, which later evolved into the ERAST project. The Perseus proof-of-concept 

aircraft first flew in November 1991 and made three low-altitude flights within a month to 

validate the Perseus aerodynamic model and flight-control systems.219 

Two Perseus A four-cylinder aircraft were built and made 21 flights in 1993–1994. Perseus A 

incorporated a closed-cycle combustion system that mixed oxygen carried aboard the aircraft 

with engine exhaust to compensate for the thin air at high altitudes. It was towed into the air by a 

ground vehicle and its engine started after it became airborne. Prior to landing, the engine was 

stopped and the propeller was locked in the horizontal position. Perseus A then glided to a 

landing on its bicycle-type landing gear. One Perseus A aircraft reached over 50,000 feet (15,240 

meters) in altitude on its third test flight. Although one Perseus A aircraft was destroyed in a 

crash after a vertical gyroscope failed in flight, the other aircraft completed its test program. See 

table 3-31 for Perseus A characteristics. Figure 3-19 shows the Perseus A aircraft. 

219 “Perseus B,” Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-059-DFRC.html (accessed 

June 8, 2006).

344
Figure 3-19. The Perseus A, a remotely-piloted, high-altitude research aircraft, is seen here 

framed against the moon and sky during a research mission at the Dryden Flight Research 

Center, Edwards, California, in August 1994 (NASA-DFRC photo EC94-42742-7).

Perseus B was intended to serve as a propulsion and performance testbed for advanced highaltitude, remotely piloted aircraft. It also was designed to be a platform aircraft for actual science 

missions, carrying atmospheric sampling, weather monitoring, imaging, and telecommunications 

relay equipment in a payload bay in the forward fuselage. The objectives of the aircraft’s flight 

tests were to reach and maintain horizontal flight above 60,000 feet (18,288 meters) and 

demonstrate the capability to fly missions lasting from 8 to 24 hours depending on payload and 

altitude requirements. The triple-turbocharged engine incorporated a closed-cycle combustion 

system that mixed oxygen carried aboard the aircraft with engine exhaust to compensate for the 

thin air at high design cruising altitude. With turbocharging, the four-cylinder engine was flat345
rated at 80 horsepower from sea level to 60,000 feet (18,288 meters). First flown on October 7, 

1994, Perseus B flew twice more in early 1996 before being damaged in a hard landing on the 

dry lakebed after a propeller shaft failure. It was modified with a longer, stronger wing extending 

the original 58.7-foot (18-meter) wingspan to 71.5 feet (21.8 meters) and met Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FAR) Part 23 load requirements. A new series of four developmental flight tests 

began on April 30, 1998 at Dryden. Perseus B achieved a record altitude of 60,280 feet (18,373 

meters) on its fourth flight on June 27, 1998, establishing an unofficial altitude record for a 

single-engine, propeller-driven, remotely piloted aircraft. 

Modifications after the 1998 flight series included the addition of external fuel pods on the wing 

that more than doubled the fuel capacity to 100 gallons (378.5 liters). Engine power increased by 

more than 10 percent after a boost in the turbocharger output, becoming flat-rated at 105 

horsepower to 60,000 feet (18,288 meters). Fuel consumption was reduced by means of fuelcontrol modifications and a leaner fuel-air mixture that did not compromise power. 

Improvements in the aircraft’s avionics suite included the installation of a second GPS unit, a 

ring laser gyroscope to replace a mechanical unit, and a longer-life emergency battery. The 

aircraft’s rudder was modified by splitting it in two and installing an additional servo motor. 

Combined with a split elevator and independent ailerons, this gave the primary flight-control 

system full redundancy for flight safety. The flight-control software was also modified to 

incorporate fault-tolerant control capability, giving the system automatic detection and 

compensation for any flight sensor or actuator failure. The aircraft’s air data instrumentation 

system was supplemented with the installation of a second pitot tube. The new unit was a heated 

five-hole probe to ensure accurate speed, pitch, and AoA measurements when the aircraft was at 

346
high altitudes. Instrumentation that had been installed on the aircraft for initial development 

flights was removed or incorporated into the flight data system to free up payload space for 

future mission use. Standard aircraft running lights were installed so that the aircraft could be 

safely flown at night.220 Table 3-32 lists Perseus B characteristics.

Pathfinder.221 Pathfinder was a lightweight, solar-powered, remotely piloted flying-wing aircraft 

that demonstrated the technology of applying solar power for long-duration, high-altitude flight. 

Solar arrays covering most of the upper wing surface powered the aircraft’s electric motors, 

avionics, communications, and other electronic systems. Pathfinder’s backup battery system 

provided power for 2–5 hours to allow limited-duration flight after dark. 

Pathfinder flew at an airspeed of 15 to 25 miles (24.1 to 40.2 kilometers) per hour. Although 

pitch control was maintained by the use of tiny elevons on the trailing edge of the wing, turns 

and yaw control were accomplished by slowing down or speeding up the motors on the outboard 

sections of the wing. 

Pathfinder was designed and fabricated by AeroVironment as a high-altitude, long-endurance 

aircraft for surveillance purposes for a classified government program in the early 1980s. Known 

as the HALSOL (for High-Altitude SOLar) aircraft, its eight electric motors—later reduced to 

six—were first powered by batteries. When that project was canceled, the aircraft was placed in 

storage for 10 years. In 1993, the aircraft was brought back to flight status by the Ballistic 

220 “Perseus B,” Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-059-DFRC.html (accessed 

June 8, 2006).

221 “Pathfinder Solar-Powered Aircraft,” Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-034-

DFRC.html (accessed June 8, 2006). Also “Past Project: ERAST – Pathfinder/Pathfinder Plus,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/pathfinder.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

347
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). With the addition of small solar arrays, five low-altitude 

checkout flights were flown under the BMDO program at Dryden in the fall of 1993 and early 

1994 with a combination of solar and battery power. 

In late 1994, the aircraft was transferred to NASA, which was to develop science platform 

aircraft technology as part of the newly established ERAST program. After researchers 

conducted further flight tests at Dryden that year, additional solar cells were added, eventually 

covering most of the upper surface of the wing. Pathfinder was then brought back for another 

series of development flights at Dryden in 1995. On September 11, 1995, the aircraft reached an 

altitude of 50,500 feet (15,392 meters) during a 12-hour flight, setting a new altitude record for 

solar-powered aircraft. The National Aeronautic Association presented the NASA-industry team 

with an award for one of the “10 Most Memorable Record Flights” of 1995. Later that fall, on 

October 21, 1995, Pathfinder was severely damaged in a hangar mishap. After repairs, additional 

upgrades, and a November 1996 checkout flight at Dryden, it was transported to the U.S. Navy’s 

Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) at Barking Sands, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, in April 1997. 

Pathfinder flew seven high-altitude flights from PMRF. On July 7, 1997, it set a new altitude 

record for propeller-driven as well as solar-powered aircraft, reaching 71,530 feet (21,802 

kilometers). The flights also tested two new scientific instruments: a high-spectral-resolution 

Digital Array Scanned Interferometer (DASI) and a high-spatial-resolution Airborne Real-Time 

Imaging System (ARTIS), both developed at Ames. Figure 3-20 shows a flight in August 1997. 

348
Figure 3-20. Pathfinder, NASA’s solar-powered, remotely piloted aircraft, is shown while 

conducting a series of science flights in August 1997 in which it collected imagery of forest and 

coastal zone ecosystems on Kaua’i, Hawaii (NASA-DFRC photo EC97-44287-2).

During 1998, Pathfinder was modified into the longer-winged Pathfinder-Plus. Essentially a 

transitional vehicle between the Pathfinder and the follow-on Centurion/Helios solar wings, the 

Pathfinder-Plus was a hybrid of the technology that was used on Pathfinder and developed for 

Pathfinder’s successor, the Centurion/Helios prototype. The most noticeable change was the 

installation of a new 44-foot (13.4-meter) center wing section incorporating a high-altitude 

airfoil designed for Centurion/Helios. The new section was twice as long as the original 

Pathfinder center section and increased the overall wingspan of the craft from 98.4 feet (30 

349
meters) to 121 feet (36.9 meters). The new center section was topped by more efficient silicon 

solar cells developed by SunPower Corporation, Sunnyvale, California, that could convert almost 

19 percent of the solar energy they received to useful electrical energy to power the craft’s 

motors, avionics, and communication systems. The older solar arrays covering most of the 

surface of the middle and outer wing panels from the original Pathfinder had only about 14 

percent efficiency. The maximum potential power was boosted from about 7,500 watts on 

Pathfinder to about 12,500 watts on Pathfinder-Plus. 

In addition, the Pathfinder-Plus was powered by eight electric motors—two more than the 

previous version of Pathfinder used. Designed for the Centurion/Helios prototype, the motors 

were slightly more efficient than the original Pathfinder motors. The Pathfinder-Plus also 

validated a new flight-control system for the Centurion/Helios prototype. 

On August 6, 1998, the Pathfinder-Plus was flown to a record altitude for propeller-driven 

aircraft of 80,201 feet (20,445 meters) on the third of a series of developmental test flights from 

PMRF on Kaua’i. The goal of the flights was to validate new solar, aerodynamic, propulsion, 

and systems technologies developed for the Centurion/Helios prototype that was designed to 

reach and sustain altitudes in the 100,000-foot (30,480-meter) range.

The major science activities of the Pathfinder missions included assessing forest nutrient status, 

forest regrowth after damage caused by Hurricane Iniki in 1992, sediment/algal concentrations in 

coastal waters, and coral reef health. Science activities were coordinated by Ames Research 

Center and included researchers at the University of Hawaii and the University of California. 

350
These flights were conducted at altitudes between 22,000 and 49,000 feet (6,705 and 14,935 

meters) in 1997.222 Table 3-33 lists Pathfinder and Pathfinder-Plus characteristics.

GNAT 750. Developed as a multiday-duration UAV by General Automics, El Mirage, 

California, this pusher-prop design carried an array of sensors that “read” the amount of solar 

radiation streaming through the atmosphere. The aircraft was related to a family of longendurance tactical surveillance and support system aircraft that had been flying since 1989. The 

Predator was a growth version of the GNAT 750 and was used extensively by DOD on a variety 

of surveillance missions.223

The Altus II and its sister ship, the Altus I, were civil version of the Predator surveillance drone 

built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. They were designed for high-altitude, longduration scientific sampling missions and were powered by turbocharged piston engines. 

Although similar in appearance to the Predator, the Altus had a slightly longer wingspan and was 

designed to carry atmospheric sampling and other instruments for civilian scientific research 

missions in place of the military reconnaissance equipment carried by the Predators.

The Altus aircraft were distinguished by their long, narrow, high-aspect-ratio wing; slender 

fuselage; rear-mounted engine and propeller; and inverted-V horizontal tail. They could carry up 

to 330 pounds (150 kilograms) of sensors and other scientific instruments in a nose-mounted 

payload compartment, a location designed to allow air being sampled by the sensors to be 

222 “Pathfinder Solar-Powered Aircraft,” Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-034-

DFRC.html (accessed June 8, 2006). Also “Past Project: ERAST—Pathfinder/Pathfinder Plus,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/pathfinder.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

223 “General Atomic GNAT-750 Lofty View,” Federation of American Scientists, FAS Intelligence Resource 

Program, http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/gnat-750.htm (accessed July 11, 2006).

351
undisturbed by heat or pollutants from engine exhaust. They had tricycle-type retractable landing 

gear. A four-cylinder Rotax 912 gasoline engine provided power, and a turbocharger built by 

Thermo-Mechanical Systems., Inc., Canoga Park, California, provided additional airflow.224

The Altus II, built for NASA’s ERAST program and the first of the two Altus aircraft to be 

completed, made its first flight on 1 May 1996. With its engine originally augmented by a singlestage turbocharger, the Altus II reached an altitude of 37,000 feet (11,278 meters) during its first 

series of development flights at Dryden in August 1996, and flew at that altitude for more than 2 

hours on September 5, 1996. In October of that year, the Altus II was flown in an Atmospheric 

Radiation Measurement study for the DOE’s Sandia National Laboratory in Oklahoma. During 

that series of flights, the Altus II set a single-flight endurance record for remotely operated 

aircraft of more than 26 hours. 

In the spring of 1998, the Altus II underwent a series of upgrades. It received a larger fuel tank 

and additional intercooling capacity, and was modified to a two-stage turbocharger designed to 

enable the craft to fly at altitudes in the 65,000-foot (19,812-meter) range. On March 5, 1999, the 

aircraft flew above 55,000 feet (16,764 meters) for more than 3 hours.225 It also flew at 50,000 

feet (15,240 meters) altitude for 8 hours.226 A pilot in a control station on the ground flew the 

craft by radio signals, using visual cues from a video camera in the nose of the Altus and 

information from the craft’s air data system.227 Later that spring, the Altus II flew another series 

224 “Altus II,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-058-DFRC.html (accessed July 11, 2006).

225 “Altus II,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-058-DFRC.html (accessed July 11, 2006).

226 “Past Projects–ERAST: Altus,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/altus.html

(accessed July 11, 2006).

227 “Altus Photo Gallery Contact Sheet: Project Description,” 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/Altus/HTML/index.html (accessed July 11, 2006).

352
of Atmospheric Radiation Measurement missions conducted by Sandia National Laboratories for 

the DOE. Hard-to-measure properties of high-level cirrus clouds that may affect global warming 

were recorded using specially designed instruments while the Altus flew at 50,000 feet (15,240 

meters) altitude off Kaua’i. The aircraft last flew in July 2002.228 Figure 3-21 shows the Altus II 

in flight in 1998. 

Figure 3-21. The San Gabriel range is visible as the remotely piloted Altus II flies over Southern 

California’s high desert, 29 June 1998 (NASA photo: EC98-44684, General Atomics). 

228 Kimberly Kasitz, public relations and marketing manager, UAV (General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.), email to author, August 1, 2006.

353
The Altus I was built for the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and completed 

in 1997. Incorporating a single-stage turbocharger, it flew a series of development flights at 

Dryden the summer of 1996. Those test flights culminated with the craft reaching an altitude of 

43,500 feet (13,258.8 meters) while carrying a simulated 300-pound (136-kilogram) payload, a 

record for an uncrewed aircraft powered by a piston engine augmented with a single-stage 

turbocharger.229 Figure 3-22 shows the Altus I in flight. Table 3-34 lists Altus characteristics.

Figure 3-22. Altus I aircraft in flight, retarding its landing gear after takeoff from Rogers Dry 

Lake adjacent to Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, 1 August 1997 

(NASA photo EC 97-44175-14, Carla Thomas). 

229 “Altus Photo Gallery Contact Sheet: Project Description,” 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/Altus/HTML/index.html (accessed July 11, 2006).

354
Beginning in 1999, General Automics developed an enlarged version of its Predator 

reconnaissance aircraft, the Predator B, including an extended-wingspan Altair version for 

NASA, to meet NASA’s requirements for remotely operated, uninhabited aircraft to perform 

high-altitude Earth-science missions.230

Raptor D-2 Demonstrator. The Raptor D-2 aircraft was designed to test technologies that could 

result in long-duration (12–72 hours), high-altitude vehicles. Key technology development areas 

included lightweight structures, science payload integration, engine development, and flightcontrol systems. Developed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization by Scaled 

Composites, Mojave, California, it featured a puller propeller that required science instruments 

to be mounted in wing pods to pull in undisturbed air.231 Flight tests began August 23, 1994. In 

late 1996, NASA demonstrated over-the-horizon communication capabilities with the D-2 using 

the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System to command and control the aircraft.232 After a 

break to install a new, triply redundant flight-control system, the aircraft returned to flight status 

on August 7, 1998, for a flight to check out the system that would allow remotely piloted highaltitude missions. The D-2 was unique among the testbed aircraft in the ERAST program in that 

it could be flown either by an on-board pilot or by remote control.233 Figure 3-23 shows the D-2 

in flight. Table 3-35 lists Raptor D-2 characteristics.

230 “Altair/Predator B: An Earth Science Aircraft for the 21st Century,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-073-DFRC.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

231 “Dryden Is Lead Center in ERAST Role, NASA Dryden X-Press, October 1994, 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1994/xp-94-10.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

232 “Past Projects–ERAST, D-2 Demonstrator,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/d2.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

233 “D-2 Resumes Flight Tests,” Research Roundup, Dryden X-Press, September 18, 1998, 8, 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1998/sep18-TX/page8-TX.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

355
Figure 3-23. Raptor D-2 Demonstrator in flight in 1996 (NASA-DFRC photo EC97-44102-2).

X-Planes 

NASA flew three experimental aircraft (called X-planes) during the decade from 1989 to 

1998.234

X-29. The X-29 has been used for high-performance flight research since 1984, when the first of 

two X-29 aircraft made its inaugural flight (Phase 1). The second X-29 first flew on May 23, 

1989 (Phase 2). There was also a follow-on vortex-control phase (VFC) using the second 

234 Development of the X-33 and X-34 is discussed in the section on reusable launch vehicles later in this chapter.

356
aircraft. Grumman Aircraft Corporation built the two X-29s under a contract with the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).235

Phase 1, using the No. 1 X-29, demonstrated that the forward sweep of the X-29 wings kept the 

wing tips unstalled at the moderate AoAs flown in that phase (a maximum of 21 degrees). Phase 

1 also demonstrated that the aeroelastic tailored wing prevented structural divergence of the wing 

within the flight envelope, and that the control laws and control-surface effectiveness were 

adequate to provide artificial stability for an otherwise unstable aircraft. Phase 1 further 

demonstrated that the X-29 configuration could fly safely and reliably, even in tight turns. The 

No. 1 aircraft flew 242 flights through December 1988—a record for any X-series plane at 

Dryden.236

Tests on the No. 2 X-29 investigated the aircraft’s high AoA (or alpha) characteristics and the 

military utility of its forward swept-wing/canard configuration.237 In Phase 2, flying at up to 67 

degrees AoA, the aircraft demonstrated much better control and maneuvering qualities than 

computational methods and simulation models had predicted. During 120 research flights in this 

phase, NASA, U.S. Air Force, and Grumman project pilots reported that the X-29 aircraft had 

excellent control response to an AoA of 45 degrees and still had limited controllability at a 67-

degree AoA. This controllability at high AoAs could be attributed to the aircraft’s distinctive 

235 NASA Aeronautics, Research and Technology Program Highlights, NP 159, p. 35. DARPA was the research arm 

of DOD. In March 1993, it reverted to a previous designation: ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency). In 

February 1996, it reverted to DARPA in accordance with Public Law 104-106, under Title IX of the Fiscal Year 

1996 Defense Authorization Act.

236 “X-29,” Fact Sheet, Dryden Flight Research Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS008-DFRC.html (accessed August 3, 2006).

237 Angle of attack (AoA), or alpha, is the term used to describe an aircraft’s angle relative to its flight path. During 

maneuvers, pilots often fly at extreme AoAs, with the nose pitched up while the aircraft continues in its original 

direction. This can lead to loss of control and result in the loss of the aircraft, pilot, or both.

357
forward swept-wing/canard design. The NASA/Air Force-designed high-gain flight-control laws 

also contributed to its good flying qualities.238 

During the follow-on VFC phase, the Air Force studied the use of VFC as a means of obtaining 

increased aircraft control at high AoAs when normal flight-control systems would be ineffective. 

The No. 2 X-29 was modified with the installation of two high-pressure nitrogen tanks and 

control valves with two small nozzle jets on the forward upper portion of the nose. The purpose 

of the modifications was to inject air into the vortices flowing off the nose of the aircraft at high 

AoAs. Wind tunnel tests at Grumman and the Air Force’s Wright Laboratory showed that 

injecting air into the vortices would change the direction of vortex flow and create corresponding 

forces on the nose of the aircraft to change or control the nose heading.239 Figure 3-24 shows 

vortex flow demonstrated by smoke over the forebody of the aircraft. 

238 “X-29 #049—First Flight,” Project Description, http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-29/HTML/EC89-

0127-004.html (accessed August 3, 2006).

239 “X-29,” Fact Sheet, Dryden Flight Research Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS008-DFRC.html (accessed August 3, 2006).

358
Figure 3-24. This photo shows the X-29 during a September 1991 research flight. Smoke 

generators in the nose of the aircraft were used to help researchers see the behavior of the 

 air flowing over the aircraft. The smoke here is demonstrating forebody vortex flow 

(NASA photo EC91-491-6).

During 60 flights from May to August, the X-29 successfully demonstrated VFC. It was more 

effective than expected in generating yaw forces, especially at higher AoAs, where the rudder 

was less effective. VFC was less effective in providing control when sideslip (relative wind 

pushing on the side of the aircraft) was present, and it did little to decrease rocking oscillation of 

359
the aircraft.240 Overall, VFC, like the forward swept wings, showed promise for the future of 

aircraft design. 

The X-29 program demonstrated several new technologies as well as new uses of proven 

technologies. These included: 

• Aeroelastic tailoring to control structural divergence 

• Use of a relatively large, close-coupled canard for longitudinal control 

• Control of an aircraft with extreme instability while still providing good handling qualities

• Use of three-surface longitudinal control 

• Use of a double-hinged trailing-edge flaperon at supersonic speeds 

• Control effectiveness at high AoA; vortex control 

• Military utility of the overall design 

See table 3-36 for X-29 characteristics.

X-31 Enhanced Maneuverability Demonstrator. Two X-31 Enhanced Fighter 

Maneuverability (EFM) demonstrators flew at Dryden Flight Research Center and at Palmdale, 

California, to obtain data potentially applicable to the design of highly maneuverable nextgeneration fighters. An international test organization of about 110 people managed by DARPA 

(redesignated ARPA from March 1993 to 1996) conducted the flight tests. NASA was 

responsible for flight-test operations, aircraft maintenance, and research engineering after the 

240 “X-29 #049—First Flight,” Project Description, http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-29/HTML/EC89-

0127-004.html (accessed August 3, 2006).

360
project moved to Dryden from Palmdale. As the research flight program matured, the test 

organization decreased in size to approximately 60 persons. 

The X-31 research program produced technical data at high AoAs, or alphas. This information 

improved engineers and aircraft designers’ understanding of aerodynamics, the effectiveness of 

flight controls and thrust vectoring, and airflow phenomena at high AoAs. It may also lead to 

design methods that provide better maneuverability in future high-performance aircraft, making 

such aircraft safer to fly and giving them a significant advantage over most conventional 

fighters.241 The program demonstrated the value of thrust vectoring coupled with advanced 

flight-control systems to achieve controlled flight during close-in air combat at very high alphas. 

The aircraft was designed to break the “stall barrier,” allowing it to fly at an AoA that would 

typically cause an aircraft to stall with a complete loss of control.242 

Three thrust-vectoring paddles mounted on the X-31’s airframe adjacent to the engine nozzle 

directed the exhaust flow to improve control in pitch and yaw. Made of carbon-carbon, an 

advanced carbon fiber-reinforced composite, the paddles could sustain temperatures of up to 

1,500°C (2,732°F) for extended periods. In addition, the X-31s were configured with movable 

forward canards and eventually with fixed aft strakes. The canards were small wing-like 

structures set on a line between the nose and the leading edge of the wing. The strakes were set 

on the same line between the trailing edge of the wing and the engine exhaust. Both supplied 

additional pitch control in tight maneuvering situations. 

241 “Thrust vectoring” is directing engine exhaust flow using thrust-vectoring paddles. 242 Dennis R. Jenkins, Tony Landis, and Jay Miller, American X-Vehicles: An Inventory—X-1 to X-50, Monographs 

in Aerospace History No. 31 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-2003-4531, 2003), p. 39.

361
The X-31 operated with a digital fly-by-wire flight-control system. The system included four 

digital flight-control computers with no analog or mechanical backup. Three synchronous main 

computers drove the flight-control surfaces. The fourth computer served as a “tie-breaker” in 

case the three main computers produced conflicting commands.243

The X-31 program was divided into three phases. Phase 1 was the conceptual design phase 

during which program personnel outlined the payoff expected from the application of EFM 

concepts in future air battles and defined the technical requirements for a demonstrator aircraft. 

In Phase 2 researchers carried out the preliminary design of the demonstrator and defined the 

manufacturing approach. Three governmental reviews of the proposed design took place during 

this phase. Technical experts from the U.S. Navy, the German Federal Ministry of Defense, and 

NASA carefully examined all aspects of the design.

Phase 3 involved the initiation and completion of the detailed design and fabrication of two 

aircraft, which were assembled at the Rockwell International (now Boeing) facility at Air Force 

Plant 42, Palmdale, California. This phase required that both aircraft fly a limited flight-test 

program. The first aircraft was rolled out on March 1, 1990 and made its first flight on October 

11, 1990. The aircraft reached a speed of 340 miles per hour (547 kilometers per hour) and an 

altitude of 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) during its initial 38-minute flight.244

243 “Past Projects, X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability,”

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/X31/index.html (accessed August 3, 2006). 244 “X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability Demonstrator,” Fact Sheet, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-009-DFRC.html (accessed August 3, 2006).

362
The second aircraft made its first flight on January 19, 1991. Although both aircraft had identical 

external dimensions, the No. 2 X-31 experienced stronger yaw asymmetries than No. 1, earning 

it the nickname the “evil twin.” The team tested aircraft No. 2 with varying lengths of extended 

nose strakes and found that it could get the two aircraft to fly identically with 8.5 inches (21.6 

centimeters) of strake length on the second X-31. 

During the program’s initial phase of operations at the Rockwell facility, pilots flew the aircraft 

on 108 test missions. They achieved thrust vectoring in flight and expanded the post-stall 

envelope to 40 degrees AoA before flight operations were moved to Dryden in February 1992 at 

the request of DARPA. 

At Dryden, an international team of pilots and engineers from the International Test Organization 

(ITO) expanded the aircraft’s flight envelope, including military utility evaluations that pitted the 

X-31 against comparable but non-thrust-vectored aircraft to evaluate the maneuverability of the 

X-31 in simulated air combat. The ITO included participants from NASA, the U.S. Navy, the 

U.S. Air Force, Rockwell Aerospace, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Daimler-Benz 

(formerly Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm and Deutsche Aerospace).

The first flight from Dryden under the ITO took place in April 1992. The actual flights required 

that the research team modify the control laws that had been based on wind tunnel predictions. 

Previous AoA research and new wind tunnel tests with an X-31 model also led the team to add 

strakes to the nose that were 0.6 inch (1.5 centimeters) wide by 20 inches (50.8 centimeters) 

long, blunting the nose tip slightly and improving the aircraft’s aerodynamics.

363
The No. 2 X-31 achieved controlled flight at 70 degrees AoA at Dryden on November 6, 1992. 

On the same day, it performed a controlled roll around the aircraft’s velocity vector, also at 70 

degrees. On April 29, 1993, the same aircraft successfully executed a minimum-radius, 180-

degree turn using a post-stall maneuver, flying well beyond the aerodynamic limits of any 

conventional aircraft. This first-time maneuver has been dubbed the “Herbst maneuver” after 

Wolfgang Herbst, a German proponent of using post-stall flight in air-to-air combat. The 

maneuver has also been described as a “J” turn when flown to an arbitrary heading change. See 

figure 3-25 for a photo of the No. 2 X-31 in flight. 

Figure 3-25. The second X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability (EFM) aircraft flies over 

Edwards Air Force Base, California. The X-31 EFM demonstrator flew at Dryden Flight 

Research Center, Edwards, California, from February 1992 until 1995, and before that at the 

Air Force’s Plant 42 in Palmdale, California. (NASA-DFRC photo EC93-41056-1).

364
During the final phase of evaluation, the X-31s engaged in simulated air combat scenarios 

against adversaries flying F/A-18s and other tactical aircraft. By using post-stall maneuvers, the 

X-31s outperformed other aircraft without thrust vectoring.

The X-31 constituted a revolution in air combat in the post-stall region. Although they were 

opposed to trading off other important fighter characteristics to acquire EFM capabilities, the X31 pilots concluded that the improved pitch pointing and velocity-vector maneuvering permitted 

by thrust-vector control provided new options for the pilot to use in close-in combat. When used 

selectively and rapidly, post-stall maneuvering allowed a pilot to rotate and point the nose of the 

aircraft at the adversary aircraft in such a way that the adversary pilot could not counter the 

maneuver. The X-31 also greatly improved flight safety since it was fully controllable and 

flyable in the post-stall region, unlike other fighter aircraft without thrust vectoring. 

Despite the X-31’s greater safety, the No. 1 X-31 aircraft crashed in an accident on January 19, 

1995. The pilot ejected safely before the aircraft crashed in an unpopulated desert area north of 

Edwards. A Mishap Investigation Board concluded that an accumulation of ice in or on the 

unheated pitot-static system on the aircraft provided false airspeed information to the flightcontrol computers, causing the aircraft to go out of control and crash.245

The X-31 program logged an X-plane record of 580 flights (559 research missions and 21 in 

Europe for the 1995 Paris Air Show). A total of 14 pilots representing all agencies of the ITO 

flew the aircraft.

245 Don Haley, “Ice the Cause of X-31 Crash,” NASA Dryden X-Press, December 1995, 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1995/xp-95-12.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

365
In 1994, researchers installed software in the X-31 to assess the feasibility of stabilizing a tailless 

aircraft at supersonic speeds using thrust vectoring. The tests also included subsonic speeds. 

During the flights, the pilot destabilized the aircraft with the rudder to stability levels that would 

be encountered if the aircraft had a reduced-size vertical tail. The X-31 quasi-tailless flight-test 

experiment demonstrated the feasibility of tailless and reduced-tail fighters. Had this capability 

been part of the airplane’s design from the beginning, the benefits could potentially have 

outweighed the concept’s complexity.

The X-31’s enhanced maneuvering capabilities were demonstrated to the international aerospace 

industry during daily flights at the 1995 Paris Air Show. These flights featured post-stall 

maneuvers at low altitudes. The aircraft flew to Europe aboard a U.S. military C-5 transport. A 

small team of NASA and industry personnel supported it there. 

The X-31 was the first international experimental aircraft development program administered by 

a U.S. government agency, and was a key effort of the NATO Cooperative Research and 

Development program. The program ended in June 1995. 

In 1998, Dryden cooperated in a new X-31 research program called VECTOR (Vectoring, 

Extremely Short Takeoff and Landing, Control and Tailless Operation Research). The goal of the 

VECTOR program was to research advanced flight-enabling technologies using the X-31 

aircraft. The first phase of the program, the program and requirements definition phase, began at 

Dryden on March 2, 1998, and ran through August 1998.246 This phase consisted of VECTOR 

246 Gary Creech, “1st Phase of X-31 VECTOR Program Begins,” NASA Dryden X-Press, April 3, 1998, 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1998/apr3/index.html (accessed June 8, 2006). Also “X-31 Vector 

Program Phase 1 Begins,” Dryden News Release 98-09, March 9, 1998, 

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1998/98-09.html (accessed August 3, 2006).

366
multinational team negotiations for a memorandum of agreement, an X-31 aircraft parts count, a 

fit-check for a SAAB JAS-39 Gripen fighter RM-12 engine (GE F-404 engine derivative) in the 

X-31, and painting of the aircraft. The memorandum of agreement to conduct the VECTOR 

program was signed in April 1999 by the German and U.S. governments.247 VECTOR test flights 

began in January 2000.248 The X-31 VECTOR Cooperative Test Organization 

participants/partners were the U.S. Navy, Boeing, General Electric, NASA, the Swedish 

government, Volvo, SAAB, the German Ministry of Defense, and DASA (the Daimler-Benz 

consortium). See table 3-37 for X-31 characteristics.

X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft. In 1989, Ames Research Center and Boeing’s 

Phantom Works (McDonnell Douglas at the time) in St. Louis, Missouri, began developing the 

technologies required for tailless agile flight. In 1993, based on positive results from extensive 

wind tunnel tests and CFD analyses, McDonnell-Douglas proposed to build a remotely piloted 

scale aircraft technology demonstrator to validate the advanced technologies in a real flight 

environment.249 In 1994, the Phantom Works began fabricating two X-36 vehicles, the Tailless 

Fighter Agility Research Aircraft, using rapid prototyping techniques in its St. Louis facility.250 

In 1997, the X-36 successfully carried out its flight research program. Thirty-one flights were 

made during the 25-week flight research program at Dryden and successfully demonstrated that 

future tailless fighters could achieve ability levels superior to the best current military fighter 

247 “X-31 Vector at a Glance,” http://www.rjktech.com/html/x-31.html (accessed August 3, 2006).

248 “History: X-31A Test Vehicle,” http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/x31.htm (accessed August 3, 2006).

249 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Aeronautics and Space 

Transportation Technology, NP-1998-10-242-HQ, p. 62.

250 “X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft: Project Summary,” Fact Sheets, Dryden Flight Research 

Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-065-DFRC.html (accessed August 2, 2006).

367
aircraft. The first flight took place on May 17, 1997, when the aircraft reached an altitude of 

approximately 4,900 feet (1,494 meters) in a 5-minute flight (see figure 3-26). The second flight 

took place on May 22, lasted about 17 minutes, and reached an altitude of approximately 12,000 

feet (3,658 meters).251 The final flight, which closed out the third phase of the program, took 

place on November 12, 1997, and lasted 34 minutes. The X-36 flew a total of 15 hours 38 

minutes, and used four different versions of flight-control software. It reached a maximum 

altitude of 20,200 feet (6,157 meters) and a maximum AoA of 40 degrees, and achieved a speed 

of 206 knots (234 miles per hour).252 All flights were made using aircraft No. 1. The second 

aircraft was assembled and used only for low-speed taxi tests.253

251 Gary Creech, “X-36 Takes to DFRC Sky,” Dryden X-Press, June 6, 1997, 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1997-xp-97-11.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

252 “X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft: Project Summary,” Fact Sheets, Dryden Flight Research 

Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-065-DFRC.html (accessed August 2, 2006).

253 Mark Sumich, X-36 Project Manager, e-mail to author, August 3, 2006.

368
Figure 3-26. The remotely piloted X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft lifts off on its 

first flight from Rogers Dry Lake at the Dryden Flight Research Facility on 17 May 1997. The 

aircraft flew for 5 minutes and reached an altitude of approximately 4,900 feet (1,493 meters) 

(NASA photo EC97-44064-3, by Carla Thomas). 

During the final flight phase, the X-36 project team examined the aircraft’s agility at low 

speed/high AoAs and at high speed/low AoAs. The aircraft’s stability and handling qualities 

were excellent at both ends of the speed envelope.

In December 1998, Ames transferred control of the X-36 aircraft to Dryden for use in a followon program called the Reconfigurable Control for Tailless Fighter Aircraft (RESTORE). The 

RESTORE program used advanced flight-control software to compensate for inflight damage or 

malfunctioning effectors (such as flaps, ailerons, and rudders). The Air Force Research 

Laboratory (AFRL) contracted with Boeing to fly the RESTORE software and demonstrate the 

adaptability of the neural-net algorithm. Two flights were flown in December 1998, proving the 

369
viability of the software approach.254 The RESTORE flight tests were a joint effort funded by the 

AFRL, NASA, and the Naval Air Systems Command.255

The X-36 was a 28-percent scale representation of a theoretical advanced fighter aircraft 

configuration. It was designed to fly without the traditional tail surfaces that are common on 

most aircraft. Instead, a canard forward of the wing was utilized, in addition to split ailerons and 

an advanced thrust-vectoring nozzle for directional control. The aircraft was unstable in both the 

pitch and yaw axes; therefore, an advanced single-channel, digital, fly-by-wire control system, 

developed with some commercially available components, was used to stabilize the aircraft.

The aircraft were 18 feet (5.5 meters) long by 3 feet (0.9 meter) high, with a 10-foot (3-meter) 

wingspan. Fully fueled they weighed approximately 1,270 pounds (576 kg). A Williams 

Research F112 turbofan engine providing 700 pounds (3,114 newtons) of thrust powered the 

aircraft. They were remotely controlled by a pilot in a ground station cockpit, complete with a 

head-up display. The pilot-in-the-loop approach eliminated the need for expensive and complex 

autonomous flight-control systems. 

The X-36 aircraft were built by Ames and Boeing under a cooperative agreement. Ames 

provided government oversight. NASA and Boeing were full partners in the project, which was 

jointly funded under a roughly 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement. The combined program cost for 

254 “X-36 Makes Lakebed Appearance,” Research Roundup, Dryden X-Press, May 1, 1998, 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1998/jul3/roundup.html (accessed June 8, 2006). Also “X-36 Tailless 

Fighter Agility Research Aircraft: Project Summary,” Fact Sheets, Dryden Flight Research Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-065-DFRC.html (accessed August 2, 2006).

255 “NASA Ames Transfers Control of X-36 Tailless Jet Fighter to NASA Dryden for Future Flight Tests,” Dryden 

News Release, December 9, 1998, http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1998-98-82,html

(accessed August 3, 2006).

370
developing, fabricating, and flight-testing the two prototype aircraft was approximately $21 

million. In the flight-test phase, Dryden provided the flight-test experience, infrastructure, and 

range support. 

High Angle-of-Attack Technology Program (HATP) 

HATP began as a formal program in 1985 to explore and understand aircraft flight at high AoAs. 

The program’s primary objectives were to provide flight-validated aircraft design tools and to 

improve the maneuverability of aircraft at high AoAs. Langley Research Center managed the 

program in partnership with Ames, Dryden, and Lewis. Langley also performed subscale wind 

tunnel tests, advanced control-law synthesis, and CFD. Ames contributed additional CFD work 

and the use of its 80- by 120-foot (24.3- by 36.6-meter) wind tunnel. Lewis worked on inlet and 

engine integration, and Dryden performed the flight research. Other partners came from industry, 

academia, and the DOD, as well as NATO. HATP produced technical data from actual flights at 

high AoAs to validate computer codes and wind tunnel research. Successful validation of these 

data gave engineers and aircraft designers a better understanding of aerodynamics, the 

effectiveness of flight controls, and airflow phenomena at high AoAs.256

NASA selected a McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet fighter aircraft for a large part of its highAoA research. It became known as the F-18 HARV after it was rebuilt and modified for the 

program. NASA used this aircraft in its attempts to expand what researchers called the “stall 

256 “Past Projects: F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV), Background, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/HARV/background.html (accessed August 4, 2006).

371
barrier” (the tendency of an aircraft to stall and become uncontrollable at high AoAs and slow 

speeds, which greatly limits its performance and maneuverability).257 

The High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV) program lasted from April 1987 until September 

1995, and the aircraft completed 385 research flights.258 It demonstrated stabilized flight at AoAs 

between 65 and 70 degrees using thrust-vectoring vanes, a research flight-control system, and 

forebody strakes (hinged structures on the forward side of the fuselage to provide control by 

interacting with vortices, generated at high AoAs, to create side forces).259

The HARV program was a three-phased flight research effort. Phase 1, which lasted from April 

1987 through 1989, consisted of 101 research flights in the specially instrumented but externally 

unmodified F-18 at AoAs as high as 55 degrees. The purpose of this phase was to obtain 

experience with aerodynamic measurements at high AoAs and to develop the flight research 

techniques needed for this measurement. In 1987, NASA selected McDonnell Douglas 

Corporation to equip the aircraft with a thrust-vector control system about the pitch and yaw axes 

to be used in the second phase of the program. The easily programmable flight-control system 

allowed research into flight-control concepts that used various blends of aerodynamic and thrustvector control at subsonic and high-AoA flight conditions.260

257 Lane Wallace, Flights of Discovery: 50 Years at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP-4309, 1996), p. 103.

258 The aircraft is sometimes referred to as the High Angle-of-Attack Research Vehicle.

259 “Past Projects: F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV),” Dryden Flight Research Center Fact Sheet, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/HARV/index.html (accessed August 4, 2006).

260 “McDonnell Douglas Selected for Contract Negotiation,” NASA Ames Research Center News Release 87-23, 1 

May 1987, NASA History Division folder 33791, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

372
Phase 2 flights examined the benefits of using vectored thrust to achieve greater maneuverability 

and control at high AoA while continuing the correlation of flight data with wind tunnel and 

CFD data begun in Phase 1. The initial portion of the Phase 2 flight program was completed in 

January 1993. 

Phase 2 featured major hardware and software modifications to the HARV: a multiaxis thrustvectoring control system featuring vanes attached to the aft end of the aircraft, and a research 

flight-control system. Three paddle-like vanes made of Inconel®1 metal were mounted around 

each engine’s exhaust. The paddles could withstand temperatures of almost 2,000°F (1,093°C) 

and could rotate up to 25 degrees into the engine exhaust to help control the aircraft’s pitch and 

yaw.261 The thrust-vectoring control system added 2,200 pounds (998 kilograms) to the weight of 

the aircraft. In addition, the inclusion of a spin parachute for safety, plus an emergency power 

system and ballast, added a further 1,500 pounds (680 kilograms). The HARV also carried 419 

pounds (190 kilograms) of other equipment and wiring not directly associated with the thrustvector control system. 

The research flights began in July 1991 using the thrust-vectoring system for control. The system 

could deflect the exhaust flow from the two turbofan engines to provide enhanced 

maneuverability and control in areas where conventional aerodynamic controls were ineffective. 

The system resulted in significantly increased maneuverability at moderate AoAs and some 

degree of control at AoAs up to roughly 70 degrees. It also allowed researchers to collect more 

data by remaining at high AoAs longer than they could without it. The pilot used standard 

cockpit controls, and no special pilot action was required after the flight-control system was 

261 Wallace, p. 105.

373
engaged in flight. In addition to the research flight-control computers, pilots also used the 

original F-18 flight-control system both as a backup to the research system and during takeoffs 

and landings. Dryden research pilots completed the envelope expansion flights in February 1992. 

Demonstrated capabilities included stable flight at approximately 70 degrees AoA (the previous 

maximum was 55 degrees) and rolling at high rates at 65 degrees AoA. Controlled rolling would 

have been nearly impossible above 35 degrees without vectoring.262 

Between January 1993 and January 1994, the aircraft was modified with an engine inlet pressure 

measurements system between the inlet entrance and the engine face. With the information 

provided by this system, researchers gained an unprecedented understanding of what happens to 

engine airflow under extreme maneuver conditions. Flights resumed in January 1994 and 

continued through June 1994, with Dryden research pilots joined for short periods by U.S. Navy 

pilots. There were 193 flights during Phase 2, including some transition flights to Phase 3. 

Phase 3 began in March 1995. During this phase researchers evaluated moveable strakes added 

on both sides of the aircraft’s nose to provide yaw control at high AoAs where conventional 

rudders became ineffective. The F-18 was outfitted with two retractable nose strakes 4 feet (1.2 

meters) long and 6 inches (15 centimeters) wide, hinged on one side and mounted to the forward 

sides of the fuselage. At low AoAs, they were folded flush against the aircraft skin. At higher 

AoAs, they were extended to interact with the strong vortices generated along the nose, thereby 

producing large side forces. This significantly improved controllability of the aircraft in high262 “Past Projects: F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV),” Dryden Flight Research Center Fact Sheet, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/HARV/index.html (accessed August 4, 2006).

374
AoA conditions.263 Wind tunnel tests indicated that strakes could be as effective at high AoAs as 

rudders were at lower AoAs. 

Flights with active moveable strakes began in July 1995. The strakes enabled pilots to use three 

separate flight modes. One used thrust vectoring alone. A second used thrust vectoring for 

longitudinal (pitch) control and a blend of thrust vectoring and strakes for lateral (side-to-side) 

control. A third mode used thrust vectoring solely for longitudinal control, with strakes alone for 

controlling lateral motion. These three options were a unique feature of the HARV project and 

afforded a great deal of flexibility in research into control power requirements at high AoAs. 

They were also a way to achieve detailed information about handling qualities at high AoAs. 

The project yielded a great deal of information about the operation of nose strakes, which were 

effective in providing control above 35 degrees AoA. Extending one or both of the strakes 

resulted in strong side forces that in turn generated yaw control. This approach, along with the 

aircraft’s thrust-vectoring control system, improved stability under flight conditions in which 

conventional surfaces, such as vertical tails, were ineffective.264 Phase 3 included 109 flights 

flown by pilots from Dryden, Langley, and a number of guest pilots from the U.S. Navy and 

Marine Corps, the Canadian Air Force, the (British) Royal Air Force, McDonnell Douglas, and 

CalSpan.265 The strake project concluded in September 1996 with flight 385 of the HARV 

program. Figure 3-27 shows a flight test during the final phase of the program. 

263 Wallace, p. 105.

264 “F-18 HARV Smoke Flow Visualization of Actuated Nose Strakes,” http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/F18HARV/HTML/EC96-43479-5.html (accessed February 14, 2007).

265 “Past Projects: F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV),” Dryden Flight Research Center Fact Sheet, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/HARV/index.html (accessed August 4, 2006).

375
Figure 3-27. This photo shows a smoke-flow visualization of actuated nose strakes with the F-18 

High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV) (NASA-DFRC photo EC96-43479-5).

In 1998, the F-18 HARV was refurbished for an intended return to flight status in the Active 

Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) project. Initial refurbishment included changing the landing gear, and 

further modifications were planned.266 The AAW project focused on developing and applying 

aeroelastic wing concepts, or “wing warping,” through the use of traditional ailerons and 

leading-edge flaps to literally twist a flexible wing, thereby improving roll maneuvering 

capability.267 However, a decision was made to use only the wings from the-retired F-18 HARV, 

266 “HARV, Meet AAW!” Dryden X-Press, March 6, 1998, http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/XPress/1998/mar/roundup.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

267 “F-18 No. 940 Gearing Up for AAW,” Dryden X-Press, April 17, 1998, http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/XPress/1998/apr17, roundup1.html (accessed June 8, 2006). Also “Back to the Future: Active Aeroelastic Wing 

Flight Research,” NASA Dryden Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-061-

376
modified for the AAW flight research program and installed on an AAW test aircraft obtained 

from the U.S. Navy in 1999. Flight tests began in 2002. See table 3-38 for F-18 HARV 

characteristics.

SR-71 Blackbird 

NASA used two SR-71 aircraft as testbeds for high-speed, high-altitude aeronautical research.268

The two planes used by NASA had been developed for the U.S. Air Force as reconnaissance 

aircraft and were based at Dryden Flight Research Center. The aircraft were the fastest and 

highest-flying in the world, and as research platforms they could cruise at Mach 3 for more than 

an hour. For thermal experiments, this produced heat-soak temperatures of more than 600°F 

(316°C). This operating environment made the aircraft an excellent platform for research and 

experiments in areas such as aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, thermal protection materials, 

high-speed and high-temperature instrumentation, atmospheric studies, and sonic-boom 

characterization.

The first in a series of flights using the SR-71 as a science camera platform for NASA’s Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory took place in March 1993. Mounted in the nosebay of the aircraft, an 

upward-looking ultraviolet video camera studied a variety of celestial objects in wavelengths that 

were blocked to ground-based astronomers. 

The aircraft was also used in a program studying ways to reduce sonic booms. Instruments at 

precise locations on the ground recorded the sonic booms as the aircraft passed overhead at 

DFRC.html (accessed August 4, 2006). “Wing-warping” was used by the Wright brothers in their first successful 

flight in 1903.

268 “Past Projects—SR-71 Blackbird,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/SR71/index.html

(accessed June 8, 2006).

377
known altitudes and speeds. The flights, which were conducted for Langley Research Center as a 

part of NASA’s HSR program, took place from February through May 1995 near Edwards Air 

Force Base, California. During the study, engineers recorded how sonic booms were affected by 

the atmosphere.269 An F-18 subsonic aircraft and an F-16XL also flew near the SR-71 to measure 

the sonic boom at distances as close as 200 feet (61 meters) below and to the rear. 

One of Dryden’s SR-71s was used for the joint NASA, Rocketdyne, and Lockheed Martin Linear 

Aerospike SR Experiment (LASRE) in which the aerospike engine developed for the X-33 RLV 

was mounted on the back of the SR-71 (see figure 3-28). The experiment was designed to 

provide inflight data to help Lockheed Martin evaluate the handling and aerodynamic 

characteristics of the SR-71 linear aerospike experiment configuration and to validate the 

computational predictive tools it was using to determine the aerodynamic performance of a 

future RLV. The LASRE completed seven initial research flights at Dryden. On the first flight, 

on March 4, 1998, the aircraft flew for 1 hour 50 minutes, reaching a maximum speed of Mach 

1.2. The engine was not fired during any of the flights.270 The experiment was completed in 

November 1998.271 (See the material on the X-33 later in this chapter for more details.) 

269 Don Haley, “SR-71 and F-16XL To Study Sonic Booms for High Speed Program, NASA Dryden X-Press, 

February 1995, http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1995/xp-95-02.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

270 “Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) First Flight,” http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/SR-71-

LASRE/HTML/EC97-44295-99.html (accessed February 14, 2007). Also “Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment 

(LASRE) During First In-flight Cold Flow Test,” http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/SR-71-

LASRE/HTML/EC98-44440-13.html (accessed February 15, 2007).

271 “SR-71 Blackbird,” Dryden Flight Research Center Fact Sheet, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-030-DFRC.html. Also “Past Projects–SR-71 Blackbird,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/SR71/index.html (both accessed June 8, 2006).

378
Figure 3-28. 10A NASA SR-71 made its first successful flight 31 October 1997 as part of the 

NASA/Rocketdyne/Lockheed Martin Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) at Dryden 

Flight Research Center (NASA-DFRC photo EC97-44295-51).

The two SR-71s at Dryden were assigned NASA tail numbers NASA 844 (A model, military 

serial 64-17980, manufactured in July 1967) and NASA 831 (B model, military serial 61-7956, 

manufactured in September 1965). From 1991 through 1994, Dryden also had another “A” 

model: NASA 832 (military serial 61-7971, manufactured in October 1966). This aircraft was 

379
returned to the Air Force inventory and was the first aircraft reactivated for Air Force 

reconnaissance purposes in 1995.272

The last SR-71 flight took place in October 1999. See table 3-39 for SR-71 characteristics.

Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control (HIDEC) Flight Facility

NASA used a unique F-15A that was highly instrumented and equipped with an integrated 

digital electronic flight-control system. The aircraft was obtained from the U.S. Air Force on 5 

January 1976 and flown over a broad flight envelope into the 1990s to carry out complex and 

sophisticated research projects. NASA used it for more than 25 advanced research projects 

involving aerodynamics, performance, propulsion control, control integration, instrumentation 

development, human factors, and flight-test techniques.273 

The major elements of the HIDEC were a Digital Electronic Flight Control System (DEFCS); a 

Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC); an on-board, general purpose computer; and an 

integrated architecture to allow all components to communicate with each other. Unlike standard 

F-15s, which had both a mechanical and an analog electronic flight-control system, the F-15 

HIDEC had a dual-channel, failsafe, digital flight-control system that could be programmed in 

high-order computer languages. It was linked to the H009 and Military Standard 1553B data 

buses, which tied all other electronic systems together. 

272 “Past Projects–SR-71 Blackbird,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/SR71/index.html

(accessed February 15, 2007).

273 “F-15 HIDEC (Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control),” 

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/HIDEC/index.html (accessed August 17, 2006).

380
The Adaptive Engine Control System (ADECS) on board the F-15 traded an excess engine stall 

margin for improved performance. This was achieved through the integrated and computerized 

flight and engine control systems. The engine stall margin—the amount by which engine 

operating pressures must be reduced to provide a margin of safety against an engine stall from 

excessive pressure—was continually monitored and adjusted by the integrated system, based on 

the flight profile and real-time performance needs. Initial ADECS engineering work began in 

1983. Research and demonstration flights with the ADECS system, which began in 1986, 

displayed increases in engine thrust of 8–10.5 percent (depending on altitude), and up to 16 

percent lower fuel consumption at 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) and constant thrust. Overall, engine 

performance improvements (rate of climb and specific excess power) ranged from 10 to 25 

percent at maximum afterburning power. No stalls were encountered during even aggressive 

maneuvering, although intentional stalls were induced to validate the ADECS methodology. 

During late 1989 and early 1990, researchers used the F-15 HIDEC aircraft to investigate what 

could become a major breakthrough in airborne flight-control capability. It was the first aircraft 

to demonstrate a Self-Repairing Flight Control System (SRFCS). The program, sponsored by the 

U.S. Air Force, demonstrated the ability of a flight-control system to identify a failed control 

surface and reconfigure commands to other control devices, such as ailerons, rudders, elevators, 

and flaps, to continue the aircraft’s mission or to allow it to land safely. The SRFCS could also 

identify failures in electrical, hydraulic, and mechanical systems. When a failure in a normal 

flight-control system occurred, ground maintenance diagnostic tests had to be conducted to 

identify the origin of the failure so that appropriate corrective actions could be taken. Ground 

maintenance crews often spent up to 60 percent of their time attempting to duplicate flight 

381
failures and correcting them. In many cases, the failure could not be identified on the ground 

because actual flight conditions could not be duplicated. This could be costly and timeconsuming. System malfunctions on an aircraft with an SRFCS could be identified and isolated 

when they occurred and then repaired as soon as the aircraft was on the ground. Among the 

participants in the SRFCS research program, along with NASA, were the Air Force Wright 

Research and Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, McDonnell Aircraft Co., 

and General Electric Aircraft Control Systems Division. 

In the summer of 1990, the Performance Seeking Control (PSC) program began research flights 

with the F-15 HIDEC to optimize total aircraft engine performance during steady-state engine 

operation. Previous modes used on the HIDEC aircraft used stored schedules of optimum engine 

pressure ratios for an average engine on a normal day. Using digital flight control, inlet control, 

and engine control systems, PSC used integrated control laws to assure that peak engine and 

maneuvering performance would be available to the pilot at all times, regardless of the mission 

or immediate needs. The PSC program sought to reduce fuel usage at cruise conditions, 

maximize excess thrust during accelerations and climbs, and extend engine life by reducing the 

fan turbine inlet temperature. It also developed methods within the digital engine control system 

to detect degradation of components. This type of information, coupled with normal preventative 

maintenance, could help ensure failsafe propulsion systems in future high-performance aircraft. 

Several accidents in which part or all of an aircraft’s flight-control system was lost prompted 

Dryden to establish a research area to investigate the ability of an aircraft to use only engine 

thrust for flight control. In the Propulsion Controlled Aircraft (PCA) program, a modified F-15 

382
was the first aircraft to use this capability intentionally. Initial flight studies with the pilot 

manually controlling the throttles and all F-15 flight controls locked showed that it was possible 

to maintain gross control. Altitude could be maintained within a few hundred feet using both 

throttles together. To climb, thrust could be added; to descend, thrust could be reduced. Heading 

could be controlled to within a few degrees using differential throttle to generate yaw, which 

resulted in roll. These initial flights also showed there was inadequate precise flight-control 

capability to land on a runway. This was due to the small control forces and moments of engine 

thrust, difficulty in controlling the airplane’s shallow dive and climb motion, and difficulty in 

compensating for the lag in engine response. 

The F-15 was an ideal testbed for this research. It incorporated digital engine and flight controls, 

and had a general-purpose computer and data bus architecture that allowed these digital systems 

to communicate with each other. There was also a cockpit computer panel for the pilot to make 

control-system inputs so as to select options and vary system gains. Tests of the PCA with the F15 occurred at speeds of 150 knots (173 miles per hour) with the flaps down, and 170–190 knots 

(195.6–218.6 miles per hour) with the flaps up. Initial flights tested the “up and away” control 

capability, with landing approaches down to less than 10 feet (3 meters) above the ground. Flight 

tests of PCA at Dryden with the F-15 concluded with a successful landing on April 21, 1993 

using only engine power to turn, climb, and descend. A successful follow-on program with an 

MD-11 transport aircraft conclusively demonstrated the success of the technology in 1995.274

Figure 3-29 shows the F-15 accompanied by an F-18 chase support aircraft.

274 “F-15 HIDEC (Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Controls,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/HIDEC/ (accessed August 17, 2006).

383
Figure 3-29. This photo shows the F-15 (on the left) accompanied by an F-18 chase support 

aircraft during its takeoff roll on a flight from Dryden (NASA photo EC91-677-1).

Hypersonics

NASA’s research from 1989 to 1998 in the area of hypersonic flight related primarily to the 

National Aerospace Plane (NASP) and follow-on Hyper-X.

NASP (X-30) 

The NASP program was conducted as a joint effort by NASA and the DOD to accelerate the 

development of technologies for a new class of hypersonic transatmospheric vehicles.275 Its goal 

275 “Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, Transatmospheric Research and Technology, Fiscal Year 1989 

Estimates,” p. RD 14-2.

384
was to develop and demonstrate the technologies needed to fly an aircraft into orbit by using airbreathing (ramjet/scramjet) propulsion instead of rockets. The program was originally conceived 

as a feasibility study for a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle that could take off and land 

horizontally on conventional runways. The plan was to develop and fly two aircraft, designated 

X-30, that featured an integrated aircraft body, engine, wings, fuel tank, and pilot compartment. 

Initially, the second aircraft was scheduled to fly into orbit by the mid-1990s.276

The program to develop the NASP began with a highly classified project, called Copper Canyon, 

that was initiated in 1982 by DARPA. Copper Canyon (which became Phase I of the NASP 

program) was the starting point for what President Ronald Reagan called “a new Orient 

Express,” an aircraft that could travel as fast as 25 times the speed of sound and reach Tokyo 

within two hours.277 The Copper Canyon phase of the program, which ran from 1982 to 1985, 

incorporated recent research in the areas of hypersonic propulsion, advanced materials and 

structures, and computational fluid dynamics. It consisted of concept definition and focused on 

scramjet technology.278 

At the end of Phase I in 1985, NASA and the DOD were both optimistic that a hypersonic 

transatmospheric vehicle would be technically feasible. Phase II, the technology development 

phase, began in 1986. It consisted of the accelerated development of key technologies, airframe 

276 Larry Schweikart, “Hypersonic Hopes: Planning for NASP, 1986–1991,” Air Power History 41, no. 1 (Spring 

1994): p. 36.

277 Jenkins, Landis, and Miller, American X-Vehicles: An Inventory—X-1 to X-50, p. 38.

278 For a description of the early years of the program, see Judy Rumerman, NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VI, 

1979–1988 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4012, 2000), pp. 222–224.

385
design, propulsion module development, and ground tests of the propulsion system up to Mach 

8—the then-current practical limit of wind tunnels for engine tests.279

In 1988, the program outgrew DARPA’s traditional research and development functions and 

moved to the Air Force in preparation for development of a flight-test vehicle. On March 31, 

1988, an MOU was signed by NASA and the DOD outlining the responsibilities of each agency 

in the program.280 DOD was given responsibility for providing 80 percent of the program 

funding, with NASA providing the remaining 20 percent. 

As NASA moved into 1989, the program included more than 5,000 people and involved some 

200 companies in 40 states.281 The budget and schedule as of 1989 called for the first flight to 

occur in 1997, and the first SSTO flight to occur by the year 2000.282 However, funding for the 

program was becoming more difficult to obtain as the space station program competed for the 

same dollars. NASA’s initial budget request for the NASP program in FY 1990, submitted in 

April 1989, was $127 million—$38 million more than it had received for the project in FY 1989. 

In April 1989, as part of the effort of the new administration of President George Bush to reduce 

the defense budget, Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney proposed canceling the DOD’s 

funding of the NASP program ($300 million in FY 1990) and transferring program management, 

along with $100 million in FY 1990, from the DOD to NASA. NASA itself offered to take over 

management of the project, which would be converted from a flight vehicle test program into a 

279 “The National Aerospace Plane Program,” Aerospace, Spring 1986, p. 2.

280 “NASA/DOD Agree on Aerospace Plane MOU,” Defense Daily, April 13, 1988, p. 256.

281 “NASA Hopes To Maintain Increased Funding for NASP in FY 1990,” Defense Daily, April 5, 1989, p. 18.

282 Schweikart, p. 36.

386
technology development effort. NASA would conduct technology work for three to four years 

until the flight vehicle was defined and then request the DOD to fund the test vehicle.283

The issue was given to the NSC, chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle, to consider. The 

Council performed more detailed studies and advocates presented the program’s benefits, 

maintaining its importance for the country’s leadership in aerospace technology and tying it to 

the health of the U.S. aerospace industry in the next century.284 Recognizing that the program’s 

high-risk technology required more time to mature, in late June the Council recommended 

providing additional time and funding for technology maturation and delaying for two and onehalf years the decision as to whether to build the aircraft. The DOD would retain overall program 

management.285 Both the DOD and NASA would contribute $127 million in FY 1990 (for a total 

of $254 million), and total funding for FY 1991 and FY 1992 would be $277 million ($158 

million from the DOD and $119 million from NASA). FY 1993 funding would be $305 million 

($233 million from the DOD and $72 million from NASA).286 

On July 25, 1989, President Bush approved the Council’s recommendations, spurred partly by 

reports that the Soviet Union was testing aerospace plane designs along with the ramjet/scramjet 

engine technology required to produce a hypersonic cruise vehicle.287 As recommended by the 

283 [no title], Aviation Week & Space Technology 130, no. 17 (May 1, 1989).

284 Schweikart, p. 44.

285 John D. Moteff, National Aero-Space Plane, CRS Issue Brief, Congressional Research Service, Updated January 

2, 1991 (archived), p. CRS-4.

286 David P. Radzanowski and Marcia S. Smith, The U.S. National Aero-Space Plane: A Comparison with AeroSpace Plane Programs in Other Countries, and Future U.S. Options, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional 

Research Service, November 14, 1989, pp. CRS-1–CRS-2.

287 Radzanowski and Smith, The U.S. National Aero-Space Plane: A Comparison with Aero-Space Plane Programs 

in Other Countries, and Future U.S. Options, pp. CRS-1–CRS-2. Also Craig Covault, “Bush Administration Speeds 

NASP Review, Spurred by Soviet, German Competition,” Aviation Week & Space Technology 130, no. 23 (June 5, 

1989).

387
Council, the President’s revised budget called for $127 million from NASA and $127 million 

from the DOD. Phase II would be extended an additional two and one-half years, and the 

decision as to whether to build the X-30 would not be made until March 1993. No date was 

given for the first test or first orbital flight. Because of the longer time allowed for technology 

development, total funding now ranged from $3.7 billion to $3.9 billion, in contrast to President 

Reagan’s $3.3 billion. 

The final appropriations bill, approved by Congress in November 1989, provided $194 million to 

the DOD for the NASP, but only $35 million to NASA with the option to transfer an additional 

$25 million from NASA’s construction funds.288 It also endorsed the Council’s plan to extend 

technology development until 1993 and retain an experimental flight vehicle focus and a joint 

program management structure with participation by both the DOD and NASA.289 In May 1990, 

the contractors working on the program received approval from the Air Force to a plan for a 

team structure whereby each contractor agreed to share data with the others.290

However, over the next two years the technological challenges proved daunting. In March 1993, 

work on the demonstrator ceased, and in June the Air Force and NASA canceled plans to 

develop a scramjet-powered SSTO demonstrator due to shrinking budgets and concerns voiced 

by the Defense Science Board that NASP technologies were insufficiently mature to warrant 

construction of a flight-test demonstrator. The project shifted from a piloted, hypersonic vehicle 

to focus on the more difficult technical issues. As newly defined, the X-30 program consisted of 

a dual-track, six-year-long project that would cost around $2 billion. Engineers and researchers 

288 Moteff, National Aero-Space Plane, p. CRS-5.

289 “Space Council Says NASP Now Has National Commitment,” Defense Daily, November 21, 1989, p. 283.

290 Schweikart, pp. 45–46.

388
would continue to develop and refine the technologies needed for an air-breathing SSTO vehicle. 

At the same time, researchers would launch experimental packages atop surplus intercontinental 

ballistic missile boosters and use the data generated to verify computational codes and scramjet 

propulsion performance.291 The DOD completely pulled out of the program soon after. In the FY 

1994 budget, Congress reduced NASA’s funding for the NASP by $80 million.292 In 1994, 

Congress directed that the program end while it was in the technology-development phase, and 

additional funding was not included in the FY 1995 budget.293

Accomplishments of the program included the fabrication of distinctive composite panels, tests 

of panel assemblies, and load tests of a new 600-gallon (2,271-liter) cryogenic fuel tank. Several 

wind tunnel tests were performed, including tests of a propulsion-integration model, mid-speed 

(Mach 6.8) scramjet tests that obtained performance and operability data from the one-third-scale 

Concept Demonstrator Engine, and complementary tests using smaller-scale scramjet models at 

Mach 4 to Mach 8 conditions. Shock-tunnel tests of large-scale scramjet-combustor models at 

Mach 10 to Mach 17 used advanced instrumentation, including laser-based systems and a metric 

strip, to provide new information. Analytic activities defined new boundary-layer instability 

modes and provided a series of computational modules for aerothermodynamic predictions.294

Figure 3-30 shows a 1990 artist’s depiction of the plane. 

291 Stanley W. Kandebo, “NASP Cancelled, Program Redirected,” Aviation Week & Space Technology 138, no. 24 

(June 14, 1993): pp. 33–34.

292 “Conference Report on H.R. 2491, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and 

Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994, House of Representatives, October 4, 1993. 

293 “General Statement,” Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Estimates, p. AS-7. Also “Aeronautical Research and 

Technology, Transatmospheric Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/sat_4.html (accessed June 18, 2006).

294 “Aeronautical Research and Technology, Transatmospheric Research and Technology,” Fiscal Year 1996 

Estimates, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/sat_4.html (accessed June 18, 2006).

389
Figure 3-30. Artist’s concept of the X-30 aerospace plane flying through Earth’s atmosphere on 

its way to low-Earth orbit (NASA-LaRC photo EL-2001-00432). 

After the demise of the X-30 program and cancellation of the Transatmospheric R&T program, 

NASA used the NASP program’s database as a starting point for its newly established multiyear 

Hyper-X hypersonic technology program, which was conducted jointly by Langley and 

Dryden.295 The goals of the program were to flight-validate key propulsion and related 

technologies, experimental techniques, computational methods, tool designs, and performance 

predictions for air-breathing hypersonic aircraft with airframe-integrated, hydrogen-fueled, dual295 “Office of Aeronautics, Hypersonic Technology Program,” FY 1995 Budget Estimate. p. SAT 4-35.

390
mode combustion scramjet propulsion systems. Such systems promise to increase payload 

capacity or reduce vehicle size for the same payload in future hypersonic aircraft or reusable 

space launch vehicles.296 A major difference between the Hyper-X and NASP programs was that 

the NASP program had sought to integrate many new, untried technologies into a full-scale test 

vehicle. The Hyper-X program took an incremental approach, starting with the key scramjet 

engine technology. Although researchers originally planned to use four small-scale vehicles to 

save money and reduce risk, in 1997 the project consisted of three highly swept aircraft that were 

identical in appearance but had been engineered with slight differences that simulated engine 

inlet variable geometry. A team led by MicroCraft, Inc. (later ATK-GASL) was selected to 

fabricate three unpiloted research aircraft. The first Mach 7 hypersonic aircraft was initially 

scheduled to fly at Mach 7 in 1998, but by mid-1998 the date for the first flight had been pushed 

back to early 2000. The second and third vehicles were scheduled to fly at one-year 

increments.297 The first flight of the Hyper-X (designated X-43) in 2001 ended prematurely when 

the booster rocket veered off course and had to be destroyed before the test could begin. The 

second flight, in March 2004, flying at Mach 7, was successful. The third flight, flying in 

November 2004 at nearly Mach 9.8, was also successful.298 Figure 3-31 shows a 1997 Hyper-X 

configuration. 

296 “Project Summary,” Dryden Flight Research Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/HyperX/index.html (accessed July 24, 2006). Also Scott D. Holland, 

William C. Woods, and Walter C. Engelund, “Hyper-X Research Vehicle Experimental Aerodynamics Test 

Program Overview,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 38, no. 6 (November-December 2001): pp. 828–835, 

http://hapb-www.larc.nasa.gov/Public/Documents/JSR_HX_collection/p828_s.pdf (accessed July 24, 2006). Also 

“NASA ‘Hyper-X’ Program Established; Flights Will Demonstrate Scramjet Technologies, NASA Facts On Line, 

FS-1998-07-26-LaRC, July 1998, http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Hyper-X.html (accessed March 18, 1999, version no 

longer available on-line, archived at 

http://web.archive.org/web/19981202004507/http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Hyper-X.html [June 5, 2007]).

297 “NASA ‘Hyper-X’ Program Established; Flights Will Demonstrate Scramjet Technologies, 

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Hyper-X.html (accessed March 18, 1999, version no longer available online).

298 “NASA ‘Hyper-X’ Program Demonstrates Scramjet Technologies,” NASA Dryden Fact Sheet, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-040-DFRC.html and “NASA’s X-43A Scramjet Breaks 

391
Figure 3-31. Hyper-X research vehicle configuration, 1997 (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1997-00033).

Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities

During the period of 1989–1998, NASA’s major wind tunnel and propulsion test facilities were 

located at Ames, Langley, Lewis, and Marshall. All wind tunnels have certain features in 

common. Each has a test section in which an airplane model, a component, or an entire aircraft 

can be fixed or suspended. Test sections may vary in size from a few inches up to the 80- by 

120-foot (24.3- by 36.6-meter) dimensions of Ames’ full-scale tunnel, currently the largest in the 

world. The test section may be open, closed, or ventilated, and the cross section may be of 

various shapes. Wind tunnels may be either “return” or “no-return” tunnels. No-return tunnels 

Speed Record,” NASA News Release 04-59, November 16, 2004, 

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43_schedule.html (both accessed July 24, 2006).

392
draw air from the atmosphere, pass it through a tube that includes a test section, and discharge it 

into the atmosphere. A single-return tunnel passes the same air around a closed loop. The 

double-return tunnel is shaped like a squared figure 8 with the corners rounded and the test 

section located at the juncture of the two loops. Annular-return tunnels are doughnut-shaped in 

cross section. Longitudinally, they look like a tube within a capsule; air pushed around the inner 

shell of the capsule is channeled down the tube in the center, which contains the test section. 

Closed tunnels can be pressurized.299

Typically, NASA’s wind tunnels are classified according to speed regime (subsonic [Mach 0 to 

Mach 0.7], transonic [Mach 0.7 to Mach 1.2], supersonic [Mach 1.2 to Mach 5], and hypersonic 

[above Mach 5]). The following section provides an overview of these facilities. Table 3-40 lists 

wind tunnels that were active during the years 1989–1998. 

Ames Research Center

The 14-foot Transonic Wind Tunnel began operating in 1955.300 It was used primarily for 

performance and stability and control testing of aircraft configurations. For conventional steadystate tests, models were supported on a cantilevered sting via a strut with variable pitch 

capability. A turntable was also available for semispan models. The tunnel had a test section 

measuring 13.5 by 13.71 by 33.75 feet (4.1 by 4.18 by 10.29 meters).301 NASA closed the tunnel 

in 1997. Figure 3-32 shows a Boeing 747 model in this tunnel. 

299 Alex Roland, Model Research, Volume 2 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4103, 1985), p. 508. Available at 

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4103/sp4103.htm. 300 Baals and Corliss, Wind Tunnels of NASA, p. 64.

301 Frank E. Peñaranda and M. Shannon Freda, comps and eds, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind 

Tunnels (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information 

Branch, NASA RP-1132, 1985), p. 150

393
Figure 3-32. Photo of the Boeing 747-SP SOFIA model in the 14-foot wind tunnel, July 1994 

(NASA-ARC photo AC94-0199-18).

Two 7- by 10-foot Subsonic Wind Tunnels were built in 1941. Although the two were identical 

in design, the No. 1 tunnel was 7 feet by 10 feet by 16 feet (2.1 meters by 3 meters by 4.9 

meters), and the No. 2 tunnel was the same diameter but 1 foot (0.3 meter) shorter. Both tunnels 

were closed-circuit, single-return, continuous-flow tunnels that were used to test rotorcraft, 

394
vertical/short takeoff and landing, and conventional aircraft models. They were equipped with a 

high-pressure air system and a model motor variable-frequency power source.302 Tunnel No. 2 

had been used by the U.S. Army for decades. In 1996, when NASA decided to abandon tunnel 

No. 1, the Army took it over and refurbished it with a new control system, motor/generator set, 

and scales. 303 Figure 3-33 shows a HSCT model being tested in the 7- by 10-foot (2.1- by 3-

meter) tunnel.

302 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, pp. 77–78.

303 Arthur Ragosta, Chief, Research Support Division, Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, e-mails to author, 

August 16 and 17, 2006.

395
Figure 3-33. This photo shows the Boeing High-Speed Civil Transport being tested in ultraviolet 

light with tufts in the no. 1 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel. (NASA-ARC photo AC96-0047-47).

The Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT) was completed in 1956 under the Unitary Plan Act of 

1949 at a cost of $27 million, and has been designated a National Historic Landmark. Since its 

completion, the UPWT has been the most heavily used NASA wind tunnel. Every major 

396
commercial transport and almost every military jet built in the United States during the 40 years 

since it began operating has been tested in the facility. The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo 

capsules and the Space Shuttle were also tested in this tunnel complex. The UPWT included 

three test sections: an 11- by 11-foot (3.35- by 3.35-meter) transonic section, a 9- by 7-foot (2.7- 

by 2.1-meter) supersonic section, and an 8- by 7-foot (2.4- by 2.1-meter) supersonic section. The 

major element of the tunnel complex was its drive system that consisted of four intercoupled 

electric motors.

304 All three test sections were closed-circuit, single-return, variable-density, 

continuous-flow wind tunnels used primarily for force, moment, and pressure tests of aircraft 

configurations or specific aircraft components. The UPWT did not operate during FY 1997–FY 

2000 because of a facility modernization project.305 The three test sections of the UPWT are 

described below:

• The 11- by 11-foot Transonic Wind Tunnel was a closed-return, variable-density tunnel 

with a fixed geometry, ventilated throat, and single-jack flexible nozzle. It was used for 

limited aeroacoustic and nonsteady aerodynamic tests. A three-stage compressor drove this 

tunnel with movable inlet guide vanes for fine Mach number control. Airflow was produced 

by a three-stage, axial-flow compressor powered by four wound-rotor, variable-speed 

induction motors. For conventional steady-state tests, models were generally supported on a 

string. A schlieren system, one that allowed regions of varying refraction in a transparent 

medium caused by pressure or temperature differences and detectable by photographing the 

304“Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel,” Ames Research Center, November 2005, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/146638main_unitarywindtunnel.pdf (accessed August 15, 2006). Also 

“Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel,” http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/uni.htm (accessed August 15, 2006).

305 “Final Management Letter on Audit of Wind Tunnel Utilization,” Assignment Number A-03-007-00, Report 

Number IG-03-027, http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY03/pdfs/ig-03-027.pdf (accessed August 15, 2006). 

397
passage of a beam of light, was used to study flow patterns either with photographs or by 

direct viewing.306 Figure 3-34 shows a Boeing 777 being tested in the tunnel. 

•

Figure 3-34. A Boeing 777 model in the 11-foot (3.35-meter) wind tunnel during testing in 

August 1991 (NASA-ARC photo AC91-0470-2).

306 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 151. Also “Unitary Plan 

Wind Tunnel,” http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/uni.htm (accessed August 15, 2006).

398
• The 9- by 7-foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel was a closed-circuit, variable-density tunnel. 

This tunnel was similar to the transonic wind tunnel except that it was equipped with an 

asymmetric sliding-block nozzle and the airflow was produced by an 11-stage, axial-flow 

compressor powered by four variable-speed, wound-rotor induction motors.307 Figure 3-35 

shows a test of the HSCT in the tunnel. 

Figure 3-35. A series of High-Speed Civil Transport wind-tunnel tests were conducted using the 

9- by 7-foot tunnel from December 1993 to February 1994. (NASA-ARC Photo AC94-0057-7).

307 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 201. Also “Unitary Plan 

Wind Tunnel,” http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/uni.htm (accessed August 15, 2006).

399
• The 8- by 7-foot Supersonic Tunnel was built in 1956. It was used for limited aeroacoustic 

and nonsteady aerodynamic tests. Internal strain-gage balances were used to measure forces 

and moments. The support strut had both variable pitch and yaw capability plus or minus 15 

degrees.308 The tunnel closed in 1998. 

The 12-foot Pressure Wind Tunnel, originally built in 1946, was a closed-circuit, single-return, 

variable-density, closed-throat wind tunnel with exceptionally low turbulence. It was used 

primarily for high Reynolds number testing, including the development of high-lift systems for 

commercial transports, high-AoA testing of maneuverable aircraft, and high Reynolds number 

research. Various model-support systems were available, including a strut with variable pitch 

capability, a high-AoA turntable system, a dual-strut turntable mechanism for high-lift testing, a 

semispan mounting system, and two-dimensional model-type mountings.309 

The facility gradually suffered a deterioration of its pressure shell due to extensive use. 

Reconstruction began in 1990 and included the complete rebuilding of the closed-loop pressure 

vessel and installation of an air lock system around the test section. The new air lock system 

allowed researchers to access to the test section without depressurizing the entire tunnel, which 

increased its productivity.310 The rebuilt wind tunnel opened in 1994 and its dedication took 

place in August 1995.311 See figure 3-36 for a photo of an MD-11 model in the tunnel. 

308 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 203. 309 Ibid., p. 107.

310 “Unique NASA Wind Tunnel Restoration Completed,” NASA News Release 94-193, November 16, 1994, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-193.txt (accessed August 15, 2006).

311 “Refurbished Wind Tunnel To Open at NASA Ames Research Center, NASA News Release 95-143, August 21, 

1995, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1995/95-143.txt (accessed August 15, 2006).

400
Figure 3-36. This photo shows the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 semi-span model test in the 

12-foot wind tunnel, October 1995 (NASA-ARC photo AC96-0344-6).

The National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC) consisted of two subsonic wind 

tunnels: one 40 by 80 feet (12.2 by 24.3 meters), and one 80 by 120 feet (24.3 by 36.6 meters). 

This complex could test planes with wingspans of up to 100 feet (30.48 meters). 

401
The original 40- by 80-foot (12.2- by 24.3-meter) wind tunnel began operating in 1944. By the 

time the 80- by 120-foot (24.3- by 36.6-meter) section was built in 1982, more than 100 aircraft, 

from World War II fighters to the Space Shuttle, had gone through the 40- by 80-foot test 

section. The primary reason the new section was added was the need to test evolving vertical 

takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft at full scale.312 

The tunnels were used primarily to determine the low- and medium-speed aerodynamic 

characteristics of high-performance aircraft; rotorcraft; and fixed-wing, powered-lift vertical and 

short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft. NASA operated the facilities for industry, NASA, 

DOD, and other government projects, supporting an active research program in aerodynamics, 

dynamics, model noise, and full-scale aircraft and their components. The aerodynamic 

characteristics of new configurations were investigated, with an emphasis on validating 

computational methods. Rotor–fuselage interactions and the aeromechanical stability boundaries 

of advanced rotorcraft were explored. Stability and control derivatives, including the static and 

dynamic characteristics of new aircraft configurations, were also determined. The acoustic 

characteristics of most of the full-scale vehicles were also determined, and acoustic research 

aimed at discovering and reducing aerodynamic sources of noise was conducted. In addition to 

the normal data-gathering methods (e.g., balance system, pressure-measuring transducers, and 

temperature-sensing thermocouples), the use of state-of-the-art, nonintrusive instrumentation, 

such as laser velocimeters and shadowgraphs, helped determine flow direction and velocity in 

and around the lifting surfaces of models or aircraft undergoing investigation. 

312 Baals and Corliss, Wind Tunnels of NASA, pp. 134–135.

402
The 40- by 80-foot (12.2- by 24.3-meter) tunnel had a closed test section with semicircular sides 

of 20-foot (6.1-meter) radius and a closed-circuit air return passage. The 80- by 120-foot (24.3- 

by 37.6-meter) tunnel also had a closed test section that was rectangular in cross section. It was a 

non-return tunnel. The two tunnels shared a common fan drive system, and only one tunnel could 

be operated at a time. By adjusting the position of vane sets 3 and 4, researchers could direct the 

airflow through the desired test section. 

The test sections of both tunnels were lined with sound-absorptive material to permit acoustic 

and aerodynamic research to take place simultaneously. The 6-inch (15.2-centimeter)-deep lining 

in the 40- by 80-foot tunnel that covered the entire test section was replaced in 1993–1995 by 

new lining that was 42 inches (107 centimeters) deep.313 The lining in the 80- by 120-foot tunnel 

test section was 10 inches (25.4 centimeters) deep on the walls and 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) 

deep on the floor and ceiling. These linings permitted near-anechoic (without echoes) tests to be 

performed above 500 hertz. With the acoustic liner installed, the test section dimensions for the 

40- by 80-foot tunnel were 39 feet (11.9 meters) high, 79 feet (24.1 meters) wide (at the 

horizontal center line), and 80 feet (24.3 meters) long. The test section dimensions for the 80- by 

120-foot tunnel were 79 feet (24.1 meters) high, 118.3 feet (36.1 meters) wide, and 190 feet 

(57.9 meters) long with the acoustic liner installed. 

The air in the tunnel was driven by six 40-foot (12.2-meter)-diameter, 15-bladed, variable-pitch 

fans. The speed in the 40- by 80-foot tunnel test section continuously varied from 0 to 300 knots 

(345 miles per hour), while the speed in the 80- by 120-foot tunnel test section continuously 

313 “World’s Largest Wind Tunnel Will Be World’s Quietest,” NASA News Release 93-81, May 10, 1993, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1993/93-081.txt (accessed August 15, 2006).

403
varied from 0 to 100 knots (115 miles per hour). The stagnation pressure in the tunnel was 

atmospheric. The stagnation temperature was uncontrolled and depended on conditions such as 

outdoor temperature and the temperature rise contributed by the operation of internal combustion 

engines in the models or aircraft.314 Figure 3-37 shows an engine test in the 40- by 80-foot 

tunnel. Figure 3-38 shows a parafoil undergoing testing in the 80- by 120-foot tunnel. 

Figure 3-37. NASA engineers are shown preparing a laser light sheet for a flow visualization 

test of a Pratt & Whitney Advance Ducted Propulsor demonstrator engine in the Ames 40- by 80-

foot wind tunnel in 1993 (NASA-HQ-GRIN photo GPN-2000-001521). 

314 “40- by 80- and 80- by 120-Foot Wind Tunnels,” http://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/facilities/40x80_80x120.html

(accessed July 28, 2006).

404
Figure 3-38. The Pioneer Aerospace Parafoil undergoes testing in the world’s largest wind 

tunnel, the 80- by 120-foot tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center, 1990. (NASA HQ-GRIN 

photo GPN-2000-001646). 

NASA closed the complex in 2003 because of budget pressures.315 In February 2006, a long-term 

lease was signed by NASA and the U.S. Air Force that turned operation of the complex over to 

the Air Force. As of the beginning of February 2007, plans were in place to reopen the facility, 

315 “National Full-Scale Aerodynamic Complex Set To Reopen,” Air Force Link, 

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123016982 (accessed August 9, 2006).

405
and tests had been conducted successfully. Although the facility is owned by NASA, it receives 

support from the U.S. Army and is run by the U.S. Air Force.316

Langley Research Center

The 0.3-meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel was used to test two-dimensional airfoil sections 

and other models at high Reynolds numbers. The adaptive walls, floor, and ceiling in the 13- by 

13-inch (33- by 33-centimeter) test section could be moved to the free-stream streamline shape, 

eliminating or reducing wall effects on the model. The Mach number, pressure, temperature, and 

adaptive wall shapes were automatically controlled. The test section had computer-controlled 

AoA and traversing wake survey rake systems. Two inches (5 centimeters) of honeycomb and 

two anti-turbulence screens (total of five screens) were added to the settling chamber. The 

contraction section was replaced with a scaled version of the National Transonic Facility 

contraction section. The normal test medium was gaseous nitrogen (GN2), which was injected as 

a cryogenic liquid. Up to 56,000 gallons (211,983 liters) of liquid nitrogen (LN2) could be stored 

in on-site tanks, which were refilled either by truck or directly by pipeline from a nearby 

manufacturing plant. The facility could also use air or a heavy gas (sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]), 

with a restricted test envelope, as the test medium. Air and SF6 were used only at ambient 

temperature and required the use of a heat exchanger.

The tunnel was oriented vertically with the test section and plenum, high-speed diffuser, screens, 

spacer, and contraction sections forming the upper leg. Under ambient conditions, the tunnel was 

approximately 38 feet (11.6 meters) between the centerlines of the vertical legs and 

316 Mark Betzina, Deputy Director of National Full-Scale Aerodynamic Complex, U.S. Army, NASA Ames 

Research Center, telephone conversation, February 13, 2007.

406
approximately 6 feet (1.8 meters) between the centerlines of the upper and lower legs. Because 

of the large operational temperature envelope, the stagnation end of the tunnel was free-floating 

and allowed to contract and expand along the length, width, and height of the tunnel. The fan 

housing section was the fixed point for the tunnel and enclosed the 12-bladed aluminum fan, 

bearing housing, and drive shaft connection. The fan was driven by a water-cooled, 3,000-

horsepower, 4,600-volt, variable-frequency motor. The vent system, consisting of three 4-inch 

(10.1-centimeter) vent valves in the lower leg, maintained the tunnel at a desired pressure. The 

safety relief system was connected to the upper leg and prevented overpressurization of the 

tunnel. The relief valve and rupture disc lines were each sized to relieve the maximum nitrogen 

injection rate. The tunnel’s interlocks and failsafe systems shut down and vented the appropriate 

systems when electric, lubrication, hydraulic, cooling water, or pneumatic systems failures or gas 

leaks were detected.

High-pressure (350 pounds per square inch/psi) and low-pressure (100 psi) air sources were 

available at the tunnel site. These sources were located outside the tunnel and could be used for 

such tasks as leak-checking the model orifices and calibrating auxiliary research devices.

Two-dimensional models spanning the 13-inch (33-centimeter) test section were supported in 

circular turntables on either side of the test section. An AoA range of –9 to +32 degrees could be 

attained by means of dual connecting rods attached to the turntables.317

317 “0.3M Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/aerodynamics/03m.htm

(accessed July 5, 2006).

407
The 8-foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel was a continuous-flow, variable-pressure wind tunnel 

with control capability to independently vary the Mach number, stagnation pressure, stagnation 

temperature, and humidity. The test section was square with corner fillets and a cross-sectional 

area approximately equivalent to that of an 8-foot (2.4-meter)-diameter circle. The top and 

bottom walls of the test section were axially slotted to permit the test section Mach number to 

vary continuously from 0.2 to 1.2, and the slot-width contour provided a gradient-free test 

section 50 inches (127 centimeter) long.318 The tunnel had a sting-type model support system 

with an angle range of about ±120 degrees and tunnel wall mounts. The stagnation pressure 

could be varied from below 0.25 atmosphere at any Mach number to 2.0 atmospheres at the 0.2 

Mach number. At higher Mach numbers (up to 1.3), the pressure was limited by the available 

power of 25,000 horsepower. The stagnation temperature was controlled by water-cooled fans 

upstream of the settling chamber. Tunnel air could be dried to a dew point appropriate to the 

Mach number by a dryer using silica gel desiccant.319 The special features of the tunnel included 

a laser light sheet flow visualization system, a schlieren system, high-pressure air capability, and 

the availability of test section chokes. It could operate for two 8-hour shifts per day. 

The tunnel became operational in 1953, was upgraded in 1980, and closed in 1996. Richard T. 

Whitcomb used the tunnel extensively in developing supercritical airfoils, winglets, and area-rule 

configurations. (The area-rule concept was developed in the 8-foot High-Speed Tunnel, the 

predecessor of the 8-foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel.)320 In addition to research concepts such as 

laminar flow control and hybrid laminar flow control, many past and present aircraft and 

318 Peter F. Jacobs, Senior Engineer, Research and Technology Directorate, NASA Langley Research Center, e-mail 

to author, August 9, 2006.

319 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 155.

320 Richard Whitcomb was a NACA and NASA engineer who developed the supercritical wing. An internationally 

known aerodynamicist, he received the Collier Trophy in 1954 for the year’s greatest achievement in aviation.

408
spacecraft were tested in this tunnel. These included Saturn/Apollo, the Scout ELV, the Space 

Shuttle, C-141, C-5, YC-15 (C-17), B-1, F-8 Supercritical Wing, F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire, T-2C 

Supercritical Wing, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-111, YF-17 (F/A-18), the Supersonic Transport, DC-10, 

Cessna Citation X, and the Gates Learjet.321

The 14- by 22-foot Subsonic Tunnel was an atmospheric, closed-return tunnel. Its test section 

was 14.5 feet (4.4 meters) high, 21.75 feet (6.6 meters) wide, and 50 feet (15.2 meters) long, and 

could reach a velocity of 348 feet per second (106 meters per second) with a dynamic pressure of 

144 pounds per square foot (6.9 kilopascal). The flow in the closed-test-section configuration 

was relatively uniform, with a velocity fluctuation of 0.1 percent or less. When the test section 

was not in the fully closed configuration, the test-section velocity was lower and the turbulence 

level was higher. Airflow in the test section was produced by a 40-foot (12.2-meter)-diameter, 

nine-bladed fan. The tunnel had a set of flow control vanes to maintain close control of the speed 

for low-speed testing. 

Models were typically mounted on carts for all tests, including ground-effects, high-AoA, 

rotorcraft, forced-oscillation, and semispan tests. The facility’s six large model carts with 

varying capabilities supported a variety of tests. The model preparation area had several static 

test areas as well as a rotor test cell. The facility also had a support system with a pitch range of 

32 degrees, a yaw range of 30 degrees, and a vertical traverse of 6 feet. The carts could be 

lowered 2 feet (0.6 meter) below the test section floor to accommodate acoustical treatment, a 

321 Peter F. Jacobs, Senior Engineer, Research and Technology Directorate, NASA Langley Research Center, e-mail 

to author, August 9, 2006.

409
microphone traverse system, or the third component of the laser velocimetry system. Figure 3-39 

shows an HSR aircraft model mounted in the tunnel. 

Figure 3-39. A high-speed research model in Langley’s 14- by 22-foot subsonic tunnel, 25 

August 1995 (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1998-00237). 

The tunnel was constructed in 1970 to investigate the aerodynamics of V/STOL aircraft 

configurations.322 The tunnel configurations included a fully closed test section and an open test 

section that was closed only on the floor. A boundary-layer removal system and moving-belt 

ground plane prevented formation of a floor boundary layer in the test section and provided a 

322 This tunnel was initially named the V/STOL Tunnel and later the 4- by 7-Meter Tunnel.

410
uniform vertical velocity distribution for ground-effects testing. The tunnel was also ideally 

suited for low-speed tests to determine high-lift stability and control, aerodynamic performance, 

rotorcraft acoustics, turboprop performance, motor sports, and basic wake and flowfield surveys. 

An extensive modification completed in 1984 improved the flow and expanded the tunnel’s 

capabilities for both acoustic and rotorcraft tests. In 1999, the facility automation system and 

new model carts were added.323

The 30- by 60-foot Full-Scale Tunnel, built in 1930, is NASA’s oldest wind tunnel, and until 

1945 it was the largest wind tunnel in the world. In 1985, it was named a National Historic 

Landmark. The overall tunnel was 434 feet (132 meters) long and 222 feet (67.7 meters) wide 

with a maximum height of 97 feet (30 meters). The actual test section was an open jet 30 feet 

(9.1 meters) high, 60 feet (18.3 meters) wide, and 56 feet (17.1 meters) long. The test section 

was modified several times to adapt to changing needs. During renovations in the 1960s and 

1970s, the tunnel was equipped for free-flight dynamic-model tests and was used extensively for 

such tests. This testing technique, which was unique to this facility, involved flying 10–20 

percent scale models controlled by remotely positioned pilots.324 

The tunnel had shielded struts for the six-component scale balance used for large-scale model 

tests. A variety of smaller model mounts with internal balances were used. Auxiliary equipment 

consisted of compressed air supplies and 1,000- and 500-horsepower direct-current motors to 

supply power to the models. The facility accommodated models with a wingspan of up to 40 feet 

323 “14 x 22 Foot Subsonic Tunnel,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/aerodynamics/14X22.htm

(accessed July 5, 2006).

324 “NASA Langley 30- by 60-Foot Tunnel To Be Closed,” NASA Langley Research Center News Release 95-79, 

August 11,1995, NASA History Division folder 11713, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

411
(12.2 meters) and weight of 15,000 pounds (6,803 kilograms). It was powered by two fourbladed, 35.5-foot (10.8-meter)-diameter fans, each driven by a 4,000-horsepower electric 

motor.325 The support system allowed the model to be rotated about its center of gravity to AoAs 

up to 90 degrees and sideslip up to 60 degrees with minimal support interference. Force and 

moment data were acquired from an internally mounted strain-gage balance in all three axes. 

Figure 3-40 shows a period photo of the tunnel. Figure 3-41 shows an F/A-18E model 

undergoing testing in the tunnel. The purpose of the test was to investigate the aerodynamic 

static stability and control characteristics of the aircraft, particularly at high AoAs. This model 

was the last military aircraft configuration tested in this tunnel before NASA closed it on 

October 27, 1995.326

325 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalog, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 46.

326 “15% Model of F-18E in LaRC 30x60 Foot Tunnel,” http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/UTILS/info.cgi?id=EL-1996-

00196 (accessed February 14, 2007). Also Keith Henry, NASA Office of Public Affairs, memo to NASA 

Headquarters, Attn: PMD/Bill Ingalls, September 25, 1995, NASA History Division folder 11713, Historical 

Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

412
Figure 3-40. The honeycombed, screened center of this open-circuit air intake for Langley’s first 

wind tunnel ensured a steady, nonturbulent flow of air. Two mechanics pose near the entrance 

end of the actual tunnel, where air was pulled into the test section through a honeycomb 

arrangement to smoothen the flow (NASA-HQ-GRIN photo GPN-2000-001296). 

413
Figure 3-41.The photograph shows a 15 percent scale model of the F/A-18E undergoing 

low-speed testing in the Langley 30- by 60-foot tunnel (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1996-00196). 

The 7- by 10-foot High-Speed Tunnel, built in 1945, was a closed-circuit, single-return, 

continuous-flow, closed-throat tunnel that was used for static and dynamic studies of 

aerodynamic characteristics of aircraft and spacecraft models. Model mounts consisted of a lowto moderate-AoA performance sting system, a low- to high-AoA combined pitch-roll stability 

sting system, a sidewall turntable, forced oscillation apparatus, and other specialized systems. It 

could accommodate a model with a span of up to 5 feet (1.5 meters). The facility was powered 

by a 1,400-horsepower electric main-drive motor.327 It closed in 1994.328

327 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalog, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 79.

328 Peter F. Jacobs, Senior Engineer, Research and Technology Directorate, NASA Langley Research Center, e-mail 

to author, August 9, 2006. Also “Final Management Letter on Audit of Wind Tunnel Utilization,” Assignment 

414
The Low-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel (LTPT), built in 1940 and upgraded in 1981, was a 

single-return, closed-circuit tunnel that could be operated at stagnation pressures of 1 to 10 

atmospheres. The rectangular test section was 3 feet (0.9 meter) wide by 7.5 feet (2.3 meters) 

high by 7.5 feet (2.3 meters) long, with a contraction ratio of 17.6:1. The chord length for a 

typical airfoil tested in the facility was approximately 2 feet (0.6 meter). Sidewall boundary-layer 

control was achieved by tangential blowing through tubes located on the model endplates or 

passive suction through porous endplates vented to the atmosphere. The tunnel also provided the 

capability to test 3-D models with six-component force balances mounted on a centerline strut. 

The LTPT had very low turbulence levels because of its large contraction ratio and fine-mesh 

antiturbulence screens.

This facility was used for 2- and 3-D testing of airfoils, including multielement, high-lift, basic 

research, and theory-validation studies. Its capabilities included 3-D model testing, a high-lift 

model support and balance system, a sidewall boundary-layer control system, and boundarylayer and wake-traverser systems. It exhibited excellent flow quality.329 Both the X-33 and X-34 

were tested in this tunnel during 1997. Tests of the X-34 simulated the low-speed final approach 

to landing.330 Figure 3-42 shows an X-33 model undergoing testing in the tunnel. 

Number A-03-007-00, Report Number IG-03-027, http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY03/pdfs/ig-03-027.pdf

(accessed August 15, 2006).

329 “Low Turbulence Pressure Tunnel,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/aerodynamics/low.htm

(accessed July 5, 2006).

330“NASA Langley Story Opportunities June 1997,” Langley News Release 97-43, June 1997, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/1997/Jun97/June_SO.html (accessed August 26, 2006).

415
Figure 3-42. The photo shows a metal model of the X-33 reusable launch vehicle (about 15 

inches [38 centimeters] long by 15 inches wide) being tested for the Lockheed Martin Skunk 

Works in Langley’s Low-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel. The subsonic tests were conducted at a 

speed of Mach 0.25. (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1997-00041). 

The National Transonic Facility (NTF) was a cryogenic, fan-driven, closed-circuit, continuousflow, high-pressure wind tunnel that provided test capabilities at very high Reynolds numbers, 

allowing accurate simulation of flight conditions for large aircraft. This accuracy helped 

researchers develop aircraft with improved efficiency, leading to reduced fuel usage and 

operating costs.331 NTF tests supported stability and control, cruise performance, stall buffet 

onset, and configuration aerodynamics validation for both full- and half-span models. The 

331 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual

Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 42.

416
customer’s test objectives and priorities could be modeled using a computerized test process 

simulator to design the most efficient test plan strategy with respect to cost, duration, and 

consumables. 

The test section had 12 slots and 14 reentry flaps in the ceiling and floor to prevent the nearsonic flow “choking” effect. Thermal insulation lined the interior of the pressure shell to ensure 

minimal energy consumption. The drive system consisted of a fan with variable inlet guide vanes 

for responsive Mach number control. 

The tunnel had two modes of cooling. In the variable-temperature cryogenic mode, liquid 

nitrogen was sprayed into the circuit. The heat of vaporization and latent heat cooled the tunnel 

structure while removing fan heat. In this mode, the NTF tunnel provided full-scale flight 

Reynolds numbers without an increase in model size. In the ambient-temperature air mode, air 

was the test gas. Water flowed through the cooling coil to remove fan heat.332 

The NTF was built in 1982 and completed its first year of operation in 1984.333 On January 18 , 

the tunnel’s 25 fan blades were damaged during a routine test due to the failure of a stainlesssteel retaining band. Normal operations resumed after repairs were completed.334 

332 “National Transonic Facility,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/aerodynamics/national.htm

(accessed July 5, 2006).

333 “NASA’s Wind Tunnels,” Information Summaries, PMS 002 (LaRC), May 1988, NASA History Division folder 

11713, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

334 Edward H. Phillips, “NASA Prepares To Reopen Transonic Wind Tunnel After Major Fan Repairs, Aviation

Week & Space Technology 131, no. 6 (August 7, 1989): 61, NASA History Division folder 11717, Historical 

Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

417
The facility was upgraded in 1990 and 1997.335 In December 1997, the world’s largest wind 

tunnel motor (100 megawatts) was installed to power the fan. The new fan-drive motor 

developed 135,000 horsepower, turning the fan blades to produce wind speeds of up to Mach 

1.2. The motor was part of the $23 million drive system built by Asea Brown Boveri in 

Switzerland and installed by Raytheon Constructors, Inc. It replaced an aging system that 

included three smaller motors, two gearboxes, and other equipment, and could provide 130,000 

horsepower to the wind tunnel for only about 10 minutes and at one speed. The new motor 

developed the higher horsepower continuously through a speed range of 360–600 revolutions per 

minute, increasing the wind tunnel’s operating envelope, reducing the time required to reach a 

test point, and simplifying the drive system.336

The UPWT was a closed-circuit, continuous-flow, variable-density supersonic wind tunnel with 

two test sections: one with a design Mach number range of 1.5–2.9, and one with a Mach number 

range of 2.3–4.6. The tunnel was equipped with asymmetric sliding-block-type nozzles to vary 

the ratio of nozzle throat to test section area, thus providing continuous variations in Mach 

number during operation. The low- and high-Mach number test sections were formed by the 

downstream contours of each nozzle. Test sections were nominally 4 by 4 feet (1.2 by 1.2 

meters) in cross section by 7 feet (2.1 meters) in length. 

335 Richard H. Truly, Letter to Congressman Bob Traxler, March 9, 1990, NASA History Division folder 11717, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. “NASA’s Reynolds Wrap,” Aviation Week 

& Space Technology 148, no. 3 (January 19, 1998): 8, NASA History Division folder 11717, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

336 “Largest Wind Tunnel Motor of Its Kind in the World Goes On Line,” Langley Research Center News Release 

97-133, December 16, 1997, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/1997/Dec97/97_133.html (accessed 

August 23, 2006). Also Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology; Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals 

Into Reality, Annual Progress Report 1997–1998, p. 42.

418
The major elements of the facility were a 100,000-horsepower drive system, six centrifugal 

compressors that operated in varying combinations or modes, a dry air supply, an evacuating 

system, a cooling system, and interconnecting ducting that produced the desired run conditions 

through either of the two test sections. The tunnel duct circuit could be circumscribed by a 

rectangle 263 feet (80.1 meters) by 210 feet (64 meters). The methods used to support the models 

and probes varied depending on the test requirements. Increased model attitude was achieved by 

means of assorted angular couplings and offset stings. The basic model support mechanism was 

a horizontal wall-mounted strut assembly capable of forward and aft motion in the x-direction, a 

sting support with traverse and sideslip motion, an AoA mechanism that provided pitch motion, 

and a roll mechanism.337

Developmental tests of virtually every supersonic military airplane, missile, and spacecraft in the 

U.S. inventory that were planned to become operational, including most supersonic aircraft 

configurations from the National Supersonic Transport program, the Space Shuttle program, and 

NASP, were performed in this facility. Other vehicles and components tested included the HSR 

aircraft, the X-33 and X-34, and the Experimental Crew Return Vehicle (X-38).338 Figure 3-43 

shows an X-38 model being tested in the tunnel. 

The tunnel was built in 1954 and upgraded in 1979.339

337 “The Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, NASA Langley Research Center” 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities/aerodynamics/unitary.cfm?field=5&id=2&fac=1 (accessed March 6, 

2007).

338 “Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/aerodynamics/unitary.htm

(accessed July 5, 2006).

339 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 227.

419
Figure 3-43. This photo shows a bottom view of the X-38 model with the docking ring mounted in 

test section 1 of the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (NASA photo EL-1998-00194). 

420
The 16-foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) was a national facility that was used to 

identify, understand, and solve aeroelastic problems.340 The closed-circuit, single-return, 

continuous-flow, slotted-throat tunnel provided variable-density pressure, free-flight capability, 

and low dynamic pressure per unit Reynolds number. It was dedicated to aeroelasticity research 

and was the country’s only facility for performing flutter wind tunnel tests. It was specially 

configured for flutter tests of fixed-wing models, and the facility was used to validate aircraft 

designs with respect to the limits of allowable flutter motion. The flutter test results provided 

valuable information to designers and enabled the development of structurally sound, lighterweight, more efficient, and safer aircraft. The tunnel could be operated at stagnation pressures 

from near vacuum (0.025 atmosphere) to atmospheric pressure and at dynamic pressures from 

near vacuum (0.25 atms) to atmospheric and at dynamic pressures up to 330 pounds per square 

foot (psf) (15.8 kilopascals) in air and 550 psf (26.3 kilopascals) in R-134a. In 1998, the wind 

tunnel completed the transition from using a greenhouse gas (R-12 Freon) to employing a more 

environmentally friendly gas (R-134a Freon).341 Figure 3-44 shows an engineering technician in 

the TDT.

340 “Transonic Dynamics Tunnel,” NASA Langley Research Center, Wind Tunnel Enterprise, 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/aeroelasticity/transonic.htm (accessed July 5, 2006).

341 Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology, Three Pillars for Success: Turning Goals Into Reality, Annual 

Progress Report 1997–1998, pp. 42–43. Also Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, 

Wind Tunnels, p. 147.

421
Figure 3-44. An engineering technician inspects the rear of an engine nacelle after a test run in 

the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel, 1992 (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1996-00009). 

422
The 16-foot Transonic Tunnel was an atmospheric, closed-circuit tunnel that combined wind 

tunnel conditions for inlet, nozzle, and aerodynamic tests across the transonic speed range under 

atmospheric conditions. The octagonal test section was 15.5 feet (4.7 meters) across the flats. 

The twin 34-foot (10.4-meter)-diameter drive fans formed a two-stage axial flow compressor 

with counter-rotating blades and no stator. It achieved boundary-layer control during transonic 

operation with a 35,000-horsepower axial flow compressor that could remove up to 4.5 percent 

of the tunnel flow from the plenum surrounding the test section. Photographic and video 

coverage of the test section could be achieved from the sidewalls and ceiling. Video images of 

the model could record key tunnel parameters superimposed on the screen. 

Active since November 1941 and upgraded in 1975, 1985, and 1990, the tunnel was used for 

force, moment, pressure, and propulsion-airframe integration studies. Model mounts consisted of 

sting, sting-strut, and fixed-strut arrangements. Propulsion simulation studies could be performed 

using dry, cold, high-pressure air. The test-section length was 22 feet (6.7 meters) for speeds up 

to Mach 1.0, and 8 feet for speeds above Mach 1.0. The tunnel was equipped with an air 

exchanger with adjustable intake and exit vanes to provide some temperature control. It had a 

large cone fairing that helped reduce disturbances in airflow around corners. In addition, guide 

vanes behind the cone, which formed an ellipse, cut across each cylindrical tube at a 45-degree 

angle. Similar sets of vanes at the three other corners of the wind tunnel turned the air uniformly 

as it rushed through the 1,000-foot (304.8-meter) racetrack-like enclosed tube.342 This facility 

had a main drive of 60,000 horsepower. 

342 “NASA Langley’s 16 Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel Cone Fairing,” 

http://nix.ksc.nasa.gov/info;jsessionid=4n30jkmib05t?id=EL-1996-00003&orgid=1 (accessed February 14, 2007).

423
Program activities focused on propulsion integration characteristics for advanced aircraft, 

including inlet and nozzle integration for fighter aircraft, and pylon and nacelle integration for 

turbofan and turboprop transport aircraft.343 The tunnel supported most major military programs 

in their developmental stages and in ongoing propulsion integration research. It was also used to 

perform extensive tests for the Space Shuttle, X-33, and experimental programs, such as Highly 

Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT). The tunnel closed in September 2004.344 

Figure 3-45 shows the tunnel cone fairing. 

Figure 3-45. This photo shows a technician preparing to unlatch the door built into one of the 

guide vanes of the 16-Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1996-0003). 

343 Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalog, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 148.

344 “Media Invited To Witness Historic Tunnel’s Final Test,” Langley Research Center News Release 04-060, 

September 20, 2004.

424
The 20-foot Vertical Spin Tunnel (VST), which became operational in March 1941 and was 

upgraded in 1984, was a closed-throat, annular-return wind tunnel that operated under 

atmospheric conditions. The 12-sided test section was 20 feet (6.1 meters) across by 25 feet (7.6 

meters) tall. The test-section velocity could be varied from 0 to approximately 85 feet per second 

(26 meters per second). The test-section airflow was produced by a three-bladed, fixed-pitch fan 

powered by a 400-horsepower direct-current motor equipped with a control system designed to 

allow rapid changes in fan speed, which resulted in maximum flow accelerations in the test 

section of –25 ft/sec2

 to 15 ft/sec2 (–7.6 m/sec2 to 4.6 m/sec2). The rotary balance arm suspended 

a model in the air stream at AoAs of 0–90 degrees and angles of sideslip of ±45 degrees while 

maintaining the relative position of the model reference center. Both top- and aft-mount stings 

were available. The rig could be rotated in both the clockwise or counterclockwise directions at 

up to 60 revolutions per minute. The system could support models weighing up to 15 pounds (6.8 

kilograms).345

Dynamically scaled, free-flying models were used to investigate large-angle, high-rate 

phenomena. Aircraft models could be tested for spinning, tumbling, and other out-of-control 

situations. Spacecraft models could be used for free-fall and dynamic stability characteristics. 

Test images were documented on high-resolution color video.346

The 12-foot Low-Speed Tunnel was an atmospheric-pressure, open-circuit tunnel enclosed in a 

60-foot (18.3-meter)-diameter sphere. The test section was octagonal with a width and height of 

345 “20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel,” NASA Langley Research Center, Wind Tunnel Enterprise, 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/flight_dynamics/20foot.htm (accessed July 5, 2006). Also 

Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 112.

346 “20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel,” NASA Langley Research Center, Wind Tunnel Enterprise, 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/flight_dynamics/20foot.htm (accessed July 5, 2006).

425
12 feet (3.7 meters) and a length of 15 feet (4.6 meters). Each octagonal side measured 5 feet 

(1.5 meters). The maximum operating pressure was 7 pounds per square foot (34.2 kilograms per 

square meter). The longitudinal centerline flow in the test section had a turbulence level of about 

0.6 percent. Test-section airflow was produced by a 15.8-foot (4.8-meter)-diameter, six-bladed 

drive fan powered by a 280-horsepower, 600-volt, 600-revolutions-per-minute, direct-current 

motor. The motor was controlled by a 500-horsepower alternating-current motor, which drove a 

field-controlled generator. This tunnel could support several types of flow-visualization 

techniques, including tufts (yarn or Mylar), propylene glycol smoke, and a laser light sheet. 

The work conducted in this tunnel generally involved exploratory research to screen and refine 

advanced aerospace technologies and vehicle concepts. Much of the research focused on stability 

and control characteristics, and on understanding the steady and time-dependent aerodynamics 

responsible for those characteristics. Because the aerodynamic loads were low, many tests could 

be conducted with relatively simple and inexpensive models made of fiberglass, foam, and 

wood.347

The 20-Inch Supersonic Wind Tunnel was a blowdown facility powered by the high-pressureair and low-vacuum systems of the Gas Dynamics Facility. Using these resources, the tunnel 

could operate with stagnation pressures of 0.5 psia (absolute pressure) up to 130 psia across the 

Mach number range of 2.85–5.0. Above the Mach number range of 1.6–2.85, the maximum 

pressure was limited by the system’s maximum mass flow rate of 280 pounds-mass (127 

kilograms) per second. 

347 “12-Foot Low-Speed Tunnel,” NASA Langley Research Center, Wind Tunnel Enterprise, 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/flight_dynamics/12foot.htm (accessed July 5, 2006).

426
The test section of the tunnel was 20 inches (50.8 centimeters) high and 18 inches (45.7 

centimeters) wide, and had optical access from three directions. Test times were typically 

vacuum-limited to approximately 300 seconds, but varied with the test conditions. Operations 

with recovery pressures above atmosphere were operated through a muffler and were limited to a 

total mass usage of 250,000 pounds-mass (113,398 kilograms) or less. In subsonic operation of 

the facility, the unique ability to measure airfoil characteristics and drag was demonstrated over 

the subsonic/transonic Mach range of 0.35–0.75 to simulate either high-altitude or Martian 

atmospheric flight, and was effective for evaluating boundary-layer tripping in this regime.

348

The Supersonic Low-Disturbance Tunnel (SLDT) provided a low-disturbance, free-stream 

environment for high-speed transition research. This blowdown tunnel used dry air that had been 

filtered to exclude particles ≥1 micrometer in size. The tunnel exhausted to vacuum spheres or 

the atmosphere and provided typical run times of 30–45 minutes. Stagnation pressures of 5–175 

psia could be achieved at a free-stream Mach number of 3.5. The two-dimensional nozzle was 

approximately 15 inches (38.1 centimeters) long and had an exit size of 10 inches (25.4 

centimeters) wide by 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) high. It was configured as an open jet that 

exhausted into a straight pipe diffuser.349

The 8-foot High-Temperature Tunnel was a combustion-heated hypersonic blowdown-toatmosphere wind tunnel that could be used to simulate flight enthalpy for Mach numbers of 4, 5, 

and 7 at altitudes of 50,000–120,000 feet (15,240–36,576 meters). The open-jet test section was 

348 “20-Inch Supersonic Wind Tunnel,” 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/fluid_dynamics/20inch_supersonic2.htm (accessed July 5, 2006). 349 “Supersonic Low Disturbance Tunnel,” 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/fluid_dynamics/supersonic.htm (accessed July 5, 2006).

427
8 feet (2.4 meters) in diameter and 12 feet (3.7 meters) long. The test section could accommodate 

very large models, air-breathing hypersonic propulsion systems, and structural and TPS 

components. Stable wind tunnel test conditions could be provided for up to about 60 seconds. 

Additional simulation capabilities were provided by a radiant heater system that could be used to 

simulate ascent or entry heating profiles. The combustion product of the air and methane that 

were burned in a pressurized combustion chamber produced the high-energy test medium. 

Oxygen was added for air-breathing propulsion tests. The hydraulic-actuated model insertion 

system could support (1) an arc sector pitch strut assembly that provided ±20-degree AoAs for 

models weighing up to 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms) and (2) a force measurement system 

used for pedestal-mounted propulsion models weighing up to 40,000 pounds (18,144 kilograms). 

Electrical power, cooling water, hydraulic lines, high-pressure air, nitrogen, and other gases were 

available for all models.350

Tunnel construction began in March 1959 and was completed in early 1964. The first tunnel run 

took place in August 1965. Full operation of all systems was demonstrated in 1973. The tunnel 

supported the Space Shuttle program and the Mach 8 X-24C program. It was used for basic 

research on TPS materials and seals, gap heating, and shock interaction heating. In the mid1980s, the tunnel was modified to support air-breathing propulsion system tests. This 

modification included a liquid-oxygen system, a gaseous-hydrogen system, and alternate Mach 

number capability. Upgrades beginning in 1988 were made to the facility controls, dataacquisition system, high-pressure air system, gaseous-nitrogen purge system, model ignition 

system, and thrust measurement capability. Checkout of the integrated systems began in 1990, 

350 “8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/hypersonic/8ft.htm

(accessed July 5, 2006).

428
and the first successful hydrogen-fueled test of the NASP concept demonstration engine took 

place in June 1994. After the NASP program ended, testing began in support of the X-33 

program. Further modifications to the tunnel were made in the mid-1990s, and testing of the X33 TPS began in October 1998.351

The Arc-Heated Scramjet Test Facility (AHSTF) was used to test component integration 

models of airframe integrated scramjet engines under conditions experienced at flight Mach 

numbers of 4.7–8. It provided a true-temperature, true-velocity flow environment for testing 

scramjet engine models. Typical models tested in this facility included the inlet, isolator, 

combustor, and a significant portion of the nozzle, and were hydrogen- and silane-fueled. 

Typical model sizes were 9.5 by 7.5 inches (24.1 by 19 centimeters) in cross section by 5 feet 

(1.5 meters) long. The results were used to assess scramjet performance and optimize component 

designs and fueling schemes. The facility was remotely operated with controls in a room 

adjacent to the facility’s arc heater and test section. The flow at the exit of the 11- by 11-inch 

(28- by 28-centimeter) facility nozzle into the 4-foot (1.2-meter)-diameter test section simulated 

the flow entering a scramjet engine module in flight that had been processed by the forebody 

shock of the vehicle. The total enthalpy of the flight condition was achieved by electrically 

heating the air with a Linde arc heater. The facility operated for scramjet testing beginning in 

1976.352 

351 Jeffrey S. Hodge and Stephen F. Harvin, “The NASA Langley Research Center 8-ft High Temperature Tunnel,” 

in Lu and Marren, ed., Advanced Hypersonic Test Facilities, pp. 406–407. Also “NASA-Langley Story 

Opportunities—November,” Langley News Release 98-091, November 4, 1998,

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/1998/Nov98/Nov_SO.html (accessed August 28, 2006).

352 “Arc-Heated Scramjet Test Facility,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/hypersonic/archeated.htm (accessed July 5, 2006). Also Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalogue, Volume 1, Wind 

Tunnels, p. 280.

429
The Combustion Heated Scramjet Test Facility (CHSTF) was used to test complete (inlet, 

combustor, and partial nozzle) subscale scramjet component-integration models in flows with 

stagnation enthalpies duplicating that of flight at Mach numbers from 3.5 to 6. The facility began 

operating in 1978. 

The facility was located in a 16- by 16- by 52-foot (4.9- by 4.9- by 15.8-meter) test cell with 

forced air ventilation through the entire cell. It was adjacent to the Direct-Connect Supersonic 

Combustion Test Facility (DCSCTF), and both facilities shared the gas and vacuum systems and 

portions of the data-acquisition system. Test air was supplied from a high-pressure bottle field 

and was regulated to 550 psia (nominal) before it entered the test cell. Gaseous hydrogen and 

oxygen were both supplied from tube trailers at a maximum pressure of 2,400 psia and regulated 

to 720 psia before they entered the test cell. Purge nitrogen was also supplied from a tube trailer 

at a maximum pressure of 2,400 psia with the pressure regulated to 230 psia. Vacuum for altitude 

simulation was provided by a 70-foot (21-meter)-diameter vacuum sphere and steam ejector 

system.

The facility used a hydrogen, air, and oxygen heater to obtain the flight stagnation enthalpy 

required for engine testing. Oxygen was replenished in the heater to obtain a test gas with the 

oxygen mole fraction of air (0.2095). The facility could be operated with either a Mach 3.5 or 4.7 

nozzle. Both nozzles had square cross sections and were contoured to exit dimensions of 13.26 

by 13.26 inches (33.68 by 33.68 centimeters). The nozzle flow exhausted as a free jet into the 

test section, which was 42 inches (107 centimeters) high by 30 inches (84 centimeters) wide by 

96 inches (244 centimeters) long. The free jet passed through and around the engine model and 

430
then into a catch cone diffuser. The flow was typically exhausted into a 70-foot (21-meter)-

diameter vacuum sphere.

Either gaseous hydrogen or gaseous ethylene (both at ambient temperature) could be used as the 

primary fuel in the scramjet engines tested in the facility. A 20-percent silane, 80-percent 

hydrogen mixture (by volume) was available for use in the scramjet model as an igniter/pilot gas 

to aid in combustion of the primary fuel.353 

The Direct-Connect Supersonic Combustion Test Facility (DCSCTF) was used to test ramjet 

and scramjet combustor models in flows with stagnation enthalpies duplicating that of flight at 

Mach numbers between 4 and 7.5. Results of the tests were typically used to assess the mixing, 

ignition, flameholding, and combustion characteristics of the combustor models. 

The facility was located in a 16- by 16- by 52-foot (4.9- by 4.9- by 15.9-meter) test cell with 2-

foot (0.6-meter)-thick steel-reinforced concrete walls and forced-air ventilation. Test air was 

supplied from a high-pressure bottle field and was regulated to 550 psia (nominal) before it 

entered the test cell. Gaseous hydrogen was supplied from 60,000-cubic-foot (1,699-cubicmeter) tube trailers at a maximum pressure of 2,400 psia and was regulated to 720 psia. Oxygen 

was supplied from trailers at a maximum pressure of 2,400 psia and was regulated to 720 psia 

before it entered the test cell. A 20-percent silane and 80-percent hydrogen mixture (by volume) 

was supplied from K-size cylinders for use as an igniter of the primary fuel in the combustor 

353 “Combustion-Heated Scramjet Test Facility,” 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/hypersonic/combustion.htm (accessed July 5, 2006).

431
models. Purge nitrogen was also supplied from a tube trailer at a maximum pressure of 2,400 

psia with the pressure regulated to 230 psia. 

The high stagnation enthalpy necessary to simulate flight was achieved through hydrogen-air 

combustion with oxygen replenishment to obtain a test gas with the same oxygen mole fraction 

as atmospheric air (0.2095). The flow at the exit of the facility nozzle simulated the flow entering 

the combustor of a ramjet or a scramjet in flight. The facility normally operated at heater 

stagnation pressures between 115 and 500 psia, and at heater stagnation temperatures between 

1,600°R (616°C) and 3,800°R (1,838°C).354 Test gas mass flow rates ranged from 1 to 7 poundmass (0.45–3.2 kilograms) per second.355 

The HYpersonic PULSE (HYPULSE) wind tunnel was operated by the GASL Division of 

Allied Aerospace Industries, Inc., for NASA Langley Research Center. It used wave processes to 

heat, compress, and accelerate air to the thermodynamic and kinematic conditions encountered in 

terrestrial atmospheric flight from Mach 5 to orbital speed, Mach 25. Gases simulating other 

planetary atmospheres could also be used. Recent uses included studies of scramjets in support 

of hypersonic air-breathing propulsion at flight Mach 7 to Mach 15. Major components of the 

tunnel included a 6.5-inch (16.3-centimeter)-diameter, 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi) 

driver; 6-inch (15-centimeter)-diameter, 5,500 psi shock tubes; a 7-foot (2.1-meter)-diameter, 19-

foot (5.8-meter)-long test section; and a 4-foot (1.2-meter)-diameter, 35-foot (10.7-meter)-long 

354 The Rankine temperature scale is a temperature scale with the degree-interval of the Fahrenheit temperature scale 

and the zero point at absolute zero. The ice point is thus 491.69° Rankine and the boiling point of water is 671.69° 

Rankine. NASA Aerospace and Science Dictionary, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/aerospacedictionary/

(accessed August 22, 2006).

355 “Direct Connect Supersonic Combustion Test Facility,” 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/hypersonic/direct.htm (accessed July 5, 2006).

432
dump tank. The overall length of the facility was 150 feet (46 meters). The tunnel hardware 

could be configured as a reflected-shock tunnel for simulation in the flight Mach 5 to Mach 10 

range, or as a shock-expansion tunnel for flight Mach 12 to Mach 25 operation. For propulsion 

tests, fuel was supplied to the engine hardware from Ludweig tubes located within the dump 

tank. The four Ludweig tubes could provide gaseous hydrogen or other fuel at room temperature 

for scramjet tests, or hydrogen and oxygen separately for rocket motor simulations.356

The Langley Aerothermodynamics Laboratory (LAL) was a collection of four hypersonic 

wind tunnels that were used for basic fundamental flow physics research, aerodynamic 

performance measurements, and aeroheating assessment, optimization, and benchmarking (when 

combined with computational fluid dynamics) of advanced space transportation vehicles. The 

LAL facilities were relatively small and economical to operate, and hence were ideally suited for 

such fast-paced studies. Collectively, they provided a wide range of Mach numbers, unit 

Reynolds numbers, and normal shock density ratios. 

The LAL facilities were designed and constructed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. These 

facilities have contributed to most major hypersonic vehicle programs, including the Apollo, 

Viking, Space Shuttle Orbiter, NASP, Pegasus XL, DC-X, X-33, X-34, X-38/Experimental Crew 

Return Vehicle, RLV, and X-43/Hyper-X programs.

356 “HYPULSE Shock Tunnel,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/hypersonic/HYPULSE.htm

(accessed July 5, 2006).

433
The LAL consisted of: (1) the 15-Inch Mach 6 High-Temperature Tunnel, (2) the 20-Inch Mach 

6 CF4 Tunnel, (3) the 20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel, and (4) the 31-Inch Mach 10 Tunnel.357 

Figure 3-46 shows preparation for testing in the Mach 6 CF4 tunnel. See table 3-40 above for 

characteristics of these tunnels.

Figure 3-46. A NASA research engineer prepares a Rockwell X-33 model for testing in the 

Mach 6 CF4 wind tunnel, 1995 (NASA-LaRC photo EL-1996-00160). 

Acoustic Wind Tunnel Facilities

The Anechoic Noise Research Facility (ANRF) was an open-circuit, high-pressure air-driven, 

anechoic wind tunnel. The anechoic chamber measured 27.5 feet (8.4 meters) by 27 feet (8.2 

357 “Langley Aerothermodynamics Laboratory (LAL),” 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/aerothermodynamics/31%22M10.htm (accessed July 5, 2006).

434
meters) by 24 feet (7.3 meters) from the tips of the acoustic wedges. The acoustic wedges, which 

covered the walls, floor, and ceiling, were 3 feet (0.9 meter) deep and provided 99 percent sound 

absorption at frequencies above 125 hertz. The ANRF was used for in-house program-supported 

research, joint research projects with industry partners, and graduate research program support. 

The projects supported by the facility included the following: 

• Evaluation of active, adaptive noise control to reduce broadband fan noise in ducts 

• Evaluation of inlet noise reduction by the Blended Wing Body airframe 

• Development of phased-array microphone technology to determine the mode 

structure of fan noise in ducts 

• Inlet boundary-layer modulation to reduce rotor/stator interaction noise generation 

• Advanced microphone array techniques for nonintrusive fan duct radiated noise 

analysis 

• In-duct error sensor for global control of fan-radiated tone noise 

• Preliminary evaluation of noise generation by impingement of rotor wake on a stator 

• Reduction of inflow distortion in a scarf inlet using circulation control 

• Use of Herschel-Quincke tube technology to reduce fan noise in ducts 

• Fundamental noise-shielding evaluation for an engine-over-wing configuration 

• Acquisition and analysis of acoustic test data from field experiments on full-scale 

engines on engine manufacturer’s test stands

The Langley Flow Impedance Test Facility (FITF) was used to characterize the acoustic 

performance of full-scale acoustic liner materials for use in commercial aircraft engine nacelles. 

435
The facility contained four major measurement apparatuses: (1) a raylometer, (2) a pulse 

impedance tube, (3) a normal incidence impedance tube, and (4) a grazing flow impedance tube. 

The raylometer was used to measure the direct current flow resistance of acoustic absorbers. This 

fully automated device was capable of measurements over velocities of 0.001–5 meters (0.003–

16.4 feet) per second, which were well beyond the range of raylometers commonly used in industry. 

The pulse impedance tube used a time-domain approach to determine the acoustic characteristics 

of test samples at high sound pressure levels. This was achieved via a high-intensity sound 

source capable of producing pulses up to 170 decibels. 

In the 2 by 2-inch (5 by 5-centimeter) normal incidence impedance tube, sound waves were 

impinged onto the surface of acoustic absorbers mounted onto the end of the apparatus. This 

sound was reflected from the sample, setting up standing wave patterns that were used to 

determine the absorptive qualities of the absorbers. 

The grazing flow impedance tube, a 2 by 2-inch (5 by 5-centimeter) cross-section wind tunnel, 

was used to measure the acoustic properties of sound-absorptive materials in the presence of 

mean flow up to Mach 0.5. The normal incidence and grazing incidence tubes were typically 

operated over a frequency of 500–3,000 hertz with incident sound pressure levels from 100 to 

160 decibels (the maximum level was test-specimen-dependent).358 

358 “Flow Impedance Test Facility; Langley Research Center,” 

http://wte.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/acoustics/fitf.htm (accessed March 6, 2007).

436
The Jet Noise Lab was used to plan and conduct research aimed at understanding, predicting, 

and controlling the noise of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft. The scope of research included 

fundamental theoretical, analytical, and experimental research, as well as applied research in 

support of the High-Speed Research, Advanced Subsonic Technology, and Short Haul (Civil 

Transport) programs. Research emphasized the fluid mechanics and acoustics of jets, nacelle and 

fan aeroacoustics, rotorcraft and propeller noise, airframe noise, and atmospheric sound 

propagation. The objectives of the research were to understand the noise-generation process, 

develop methods for predicting acoustics and flowfields and their interactions, and identify and 

demonstrate noise reduction and control techniques. 

The Quiet Flow Facility was an anechoic open-jet facility designed specifically for acoustic 

testing. The anechoic chamber surrounding the free jet was 9.1 meters (29.5 feet) by 6.1 meters 

(20 feet) by 7.6 meters (24.9 feet) high as measured from acoustic wedge tip to wedge tip. The 

free jet exhausted vertically through an acoustically treated exhaust port in the chamber ceiling. 

Flow-circuit turbulence screens and turning vanes were included to ensure low-turbulence 

airflow. The entire anechoic room was mounted on springs to isolate it structurally from the rest 

of the building to minimize transmission of structure-borne noise into the facility.359 

The Structural Acoustic Loads and Transmission (SALT) facility consisted of an anechoic 

chamber, a reverberation chamber, and a transmission loss (TL) window. The anechoic chamber 

was 4.57 meters (15 feet) high, 7.65 meters (25 feet) wide, and 9.63 meters (31.6 feet) long, as 

measured from wedge tip to wedge tip, for a volume of 337 cubic meters (11,901 cubic feet). 

359 “Quiet Flow Facility,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/acoustics/quiet.htm (accessed August 

8, 2006).

437
The double walls of the chamber (concrete and sheet rock) were designed to provide 54 decibels 

of sound attenuation at 125 hertz. Two 0.21-meter (0.6-foot)-thick, 1.65-meter (1.4-foot)-wide, 

and 3.13-meter (10.3-foot)-high swinging door assemblies with reinforced metal facings and 

interior absorptive materials provided access to the room. More than 4,850 open-cell 

polyurethane acoustic wedges covered the walls, ceiling, and floor in the anechoic chamber. The 

0.914-meter (3-foot)-tall wedges had a 0.3048 by 0.3048 by 0.3048-meter (1 by 1 by 1-foot) base 

with a 0.610-meter (2-foot)-long tapered section for a weight of 1.69 kilograms (3.7 pounds) per 

specimen. Absorption coefficients ranged from 1.19 at 100 hertz to 2.80 at 5,000 hertz. The 

movable partition in front of the TL window was covered with an arrangement of 90 wedges. A 

hemi-anechoic environment could be obtained by removing the wedges from the floor of the 

anechoic chamber. The anechoic and hemi-anechoic chambers provided a free-field or partly 

free-field environment for sound power, sound pressure level, sound intensity, and directivity 

measurements of acoustic sources.

The 278-cubic-meter (9,817-cubic-foot) reverberation chamber was structurally isolated from the 

rest of the building. It measured approximately 4.5 meters (14.8 feet) by 6.5 meters (21.3 feet) by 

9.5 meters (31.2 feet). The chamber walls and ceiling were splayed to diminish the effects of 

standing waves between opposite surfaces, and were separated by a 30-inch (76-centimeter) air 

gap from the surrounding 0.46-meter (1.5-foot)-thick concrete building walls. The total surface 

area of the walls, floor, and ceiling was approximately 290 square meters (3,122 square feet). 

The TL window accommodated 1.41- by 1.41-meter (4.62- by 4.62-foot) test structures to allow 

for sound radiation and sound TL measurements. The TL window frame was installed on four 

438
isolators in the wall of the reverberation chamber. To prevent structural vibrations from 

transmitting into the anechoic chamber, the reverberation and anechoic chambers were connected 

only by a rubber slab. Concrete supports with steel fairings and multiple layers of lead provided 

high noise attenuation.360

The Langley Thermal Acoustic Fatigue Apparatus, a progressive wave tube test facility, was 

used to test structures for dynamic response and sonic fatigue due to combined, high-intensity 

thermal acoustic environments. Before 1994, it supported development of the TPS for the Space 

Shuttle, NASP, and various generic hypersonic vehicle structures. Extensive modifications to the 

sound-generation system and the wave tube itself were made in 1994 and 1995 to improve the 

facility’s performance. After these improvements were completed, it was used for sonic fatigue 

studies of the wing strake subcomponents on the HSCT.361

The Jet Exit Test Facility was an indoor engine/nozzle test stand that combined multiple-flow 

air propulsion simulation with high-pressure and high-mass flow capabilities. It had a flow rate 

of 0.1–40 pounds mass (0.45–18.1 kilograms) per second and a thrust capacity of 1,200 poundsforce (5.3 kilonewtons). The facility was originally designed for single-flow nozzle testing and 

played a significant role in developing advanced aircraft thrust-vectoring propulsion nozzle 

concepts during the period of 1970–1990. It was redesigned in the early 1990s to add the second 

independently controlled air system. Typical test projects during the last decade included the 

following: 

360 “Structural Acoustic Loads and Transmission (SALT) Facility,” 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/acoustics/salt.htm (accessed August 8, 2006).

361 “Thermal Acoustic Fatigue Apparatus,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/acoustics/tafa.htm

(accessed August 8, 2006).

439
• Performance evaluations of advanced multidimensional exhaust systems 

• Calibration of nozzles and components for other applications (such as wind tunnel 

experiments) 

• Flow testing of full-scale fan-engine sectors to evaluate new actuation-system concepts 

• Performance testing of multiple-flow fluidic injection concepts (with core flow and two or 

more independently-controlled secondary flows) for thrust vectoring, plume control, or 

throat-area control 

• Application of suction as a secondary feature for thrust vectoring and performance 

augmentation 

• High-volume, dual-flow propulsion simulations, such as ejector nozzles, and combined core 

and fan exhaust configurations with and without thrust reversing362

Lewis Research Center

The Abe Silverstein 10- by 10-foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel was the largest and fastest wind 

tunnel at Lewis Research Center.363 The 10- by 10- by 40-foot (3.048- by 3.048- by 12.2-meter) 

test section could accommodate large-scale models, full-scale engines, and aircraft components. 

The tunnel was specifically designed to test supersonic propulsion components (such as inlets 

and nozzles), propulsion-system integration, and full-scale jet and rocket engines. It could 

operate as a closed-loop system (aerodynamic cycle) or an open-loop system (propulsion cycle), 

362 “Facility Type: Nozzle Test Stand,” http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/nozzle.htm. Also “Jet Exit Test Facility,” 

http://windtunnels.larc.nasa.gov/facilities_updated/nozzle/jet_exit.htm (both accessed July 5, 2006).

363 The 10 by 10-foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel was renamed for Abe Silverstein in 1994 in recognition of his 

accomplishments. He had been responsible for the Mercury program and all of NASA’s uncrewed satellite programs 

for the first three years of the Agency. In 1956, under his leadership and that of Eugene Wasliewski, the tunnel was 

brought on line. 

440
reaching test-section speeds of Mach 2.0–3.5 and very low speeds from 0 to Mach 0.4. Gust and 

Mach plates were sometimes installed to expand local Mach number conditions between Mach 

1.5 and 4.1. It also allowed continuous operation across the entire speed and altitude regime, 

resulting in greater flexibility and productivity during testing. 

The propulsion cycle mode was used for models that introduced contaminants into the air stream 

or used potentially explosive gas mixtures, or when the tunnel air heater was used to simulate 

flight temperatures. The tunnel operated during this mode by continuously drawing outside air 

through a very large air dryer to remove moisture, and then cooling and exhausting the fumes 

and highly flammable rocket gasses back into the outside environment in a safe, controlled 

discharge through a 24-foot (7.3-meter)-diameter valve that was opened during testing. In this 

mode, engines were tested while running at subsonic and supersonic speeds in the same way they 

would operate in aircraft and spacecraft. The method was used for “hot” tests, such as evaluating 

the viability of the advanced supersonic engine inlet that was a key component of the HSCT.364

In the aerodynamic cycle mode, the tunnel ran as a closed-system, variable-density facility that 

could simulate pressure altitude conditions ranging from 50,000 feet (15,240 meters) to 150,000 

feet (45,720 meters). Dry air was added to maintain test conditions. In closed-cycle operation, 

the tunnel air was recirculated. 

The facility was controlled and operated by a digital distributed control system in order to 

maximize data quality while minimizing operational costs. Steady-state data were collected from 

364 Kristin K. Wilson, “Lewis Mach-Speed Wind Tunnel Tests Supersonic Inlet,” Lewis News 35, no. 3 (March 

1998): pp. 1-2, NASA History Division folder 11713, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC. 

441
the model instrumentation, processed, and displayed in engineering units and graphical formats 

at an update rate of one per second. Transient data with sampling rates of 2 megahertz per second 

and an optical instrumentation suite of capabilities were also used depending on the test 

requirements. To increase test productivity, a test matrix sequencer automatically arranged 

model variables and facility parameters by using a preprogrammed test matrix. Real-time 

transmission and display of all test data and information were provided to customer locations 

outside of Lewis.365

The tunnel began operating in 1956 and was rehabilitated and modernized in 1990. The 

modernization included rewinding and rehabilitating the four 37,000-horsepower main drive 

motors and three 33,500-horsepower secondary drive motors; rehabilitating the main drive 

compressor; installing a new drive motor control, tunnel distributed control system, and wind 

tunnel controls, and upgrading and automating the air dryer.366 Figure 3-47 shows a Mach 5 inlet 

model in the 10- by 10-foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel. 

365 “Abe Silverstein Supersonic Wind Tunnel: Facility Overview,” http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/10x10/index.html

(accessed June 4, 2007). Also “Glenn Research Center Test Facilities,” pp. 16, 41, 

http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/documents/Facilities_Booklet_2005.pdf (accessed June 4, 2007).

366 Chuck Robertson, “Rehabilitation of 10 by 10 Supersonic Wind Tunnel Improves Productivity,” Lewis News, 

December 22, 1989, NASA History Division folder 11713, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

442
Figure 3-47. A researcher checks the configuration of the Mach 5 inlet mounted in the 

10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (NASA-GRC photo C-1992-5734). 

443
The 1- by 1-foot (0.3- by 0.3-meter) Supersonic Wind Tunnel was used to conduct detailed 

fundamental research into supersonic flow, as well as boundary-layer tests derived from the 

internal fluid dynamics of propulsion-system components and hypersonic fluid mechanics. It was 

also used for supersonic-vehicle focused research and detailed benchmark-quality experiments 

for CFD code validation. It went into operation in 1952 and was upgraded in the early 1980s and 

in 1998.367

This tunnel could provide continuous tunnel operation at 10 discrete airspeeds between Mach 1.3 

and (after its 1998 upgrade) Mach 6.0. Researchers could use this tunnel to conduct early proofof-concept tests. If an outcome was promising, they could scale their models for testing in larger 

tunnels, thus avoiding the initial cost of full-scale modeling and testing. The small tunnel size 

also allowed close viewing of tunnel conditions because test articles could be mounted on any of 

the test section’s four walls.368

The Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Complex consisted of two test sections. The 8- by 6-foot 

Supersonic Wind Tunnel was NASA’s only transonic propulsion wind tunnel and enabled 

researchers to explore higher-speed regions of flight. It was used to test advanced aircraft 

concepts and components, engines for high-speed aircraft, and launch-vehicle concepts. The 

tunnel’s thick stainless steel walls could flex in and out, creating a free-stream airflow that could 

reach speeds of Mach 0.25–2.0, as well as very low speeds of 0 to Mach 0.1. Aircraft tested in 

367 S. Jenise Veris, “1x1 Supersonic Wind Tunnel Test Section Upgraded, Lewis News 35, no. 9 (September 1998):

p. 7. Also Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalog, Volume 1, Wind Tunnels, p. 233.

368 “Glenn Research Center Test Facilities,” pp. 17, 41, 

http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/documents/Facilities_Booklet_2005.pdf (accessed June 4, 2007).

444
this facility included the Advanced Turboprop, NASP, Advanced Tactical Fighter, Joint Strike 

Fighter, and HSCT. 

The 8- by 6-foot (2.4- by 1.8-meter) tunnel was built in 1948 and upgraded in 1983 and 1992. 

The 1992 upgrade included a new, improved speed control system that enabled the facility to 

reach full-speed Mach 2 test conditions from startup in only 17 minutes (compared with 26 

minutes previously), resulting in an obvious improvement in productivity. Other improvements 

in productivity were also achieved.369 Figure 3-48 shows an artist’s view of the NASP nozzle in 

the 8- by 6-foot tunnel. 

369 Edward A. Becks, “Drive System Enhancement in the NASA Lewis Research Center Supersonic Wind Tunnels,” 

June 1998, NASA/CR-1998-207929, AIAA-98-2886, pp. 1-2, http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1998/CR-1998-

207929.pdf (accessed August 15, 2006).

445
Figure 3-48. Artist’s depiction of the National Aerospace Plane’s nozzle in the 8- by 6-Foot 

Supersonic Wind Tunnel (NASA photo C-1991-2038). 

The test section of the 9- by 15-foot Low Speed Tunnel, built in 1968, was housed in the return 

leg of the 8- by 6-foot tunnel. It provided continuous airflow from 0 to 175 miles (282 

kilometers) per hour. The facility was used to evaluate the aerodynamic performance and 

acoustic characteristics of nozzles, inlets, and propellers, and investigate hot gas reingestion of 

Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) concepts. The programs supported by 

this facility included a variety of commercial aircraft propulsion systems, the HSCT, the

446
Advanced Tactical Fighter, the Joint Strike Fighter, and other military STOVL aircraft 

applications.370 Figure 3-49 shows a nozzle test in the 9- by 15-foot (2.7- by 4.6-meter) tunnel. 

Figure 3-49. This photo shows a nozzle test with a wing section in the 9- by 15-foot wind tunnel 

(NASA-GRC photo C-1992-205). 

370 “8x6SW T/9x15 LSWT Complex,” NASA Glenn Research Center, NASA History Division folder 11713, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

447
A modernization project initiated in 1989 included the addition of a Distributed Control System 

(DCS) with a DCS operator display cathode ray tube that allowed much more drive information 

to be displayed in a simplified format. This was a valuable tool for studying the real dynamics of 

the tunnel drive system. The complex also began “one-motor operation” in 1995, which reduced 

the drive train speed drastically and drew approximately 60 percent less electrical power for tests 

in which a single motor was appropriate.371 

The Hypersonic Tunnel Facility (HTF), located on 6,400 acres at Lewis’ Plum Brook Station, 

was originally designed to test nuclear thermal rocket nozzles. It was a hypersonic blowdown, 

nonvitiated (clean air) wind tunnel that was capable of testing large-scale propulsion systems 

under true enthalpy flight conditions. The test site had a large exclusion zone that allowed for 

high-energy, high-risk testing.

The facility contained a large experimental infrastructure that could be readily configured to 

meet a variety of ground-test applications, including megawatt-level thermal heating, cooling, 

and electrical systems, and large-capacity gas storage. Test articles could experience multiple gas

flow inputs up to 220 pounds (100 kilograms) per second at temperatures and pressures up to 

3,600°R (1,727°C) and 1,200 psig (8,274 kilopascal) and altitude conditions up to 120,000 feet 

(36,576 meters).372

371 Becks, “Drive System Enhancement in the NASA Lewis Research Center Supersonic Wind Tunnels,” pp. 3–4, 

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1998/CR-1998-207929.pdf (accessed August 15, 2006).

372 The term “psig” stands for “pounds per square inch gauge,” meaning that the pressure is read from a gauge that 

actually measures the difference between the pressure of the fluid and the pressure of the atmosphere.

448
The HTF was equipped to test large-scale propulsion systems and flight-rated structures in 

hypersonic conditions. The main difference between the HTF and other hypersonic facilities was 

that it used nonvitiated (clean air) flow, whereas traditional hypersonic facilities used a 

combustion process to generate the high enthalpy conditions required to simulate hypersonic 

flows. The facility’s large scale was also unique. The test section could accommodate test 

articles up to 14 feet (4.3 meters) long. The large size along with its long run duration allowed 

for full-system testing of large-scale, flight-rated structures and propulsion systems. This 

minimized the potential scaling errors associated with ground testing in hypersonic conditions. 

The HTF also contained NASA’s only large-scale nonreacting heater core, which could be used 

to develop future nuclear thermal propulsion systems. This 3-megawatt heater was fully 

operational and staffed by a fully trained crew.373 

The facility was originally built in 1966 as the Hydrogen Heat Transfer Facility. It was to be

used to develop nuclear rocket engines. In 1971, conversion of the facility into a hypersonic 

wind tunnel for air-breathing propulsion testing was completed. In 1972, the Hypersonic 

Research Engine test program began at the HTF. The program was completed in 1974 and the 

facility went into standby condition. It remained in that condition until 1986, when a study was 

performed to address the steps required to rehabilitate the facility and return it to operational 

status. Work on rehabilitation began in 1990 and was completed in 1994. In 1995, a series of 

integrated systems tests were successfully performed to validate the facility and demonstrate 

operational readiness. In 1996, testing of the Aerojet strutjet rocket-based combined cycle engine 

(RBCC) began at the HTF. The purpose of the test program was to demonstrate the engine’s 

373 “Glenn Research Center Test Facilities,” pp. 18, 41, 

http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/documents/Facilities_Booklet_2005.pdf (accessed June 4, 2007).

449
performance in a free-jet configuration, as well as the HTF’s ability to test an RBCC-type 

engine. More than 40 test runs up to Mach 6.6 were conducted for the program. In September 

1996, during a test run for the RBCC test program, a failure occurred with an HTF component, 

damaging facility systems. Repair work was undertaken in 1997 and completed in 1999. 

Integrated systems tests were successfully completed in 2000 and validated the full operational 

capability of the HTF.374

The Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) was built at the end of World War II to solve aircraft icing 

problems, and it has been in continuous operation since 1944. One of NASA’s most heavily used 

wind tunnels, it continues to play a substantial role in developing, testing, and certifying methods 

to prevent ice buildup and develop next-generation ice protection systems for military and 

commercial aircraft. Tests performed in the IRT included 

• ice protection system development and certification;

• fundamental studies of icing physics; 

• icing prediction validation; 

• investigation of deicing and anti-icing fluids for use on the ground and on aircraft; 

• icing code validation. 

The IRT is a closed-return, atmospheric-type wind tunnel in which natural icing conditions are 

duplicated to study the effects of inflight icing on actual full-size aircraft components and models 

of aircraft, including helicopters. It simulates actual flying conditions by providing airspeeds 

374 Mark R. Woike and Brian P. Willis, “NASA Glenn Research Center’s Hypersonic Tunnel Facility,” in Frank K. 

Lu and Dan E. Marren, ed., Advanced Hypersonic Test Facilities, Paul Zarchan, editor-in-chief, Progress in 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, Volume 198 (Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc,

2002), pp. 428–429.

450
ranging from 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour to 350 miles (563 kilometers) per hour, and air 

temperatures as low as –30°C (–22°F), controllable to within ±1°F (0.6°C). A 12-bladed fan 

25.17 feet (7.67 meters) in diameter, powered by a 5,000-horsepower variable-speed motor, 

generates the airflow. Each blade was fabricated from laminated Sitka spruce.375 The IRT creates 

a uniform test-section icing cloud that is approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters) high by 6 feet (1.8 

meters) wide and consists of supercooled water droplets between 14 and 40 microns in diameter. 

Detailed analyses and electronic storage of ice-shape data, as well as a wide variety of datacollection and observation methods, have been used. Permanent casts and physical tracings of ice 

formation have also been created for extended studies.376 Figure 3-50 shows the inside of the 

IRT.

375 “Virtual Tour of the Glenn Icing Research Tunnel,” http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/IRT/irtfanimages.htm

(accessed 21 August 2006).

376 “Glenn Research Center Test Facilities,” pp. 13, 41, 

http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/documents/Facilities_Booklet_2005.pdf (accessed 4 June 2007). Also “Aeronautics 

Facilities: Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) Quick Facts, http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/atp/facilities/irt/quick.html

(accessed 4 June 2007).

451
Figure 3-50. Inside of the Icing Research Tunnel (NASA-GRC photo C-1993-2215). 

452
The IRT was closed from February 1986 to January 1988 for major modernization, followed by 

nearly seven months of calibration.377 The update added a larger fan motor; improved fan blades, 

computerized tunnel controls, and electronic data acquisition, storage, and processing. Two 

important elements of the installation were the unique heat exchanger and the spray system that 

simulated a natural icing cloud of tiny droplets.378 The modernization increased the tunnel’s 

productivity and provided new test capabilities; by the early 1990s it was directly supporting 

civilian and military manufacturers approximately 60 percent of the time, and operating more 

than 1,000 hours a year. 

The importance of the IRT was demonstrated in the late 1980s and 1990s. In April 1988 and 

February 1990, IRT tests conducted with a Boeing 737 correlated flight results and wind tunnel 

data, and investigated the aerodynamic effects of various deicing fluids. The urgency of 

developing deicing standards became clear following a March 1992 air crash with 27 fatalities. 

In 1992, the FAA formulated rules that became effective in November 1992 specifying the 

length of time that could elapse between deicing and takeoff, based largely on tests conducted 

with NASA’s IRT. NASA also participated in a joint program with McDonnell Douglas 

Aerospace in 1993–1994 on the effects of icing on the performance of advanced, high-lift 

airfoils.379 

Under the leadership of John Reinmann and Robert Shaw, the IRT section investigated the 

phenomena of icing and the development of better tools to predict its effect. A NASA grant 

377 William M. Leary, “We Freeze to Please”: A History of NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for Flight 

Safety (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2002), pp. 99–101.

378 “Virtual Tour of the Glenn Icing Research Tunnel,” http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/IRT/history.htm

(accessed 21 August 2006).

379 Leary, pp. 109–116.

453
enabled the University of Dayton Research Institute to develop the Lewis Ice-Accretion 

(LEWICE) model, which was delivered to NASA and formally released to U.S. industry in May 

1990. Work on LEWICE continued during the 1990s, with new versions released in June 1995 

and February 1999.380 Validation of computer codes during the 1980s and 1990s involved flight 

tests and experiments in the IRT. The IRT was also used extensively in scale modeling 

programs, especially for helicopters. Tests produced useful data and demonstrated that a model 

rotor could be successfully tested in the IRT. 

During the 1990s, the focus shifted from the ground deicing problems of large transports to 

inflight icing difficulties encountered by smaller airplanes. After a fatal crash on 31 October 

1994 that killed the crew and 64 passengers, the National Transportation Safety Board asked the 

Lewis icing branch for technical support in its investigation, especially as it related to icing. The 

investigation marked the beginning of a major program at Lewis to study the icing conditions 

found in freezing drizzle and rain, collectively known as “super-cooled larger droplet (SLD) 

icing.” A series of research flights were conducted from 1994 to 1999 that provided useful 

information about SLD icing conditions. Related research on tailplane icing in the IRT, as well 

as by means of flight tests, was conducted jointly by NASA, the FAA, and Ohio State University 

in the mid and late 1990s. The results of this research were released to the aviation community in 

a video in 1998 and 1999, and have contributed to improved aircraft safety.381

In 1999, NASA Headquarters decided to end the icing flight research program to cut costs. 

However, after a review by NASA’s Office of Inspector General in January 2000 and a 

380 Ibid., pp. 116–119.

381 Leary, pp. 131–147.

454
recommendation in July to resume the program, the decision was reversed.382 Figure 3-51 shows 

an F-414 engine in the IRT. Figure 3-52 shows an icing test of a delta wing. 

Figure 3-51. F-414 engine in the Icing Research Tunnel (NASA-GRC photo C-1995-1204). 

382 Ibid., p. 147. Also Review Report, Review of Research Flight Operations at the Glenn Research Center, 17 July 

2000, IG-00-037, pp. 14–15, http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY00/pdfs/ig-00-037.pdf (accessed 16 August 2006).

455
Figure 3-52. This photo shows an icing test of a delta wing in the Icing Research Tunnel 

(NASA-GRC photo C-95-2932). 

Marshall Space Flight Center 

The 14- by 14-inch Trisonic Wind Tunnel was first used by the U.S. Army in the late 1950s 

under the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA). Capable of operating in the subsonic, 

transonic, and supersonic ranges, the tunnel has supported testing of vehicles such as the 

Redstone, Jupiter, Pershing, and early Saturn, which were tested in the facility in the late 

1950s.383 Under NASA, the 14-inch (35.6-centimeter) tunnel contributed to the Saturn and Space 

Shuttle projects, and proposed future launch-vehicle programs such as the Shuttle-C and the 

383 The facility is also referred to as the Aerodynamic Research Facility.

456
National Launch System. In 1997, X-33 configurations underwent extensive tests in the Trisonic 

Tunnel, with more than 2,500 test runs completed between December 1996 and October 1997.384 

The facility was an intermittent trisonic blowdown tunnel that operated from pressure storage to 

vacuum or atmospheric exhaust. The tunnel could run at subsonic, transonic, and supersonic 

velocities, and two of the interchangeable test sections measured 14 inches (35.6 centimeters) by 

14 inches (35.6 centimeters). The transonic section had interchangeable fixed contour blocks and 

provided for Mach numbers of 0.20–1.96. The supersonic section had fixed contour plates that 

were positioned by hydraulic screw jacks and provided for Mach 2.75–5.00. The trisonic facility 

also had a special test section for a variety of test subjects, including jet interaction and base 

heating investigations. 

Flexibility was a key feature of the tunnel. The large Mach number range required very few 

tunnel changes and allowed the aerodynamics of a rocket or launch vehicle to be determined 

with little difficulty. It had both closed and open test sections, easily removable side walls, and 

variable diffusers, and allowed quick interchange of test sections. Its versatility of design 

allowed for continuous use since it began operations in 1957 for the U.S. Army. It was 

transferred to NASA from the ABMA in 1960.385 The tunnel was still operating at the start of 

2007. Figure 3-53 shows an overview of the tunnel. 

384 Anthony M. Springer, “The George C. Marshall Space Flight Center’s 14x14-Inch Trisonic Wind Tunnel: A 

Historical Perspective,” AIAA-94-0539, 1994. Also “New Test Methods Used in X-33 Development,” Marshall 

Space Flight Center News Releases, Release 97-251, 16 October 1997, 

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1997/97-251.html (accessed 15 August 2006).

385 Springer, pp. 1–2. Also “Aerodynamic Research Facility,” http://ed.msfc.nasa.gov/et/aero2.html (accessed 15 

August 2006).

457
Figure 3-53. This photo shows an overall view of the Marshall 14- by 14-Inch Trisonic Wind 

Tunnel. It is capable of running at subsonic, transonic, or supersonic speeds (NASA-MSFC 

photo MSFC-8891417). 

The Hot Gas Facility (HGF) was first activated in 1976. It was then redesigned and reactivated 

in 1987. It was a nominal Mach 4.1 aerothermal tunnel that burned a lean mixture of gaseous 

hydrogen and missile-grade air. Test conditions closely simulated flight environments for heating 

rates, local pressure, recovery temperature, and run duration. The HGF was used to test solid 

rocket booster and external tank TPS materials and configurations. 

The HGF could simulate aerodynamic heating environments, such as Space Shuttle ascent 

trajectories. During a test, combustion products were expanded from the combustion chamber 

458
through a two-dimensional nozzle into a 16- by 16- by 40-inch (40.6- by 40.6- by 101.6-

centimeter) test section. A Mach 4 flow environment was induced, and 3.5–25 btu per square 

foot per second of convective heating could be obtained. 

The tunnel was upgraded to include a 300-kilowatt radiant heat system, a model insertion system 

with varying wedge angles, and test-section shutter doors to protect the test article from startup 

and shutdown shocks. The improved HGF radiant heat system provided 0–35 btu per square foot 

per second radiant and could be combined with the Mach 4 convective heat inputs, resulting in a 

test facility that was ideally suited for base heating environments. Radiant-only heating with 

programmable vacuum was also available. 

All heating environments could be individually profiled within the parameters of the facility to 

follow a prescribed flight heating profile. If requested, oxygen could be added to the combustor 

flow to maintain 21 percent oxygen. The HGF also offered thermal imaging support to provide 

users with real-time thermal response and gradients of the test article. Test environments could 

also be generated to follow a test article temperature profile. The HGF could provide evaluation 

of thermal performance, including recession rates, heat transfer rates, temperature profiles, and 

structural integrity.386 

The High Reynolds Flow Facility (also called the Ludweig Tube Tunnel and the High Reynolds 

Number Wind Tunnel) was a Ludweig tube impulse-type wind tunnel with two interchangeable 

test sections. Air was stored in a constant-diameter supply tube. A run was initiated by rupturing 

a multilayer Mylar diaphragm, which allowed the air to flow through the test section into a 

386 “Hot Gas Facility,” http://ed.msfc.nasa.gov/et/hotgas.html (accessed 15 August 2006).

459
receiver sphere from which it was exhausted to the atmosphere. Maximum stagnation pressure 

ranged from 550 to 650 pounds per square inch depending on the Mach number, and the 

stagnation temperature was near ambient. It could accommodate a model 30 inches (76.2 

centimeters) long with a span of 18 inches (45.7 centimeters), and had a run time of 0.2–0.6 

seconds depending on the pressure. During the run time, the model was bathed in airflow that 

was constant in pressure and temperature and displayed very little turbulence. One test section 

had variable-porosity perforated walls, and choking flaps permitting testing at supersonic Mach 

numbers of 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.75, and 3.5. The tunnel was built in 1968.387 It was shut down in the 

early 1980s and the majority of its hardware was removed during the early 1990s.388

Space Research and Technology (R&T)

NASA’s space R&T program included activities ranging from initial research conceptualization 

to full-scale testing of prototype equipment in space. The program provided technology for 

future civil space missions and a base of R&T capabilities to serve all national space goals. It 

included identifying, developing, validating, and transferring technologies to increase mission 

safety and reliability, reduce program development and operations costs, enhance mission 

performance, and enable new missions. It provided the capability to advance technologies in 

critical disciplines and respond to unanticipated mission needs. Work was performed by NASA 

staff, university researchers supported by NASA-funded grants and contracts, and industrial 

387 Baals and Corliss, pp. 103–104. Also Peñaranda and Freda, Aeronautical Facilities Catalog, Volume 1, Wind 

Tunnels, p. 138; Andrew Dunar and Stephen P. Waring, “Appendix F: Brief Chronology of Facilities Buildup 

Relating to History of Marshall Space Flight Center (Early 1950s Through 1990),” in Power to Explore: History of 

Marshall Space Flight Center, 1960–1990 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4313, 1999), p. 649, 

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/book/appendf.pdf (accessed 21 February 2007). Entire book available at 

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/book/index.html. 388 James Aaron, former team leader for the Experimental Fluid Dynamics Branch, Marshall Space Flight Center, email to author, 23 February 2007.

460
aerospace organizations under contract to NASA. The program consisted of two complementary 

parts: the R&T base program and focused-technology programs. 

R&T Base

Through the R&T base program, scientists and engineers developed forecasts, usually at a 

subscale level, regarding the potential applicability, usefulness, and overall benefit associated 

with new technologies. A variety of activities provided technological breakthroughs and 

evolutionary technological advances in all of the important space disciplines. Once the potential 

applicability of a new capability was established, decisions were made as to whether to carry it 

over into the focused-technology program.389

The space R&T base program consisted of 10 discipline elements: aerothermodynamics, space 

energy conversion, propulsion, materials and structures, space data and communications, 

information sciences, controls and guidance, human factors, spaceflight, and systems analysis. In 

addition, the University Space Research program was supported by the R&T base. 

Aerothermodynamics 

The objectives of the aerothermodynamics program were to 

• develop and apply advanced computational methods and numerical techniques covering the 

entire spectrum of continuum, transitional, and rarefied flows; 

• develop accurate and detailed real-gas chemistry and high-speed turbulent-flow models and 

efficiently integrate these models with standard computational flow codes; 

389 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 60.

461
• establish a high-quality ground and flight experimental database for code validation and 

verification;

• directly correlate and compare computations with available ground and flight data; 

• establish a detailed aerothermal-loads database and develop fully integrated analysis 

techniques; 

• enhance the ability of engineering design codes advanced configuration analysis to support 

the rapid evaluation of future vehicle and mission concepts. 

Space Energy Conversion

The objective of the space energy program was to develop technology alternatives that would 

improve the performance, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of space power for human space 

operations as well as autonomous Earth-orbiting and planetary exploration.

Propulsion 

The objectives of the propulsion program were to develop and validate accurate analytical 

simulations of the chemical and physical processes that occur in space propulsion systems, and 

to evaluate the potential benefits and feasibility of advanced concepts to improve propulsion 

capabilities well beyond those achievable with current operational systems. The program 

included propulsion systems for advanced transportation systems and planetary ascent vehicles. 

It also focused on Earth-orbiting satellite auxiliary propulsion, which is needed for functions 

such as attitude control and stationkeeping. Finally, part of the program emphasized the 

identification and evaluation of very high-energy advanced propulsion concepts. Such concepts, 

if proven feasible and ultimately practical, would provide a quantum leap in propulsion 

capabilities that would be relevant to a number of applications. 

462
Materials and Structures 

The objective of the Materials and Structures program was to provide technologies that would 

enable the development of future spacecraft, large-area space structures, and advanced space 

transportation systems with significant improvements in performance, efficiency, durability, and 

economy. The major technical areas of materials technology focused on 

• gaining a fundamental understanding of the processing, properties, and behavior of advanced 

space materials, including long-duration synergistic space environmental effects on 

materials;

• developing lightweight, space-durable materials;

• developing computational methods in chemistry to enable the prediction of nondestructive 

measurement science for advanced materials;

• assessing the tribological aspects of various materials’ behavior in the space environment;390

• developing a wide variety of metallic, intermetallic, ceramic, and carbon-carbon materials for 

TPS.

Structures technology focused on 

• developing erectable and deployable structural concepts;

• devising methods for in-space construction, monitoring, and repair of large complex 

structures;

• investigating the dynamics of flexible structures and developing concepts for active 

configuration control and vibration suppression; 

390 Tribology is the science of interacting surfaces in relative motion. The study of friction, wear, lubrication, and 

contact mechanics is an important part of tribology. Related aspects are surface engineering (the modification of a 

component's surface to improve its function, e.g., by applying a surface coating), surface roughness, and rolling 

contact fatigue (where repeated contact causes fatigue to occur).

463
• generating new structural concepts for active cooling of hot structures and cryogenic tanks 

for advanced Earth-to-orbit rocket propulsion systems, hypersonic vehicles, and orbital 

transfer vehicles;

• producing efficient analysis and design methodologies for advanced space structures, 

including multidisciplinary analysis and optimization.

Space Data and Communications 

The Space Data and Communications program emphasized the development of technologies to 

control, process, store, manipulate, and communicate space-derived mission data, and enable 

new communications concepts. 

Information Sciences 

The objective of the Information Sciences program was to provide new concepts, techniques, 

system algorithms and architectures, hardware devices and components, and software to enable 

viable and productive space information systems. Computer science research was conducted in 

the areas of information management, concurrent processing, software engineering, and artificial 

intelligence.

Controls and Guidance 

The objectives of the Controls and Guidance program were to 

• develop and validate advanced control algorithms for future complex spacecraft (e.g., large 

flexible antennas, segmented precision optical telescopes and interferometers, multiinstrument Earth-observing platforms, and space stations); 

• develop computational control tools for spacecraft control-system design, analysis, and 

simulation, where modeling several hundred to thousands of states is required for an accurate 

description; 

464
• produce the technology for advanced sensors and actuators; 

• provide the basis for onboard guidance, navigation, and control techniques for future space 

transportation systems;

• define and develop methodologies for designing and validating highly reliable advanced 

flight-crucial controllers.

Human Factors 

The objectives of the human factors program were to provide a technology base for intelligent 

operator interfaces, especially with highly automated systems, and to develop a new generation 

of high-performance spacesuits, gloves, effectors, and tools to meet the needs of new space 

activities and missions. These goals included developing guidelines for human–machine 

interfaces in spacecraft and workstations, and developing computer-generated models of human 

performance, capabilities, and limitations in weightless or partial-gravity environments. Humanfactors research emphasized crew-station design and extravehicular activities.

Space Flight 

The purpose of the spaceflight program was to flight-test enabling technologies that required the 

actual space environment for validation. 

Systems Analysis

The objectives of the systems-analysis program were to identify technological requirements for 

prescribed mission concepts and opportunities to enable new and improved concepts, to integrate 

these into a comprehensive set of technology planning options, and to generate candidate plans 

to develop these technologies in a timely manner. The program was directed toward the systemsfocused areas of space transportation, spacecraft, and large space systems, as well as emerging 

mission concepts and mission-enabling technologies. Spacecraft systems analysis emphasized 

465
the areas of astrophysics, space physics, Earth science, communications, and solar systems 

exploration. Space transportation systems analyses were focused on advanced Earth-to-orbit 

(ETO) vehicles, aeroassist space transfer vehicles, and conceptual design and analysis methods 

for advanced space transportation systems.

University Space Research

A key element of the space R&T base program was developing and sustaining a strong 

partnership with the university community. The University Space Research program enhanced 

and broadened the capabilities of the engineering community through active research 

participation in the U.S. civil space program. The program provided support to selected 

universities that helped to “research and develop technologies relevant to operational bases on 

the Moon, to spaceflight missions to other parts of the solar system, and to spaceflight operations 

in the future, such as envisioned by the National Commission on Space.”391 

In April 1988, nine University Space Engineering Research Centers were competitively selected 

to participate in the program. Among the technologies developed was a method to combine 

fragile carbon fibers with hardened resin to create strong, lightweight, damage-tolerant, heatresistant materials that were stronger than their individual components. This material was

developed for possible use in constructing a Mars-bound spacecraft that would be developed at 

the Mars Mission Research Center at North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T 

University in FY 1991. Another technological development, made by faculty members and 

graduate students at the University of Cincinnati, consisted of a series of microsensors to indicate 

the health of components on spacefaring vehicles, including monitoring gas and liquid fuel flows 

inside a Shuttle engine and its associated support systems. Spinoff applications, such as in the 

391 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 65.

466
care of premature infants, were being investigated at the University of Cincinnati’s Medical 

Center.392 In FY 1992, students and faculty at the University of Michigan made progress toward 

developing devices to measure the chemical makeup of the upper atmosphere, which would be 

useful for studying global-change issues such as ozone depletion.393

NASA ended base grant funding for the University Space Engineering Research Centers in 1995. 

Support for ongoing degree programs ended in 1997.394

Focused-Technology Programs 

Focused-technology development programs were based on the identified and projected needs of 

both current and future space missions. Technologies were developed for specific applications 

and products were delivered in the form of software, large-scale hardware technology 

demonstrations, and design techniques and methods. In the early part of the decade, the Civil 

Space Technology Initiative (CSTI) and the In-Space Technology Experiments (In-STEP) 

program were the primary focused programs. In addition, the Exploration Technology program 

(formerly called Pathfinder), provided technology for future potential space missions. 

CSTI 

CSTI began in 1988 and was initially broken down into five technological areas: space science, 

exploration/planetary surface, space platforms, transportation, and operations.395 It focused on 

developing technologies to enable efficient, reliable access to Earth orbit, enhance operations in 

Earth orbit, and increase the effectiveness of science missions from Earth orbit. Through 1990, 

392 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, pp. 65–66.

393 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities, p. 24.

394 “Space Technology University Programs,” http://ranier.hq.nasa.gov/Sensors_page/University/Univ.html

(accessed 18 August 2006).

395 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 60. 

467
CSTI was organized into programs for automation and robotics, information technology, 

propulsion, vehicle, large structures and control, and power. In 1991, a realignment changed the 

programs to operations (incorporating power and controls/structures interaction, an area of large 

structures and controls), transportation (incorporating propulsion and vehicle), science 

(incorporating information technology and precision segmented reflectors, an area of large 

structures and controls), and automation and robotics. 

In 1992, automation and control broke off from the CSTI program and became an independent 

program called Space Automation and Telerobotics. It included the telerobotics and artificial 

intelligence programs and technology demonstration elements of the Flight Telerobotic Servicer 

program, which previously had been part of the Space Station Freedom program. It lasted as an 

independent program only until 1993, when it moved back to the CSTI program. In 1993, a 

restructuring incorporated activities that were formerly supported by the Exploration Technology 

and Space Automation and Telerobotics programs into the Planetary Surface and Transportation 

Technology programs and the Operations Technology program, respectively.

In-STEP

The In-STEP program began in 1990. The program was part of NASA’s space R&T maturation 

strategy and played an important role in the transition of technology from research and 

development into flight systems. It advanced technological concepts that had been developed in 

NASA, industry, and university facilities. Such concepts required flight evaluations and 

validations to reduce the risk of incorporating them into advanced space systems.396 In late 1992 

to early 1993, NASA selected 52 proposals to develop small-technology flight experiments for 

396 “STS-62,” March 1994, p. 23, NASA History Division folder 11035, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

468
the program. The awards covered eight areas of technology identified as a high priority by 

NASA’s customers.397 In-STEP ended in 1993 as an independent program when it moved into 

the space R&T base, and in FY 1995 it moved into flight programs. 

Exploration Technology 

The Exploration Technology program began in the fall of 1988 as the Pathfinder program. This 

program supported President Bush’s National Space Policy, which directed NASA to begin 

planning for future solar system exploration missions. NASA stated that the goal of the 

Exploration Technology program was to develop “the critical technologies required for future 

solar system exploration missions including establishment of a base on the Moon and manned 

exploration of the planet Mars.”398 

Space Station/Space Platforms Technology 

The Space Station Technology area addressed the technologies needed to increase safety and 

human productivity on the space station, enhance its productivity and efficiency as a laboratory 

and testbed for science and technology, and enable future growth. In 1990, a significant 

accomplishment in the area of artificial-intelligence applications was the laboratory 

demonstration of the first dual-arm telerobotic manipulator. The arms had seven degrees of 

manipulative freedom and could be used in both teleoperator and robotic modes to perform 

external maintenance tasks. Another important achievement was the development of a highfidelity graphics phantom robot that used the latest graphics display techniques to simulate dualarm robotic action in response to teleoperator commands, and thus enable precise planning of 

telerobotic tasks.

397 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 32.

398 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 55. Also Aeronautics and Space Report 

of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 63.

469
A new space construction technique developed by Langley Research Center and demonstrated in 

the neutral-buoyancy facility at Marshall Space Flight Center used an astronaut mobility 

platform on either side of a general-purpose mobile transporter. The platforms were suspended 

from the transporter by arms that enabled the astronauts to have fully controlled planar motion 

along the truss bay. The transporter held magazines that automatically dispensed each truss 

element as needed. After a section was constructed, the transporter would crawl along the 

recently constructed structure and become a platform for the construction of a new segment. 

Researchers claimed that this device could enable astronauts to construct large structures, such as 

the space station truss, seven times faster than the fully manual method then planned. Another 

space-platforms accomplishment was the first ground test of an integrated space solar dynamics 

power system, which was critical for the solar dynamic flight experiment on Shuttle-Mir. 

In 1990, germanium metal was tested as a new material for thermal energy storage, which was to 

be used to increase the power capability of the space station. The highly corrosive action of 

germanium on common container materials was overcome by encapsulating the germanium in 

graphite.399

Space and Earth Science Technology 

In 1990, the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program issued a report stating 

that science was the center point of the entire civil space effort.400 The Space and Earth Science 

Technology area focused on developing advanced observation information, spacecraft, and 

operations technologies to maximize the return from NASA’s space and Earth science missions 

399 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 54.

400 Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future 

of the U.S. Space Program, December 1990, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/augustine/racfup1.htm

(accessed 15 March 2005).

470
over the next 20 years.401 It supported technological developments, expanding capabilities and 

reduced costs through disciplinary advances, increased science information return and spacecraft 

performance, and enabled the next generation of space science missions in these program areas. 

It aimed at developing space-based instrument component and detector technologies to enable 

new space science measurements, and space instrument support and observation technologies to 

maximize scientific returns from these missions. This emphasis included spacecraft and remotesensing encompassing technologies that advanced spacecraft in support of NASA’s MTPE, space 

science missions, and space platform applications. It focused particularly on lower-power 

spacecraft that were physically smaller and less expensive, but more capable. This area 

developed technologies in advanced composites and integrated spacecraft design concepts, and 

demonstrated micro-instruments. 

In 1990, the Spacecraft Health Automated Reasoning Prototype (SHARP), an expert system 

designed to monitor the condition of interplanetary spacecraft and ground operations, 

demonstrated a leap in automation technology during Voyager’s encounter with Neptune. The 

SHARP system automatically confirmed that a problem had occurred in the attempt to recover 

and process data from Voyager transmissions from Neptune. It defined the magnitude of the 

problem and helped determine the cause of the malfunction (a specific failed electronic unit on 

the ground, which was replaced). The process of identifying and isolating the problem was much 

less laborious and time-consuming than it would have been using traditional methods.402

401 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 61.

402 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 52.

471
In 1990, a submillimeter-wavelength, backward-wave oscillator (BWO) prototype was 

demonstrated. This enabled the design of a high-frequency oscillator that was capable of 

achieving significant power while being continuously tunable at submillimeter wavelengths. As a 

result, sensors could be developed in the use of very high-frequency submillimeter wavelengths 

for the space spectroscopy required for space astrophysics, upper-atmosphere remote sensing, 

and solar system exploration. 

Researchers at Lewis Research Center built upon a previous record of 22 percent efficiency in a 

prism-covered gallium arsenide cell operating in a simulated space solar intensity, and developed 

a domed Fresnel lens that provided a working concentration ratio of 100:1. The use of this plastic 

lens allowed cheaper, lighter-weight concentrator arrays for high-efficiency operation to be built. 

At the same time, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) worked to develop an ultra-lightweight, 

high-performance, advanced, deployable, photovoltaic-array design that would be suitable for a 

broad range of long-term space applications. The goal was to achieve a specific power of 130 

watts per kilogram, which was about six times higher than most arrays and twice as high as the 

high-performance experimental Solar Array Flight Experiment (SAFE) NASA flew on the Space 

Shuttle in 1984. Analysis based on the components built and the detailed engineering drawings 

indicated that TRW, under contract to JPL, achieved the goal of 130 watts per kilogram.403

Technologies developed by the program were key to developing the star trackers used on the 

December 1990 Astro-1 Space Shuttle mission. The Astro star tracker became especially 

important for mission success when problems with the prime star trackers prevented the 

403 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, pp. 52–53.

472
instrument pointing system from locking onto the operational guide stars. The Astro star tracker 

then became the primary means of acquiring a target.

Researchers also demonstrated a diode-pumped, two-micron, solid-state laser that was being 

investigated for potential use in NASA’s Earth Science program. Possible applications included 

the measurement of global winds and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In FY 1991, 

researchers demonstrated 2.122-micron lasing at 30°C (86°F) with good efficiency. Additional 

experiments demonstrated for the first time both high efficiency and gain for the same laser 

amplifier. The laser obtained optical gains of 10 for low amounts of incident light. These 

accomplishments enabled eye-safe lidars (light detecting and ranging laser radar) with greater 

range and sensitivity.404 

In 1992, engineers baselined the technology for a high-efficiency, low-power traveling-wave 

tube amplifier to transmit all the Cassini data from Saturn back to Earth. The new amplifier used 

technology that would increase output and efficiency and recover energy being used for data 

transmission for reuse. Such advances would enable Cassini to return more data to Earth with 

low distortion and less energy than was used at the time, enhancing scientific returns.405

In the area of aerothermodynamics, NASA engineers used computer simulation to plan the 

aerobraking of the Magellan spacecraft so as to move it into a lower, more circular orbit around 

Venus with little use of the minimal fuel on board, thereby enhancing the mapper’s resolution.406

404 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, pp. 61–62.

405 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1993), p. 20.

406 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities, p. 20.

473
In support of future astronomical missions, NASA’s Space Science Technology program 

completed low background tests for an imaging array. This technology would directly enhance 

scientific returns through a large format that would allow simultaneous imaging of four times as 

much area as the then-current state-of-the-art technology. The program also demonstrated a 

simple control algorithm that could reduce the vibrations of current flight coolers for sensitive 

instruments by a factor of 2,000.407

In FY 1994, analysis of data from the retrieved Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) was 

completed.408 This data analysis was one component of the larger technical area of space 

environment and effects, a program initiated in FY 1995 as a follow-on to LDEF that focused on 

reducing the design and operations margins needed to account for uncertainties in the effects of 

space and the environment. The products delivered in FY 1995 included a contamination control 

guideline for spacecraft design; the completed development of white and black, tailorable 

electrically conductive thermal control coatings; and an integrated database for environmental 

effects and spacecraft materials. The coatings were particularly noteworthy because no 

conductive coatings had been available before to reduce either the structure floating potential or 

spacecraft charging (a significant cause of spacecraft failures in geosynchronous orbit). 

In September 1994, in the Earth science area, two radar flights and the successful flight of the 

Laser In-Space Technology Experiment (LITE) on the Space Shuttle laid the groundwork for an 

effort to reduce the mass and size of active (laser and radar) sensing instruments and make them 

407 Ibid., p. 20.

408 LDEF was deployed from the Space Shuttle in 1984 on STS-41-C. Its planned retrieval was temporarily delayed 

in 1985 and then indefinitely delayed by the Challenger accident in 1986. It was finally retrieved in January 1990 on 

the STS-32 mission.

474
compatible with the new paradigm of small space missions.409 LITE was the primary payload on 

STS-64 and the first spaceborne lidar to measure critical atmospheric parameters. It captured 

unprecedented atmospheric data that were provided to the Earth Observation System (EOS) 

program for correlation with ground data.410 The same year, NASA competitively selected an 

industry concept for an advanced infrared telescope with twice the collecting area, half the mass, 

and one-third the diffraction-limited wavelength of the previously flown Infrared Astronomy 

Satellite (IRAS). 

In FY 1995, NASA’s Instrument and Sensing Technology program demonstrated large-format 

infrared arrays, which could be produced for both Earth science and astrophysics missions. A 

new 256- by 256-element array with the potential for reducing the mass, power requirements, 

and complexity of Earth-observing instruments in the 15- to 20-micron range, which is critical 

for studying Earth’s environment from space, was demonstrated. In addition, progress in 

developing microelectromechanical systems components led to a flight demonstration of a 

microhygrometer that outperformed current, large instruments.411

During the same period, Ames Research Center developed software that planned, scheduled, 

controlled, and monitored telescopes. It was used on four telescopes at Fairborn Observatory in 

Arizona. All U.S. manufacturers of automated telescopes were also using the technology. 

Additionally, Ames developed a super-resolution algorithm that was applied to a sequence of 

409 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1994 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1995).

410 “Flight Programs,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 5-32. 411 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration [no date]), p. 30.

475
21 images of the asteroid Gaspra taken by Galileo. The resulting images showed craters and 

other features with a far greater resolution than any of the individual input images.412

Also in FY 1995, a major strategic change within NASA shifted emphasis to enabling 

technologies for the next generation of planetary, Earth-observing, and space science spacecraft, 

which would be much smaller than the traditional 1,000-kilogram (2,200-pound)-class spacecraft 

and launched on small to medium ELVs. The next-generation spacecraft would also be much 

more autonomous than current spacecraft to reduce the overall life-cycle cost.413

Exploration Technology/Planetary Surface 

The objective of NASA’s Exploration Technology/Planetary Surface activities was to develop 

the critical technologies needed for future solar system exploration missions, including human 

exploration of Mars and establishing a base on the Moon. This program, which supported 

President Bush’s Space Exploration Initiative, began in the fall of 1988 as the Pathfinder 

program. 

Through FY 1991, the Exploration Technology program supported the SP-100 program, an 

ongoing NASA, DOD, and DOE space nuclear power research and development program. In 

1990, it successfully completed key accelerated life testing of reactor fuel pin elements. With no 

appreciable swelling of the fuel pins even after a 5 percent fuel burnup, the tests demonstrated 

that lifetimes of seven years should be achievable with SP-100 technology. In FY 1991, 

researchers completed the fuel pin design and fabrication process for the reactor, achieving the 

412 “Spacecraft and Remote Sensing,” Office of Space Access and Technology, Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-23.

413 “Spacecraft and Remote Sensing,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-14.

476
design goal of burnup to 6 percent with prototypic fuel in representative fuel pins, and 

completing development of uranium nitride fuel pellets for a generic 100-kilowatt electric space 

reactor power system. The program also successfully demonstrated the bonding of the fuel pin 

cladding to the rhenium liner. The liner was needed to protect the fuel pins from fusion gases.414

The program ended in FY 1994. 

Preliminary technology development took place in the sensor areas of the Sample Acquisition, 

Analysis, and Preservation program. A spectrometer breadboard for visible and near-infrared 

sensing was completed and demonstrated. This could be applied to sensor systems for early 

robotic sampling missions on Mars. Tests were also conducted on rock-coring techniques and 

parameters using robotic arms and drill fixtures in a laboratory environment. 

In addition, in 1990, the Exploration Technology program’s planetary rover effort completed 

fabrication and began testing two experimental mobile robot concepts: a multichassis, sixwheeled rover concept and a six-legged walking rover concept. Both rovers traveled over gentle 

and rugged terrain during the testing phase. In FY 1991, a milestone was reached as researchers 

developed and demonstrated a semiautonomous navigation system for robotic wheeled planetary 

rovers, and tested the vehicle on a 100-meter (328-foot) test course. This was the first use of an 

autonomous navigation and control system for recognizing and traversing natural terrains 

without human teleoperation. The legged rover, known as Ambler, demonstrated high mobility 

and an ability to cross large obstacles while using less power.415 As a step toward accomplishing 

the Mars Pathfinder mission, in FY 1995 a NASA planetary rover conducted a 10-kilometer (6.2-

414 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 64.

415 Ibid.

477
mile) autonomous trip across natural terrain, with human control limited to designating the 

vehicle’s heading and end goal. A Mars-like planetary rover demonstrated several 100-meter 

(328-foot) autonomous trips over simulated Martian terrain. A lunar rover prototype was also 

developed.416 

The program also continued to develop, in conjunction with industrial partners, a robotically 

assisted microsurgery system that could precisely manipulate surgical tools for ocular surgery. 

The manipulations were constrained to a 1-cubic-inch (16.3-cubic centimeter) work envelope 

and had to achieve very high levels of precision and repeatability. NASA was developing such 

robotic surgery tools for potential use in telemedicine on long-duration human space missions.417

The space telerobotics program completed development and integration of the Tesselator, a 

robotic system designed to inspect and process the thermal protection tiles on the Space Shuttle 

orbiter, and delivered the system to Kennedy Space Center. Additionally, the program developed 

an autonomous surface-inspection technology for robotic examination of exposed surfaces on 

space structures, and delivered the inspection technology to the space station program at Johnson 

Space Center. The program also completed initial development of a neutral-buoyancy 

engineering vehicle for the Ranger telerobotic technology and began testing the system in the 

Neutral Buoyancy Research Facility at the University of Maryland.

In the area of human support in space, an exercise facility for studying the human metabolic 

response to orbital extravehicular activity (EVA) work was completed in 1990 at Ames Research 

416 “Spacecraft and Remote Sensing,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-23.

417 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 31.

478
Center. The facility simulated EVA work to obtain human metabolic responses. The results were 

used to design thermoregulatory control methods that would more accurately reflect the EVA 

work requirements and make spacesuits more comfortable for the astronauts, particularly on 

lengthy EVA missions.418

Researchers in FY 1991 developed a systems analysis tool in the area of regenerative life support 

that could perform rigorous system and technology trade-off analyses quickly and inexpensively. 

The modeling tool allowed investigators to identify the relative benefits of each technology 

without having to commit to costly hardware designs. It was shown to be versatile for analyzing 

a wide variety of regenerative life-support systems, including potential systems for both lunar 

and Mars base missions (such as carbon dioxide removal and reduction, oxygen generation, 

potable water processing, hygiene water, and human waste processing).419

Space Transportation Technology 

Space Transportation Technology activities focused on providing safer and more efficient access 

to space while reducing the overall costs associated with a space launch. These efforts addressed 

the technology required to design a new fleet of space vehicles, including new expendable and 

partially reusable cargo launch vehicles; fully reusable, crewed vehicles; and expendable and 

reusable space transfer vehicles. Activities emphasized the development of more efficient vehicle 

structures; lightweight, more durable thermal protection materials; and lightweight, long-lived 

cryogenic tanks. They also focused on critical technologies related to Earth-to-orbit propulsion 

and transfer vehicles, including space-based research and terrestrial applications in materials 

processing and biotechnology through experiments using the space environment. A goal was to 

418 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, pp. 55–56.

419 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 64.

479
help develop next-generation super- and semiconductors, special coatings and composites, 

polymers, alloys, and new catalytic materials. Studies indicated that significant weight and cost 

savings could result from recent accomplishments in materials and structures technology. For 

example, in 1990, panels of aluminum alloy were superplastically formed into stiffeners and 

spot-welded to aluminum skin structures. Additionally, tests indicated that these structural 

components would be useful for fabricating cryogenic tanks for space transportation vehicles. 

Space propulsion technology researchers in 1989 and 1990 demonstrated a high-temperature, 

oxidation-resistant coating for uncooled, bipropellant thrusters. The advanced thrust chambers 

increased the life of the thrusters by a factor of 10 and specific impulse by at least 10 percent 

over existing thruster capability. This could be done because the oxidation-resistant iridium 

coating enabled the use of rhenium, which can operate at temperatures up to 4,000°F 

(2,204°C)—approximately twice the temperature of conventional materials—but alone cannot 

withstand the effects of oxidation. The program also investigated the feasibility of extending the 

operating life of the Shuttle’s reaction control system vernier engines by replacing the silicidecoated niobium chambers with ones made of iridium-coated rhenium. Results showed that 

iridium-rhenium technology could eliminate or significantly reduce vernier chamber 

replacements.420

The same year, a lifting-body design for an Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) for Space 

Station Freedom was analyzed. The assessment involved wind tunnel studies and trajectory, 

performance, structural, and subsystems analyses.

420 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 53.

480
The first successful operation of a compact, high-speed, liquid-oxygen turbopump with a gaseous 

oxygen drive was achieved in 1990. This type of turbine, which pumps liquid but is driven by 

gas, was crucial in the development of a high-performance expander cycle engine for future 

deep-space exploration.421

The Advanced Space Transportation program, which included the Low-Cost Booster 

Technology (LCBT) project and the Advanced Reusable Transportation Technologies project, 

began in early 1996. Its goal was to “dramatically reduce space transportation costs across the 

mission spectrum” and at a “cost-to-orbit measured in hundreds, not thousands, of dollars per 

pound.”422 In April 1996, Marshall Space Flight Center released a NASA Research 

Announcement (NRA) for low-cost booster technologies for its Bantam System Technology 

Project. The goal was to identify readily available technologies and demonstrate their use for a 

propulsion system capable of lifting approximately 500 pounds (227 kilograms) to orbit for 

about $1 million. The project looked to small businesses that were not traditionally associated 

with aerospace as well as to traditional aerospace companies for “fresh ideas and innovative 

approaches” to a new low-cost launch system for small payloads. It hoped to adapt common 

manufacturing techniques and existing commercial hardware to aerospace applications, and 

perhaps save “millions of dollars.”423 A technology demonstration flight was targeted for late 

1999. 

421 Ibid., pp. 55–56. 422 “Advanced Space Transportation Technology,” Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, p. SAT 4.2-5.

423 “Low Cost Technologies,” Marshall Space Flight Center Fact Sheet: FS-1997-06-004-MSFC, June 1997, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/lct.html (accessed 25 August 2006).

481
The project was divided into two phases. The first phase called for proposals for components, 

including an engine, propellant delivery systems, tanks, pressurization and pneumatic systems, 

associated structures, and electronics.424 On 26 July 1996, Marshall Space Flight Center selected 

15 proposals for negotiation leading to a possible contract award for its LCBT project.425 Seven 

first-cycle proposals and two second-cycle proposals were awarded, and the first agreement was 

signed in October 1996. The project also included development of the engine for the X-34 RLV 

at an initial budget of $18.9 million.426 

An NRA for the second phase was released early in 1997. It called for proposals to develop 

technologies for a launch system that would integrate new technologies with technologies that 

were developed in the first phase.427 In June, Marshall selected four companies—Universal 

Space Lines, Summa Technology, Aerojet-General, and Pioneer Rocketplane—for negotiations 

leading to contact awards for the initial design of a flight demonstrator of new low-cost launch 

system technologies.428 The Hybrid Propulsion Demonstration program, which began under a 

separate project in FY 1995, was incorporated into the LCBT project in FY 1996. The Hybrid 

program was conducted under a cooperative agreement among NASA, the DOD, and U.S. 

424 “NASA Seeks Low-Cost Propulsion Technology From Unlikely Sources,” Marshall Space Flight Center News 

Releases, Release 96-32, 29 April 1996, http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1996/96-032.html (accessed 

3 July 2006). Also “Low Cost Technologies,” Marshall Space Flight Center Fact Sheet: FS-1997-06-004-MSFC, 

June 1997, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/lct.html (accessed 25 August 2006).

425 “Nine Companies To Demonstrate Small, Low Cost Launch System Technologies, NASA News Release 96-146, 

25 July 1996, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1996-96-146.txt (accessed 30 June 2006).

426 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Space Transportation: Critical Areas NASA Needs to Address in Managing Its 

Reusable Launch Vehicle Program—Statement of Allen Li, director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, on 

NASA’s X-33 and X-34 Programs, GAO-01-826T, 20 June 2001, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01826t.pdf

(accessed 4 June 2007).

427 “NASA Asks for Industry Ideas To Put Small Payloads into Orbit at Lowered Costs,” Marshall Space Flight 

Center News Releases, Release 97-017, no date, c. March 1997, 

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1997/97-017.html (accessed 3 July 2006).

428 “NASA Selects Four Companies To Demonstrate Low Cost Launch System Technologies,” Marshall Space 

Flight Center News Releases, Release 97-096, 9 June 1997, http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1997/97-

096.html (accessed 3 July 2006).

482
industry. Its objective was to demonstrate hybrid propulsion technology to enable the 

commercialization of hybrid boosters for space launch operations by U.S. industry.429

An additional NRA for advanced reusable transportation technologies that would use a 

combination of air-breathing and rocket engines to reduce the weight and cost of future launch 

vehicles was released in April 1996.430 Four rocket-based, combined-cycle propulsion systems 

were selected for proof-of-concept ground demonstrations in late FY 1997.431 Over the next two 

years, the selected companies worked to develop their concepts in both areas. By the end of 

1998, they had not yet completed their development efforts.

Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) 

The development of RLV technology was a major focus of NASA’s space R&T program. NASA 

Administrator Goldin initiated the “Access to Space” study in 1993 to identify alternative, less 

expensive approaches for gaining access to space that would also increase safety for flight crews. 

The study report was released in January 1994, followed later that year by the first executive 

policy specifically recommending the development of an RLV. On 5 August 1994, President 

Clinton released a National Space Transportation Policy document giving NASA responsibility 

for developing and demonstrating new RLVs to replace the Space Shuttle.432 In response, NASA 

established the RLV Technology program in late 1994 to develop and flight-test experimental 

RLVs. The DOD worked with NASA on this program, bringing expertise in such areas as flight429 “Advanced Space Transportation Technology,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology, 

Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, p. SAT 4.2-6.

430 “NASA Selects Five Organizations To Develop Technologies for an Air-Breathing Rocket Engine,” Marshall 

Space Flight Center News Releases, Release 96-57, 11 July 1996, 

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1996/96-057.html (accessed 3 July 2006).

431 “Advanced Space Transportation Technology,” Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, p. SAT 4.2-11.

432 The White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Presidential Decision Directive, National Science 

and Technology Council (NSTC)-4, National Space Transportation Policy, 5 August 1994, 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nstc4.htm (accessed 28 June 2006).

483
testing, operations, and composite structures. Private industry also participated in the partnership 

to develop a new generation of launch vehicles. The program consisted of the Delta ClipperExperimental Advanced (DC-XA), X-34, X-33, and related long-term technology development 

efforts. 

Delta Clipper

The Delta Clipper Experimental (DC-X) program, which was initiated by the Ballistic Missile 

Defense Organization (BMDO) in 1990, supported NASA’s RLV program. It successfully tested 

an experimental suborbital launch vehicle in a series of flight tests beginning in 1993. The early 

RLV efforts were conducted by the U.S. Air Force Phillips Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force 

Base, New Mexico, under the auspices of the BMDO Single-Stage Rocket Technology program. 

This program’s charter was to demonstrate the practicality, reliability, operability, and costefficiency of a fully reusable, rapid-turnaround, single-stage rocket. Its ultimate goal was to 

develop RLVs that could perform aircraft-like operations. The program focused on using 

existing technologies and systems to demonstrate the feasibility of building suborbital- and 

orbital-flight RLVs that could fly into space, return to the launch site, and be serviced and ready 

for the next mission within three days. 

As the result of a design and risk-reduction competition, a $60 million contract was awarded to 

McDonnell Douglas in August 1991 to build the DC-X. The DC-X design emphasized simplified 

ground and flight operations and vehicle maintenance, rapid turnaround, and operational 

characteristics that would also be relevant for future orbital vehicles. 

484
The flight-test program began in mid-1993. It started with low-altitude hover flights that 

gradually increased in altitude and duration, and eventually performed suborbital flights to 

approximately 18,000 feet (5,486 meters). The DC-X flew a total of eight test flights in 1993, 

1994, and 1995. The 1995 flights supported NASA’s RLV program. The test flight on 27 June 

1994 experienced an on-board fire and successfully demonstrated the vehicle’s autoland 

capabilities. On 12 June 1995, the vehicle climbed to 5,700 feet (1,737 meters) and demonstrated 

for the first time the use of four gaseous oxygen-hydrogen thrusters.433 On the 7 July 1995 flight, 

following a successful flight demonstrating the vehicle’s ability to turn itself around and reverse 

direction, the aeroshell cracked during landing, damaging the vehicle and ending the tests. At the 

conclusion of this test, the DC-X was officially turned over to NASA, which returned the vehicle 

to McDonnell Douglas for conversion into the DC-XA.434 

The DC-XA was a modified DC-X with technology intended for use in the X-33 and X-34 RLVs 

that were being developed by NASA and its industry partners. The DC-XA had a lightweight 

graphite-epoxy liquid-hydrogen tank and an advanced graphite/aluminum honeycomb intertank 

built by McDonnell Douglas, an aluminum-lithium liquid-oxygen tank built by Energia, and an 

improved reaction control system from Aerojet. These improvements reduced the dry vehicle 

mass by 620 kilograms (1,367 pounds). NASA and the DOD operated the DC-XA under 

NASA’s RLV program. The flight vehicle was tested at White Sands, New Mexico, during the 

summer of 1996. It demonstrated a short 26-hour turnaround time between its second and third 

flights, a record for any rocket. Figure 3-54 shows the first DC-XA test flight.

433 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 26.

434 “DC-X Fact Sheet,” BMDOLINK, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/dcx-facts.htm (accessed 22 

March 2005). 

485
Figure 3-54. First flight of the Delta Clipper-Experimental Advanced (DC-XA), 18 May 1996 

(NASA-MSFC photo MSFC-9607854). 

The DC-XA flew until it was destroyed. During its fourth demonstration flight on 31 July 1996, 

a landing strut failed to extend, causing the unbalanced vehicle to tip over on its landing pad. The 

liquid-oxygen tank exploded and there were indications of secondary explosions in the liquidhydrogen tank. The ensuing fire damaged large sections of the vehicle. An investigation board 

later determined that an unconnected helium pressurant line that supplied hydraulic pressure to 

extend the landing strut caused the explosion. The program ended due to lack of funding to build 

a new vehicle.

X-34 

The X-34 program, also known as the Reusable Small Booster program, was to bridge the gap 

between the earlier subsonic DC-XA vehicle and the larger and higher-performance X-33 

demonstrator. It was to demonstrate the application of RLV technologies through the design and 

486
flight-testing of fully autonomous vehicles capable of achieving up to Mach 8 and 250,000 feet 

(76,200 meters) altitude.435 The technologies would significantly reduce the cost of access to 

space. It was anticipated that the air-launched X-34 would demonstrate technologies and 

operations that could cut launch costs from $10,000 per pound in 1999 to $1,000 per pound.436

The X-34 program also served as a testbed for a number of new reusable launcher technologies 

and supported the commercial development of low-cost RLVs in the small payload class that 

would be achieved through an industry-led partnership between NASA and industry. The 

partnership would last 30–36 months and have a fixed government budget.437 

On 12 January 1995, NASA issued a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) requesting 

proposals for the development of technology demonstrators for the RLV program. Sponsored by 

the Office of Space Access and Technology, the X-34 CAN intended to (1) stimulate joint 

industry/government-funded development of a small reusable, or partially reusable, booster that 

would potentially be applicable to commercial launch vehicles and significantly reduce mission 

costs for placing small payloads into a low-Earth orbit, and (2) demonstrate technologies that 

would be applicable to future RLV systems. Some of these technologies could be demonstrated 

as a part of the basic booster design, while others would be included in the testbed application of 

435 R. Bryan Sullivan and Brian Winters, “X-34 Program Overview,” Orbital Sciences Corporation, AIAA-1998-

3516, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 34th, Cleveland, OH, 13–15 July 1998, 

NASA History Division folder 18559, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

436 “X-34 Rocket Plane Update: NASA, Summa Technology, Inc. Sign $11 Million Contract For Fastrac Engine 

Flight Program,” Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990804184711.htm. Also Frank 

Bokulich, “X-34 Is on the Fastrac,” Aerospace Engineering Online, http://www.sae.org/aeromag/spacetech/ (both 

accessed 6 March 2007).

437 John R. London III and Stephen D. Creech, “X-34 Program Status,” American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics, AIAA-1998-5211, Report No. IAF-98-V-4-04, October 1998, NASA History Division folder 18559, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also Andrew Buttrica, “The Policy Origins 

of the X-33; Part VII: The X-34,” X-33 History Project Fact Sheet #7, 25 March 2005, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/facts_7.htm (accessed 13 February 2007).

487
the booster to demonstrate alternate technologies.438 The technological developments included 

autonomous ascent, reentry, and landing; composite structures; reusable liquid-oxygen tanks; 

rapid vehicle turnaround; and a durable TPS. The versatile flight testbed could accommodate 

future experiments, including space transportation and technology developments and aeroscience 

experiments. The expected NASA program funding through FY 1999 was $70 million. The 

proposals were due to NASA by 24 February 1995.439

On 8 March, in a “fast-track” procurement process, NASA selected the Orbital Sciences 

Corporation to enter into negotiations for the X-34 (other bidders were Space Access and Kelley 

Space and Technology, Inc.).440 The anticipated development schedule supported flight tests 

beginning in late 1997, orbital launch by mid 1998, and testbed applications later in 1998. 

Industry–government cost-sharing was a major element of the program.441 On 30 March, NASA 

signed a cooperative agreement with Orbital Sciences, teaming with Rockwell International 

Corporation, to develop a small, reusable space booster—the X-34—to serve as a testbed to 

demonstrate RLV technology. The two companies formed a jointly owned firm called American 

Space Lines to develop, operate, and market the vehicle. Each company invested $50 million in 

the project, and NASA contributed $70 million plus personnel and facilities at Marshall, 

Langley, Dryden, Ames, and Johnson. The envisioned three-stage commercial vehicle consisted 

438 “Reusable Launch Vehicle Notices Issues,” NASA News Release 95-1, 12 January 1995, 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1995/95-1.txt (accessed 26 February 2007).

439 Buttrica, “The Policy Origins of the X-33; Part VII: The X-34,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x33/facts_7.htm (accessed 13 February 2007).

440 “NASA Evaluates Seven RLV Proposals,” Aviation Week and Space Technology 142, no. 10 (6 March 1995): p. 

63. Northrop Grumman also developed a design concept that was not formally submitted in the X-34 program 

competition. It would be launched from on top of a NASA B-747 aircraft and deliver a payload to low-Earth orbit. 

The B-747 launch platform would transfer liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen fuels to the orbital vehicle. Dan 

Gonzalez et al., “Design Options and Issues,” Proceedings of the RAND Project Air Force Workshop on 

Transatmospheric Vehicles, p. 51, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR890/MR890.chap3.pdf

(accessed 13 February 2007). 

441 “X-33, X-34 Contractors Selected for Negotiations,” NASA News Release 95-23, 8 March 1995, 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1995/95-23.txt (accessed 26 February 2007).

488
of a large B-747 aircraft, a fully reusable rocket-powered booster, and a small expendable orbital 

vehicle.442

The X-34 was to progress rapidly through hardware design, flight tests in late 1997, and an 

expected launch by mid-1998. Orbital Sciences and the government, however, had difficulty 

agreeing on the best engine for the X-34, resulting in the company missing two program 

milestones. Consequently, on 2 November 1995, the NASA X-34 program managers issued a 14-

day suspension notice to Orbital Sciences, shutting down the program and allowing NASA time 

to review the program. The suspension lasted only one day.443 Discussions among 

representatives of Orbital Sciences, Rockwell, NASA’s Office of Space Access and Technology, 

and NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin continued in December, but no agreement was reached. 

Orbital began questioning the entire design of the vehicle and its anticipated profitability. On 24 

January, the company issued a “stop work order” to its contractors. The action was taken because 

of design problems and the increasing weight and costs of the X-34. On 15 February 1996, 

Orbital formally withdrew from the cooperative agreement, partly because of changes in the 

projected profitability of the venture. One week earlier, Rockwell International had also decided 

to leave the partnership.444 

442 “X-34 Small Reusable Booster,” Cooperative Agreement No. NCC 8-75, Effective Date: 30 March 1995, NASA 

History Division folder 18559, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also 

Buttrica, “The Policy Origins of the X-33; Part VII: The X-34,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x33/facts_7.htm (accessed 13 February 2007).

443 Buttrica, “The Policy Origins of the X-33; Part VII: The X-34,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x33/facts_7.htm (accessed 13 February 2007). 444 David P. Radzanowski and Marcia S. Smith, “Space Launch Vehicles: Government Requirements and 

Commercial Competition,” CRS Issue Brief 93062, Updated 14 November 1996, 

http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/93-062.htm (accessed 13 February 2007). Also “X-34,” 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/x-34.htm (accessed 23 March 2005) and Buttrica, “The Policy Origins 

of the X-33; Part VII: The X-34,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/facts_7.htm (accessed 13 February 

2007). 

489
NASA officials decided to continue by using the $65 million of government money remaining 

for the project to build a scaled-down version of the X-34. A new NASA Research 

Announcement (NRA), issued on 27 March 1996, focused on the technology demonstration 

flight tests rather than on the vehicle’s commercial potential. On 10 June, NASA announced its 

selection of Orbital for the restructured fixed-price contract, and the contract was finalized in 

August.445 The 30-month contract had a value of approximately $49.5 million, with $10 million 

more to be spent by NASA in direct support of the project.446 The project was based on an airlaunched concept that incorporated many advanced technologies, including composite primary 

and secondary airframe structures, composite fuel tanks, an advanced TPS and materials, lowcost avionics (such as a differential GPS), integrated vehicle health monitoring, and a flush air 

data system.447 The contract called for two powered test flights scheduled to begin in late 1998 at 

the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The contract had an option for up to 25 

additional test flights after the initial contract period had ended.448

The proposed winged, reusable, single-engine vehicle would be propelled by a kerosene/liquidoxygen engine and was expected to demonstrate several key technologies. These included (1) 

composite primary and secondary airframe structures; (2) cryogenic insulation and propulsion 

system elements; (3) advanced TPSs and materials; (4) low-cost avionics, including differential 

global positioning and inertial navigation systems; and (5) key operations technologies, such as 

integrated vehicle health-monitoring and automated checkout systems. It was expected to 

445 Other bidders were Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman, Rockwell 

International, du Pont Aerospace, Pioneer Rocket Place, Space Access, and Truax Engineering (Buttrica).

446 Radzanowski and Smith, “Space Launch Vehicles: Government Requirements and Commercial Competition,” 

http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/93-062.htm (accessed 13 February 2007).

447 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities, p. 32.

448 “NASA Finalizes X-34 Contract With Orbital Sciences Corp.,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center News 

Releases, Release 96-161, 30 August 1996, http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1996/96-161.html

(accessed 23 March 2005).

490
significantly reduce mission costs for sending 1,000- to 2,000-pound (454- to 907-kilogram) 

payloads into low-Earth orbit.449 The vehicle would be air-dropped from beneath Orbital’s L1011 aircraft, reach speeds of Mach 8, and fly at altitudes of approximately 50 miles (80 

kilometers). It would also demonstrate the ability to conduct subsonic flights through rain or fog 

and land autonomously in crosswinds of up to 20 knots (23 miles or 37 kilometers per hour). 

The government team included Marshall Space Flight Center (responsible for the main 

propulsion system, including the Fastrac engine), Langley Research Center (wind tunnel testing 

and analysis), Ames Research Center (TPS), Dryden Flight Research Center, Holloman Air 

Force Base, White Sands Test Facility, and White Sands Missile Range (testing and flightsupport operations).450

The Fastrac engine, which was only the second U.S.-made engine developed in the prior 25 

years, was chosen as the primary propulsion system for the X-34 demonstration vehicle when it 

began its flight tests.451 The 60,000-pound (267-kilonewton) thrust engine burned liquid oxygen 

and kerosene in a simple gas generator cycle. Its major components were a turbopump assembly, 

thrust chamber assembly, chamber/nozzle, gas generator, lines/valves and ducts, and electrical 

harness/instrumentation. Development of the Fastrac engine began in April 1996 based on 

successful subscale component test programs. Fastrac II, a flight-like manufacturing 

449 Ibid.

450 “NASA Finalizes X-34 Contract With Orbital Sciences Corp.,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center News 

Releases, Release 96-161, 30 August 1996, http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1996/96-161.html

(accessed 23 March 2005).

451 “X-34 Fastrac Engine Passes Critical Tests,” NASA News Release 97-232, 14 August 1997, 

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1997/97-232.html (accessed 23 March 2005).

491
demonstration, was successfully tested in September 1996.452 In August 1997, a critical series of 

tests on the Fastrac engine were successfully completed at Marshall Space Flight Center (see 

figure 3-55). 

Figure 3-55. This photo shows an X-34 40K Fastrac II duration test performed at Marshall 

Space Flight Center in June 1997 (NASA-MSFC photo MSFC-9705975). 

In May 1997, a government-Orbital review was held to finalize the design of the vehicle. This 

allowed the program to proceed with the fabrication and manufacturing of various systems, 

including structures, guidance, navigation and control, avionics, thermal protection, and main 

propulsion systems.453 Metal model wind tunnel tests took place at Langley during 1997 (see 

figure 3-56). Tests of the Fastrac engine were carried out on the ground at Holloman Air Force 

Base, New Mexico. Vibration and captive-carry tests took place at Dryden Flight Research 

Center in 1999 and later. NASA began full-engine, hot-fire testing of the Fastrac rocket engine in 

452 Danny Davis, “Fastrac 60K Engine,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA History Division folder 

18559, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC). Also Danny Davis, “The Fastrac 

60K Engine,” White Paper, 27 March 1998, NASA History Division folder 18559, Historical Reference Collection, 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC).

453 “X-34 Systems Design Freeze Completed,” NASA News Release 97-107, 22 May 1997, 

http://www.qadas.com/qadas/nasa/nasa-hm/0872.html (accessed 25 March 2005).

492
March 1999. In May 1999, the complete engine system was tested for the first time at full power 

for 155 seconds, the length of time it would be required to perform during an X-34 flight. 

System-level testing continues at Stennis Space Center, and component testing was performed at 

Marshall Space Flight Center.454

Figure 3-56. A metal model of the X-34 reusable launch vehicle being tested in the 

Low-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel at Langley Research Center, 1997 (NASA-LaRC photo 

EL-1997-00048). 

454 “Fastrac Engine,” Advanced Space Transportation Technology Summary,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/100364main_Fastrac_Tech_Brief1.pdf (accessed 14 February 2007).

493
To reduce program risk, NASA decided in January 1998 to modify its contract with Orbital to 

provide for a second flight vehicle. The modification would also allow for additional unpowered 

tests and more flexibility in demonstrating various technologies. The change increased the 

contract value by $7.7 million to purchase long-lead-time hardware. NASA committed $2 

million more for wind tunnel testing, additional testing and analysis, and a second leading-edge 

TPS. An $8.5 million option called for the purchase of shorter-lead-time hardware, while a $1.8 

million option was added for assembly. 

In July 1998, the program passed a critical milestone when the first wing assembly completed its 

qualification tests. It was then shipped to Orbital and mated to the X-34 test vehicle under 

construction. It was ultimately to fly aboard one of the two flight vehicles being built at Orbital. 

At the end of 1998, NASA exercised its option with Orbital for 25 additional test flights during a 

12-month period beginning immediately after completion of the initial contract. Flights were to 

take place at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The option was 

valued at more than $10 million, with government organizations performing additional work for 

$4.7 million.455

The first of three planned X-34 technology demonstrators was “rolled out” on 30 April 1999 at 

Dryden Flight Research Center. The vehicle took its first test flight locked underneath the L1011 carrier aircraft in June 1999. In August 1999, an $11 million contract for the Fastrac engine 

was awarded to Summa Technology. Assembly and preflight tests continued through 2000. 

455 “NASA Exercises X-34 Contract Option for 25 Test Flights,” Marshall Space Flight Center News Releases, 

Release 98-251, 18 December 1998, http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1998/98-251.html (accessed 23 

March 2005).

494
However, in March 2001, NASA decided not to add funds to the X-34 program from money 

dedicated to the Agency’s Space Launch Initiative because the government determined that “the 

benefits to be derived from continuing the X-34 program did not justify the cost.”456 This action 

coincided with the end of NASA’s contract with Orbital. By the time the project ended, NASA 

had spent $205 million on the X-34 since its inception in 1996. 

X-33 

The X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator program (the third RLV program) was to 

demonstrate a half-scale single-stage-to-orbit vehicle that could go from launch to orbit without 

using multiple stages (as did ELVs) or dropping rocket motors and fuel tanks (as did the Space 

Shuttle). Flying as fast as Mach 15, it was to decrease the per-pound cost of putting payloads into 

space from $10,000 to $1,000 while at the same time dramatically increasing launch vehicle 

safety and reliability.457 Ultimately, the goal of the full-size vehicle, named the VentureStar, was 

to resupply the space station more quickly and cheaply than the Space Shuttle could.458 

Figure 3-57 shows an artist’s depiction of the VentureStar. 

456 “NASA Reaches Milestone in Space Launch Initiative Program; Also Announces No SLI Funding for X-33 or X34,” Marshall Space Flight Center News Releases, Release 01-062, 1 March 2001, 

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/2001/01-062.html (accessed 27 June 2006).

457 “X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator Fact Sheet,” Historical Fact Sheet, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/x33.html (accessed 27 June 2006).

458 X-33 Venture Star–Reusable Launch Vehicle,” 

http://nix.ksc.nasa.gov/info;jsessionid=4egbp0h8ftqq5?id=MSFC-9610538&orgid=11 (accessed February 2007).

495
Figure 3-57. In this artist’s concept, the X-33 VentureStar, manufactured by Lockheed Martin 

Skunk Works, is shown in orbit with a deployed payload (NASA-MSFC photo MSFC-9610538). 

The program, however, turned out to be a risky venture with unproven technologies that 

challenged its developers. In particular, the design required the development of linear aerospike 

rocket engines, which had never been used in flight and had been rejected by Space Shuttle 

developers 25 years earlier. It also required the development of a wingless “lifting-body” 

airframe that could keep the vehicle flying smoothly both during launch and on its return to 

Earth, and composite fuel tanks that could withstand the pressures of a space launch while filled 

with pressurized liquid hydrogen at a temperature of –423°F (–253°C).459 

NASA initiated this NASA–industry partnership through a Cooperative Agreement Notice 

(CAN) for Phase I concept definition and design of a technology demonstrator vehicle, the X-33, 

issued in January 1995. In March, NASA signed cooperative agreements with three companies—

Lockheed Advanced Development Company (the Skunk Works), McDonnell Douglas Aerospace 

teamed with Boeing, and Rockwell International Corporation—to design the vehicle. The 

459 “NASA’s Billion-Dollar Shuttle Replacement May Never Fly,” CNN.com/Space (25 September 2000), 

http://archives.cnn.com/2000 TECH/space/09/25/troudledspaceship.ap/index.html (accessed 24 March 2005).

496
agreement called for NASA to work with each of these companies over the next 15 months on 

vehicle concept definition and design. The government would provide approximately $7 million 

to each of the companies, and each was expected to match the investment. 

Each company produced a design concept. All of the vehicles would take off vertically, but only 

the McDonnell Douglas vehicle was designed to land vertically; the others landed horizontally 

like an airplane. 

• Lockheed Martin’s design featured a lifting-body vertical takeoff, horizontal landing 

aeroshell with an integrated linear aerospike engine. The X-33 was to be a 53 percent version 

of the full-scale RLV, dubbed the VentureStar. The design used metallic TPS materials on all 

external surfaces except for the leading edges, which would be constructed with advanced 

carbon-carbon composites.

• The McDonnell Douglas/Boeing entry was an approximately 50 percent subscale verticaltakeoff, vertical-landing design with ballistic hypersonic characteristics.460 The design relied 

on ceramic TPS materials. The full-scale RLV would be about as tall as the Space Shuttle on 

the launch pad. McDonnell Douglas/Boeing also conducted trade studies on other vehicle 

options, including horizontal landers. The team’s propulsion choices were the near-term 

modified space shuttle main engine (SSME) for the X-33 and an SSME-derived engine (with 

an RD-O120 Russian engine for the RLV). 

460 McDonnell Douglas had built the DC-X vehicle.

497
• The Rockwell concept for the RLV and X-33 vehicles was based on a wing-body approach 

with vertical liftoff and horizontal landing capabilities. The 50 percent X-33 had a composite 

wing and tail and would rely on TPS blankets for all exterior surfaces except the leading 

edges, where high-density ceramic tiles would be used.461 For propulsion, Rockwell planned 

to use a near-term modified SSME for the X-33 and the new RS-2100 engine for the RLV.462

At the beginning of April 1996, NASA issued another CAN for Phase II of the project, regarding 

the design, fabrication, and flight-testing of the X-33 demonstrator. This was the first time that a 

cooperative agreement rather than a conventional contract had been used for a program of this 

size. This phase of the project was planned to end in flight demonstration testing of the X-33 

beginning in early 1999. NASA and industry would share costs during this phase. 

On 2 July 1996, after a selection process of only a few months (due to an innovative paperless 

procurement process) and amid much fanfare, Vice President Albert Gore announced NASA’s 

selection of Lockheed Martin to build the X-33 test vehicle. According to the terms of the 

agreement, Lockheed would design, build, and conduct the first test flight of the remotely piloted 

demonstration vehicle by March 1999, and would conduct at least 15 flights by December 1999. 

Major components would include a more robust metal heatshield in place of the Space Shuttle’s 

tiles, a composite primary structure and fuel tank, and a linear aerospike engine.463 The X-33 

design was based on a lifting-body shape that would be launched vertically like a rocket and land 

461 Dan Gonzalez et al., “Design Options and Issues,” Proceedings of the RAND Project Air Force Workshop on 

Transatmospheric Vehicles, pp. 43–50, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR890/MR890.chap3.pdf

(accessed 13 February 2007).

462 Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS), National Research Council, Reusable Launch 

Vehicle: Technology Development and Test Program (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1995), p. 14, 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5115&page=14 (accessed 26 February 2007).

463 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities, p. 32.

498
horizontally like an airplane. NASA had budgeted $941 million for the effort. Lockheed initially 

invested $220 million of its own funds in the design. 

In 1997, the project successfully passed two important milestones. The Critical Design Review 

(CDR) in October ended 51 subsystem and component CDRs that had been held earlier that year. 

It allowed the program to proceed with fabricating the remaining components, completing the 

subsystems, and assembling the subscale prototype launch vehicle. Earlier in the year, the project 

attempted to resolve issues regarding vehicle weight and aerodynamic stability and control by 

modifying the design of the vehicle’s canted and vertical fins, and it planned to reduce the 

weight by using composite materials and densified propellants.464 In November, NASA 

completed the environmental impact statement process, which allowed all 15 test flights to 

proceed from the launch site at Haystack Butte on the eastern part of Edwards Air Force Base, 

California, and land at Michael Army Air Field, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, and Malmstrom 

Air Force Base near Great Falls, Montana.465

The next major milestone was the completion of flight-testing of the TPS materials. The tests 

took place in May and June 1998 at Dryden Flight Research Center on its F-15B Aerodynamic 

Flight Facility aircraft. The F-15B tests measured the air loads on the proposed X-33’s protective 

materials. In contrast, shock-load tests investigated the local impact of the supersonic shock 

wave itself on the TPS materials. Similar tests had been done in 1985 for the Space Shuttle tiles 

464 “X-33 Program Successfully Completes Critical Design Review,” NASA News Release 97-250, 31 October 1997, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-250.txt (accessed 15 March 2005).

465 “NASA Completes X-33 Environmental Impact Statement Process,” NASA News Release 97-254, 5 November 

1997, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-254.txt (accessed 15 March 2005).

499
using an F-104 aircraft.466 The plane reached an altitude of 36,000 feet (10,973 kilometers) and a 

top speed of Mach 1.4 during the tests. The materials in the TPS included metallic Inconel tiles, 

soft Advanced Flexible Reusable surface insulation tiles, and sealing materials. Figure 3-58 shows 

a photo of the NASA F-15B being used in tests of the X-33 TPS materials on 14 May 1998.

Figure 3-58. Inflight photo of the NASA F-15B used in tests of the X-33’s thermal protection 

system (TPS) materials, 14 May 1998 (NASA-DFRC photo EC98-44554-31). 

Tests of the linear aerospike rocket engine took place at Dryden during seven research flights in 

1998. The Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE), which was jointly carried out by 

NASA, Rocketdyne, and Lockheed Martin, was designed to provide inflight data to help 

466 “F-15B in Flight with X-33 Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) on Flight Test Fixture,” 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/F-15B/HTML/EC98-44554-31.html (accessed 14 February 2007).

500
Lockheed Martin evaluate the aerodynamic characteristics and the handling of the SR-71 linear 

aerospike experiment configuration and validate the computational predictive tools that were 

being used to determine the aerodynamic performance of a future RLV. The experiment was a 20 

percent scale, half-span model of a lifting-body shape (X-33) without the fins. It was rotated 90 

degrees and equipped with eight thrust cells of an aerospike engine, and was mounted on a type 

of housing known as a “canoe” that contained gaseous hydrogen, helium, and the 

instrumentation gear. The model, engine, and canoe together were called a “pod.” The 

experiment focused on determining how the RLV’s engine flume would affect the aerodynamics 

of its lifting-body shape at specific altitudes and speeds. Since interaction between the 

aerodynamic flow and the engine plume could create drag, researchers looked at design 

refinements to minimize the interaction. The entire pod was 41 feet (12.5 meters) in length and 

weighed 14,300 pounds (6,531 kilograms). The experimental pod was mounted on one of the 

SR-71s, which was then on loan to NASA from the U.S. Air Force. 

Two initial flights were used to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of the LASRE

apparatus (pod) on the back of the SR-71. Five later flights focused on the experiment itself. Two 

were used to cycle gaseous helium and liquid nitrogen through the experiment to check its 

plumbing system for leaks and to test the engine’s operational characteristics. During the other 

three flights, liquid oxygen was cycled through the engine. Two engine hot firings were also 

completed on the ground. A final hot-fire test flight was canceled because of liquid-oxygen leaks 

in the test apparatus. Ultimately, LASRE was canceled because leak-detection techniques were 

unable to verify that oxygen levels could be maintained below flammability limits.467

467 “Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) During First In-flight Cold Flow Test,” 

http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/SR-71-LASRE/HTML/EC98-44440-13.html. Also Neal Hass et al., 

501
Meanwhile, in March 1998, NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) 

performed a Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) review of the X-33 program. The review 

team found that Lockheed Martin used “rigorous safety, mission assurance, and risk management 

processes...throughout the X-33 program.” Nevertheless, it recommended increasing NASA’s 

“insight” and participation in the SMA process. This was especially important in light of 

November 1997 legislation that made NASA a partner in the damage and injury liability 

associated with any X-33 failure, but gave the Agency only a small “insight” role and precluded 

it from exercising oversight of the program.468 

NASA’s Office of Inspector General was also investigating the program. The first inquiry 

examined whether NASA’s use of a cooperative agreement for the X-33 program was 

appropriate for the program and “whether the agreement effectively defined roles, 

responsibilities, and rights of the Government and industry partners.”469 A secondary objective 

was to determine whether NASA’s implementation and management of the program were 

consistent with congressional guidance. An audit determined that obligated funds for Lockheed 

had not been recorded in a timely manner, a potential violation of federal law. Consequently, the 

inspector general concluded that reports and financial statements “did not accurately reflect the 

“Propellant Feed System Leak Detection—Lessons Learned from the Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment 

(LASRE),” NASA/TM-1999-206590, November 1999, p. 1, 

http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000101/01/206590.pdf (both accessed 15 February 2007).

468 NASA Office of Safety & Mission Assurance, “X33 Safety & Mission Assurance Review,” 

http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/casestudies/306_F_X_33_Part1.pdf and 

http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/casestudies/306_F_X_33_Part2.pdf (accessed 13 February 2007). The 

report refers to NASA’s “insight” role as one in which the industry partner has responsibility for determining how 

the program will be implemented and accountability for meeting program milestones. 

469 Office of Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Audit Report: X-33 Funding 

Issues,” IG-99-001, 3 November 1998, pp. 1–3, http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-001.pdf

(accessed 4 June 2007).

502
financial status” of the program.470 The next year, another audit from the Office of Inspector 

General examined whether the government had adequately addressed the cost of the project and 

its cost risk in its cost estimate. It concluded that a better risk analysis “would have alerted 

NASA decisionmakers to the probability of cost overruns” that “put NASA’s investment . . . at 

risk.”471

In 1999, the X-33 program experienced a setback when the composite materials used for its 

liquid-hydrogen fuel tank failed during testing. An investigation into the cause of the failure 

determined that the composite technology was not “mature enough” for such a use. Lockheed 

proposed to replace the composite tanks with aluminum tanks, which NASA agreed to if 

Lockheed could obtain Space Launch Initiative funding. However, it was determined that the 

benefit did not justify the cost, and NASA canceled the program in 2001 before proceeding to 

the next phase.472 NASA’s investment in the X-33 program totaled $912 million, staying within 

its 1996 budget projection for the program. Lockheed Martin originally committed to invest $220 

million in the X-33, and during the life of the program it increased that amount to $357 million. 

In response to the cancellation, Lockheed chose not to continue developing the VentureStar. A 

criticism of both the X-34 and X-33 programs was that NASA had not prepared risk 

management plans until well after the programs had begun.473 According to U.S. General 

Accounting Office (GAO) testimony before the House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on 

470 Ibid.

471 Office of Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Audit Report: X-33 Cost 

Estimating Processes,” IG-99-052, 24 September 1999, pp. i–ii, http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-

052.pdf (accessed 4 June 2007).

472 Leonard David, “NASA Shuts Down X-33, X-34 Programs,” Space.com, 

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/x33_cancel_010301.html (accessed 22 March 2005).

473 U.S. General Accounting Office, Statement of Allen Li, director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management “Space 

Transportation: Critical Areas NASA Needs to Address in Managing Its Reusable Launch Vehicle Program,” GAO01-826T, 20 June 2001, p. 5, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01826t.pdf (accessed 13 February 2007).

503
Space and Aeronautics, “a risk management plan for the X-34 was not developed until the 

program was restructured in June 2000. Although Lockheed Martin developed a plan to manage 

technical risks as part of its 1996 cooperative agreement for the X-33, NASA did not develop its 

own risk management plan for unique NASA risks until February 2000.” Furthermore, the GAO 

found that “NASA’s risk mitigation plan for the X-33 program provided no mechanisms for 

ensuring the completion of the program if significant cost growth occurred and/or the business 

case motivating industry participation weakened substantially.”474

Transportation Technology Support

Another advanced space transportation focus was transportation technology support. Activities in 

this area supported efforts to reduce the cost and improve the reliability, operability, 

responsiveness, and safety of ELVs, solid rocket motors, spacecraft propulsion systems, and 

launch operations. Programs included ELV cooperative tasks, operations/software technologies, 

the Solid Propulsion Integrity Program (SPIP), in-space transportation, and engineering 

capability development. In most cases, government and industry shared the costs for these 

programs. 

In 1994, the ELV program worked in cooperation with industry on several aluminum-lithium 

cryogenic tank projects. A low-cost extrusion process was developed to fabricate net-shaped 

(0.3-inch/7.6-millimeter thickness) aluminum-lithium wall panel sections for a 14-foot (4.3-

meter)-diameter ground-test article representative of an upper-stage cryotank. Aluminum-lithium 

weld properties were optimized and automated welding was developed with real-time, closedloop process control. An additional cooperative ELV accomplishment was the qualification of a 

474 GAO “Space Transportation: Critical Areas NASA Needs To Address in Managing Its Reusable Launch Vehicle 

Program,” p. 5, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01826t.pdf. Also “X-33,” GlobalSecurity.org, 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/x-33.htm (accessed 13 February 2007).

504
60-horsepower, quadruple-redundant, electromechanical actuator (EMA) in the load simulator at 

Marshall Space Flight Center.475 In FY 1995, the program completed the fabrication of low-cost 

aluminum-lithium components and a ground-test rig for the Lockheed-Martin 14-foot (4.3-

meter)-diameter cryogenic tank tests. The team used the Lockheed-Martin Integrated Fault 

Tolerant Avionics Facility to begin developing a stand-alone, redundant EMA system to meet 

Atlas booster requirements. Additionally, SSME diagnostic systems for use on the SSME testbed 

at Marshall, as well as trending-technique algorithms developed by Lewis Research Center, were 

applied to the development of an automated propulsion diagnostic system for ground checkout of 

the Atlas booster.476

In FY 1995, the Spacecraft Systems Technology program completed a 2-kilowatt (of electric 

power) solar dynamic ground-test demonstration, the first end-to-end demonstration of a 

complete solar dynamic power system designed for space operations. The system performed as 

designed under conditions simulating the thermal and vacuum environment of low-Earth orbit. In 

addition, Lockheed Martin adopted for commercial use a NASA-developed advanced arcjet 

spacecraft propulsion system that used significantly less propellant.477

The purpose of the Solid Propulsion Integrity Program (SPIP) was to improve the engineering 

needed to increase the success rate of U.S.-built solid rocket motors, mitigate and manage the 

motors’ risk, and enhance the economic competitiveness of the solid-rocket-motor industry. The 

475 “Advanced Space Transportation,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-10.

476 “Advanced Space Transportation,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-11.

477 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 30. Also “Spacecraft and Remote 

Sensing,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 5-21.

505
program’s strategy was to establish government-industry teams to resolve uncertainties within 

the industry by means of science and engineering, and to make science and engineering available 

to solid-rocket-motor designers, manufacturers, verifiers, and users nationwide. NASA was the 

lead agency; the DOD provided tests, facilities, and expert personnel at minimal costs to the 

SPIP; and industry contributed independent research and development products, as well as expert 

skills and experience. 

The In-Space Transportation Technology Development program developed and demonstrated 

major technological advances in very-high-performance spacecraft propulsion systems to reduce 

launch costs and increase the life and useful payload capability of commercial, scientific, and 

military spacecraft. The major focus of this cooperative work was to integrate innovative power 

and propulsion systems, particularly on small, low-power spacecraft. This would reduce 

propulsion system size and weight requirements and shrink the size of the spacecraft and its 

launch vehicle while maintaining or enhancing the life and payload capability of the satellite. 

This program also included development of automated rendezvous and capture technologies that 

would enable uncrewed vehicles to service in-space assets or resupply the space station. 

Lewis Research Center was participating in several ongoing cooperative efforts with spacecraft 

developers and users, as well as advanced propulsion system manufacturers. Accomplishments 

in 1994 included the successful use of NASA-developed arc-jet thrusters to keep the commercial 

Telstar 4 satellite on station. This first-generation arc-jet system was based on a commercial 

communications satellite. Additionally, a qualification-level demonstration of a higherperformance, 600-second specific impulse arc jet was completed under a NASA-industry 

506
program and accepted for the next-generation geostationary satellite series.478 In 1995, solar 

electric flight systems design and ground tests took place.479 In FY 1996, the major project was 

the NSTAR (NASA Solar Electric Propulsion Technology Application Readiness) ion 

propulsion system to be used on the New Millennium Deep Space-1 mission.480

Operations 

The objective of the Operations Technology program, which began in FY 1991, was to develop 

and demonstrate technologies to reduce the cost of NASA operations, improve their safety and 

reliability, and permit new, more complex activities to be undertaken with robust and flexible 

support systems. Directed toward improving operations of both spacecraft and ground systems, it 

sought to develop technologies that would significantly benefit all of the Agency’s major 

operational areas and support the U.S. commercial satellite industry. 

The program encompassed artificial intelligence applications to reduce direct dependence on 

human operators. It also supported advanced data analysis and retrieval technologies to improve 

the return and extraction of both science data and operating performance data containing critical 

information on spacecraft health. In FY 1991, in the areas of automation and robotics, advances 

were made in real-time data systems and automated structural assembly. The introduction of 

state-of-the-art techniques in expert systems, software engineering, human–computer interfaces, 

and distributed systems improved the quality of flight decision-making and the cost-effectiveness 

of Space Shuttle mission control operations. The goal of the real-time data system was to 

478 “Advanced Space Transportation,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, pp. SAT 

5-11 – SAT 5-12.

479 “Advanced Space Transportation,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-11.

480 “Advanced Space Transportation,” Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Fiscal Year 1998 

Estimates, p. SAT 4.2-6.

507
relegate repetitive, monotonous monitoring tasks in mission control to automated systems and 

free the flight controller to concentrate on more challenging tasks, such as schedule 

modifications and trouble-shooting. In FY 1991, Johnson Space Center added a number of realtime expert systems to its Mission Control Center (MCC) consoles, resulting in improved data 

monitoring and the ability to more thoroughly analyze fault data in shorter time periods. The 

acquisition of real-time telemetry also permitted an animated view of the position of the Space 

Shuttle’s remote manipulator system. The new data system both lessened the flight controller’s 

workload and allowed the controller to view and thus prevent collisions between the Shuttle and 

payloads. In FY 1994, the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) Mission Operations Office 

validated automated monitoring technology developed by the Operations program to reduce total 

spacecraft operator hours by 60 percent.481

Automated assembly of large space structures was also demonstrated. In FY 1991, complete 

assembly and disassembly of a 102-piece truss took place in a supervised autonomous, computer 

control mode. The system’s reliability was good, and the test monitor successfully corrected 

most operational errors.482

In FY 1995, the JPL developed an artificial-intelligence application called JARTOOL that 

searched massive image databases and discovered phenomena of interest using an adaptive 

pattern recognition system. JARTOOL discovered 10 quasars during that year in a small fraction 

of the time it would have taken humans analyzing the data, at a much lower cost. The JPL also 

developed a tool called the Multimission VICAR Planner (MVP) to automate the planning 

481 “Spacecraft and Remote Sensing,” Office of Space Access and Technology, Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-21.

482 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, pp. 64–65.

508
procedure for image processing. This planner was selected for use by the Galileo Project Office. 

It reduced the time needed for an expert to develop an image-processing plan from 4 hours to 15 

minutes.483

Operations and support efforts to enhance existing launch systems in FY 1994 included the 

development of an automated scheduling system for Space Shuttle orbiter processing at Kennedy 

Space Center. Shuttle software verification was also automated at Johnson Space Center, and 

researchers continued to improve the automated diagnostic capabilities of the Johnson MCC by 

applying diagnostic expert systems and pattern recognition techniques to automatically scan strip 

charts and raw telemetry.484 During FY 1995, the activity at Kennedy expanded from the Orbiter 

Processing Facility to the Vehicle Assembly Building and the launch pads. The Johnson MCC 

also initiated an electronic documentation system to eliminate millions of photocopy pages and 

streamline change processes.485

In FY 1995, NASA addressed the challenge of reducing mission costs without reducing 

performance and payoffs by focusing technology development on 

• reducing the mass and increasing the efficiency of spacecraft systems to enable the use of 

smaller launch vehicles;

• increasing spacecraft and ground system autonomy to reduce the overall mission operations 

cost;

483 “Spacecraft and Remote Sensing,” Office of Space Access and Technology, Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-23.

484 “Advanced Space Transportation,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-10.

485 “Advanced Space Transportation,” Office of Space Access and Technology Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-11.

509
• exploiting microfabrication technology to develop miniaturized components and instruments 

with equal or better performance than current components and instruments.486

Communications

Space communications consisted of four major program elements: 

• Near-Earth communications systems explored radio frequency (RF), digital, and mobile 

communications systems in support of the commercial space communications industry and 

NASA’s MTPE. 

• The deep-space communications element developed technologies primarily to meet the needs 

of special NASA missions that were not supported by near-Earth communications, including 

planetary exploration and astrophysics. 

• Space terrestrial hybrid systems investigated the space communications portion of hybrid 

satellite/terrestrial systems, such as the National Information Infrastructure. 

• The applications experiments element supported the Advanced Communications Technology 

Satellite (ACTS) experiment program, including operation of the spacecraft (launched in 

September 1993) and its ground network and experiment development.487

By the end of FY 1995, the program had completed a large number of ACTS experiments. Some 

of the most significant experiments demonstrated high data rate transmission via satellite or were 

in the areas of telemedicine or tele-education. The program demonstrated the feasibility of 20-

gigahertz system-level integrated circuit (SLIC)/monolithic microwave integrated circuit 

486 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 25.

487 “Spacecraft and Remote Sensing,” Office of Space Access and Technology, Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, Budget 

Summary, Spacecraft and Remote Sensing, p. SAT 5-14.

510
(MMIC) antenna systems. In addition, the digital portion of the program completed development 

of a very high data rate modem.488 (See chapter 2 for more information about ACTS.) 

Breakthrough Technologies 

The purpose of the Breakthrough Technologies program was to advance high-payoff, highly 

innovative technology concepts that could provide significant advances in the approach to future 

space missions and programs. During 1989 and 1990, a computer program called AUTOCLASS 

was demonstrated. It used artificial-intelligence techniques to automatically classify data. Its 

benefit was that it could automatically discover patterns in very large data sets. Researchers 

achieved dramatic results by analyzing results from the Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS) 

through the automatic discovery of several unexpected data patterns. Several new versions of the 

software were released throughout the 1990s. In mid-1998, the public domain C version of 

AUTOCLASS reached maturity.489

The Sparse Distributed Memory program was successfully completed with the demonstration of 

shape, speech, and text translators. This associative memory with massively parallel architecture 

provided an extremely large address space and enabled information to be structured, filtered, and 

linked to other stored information in the process of storing data. Based on an effort to understand 

human long-term memory, it was capable of abstraction and generalization, and formed the basis 

for future autonomous systems that could learn from experience. Such systems could then 

provide artificial-intelligence capabilities for tasks that would be too remote, too hostile, or too 

tedious for humans.490

488 Ibid., p. SAT 5-20.

489 “The AutoClass Project,” http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/ic/projects/bayes-group/autoclass/index.html (accessed 26 

August 2006).

490 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, pp. 56–57.

511
Advanced Smallsat Technology 

In early 1994, NASA began the Advanced Small Satellite (Smallsat) Technology program, an 

element of the Small Satellite Technology Initiative and part of the Agency’s “faster, better, 

cheaper” approach. This technology demonstration program’s principal objective was to change 

the way NASA designed, built, launched, and operated small spacecraft for scientific missions 

and commercial activities in space.491 Its major goals were to

• demonstrate how to reduce the cost and development time of space missions for science and 

commercial applications; 

• demonstrate new design and qualification methods for small spacecraft, including the use of 

commercial and performance-based specifications, and integration of small instrumentation 

technology into a bus design; 

• proactively promote commercial technology applications.492 

NASA chose a two-satellite project, called Lewis and Clark, to demonstrate a number of new 

technologies as well as NASA’s new way of managing projects.493 The small satellites were 

designed to accommodate a wide range of missions through the use of standard hardware and 

software adapted to various applications. In June and July 1994, NASA selected two industry 

teams (CTA Inc. of Rockville, Maryland, for Clark, and TRW Inc. of Redondo Beach, 

California, for Lewis) to design, develop, produce, and launch two advanced experimental 

smallsats, or “lightsats,” in the 600- to 900-pound (272- to 408-kilogram) class. The entire 

contract process took only 70 days, as compared to the typical six months to one year. In 

491 Howard E. McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper: Low-Cost Innovation in the U.S. Space Program (Baltimore, MD: 

Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), pp. 5–7.

492 “Advanced Smallsat Technology,” Office of Space Access and Technology, Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 

5-22.

493 McCurdy, pp. 5–7.

512
addition to their primary instruments, both spacecraft were to carry additional instruments to 

provide information on the dynamics of global atmospheric pollution for the MTPE program.494

Systems integration work was completed during FY 1995. Clark was targeted for a 1996 launch; 

Lewis was to follow in 1997. 

Clark 

Clark was to demonstrate more than 30 advanced technologies, including image data 

compression, a mini star tracker, a low-cost Sun sensor, advanced composite structures, roomtemperature x-ray detectors, 3-D imaging of atmospheric trace gases, and on-board data 

processing. Its principal focus was to be on commercial remote sensing, and it was also to 

operate as a science and applications satellite with three science payloads and a remote sensing 

imaging system. Clark was to help city planners and developers evaluate sites and construction 

needs through the use of an optical element with very high spatial resolution and capabilities for 

stereo imaging. Science research was to include x-ray spectrometry, including atmospheric 

pollution measurements, cloud detection, and atmospheric tomography.495 

The Clark mission’s prime contractor, CTA, manufactured small space systems and had built, 

launched, and operated 21 lightsats, with several others in development. In July 1997, CTA sold 

its satellite division to Orbital Sciences, Inc. Martin Marietta Astronautics was to provide the 

Clark launch vehicle. In 1995, Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed Martin.496 

494 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1994 Activities, p. 50.

495 “Small Satellite Developments,” http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/17.html (accessed 11 March 2006).

496 “NASA Terminates Clark Earth Science Mission,” NASA News Release 98-35, 25 February 1998, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1998/98-035.txt (accessed 5 January 2006).

513
The project experienced cost overruns and delays. By late 1997, it was nearly two years behind 

schedule.497 In February 1998, NASA terminated the mission “due to mission costs, launch 

schedule delays, and concerns over the mission’s on-orbit capabilities.”498

Lewis 

Lewis was the first space-based hyperspectral imaging system. It was considered widely 

applicable to Earth sciences and potentially valuable for new commercial business opportunities. 

Its advanced remote sensing imager was to significantly broaden the range of Earth features that 

could be analyzed from space.499 Part of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology Initiative, its 

two-year timetable from contract award to completion and relatively low cost of $64.8 million 

were touted as a “marked improvement” over earlier satellites that took many more years to 

complete and cost “hundreds of millions of dollars or more.”500 The 890-pound (404-kilogram) 

satellite, built by TRW Space & Electronics Group, launched on 22 August 1997 from 

Vandenberg Air Force Base on a Pegasus XL launch vehicle.501 

On August 26, four days after its successful launch, the satellite entered a spin that disrupted its 

power-generating capability. The solar arrays were unable to generate full power due to the 

spinning motion, and the batteries were discharged below operational levels. Repeated attempts 

497 McCurdy, p. 58.

498 “NASA Terminates Clark Earth Science Mission,” NASA News Release 98-35, 25 February 1998.

499 “Small Satellite Developments.” Launch occurred at 11:51 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, 22 August 1997. This 

was 2:51 a.m., 23 August 1997, Eastern Daylight Time.

500 “NASA, TRW Ready Lewis Mission for Launch on Second LMLV Rocket,” Space Business News 15, no. 15 (23 

July 1997): p. 1, NASA History Division folder 16023, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC. 501 At the time of launch, Lewis was part of the MTPE enterprise. “Attempts To Contact Lewis Spacecraft 

Unsuccessful; Re-entry Likely Next Week,” NASA News Release 97-208, 19 September 1997, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-208.txt (accessed 10 March 2006).

514
to reestablish radio contact failed, and increasing atmospheric drag deteriorated the spacecraft’s 

orbit until it reentered Earth’s atmosphere on September 28 and burned up.502

An independent failure investigation board was established immediately after the spacecraft was 

lost. The board attributed the failure to a technically flawed Attitude Control System (ACS) 

design and simulation, combined with insufficient monitoring of the spacecraft. TRW had 

adapted the design of the ACS from the system on the Total Ozone Monitoring SpectrometerEarth Probe (TOMS-EP) spacecraft. The failure board found that the TOMS ACS was adapted 

without sufficient consideration for Lewis’ different primary spacecraft spin-axis orientation. 

Additionally, the board described as “flawed” the assumption that a small crew could monitor 

and operate Lewis with the aid of an autonomous safehold mode, even during the initial 

operations period. This prevented timely recognition that the satellite had begun to tumble.503

The investigation board also considered the role of the “faster, better, cheaper” concept. The 

board stated that although “this paradigm [could] be successfully implemented with sound 

engineering and attentive and effective management,” in the case of Lewis, the program skipped 

“typical government oversight functions.”504 It made several recommendations reinforcing “the 

importance of scrupulous attention to detail, rigorous test process application, and the role of 

independent audits with engineering discipline . . .” to ensure mission success.505

502 “Lewis Spacecraft Encounters Difficulties,” NASA News Release 97-182, 26 August 1997, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-182.txt (accessed 27 June 2006). Also “Attempts To Contact Lewis 

Spacecraft Unsuccessful; Re-entry Likely Next Week,” NASA News Release 97-208, 19 September 1997, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-208.txt (accessed 10 March 2006).

503 “Lewis Spacecraft Failure Board Report Released,” NASA News Release 98-109, 23 June 1998, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1998/98-109.txt (accessed 10 March 2006). 

504 “Lewis Spacecraft Mission Failure Investigation Board, Final Report,” pp. 1–2, 12 February 1998, NASA 

History Division folder 16023, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

505 “Lewis Spacecraft Mission Failure Investigation Board, Final Report,” p. 19, 12 February 1998, NASA History 

Division folder 16023, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

515
Advanced Concepts Office

In FY 1995, the Office of Space Access and Technology formed the Advanced Concepts Office 

to identify and develop new, far-reaching concepts that might later be applied to advanced 

technology programs. The office initiated a wide-ranging program of feasibility studies and 

experiments in areas such as affordable in-space transportation, space solar power, highly 

reusable space transportation, very large and lightweight adaptive optics, orbital debris removal, 

International Space Station downmass disposal using tethers, structureless cooperating space 

swarms, and very large, lightweight, structureless antennas. The office also formulated a process 

for advanced concept creation, external to NASA, and issued an initial solicitation for the 

Advanced Concepts Research Projects program. It also defined a potential process for 

competitive creation of innovative concepts by NASA inventors. NASA also created the Virtual 

Research Center concept, which involved a dedicated collaborative computing environment for 

NASA advanced concepts studies.506

Space Shuttle Technology

The Space Shuttle often served as an in-space laboratory to test basic R&T concepts and validate 

technology in the space environment. NASA used the Shuttle as an experimental facility for 

research in aerodynamics, TPSs, and the payload environment. From the beginning of the Shuttle 

program, NASA had conducted orbiter experiments to collect data about the orbiter’s 

performance. During this decade, In-STEP experiments and a dedicated aeronautics and space 

technology mission took place on the Shuttle. In addition, the Spartan program sponsored 

technology development missions, and various technology experiments as part of larger on-board 

payloads. 

506 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities, p. 32.

516
In-STEP Experiments

In July 1991, the Tank Pressure Control Experiment rode aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis on the 

STS-43 mission. This In-STEP project demonstrated a method for controlling cryogenic storage 

tank pressures by actively mixing the fluids to eliminate temperature stratification. In September 

1991, the first university flight experiment supported by In-STEP flew aboard the Space Shuttle 

on the STS-48 mission. Known as MODE (for Middeck 0-Gravity Dynamics Experiment), the 

project flight-tested the influence of zero gravity on the sloshing behavior of fluid in a tank and 

the vibration characteristics of truss structures in space.507 A reflight of MODE took place in 

1994 aboard STS-60. The experiment successfully predicted the dynamics of the truss structure 

and captured all planned data. OAST-2, also on STS-60, included six In-STEP experiments (see 

description below). 

OAST-2 

OAST-2 was a Hitchhiker cross-bay carrier mission that was mounted in Space Shuttle 

Columbia’s cargo bay and shared the area with the U.S. Microgravity Payload-2 mission. It was 

carried on the STS-62 14-day extended-duration mission launched on 4 March 1994. OAST-2 

consisted of six In-STEP experiments sponsored by OACT. The In-STEP objectives of these 

experiments, which operated in microgravity, were to evaluate and validate space technologies, 

and gain a better understanding of the effects of microgravity and the space environment on 

spacecraft.508 

507 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 66. Also “STS-48 Press Kit,” 

September 1991, p. 33, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_043_STS-048_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed 

10 June 2006).

508 “STS-62,” March 1994, p. 23, NASA History Division folder 11035, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

517
Four of the OAST experiments—Solar Array Module Plasma Interaction Experiment (SAMPIE), 

Experimental Investigation of Spacecraft Glow (EISG), Spacecraft Kinetic InfraRed Test 

(SKIRT), and Emulsion Chamber Technology (ECT)—investigated aspects of the spacecraft’s 

space–environmental interaction in low-Earth orbit. The remaining two experiments—Thermal 

Energy Storage (TES) and CRYogenic Two Phase (CRYOTP)—investigated the performance of 

selected thermal storage and thermal control technologies (see table 3-41).509 These experiments 

showed that the release of nitrogen gas decreases the intensity of spacecraft glow in the visible 

and far ultraviolet spectrums, enhanced understanding of the interaction of high-voltage surfaces 

in space, demonstrated the use of phase-change material for thermal energy storage, and 

measured cosmic background radiation with the extreme accuracy needed to deduce its 

origins.510

The Spartan Program 

The Spartan program evolved from NASA’s sounding-rocket program and provided a series of 

low-cost, reusable, free-flying space platforms for various scientific and technological studies. It 

was conceived in the late 1970s to take advantage of the increased observation time provided by 

the Space Shuttle (compared to the 5–10 minutes allowed by sounding-rocket flights) for 

increasingly sophisticated experiments.511 Spartans carried a variety of scientific instruments and 

offered the scientific community the capability to conduct investigations in space between those 

offered by small payloads remaining in the orbiter and larger satellites orbiting Earth for long 

periods of time. 

509 “OAST-2 Prelaunch Mission Operation Report,” Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology, Report No. C237-94-62-01, NASA History Division folder 11034, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

510 “Flight Programs,” Office of Space Access and Technology, Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 5-32.

511 “Spartan 201-5,” Payloads STS-95, http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-95/payload9.htm (accessed 25 August 

2005).

518
Spartan satellites were launched aboard the Space Shuttle and deployed from the orbiter, where 

they performed preprogrammed missions. Scientific data were collected during each mission and 

recorded with the use of a tape recorder and, in many cases, film cameras. There was no 

command and control capability after deployment; batteries provided power, and attitude control 

was accomplished with pneumatic gas jets. The three-axis stabilized spacecraft weighed 1,300 

kilograms (2,866 pounds), with 500 kilograms (1,102 pounds) allotted to experiments. Its 

operational mission usually lasted about 45 hours. At the end of its mission, the Spartan was 

retrieved by the orbiter and returned to Earth for recovery of the data, refurbishment, and 

preparation for future missions.512 

Most of Spartan’s primary payloads related to solar physics.513 The OAST-Flyer (also called 

Spartan 206) and Spartan 207 were Spartan technology missions. 

OAST-Flyer. Space Shuttle mission STS-72 deployed and retrieved the OAST-Flyer spacecraft, 

the seventh in a series of missions that used reusable, free-flying Spartan carriers. The OASTFlyer, in its Spartan carrier, was deployed from the Shuttle on 14 January 1996, the fourth day of 

the mission, and retrieved on the sixth day of the mission by the Shuttle’s robot arm.514 The 

satellite operated about 45 nautical miles (83 kilometers) from Endeavour during its two days of 

free flight. 

512 “Spartan 201-01,” NSSDC Master Catalogue: Spacecraft, 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1993-023B (accessed 25 August 2005).

513 See chapter 4 in volume VII of the NASA Historical Data Book, 1989–1998, for a discussion of Spartan solar 

physics and astronomy missions.

514 “STS-72 Day 4 Highlights,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-72/sts-72-day-04-highlights.html. 

Also “STS-72 Day 6 Highlights,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-72/sts-72-day-06-highlights.html

(both accessed 13 February 2006).

519
The 2,600-pound (1,179-kilogram) OAST-Flyer carried four experiments: the Return Flux 

Experiment (REFLEX), the Global Positioning System (GPS) Attitude Determination and 

Control Experiment (GADACS), the Solar Exposure to Laser Ordnance Device (SELODE), and 

the Spartan Packet Radio Experiment (SPRE). GADACS and REFLEX were sponsored by 

NASA’s Office of Space Access and Technology (OSAT). SELODE was sponsored by NASA’s 

Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA).515 The fourth experiment, SPRE, was a 

volunteer effort by students from the University of Maryland, area engineers, and space industry 

contractors.516 Mounted on the rectangular Spartan structure, the experiments studied spacecraft 

contamination, the use of the GPS for spacecraft attitude control, and laser-initiated pyrotechnic 

devices in the environment of space. The amateur radio experiment allowed radio operators on 

the ground to track the satellite. 

REFLEX was a technology experiment designed to determine the accuracy of the computergenerated models that helped determine how contaminated a spacecraft might become. The main 

objective of REFLEX was to investigate molecular backscattering, or “return flux,” associated 

with on-orbit spacecraft. This phenomenon occurs when spacecraft give off tiny particles of dirt 

into the atmosphere that then collide with other particles and bounce back to the spacecraft. This 

dirt could cause spacecraft systems to fail. Return flux was believed to be one of the factors that 

scientists had been unable to calculate into their computer-generated models. REFLEX also 

515 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-72 Press Kit,” January 1996, http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-72/sts72-press-kit.txt (accessed 28 June 2006).

516 “OAST-Flyer,” Goddard Space Flight Center Photos, www.gsfc.nasa.gov/indepth/photos_spaceearly.html

(accessed 13 February 2006).

520
studied the erosion of spacecraft surface coatings as a result of particles chemically reacting with 

the atmosphere.517 

GADACS demonstrated the use of GPS technology in space to determine the attitude, location, 

and velocity of the Spartan spacecraft, and provide accurate timing for one portion of the Spartan 

mission. GADACS used GPS data to calculate Spartan’s orientation, and fire thrusters to point 

the spacecraft in different directions. This was the first time a spacecraft had been controlled 

using the GPS. The technology could lead to redesigned spacecraft and lighter, less costly 

missions in the future. 

SELODE tested the safety and reliability of different types of laser ordnance devices. The 

primary investigation centered on the effects of direct and concentrated sunlight in space on 

different explosives and design methods. Flight tests evaluated accidental firing levels, while 

postflight tests examined the effects of exposure on the chemical stability of the explosives. 

Pyrotechnic devices are used in numerous applications on space vehicles, such as the use of 

explosive bolts and nuts to separate the Space Shuttle orbiter from the external tank. Most 

pyrotechnic devices are fired with electricity, but stray electrical energy sources (e.g., radio 

transmitter signals or static electricity) may cause accidental firing. SELODE used a laser pulse 

traveling through a fiber-optic cable to trigger an explosive charge in a new type of pyrotechnic 

device that could eliminate the risk of accidental firing due to stray electrical energy sources. 518

517 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-72 Press Kit,” January 1996, p. 15, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_074_STS-072_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed 28 June 2006).

518 Ibid., p. 17.

521
SPRE was an amateur radio communications experiment. Its primary goal was to test satellite 

tracking using an amateur packet radio and the GPS. Although the Spartan carrier normally did 

not communicate with the ground or the Shuttle on orbit, SPRE was tested as a way to 

communicate with the REFLEX experiment.519 SPRE ground stations used special software 

called APRtrakTM to plot the positions of stations and objects worldwide using SPRE 

transmissions. APRtrak used full color maps and graphics that could display detailed maps of 

selected regions. Amateur radio ground stations transmitted their locations to SPRE and when 

the transmission was heard, SPRE relayed the GPS information to Earth. All ground stations 

within range of SPRE saw the relayed stations plotted on the map at the correct geographic 

location. The APRtrak software also decoded and displayed SPRE housekeeping telemetry, such 

as temperatures, voltages, and system status. SPRE participants included amateur radio operators 

throughout the world. Elementary and high schools were encouraged to enlist the aid of local 

amateur radio operators to set up ground stations and participate in the SPRE experiment. 

Participating amateurs and schools were encouraged to send the data they collected to the SPRE 

project to help piece together a composite picture of the mission. SPRE used a ground control 

network, SPREnet, that consisted of specially equipped amateur radio stations to distribute data 

via the Internet. These control stations successfully monitored the health and activity of SPRE. 

In addition to the amateur radio experiment, SPRE forwarded to Earth a sampling of real-time 

telemetry for the REFLEX and GADACS experiments. Spartans were equipped with on-board 

recorders to capture data from each of the experiments. Traditionally, an experimenter must wait 

519 “STS-72 Endeavour OAST-Flyer/Space Flyer Unit (SFU),” KSC Release No. 132-95, December 1995, 

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/72facts2.htm (accessed 10 February 2006).

522
several weeks to receive any mission data. SPRE gave experimenters the opportunity to view a 

small sample of data during the mission while advancing amateur radio satellite technology.520 

Spartan 207. Space Shuttle mission STS-77 launched on 19 May 1996, carrying the Spartan 207 

spacecraft. The mission deployed and tested the Inflatable Antenna Experiment (IAE), which 

helped lay the groundwork for future technological developments in inflatable space structures 

that can be launched in a compact form and then inflated once in orbit. Spartan 207/IAE 

validated the deployment (inflation) and performance of a large inflatable antenna during its 90-

minute mission.521 

The Spartan payload consisted of the Spartan Free-Flyer Spacecraft and Inflatable experiment 

and the Spartan Flight Support Structure (SFSS), which held the Spartan spacecraft in the Space 

Shuttle’s cargo bay. The IAE, developed by L’Garde Inc., of Tustin, California, and NASA’s 

JPL, was an inflatable 50-foot (14-meter)-diameter antenna mounted on three 92-foot (28-meter) 

struts that were attached to the Spartan spacecraft. Before the antenna was inflated, the Spartan 

spacecraft was rectangular in shape. The IAE weighed 132 pounds (60 kilograms) and occupied 

about half the volume; the support systems occupied the remainder of the space. Once in orbit, 

the Spartan became a platform for the antenna that inflated in space into a 40-foot-diameter, 92-

foot-long structure.522 After inflation, an optical system surveyed the antenna and measured the 

accuracy of the surface under a variety of internal pressures and thermal conditions. Figure 3-59 

shows the Spartan and the inflated antenna. 

520 “Spartan Packet Radio Experiment (SPRE),” Amateur Radio Association at the University of Maryland W3EAX, 

http://w3eax.umd.edu/spre/spre.html (accessed 28 June 2006).

521 “STS-77,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-77/mission-sts-77.html (accessed 10 February 2006).

522 “Space Technology Development,” http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/13.html (accessed 10 February 

2006). Also telephone conversation with Mark Steiner, Spartan Mission Manager, 10 February 2006).

523
Figure 3-59. Spartan 207 and the Inflatable C100Antenna Experiment, 20 May 1996 

 (GSFC photo S77E5021). 

The SFSS had three assemblies: the main, across-the-bay support structure known as the Mission 

Peculiar Equipment Support Structure (MPESS); the Release Engage Mechanism (REM); and 

the interface hardware between the MPESS and REM known as the Mission Peculiar Equipment 

(MPE). The SFSS attached to the payload bay by means of keel and sill trunnion fittings. The 

REM interface allowed the SP207/IAE to be attached to and detached from the SFSS.523

Spartan was released from the Space Shuttle on 20 May. The antenna was successfully deployed 

and it achieved the proper configuration. During the initial ejection and inflation, the IAE 

experienced unexpected dynamics, but the correct final shape was attained. After the antenna 

structure was fully inflated, the spacecraft began to rotate unexpectedly. The rotation ceased later 

523 “Spartan 207 Mission,” http://www.lgarde.com/gsfc/207.htm (accessed 4 June 2007).

524
in the orbit.524 The inflation process was captured by the STS-77 crew on still, motion-picture, 

and video cameras. For postmission analysis of the inflatable structure’s performance, the 

antenna surface was illuminated by arrays of lights mounted on the Spartan satellite, and the 

resulting patterns were acquired by Spartan’s video recorders. After 90 minutes of operation, the 

IAE was jettisoned; the Spartan was grappled and retrieved the following day.525

Space Processing 

The Space Processing program provided the required access to experiment facilities, and 

frequent access to space using the Shuttle middeck, SPACEHAB, Spacelab, and Wake Shield 

facilities. Through cost-sharing partnerships between NASA, universities, and industry, private 

enterprises could afford to perform important research to develop space-linked commercial 

products that otherwise would be prohibitively expensive. In FY 1994, the Space Processing 

program completed 24 flight experiments using Shuttle middeck lockers, SPACEHAB, and the 

first flight of the Wake Shield Facility. These experiments provided information for 

technological developments in several industrial areas, including pharmaceuticals, medical 

devices, agriculture, ceramics, and metallurgy. In one such experiment, researchers used the 

growth of crystals in space to characterize alpha-interferon and Factor D, which could result in 

advanced drugs.526 In FY 1995, the program manifested payloads on five of six Shuttle flights. 

These payloads included 26 flight experiments that used Shuttle middeck lockers, SPACEHAB, 

and the second flight of the Wake Shield Facility. This flight demonstrated epitaxial crystal 

growth in free-flyer mode. The flights of SPACEHAB-2 and the U.S. Microgravity Laboratory-2 

524 “Spartan 207/Inflatable Antenna Experiment Flown on STS-77, Preliminary Mission Report,” Spartan Project, 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 14 February 1997, pp. 1, 5, 

http://www.lgarde.com/papers/iaeprelim/iaeprelim.htm (accessed 4 June 2007).

525 “Space Technology Development,” http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/13.html (accessed 10 February 

2006).

526 “Space Processing,” Office of Space Access and Technology, Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, pp. SAT 5-25–SAT 5-

26.

525
included commercial experiments that involved protein crystal growth, metal sintering, 

physiological testing, fluids mixing, biomedical applications, zeolite crystal growth, and plant 

growth.527 

Orbiter Experiments (OEX) Program

In October 1993, the OEX program was completed with the successful flight of the Orbiter 

Acceleration Research Experiment (OARE) accelerometer aboard STS-58. Beginning with STS1, data collected over the years by 13 OEX experiments became an important source for 

improving orbiter performance. The data they supplied were used to validate models for 

designing future space transportation vehicles. The principal investigators for these experiments 

represented Langley Research Center, Ames Research Center, Johnson Space Center, and 

Goddard Space Flight Center. The OEX program included the following experiments: 

1. Aerodynamic Coefficient Identification Package (ACIP)

2. Aerothermal Instrumentation Package (AIP) 

3. Catalytic Surface Effects (CSE)

4. Data Flight Instrumentation Package (DFI)

5. Dynamic, Acoustic, and Thermal Environment Experiment (DATE) 

6. High Resolution Accelerometer Package (HiRAP)

7. Infrared Imagery of Shuttle (IRIS) 

8. Orbiter Acceleration Research Experiment (OARE)

9. Shuttle Entry Air Data System (SEADS)

10. Shuttle Infrared Leeside Temperature Sensing (SILTS)

527 “Space Processing,” Office of Space Access and Technology, Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 5-35 

526
11. Shuttle Upper Atmosphere Mass Spectrometer (SUMS)

12. Technology Flight Instrumentation (TFI) 

13. Tile Gap Heating Effects Experiment (TGH)

527
CHAPTER 4: TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION/SPACE OPERATIONS

Introduction

NASA’s tracking and data acquisition and space operations activities during the decade from 

1989 to 1998 provided vital support for all NASA flight projects and, on a reimbursable basis, 

selected projects of the DOD and other government agencies, commercial firms, and other 

countries and international organizations engaged in space research activities. This support, 

essential for achieving the objectives of all flight missions, included: 

• Tracking to determine the position and trajectory of vehicles in space. 

• Acquisition of science and space applications data from on-board experiments and sensors. 

• Acquisition of engineering data on the performance of spacecraft and launch vehicle systems.

• Reception of television transmissions from space vehicles. 

• Transmission of commands from ground facilities to the spacecraft. 

• Facilitating voice communications to and from astronauts.

• Transfer of information between various ground facilities and control centers.

• Processing data acquired from launch vehicles and spacecraft.

• Supporting transfer of television and data between ground facilities by a commercial vendor.1

This chapter describes NASA’s tracking and data acquisition and operations activities. It 

includes a summary of the decade from 1979 to 1998, an overview of Agency programs from 

1989 to 1998, a description of the management structure and personnel, budget information, and 

an account of specific activities in these areas. Note that, as in other chapters of this data book, 

1 “Mission Support, Research and Program Management,” FY 1996 Estimates, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/ms_3.html (accessed March 20, 2007). Also, review comments of chapter 

from David Harris, December 21, 2006.

528
units are always presented in the system used in the original source document (metric or 

English). The equivalent follows in parentheses. 

The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) 

During the decade from 1979 to 1989, NASA carried out its tracking and data acquisition 

activities using three major types of support capabilities. The Spaceflight Tracking and Data 

Network (STDN), a worldwide network of NASA ground stations, supported low-Earth orbital 

missions. The Deep Space Network (DSN) supported planetary and interplanetary flight 

missions. DSN also supported, on a limited basis, geosynchronous and highly elliptical missions 

and low-Earth-orbit missions not compatible with the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System 

(TDRSS). Since both STDN and DSN were served by facilities located on the ground, they were 

commonly referred to as the Ground Network (GN). The third major support capability, TDRSS 

and its supporting ground station at White Sands, New Mexico, made up the Space Network 

(SN). TDRSS supported low-Earth-orbital missions from geosynchronous orbit and reduced 

NASA’s reliance on an extensive network of ground stations. The system was characterized by 

its unique ability to provide bidirectional high data rates as well as position information to 

moving objects in real time nearly anywhere around the globe. The satellites were the first 

designed to handle telecommunications services through three frequency bands: the S-, Ku-, and 

C-bands. The S-band and Ku-band were used by NASA. The C-band was a commercial 

frequency not used by NASA. It was placed on the first series of TDRSS spacecraft in an attempt 

at cost-sharing between NASA and the commercial sector. During this decade, TDRSS 

spacecraft could transmit and receive data and track a user spacecraft in low-Earth orbit for 

approximately 85 percent of an orbit. 

529
Development of TDRSS began following a series of studies in the 1970s showing that a system 

of satellites in geosynchronous orbit operated from a single ground station could support 

NASA’s Earth-orbiting science missions and the Space Shuttle better than ground-based tracking 

stations. NASA contracted with Western Union in 1976 for a leased system and arranged for 

financing through the Federal Financing Bank. A series of changes in contract partners led to 

sole ownership and operation of the system by Continental Telephone (Contel) in 1985, which 

continued to own and operate the system throughout the decade on a lease arrangement with 

NASA. TDRS-1 and TDRS-3 were successfully launched during the decade. TDRS-B was 

destroyed on the 1986 Challenger accident.2

 

NASA’s GN stations were an essential component of Space Shuttle support. To provide reliable, 

continuous, and instantaneous communications support, NASA added new sites and upgraded 

some of its existing facilities and capabilities for the Shuttle test phase and early Shuttle flights. 

New sites for ultra high frequency (UHF) air-to-ground voice communications were added in 

Dakar, Senegal; Botswana; and Yarragadee, Australia. Shuttle-unique sites were also added in 

Florida, California, and New Mexico. Dakar was upgraded to S-band in 1982 to enable 

continuous telemetry data coverage between Bermuda and Hawai’i for all due-east launches, 

beginning with STS-4. This midpoint station allowed for the analysis of initial orbital 

maneuvering system burn data and provided for crew updates in case of an abort.3

 The network 

for the early Shuttle flights consisted of 17 NASA ground stations and the NASA 

Communications Network (NASCOM) and extensive DOD support. 

2 TDRS-B would have received the designation of TDRS-2 after it achieved orbit. Because it did not, it was never 

called TDRS-2, and that designation was never given to another satellite.

3 “Tracking Stations: STDN’s Final Years,” http://www.bfec.us/bfectxt8a.htm (accessed March 26, 2007).

530
As TDRSS became operational at the end of the 1980s, NASA phased out several STDN ground 

stations. The facilities at Fairbanks, Alaska, were transferred to the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1984. STDN relinquished ground stations in Goldstone, 

California; Madrid, Spain; and Canberra, Australia. The 85-foot (26-meter) antennas were 

transferred to the DSN sites to significantly reduce operating costs by combining operating 

resources. They continued operating and supporting the same types of missions, although they 

were operated by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) rather than by Goddard Space Flight 

Center (GSFC).4

 

In 1988, the DSN consisted of three complexes: Goldstone in southern California’s Mojave 

Desert, near Madrid, and near Canberra. These complexes were approximately 120 degrees apart 

in longitude, ensuring continuous observation and suitable overlap for transferring a spacecraft’s 

radio link from one complex to the next. Each complex consisted of at least four antennas. 

Equipment included 34-meter (111-foot)-diameter X- and S-band antennas that had been 

converted from 26-meter (85-foot) antennas in 1980, 26-meter (85-foot) antennas, and 70-meter 

(230-foot) antennas that had been extended from their original 64-meter (210-foot) diameters in 

preparation for the 1989 Voyager 2 spacecraft encounter with Neptune. For the Voyager mission 

during the 1980s, the DSN began using very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) navigation to 

supplement conventional Doppler and ranging navigation techniques. The technique used two 

widely separated DSN stations on different continents to receive signals simultaneously from a 

spacecraft and from an angular nearby natural radio source (quasar) whose celestial coordinates 

were very well known. This enabled precise measurement of the angular separation between the 

4 Charles Force, review comments of chapter. Also Keeping Track: A History of the GSFC Tracking and Data 

Acquisition Networks: 1957 to 1991 (Greenbelt, MD: Goddard Space Flight Center [no date, c. 1992]), p. 75.

531
spacecraft and quasar, especially important when missions required a close flyby of a planet to 

obtain a gravity assist to change the trajectory.

The Aeronautics, Balloons, and Sounding Rockets (AB&SR) program was another component of 

NASA’s GN program. With facilities at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), Virginia; Dryden Flight 

Research Facility (DFRF) and Moffett Field, California; Poker Flat in Alaska; White Sands 

Missile Range in New Mexico; , and the National Scientific Balloon Facility in Texas, AB&SR 

supported primarily suborbital vehicles, such as balloons and sounding rockets.

The elements of NASA’s Communications and Data Systems program linked the data 

acquisition station and users. These elements included communications, mission control, data 

capture and processing, and frequency management. Communications facilities during this 

decade consisted of the NASA Communications Network (NASCOM), which interconnected the 

tracking and data acquisition facilities for all flight projects by means of leased voice, data, 

video, and wideband circuits, and the Program Support Communications Network (PSCN), 

which linked NASA Headquarters (HQ) and Centers, and their major contractors.5

Tracking and Data Acquisition and Space Operations Overview (1989–1998) 

NASA provided tracking and data acquisition support primarily through programs within its HQ 

Office of Space Communications (OSC).6

 Through 1995, the Space and Ground Network, 

Communications, and Data Systems programs provided tracking, telemetry, command, and data 

acquisition support to meet the requirements of all NASA flight projects. In 1995, a restructuring 

5 Office of Space Communications, “Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems, Space 

Flight, Control and Data Communications, Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates,” p. SF 4-24.

6 Before 1992, this organization was called the Office of Space Operations.

532
split the Agency’s tracking, telemetry, command, and data acquisition functions between two 

new programs: Mission Communications Services and Space Communications Services. In both 

arrangements, the major programs remained the GN, the SN, and the Communications and Data 

Systems programs (later called the Telecommunications program).7 

As in the previous decade, the GN consisted of STDN, the DSN, and elements of the AB&SR 

program. Together, they formed a worldwide network of NASA electronic ground stations 

connected by a communications system that used ground, undersea, and satellite circuits. STDN 

provided prelaunch, launch, and landing communications required by Earth-orbiting spacecraft 

and the Space Shuttle. The DSN provided communications for planetary and solar system 

exploration missions, as well as for Earth-orbiting missions on a limited basis that could not be 

accessed by TDRSS. The AB&SR program included aeronautical research flight testing, launch 

vehicle tracking and communication, and support for the AB&SR elements of NASA’s 

suborbital research and technology demonstration programs. It also provided tracking and 

communications support for a limited number of scientific spacecraft and for Space Shuttle 

landings. 

The SN consisted of TDRSS, the primary system for supporting Earth-orbiting missions, and the 

associated ground elements necessary to meet the communications requirements of low-Earthorbiting spacecraft missions. The network’s Ground Segment included the White Sands Ground 

Terminal (WSGT) and the Second TDRSS Ground Terminal (STGT). A major SN milestone 

7 “General Statement,” Space Flight, Control and Data Communications Fiscal Year 1989 Estimates, p. SF SUM 1.

533
was reached in 1989 when TDRSS became fully operational in geosynchronous orbit.8

 A second 

milestone was reached in 1998 when the Guam ground tracking station became operational. The 

SN then provided 100 percent coverage for low-Earth-orbiting spacecraft, an improvement over 

the 85 percent coverage available with the WSGT alone. 

The Communications and Data Systems (or Telecommunications) program supported the 

operation, maintenance, and improvement of the NASCOM network and the PSCN. NASCOM 

provided for transmission of data, video, and voice information among NASA installations and 

between NASA mission operations control centers and the NASA space and ground networks. It 

also provided linkages to mobile tracking stations. The PSCN provided administrative and data 

handling services to international space agencies, other domestic users, scientists, laboratories, 

aerospace contractors, and educational institutions. In 1995, these two network programs merged 

their administrative and budgetary elements into a single network program called the NASA 

Integrated Services Network (NISN). The NASA Science Internet and Numerical Aerodynamic 

Simulation Network, both located at Ames Research Center, also merged into NISN.9

In addition, the Tracking and Data Advanced Systems research and development program 

focused on obtaining new, higher-performance tracking and data handling capabilities to support 

planned future missions.10

8 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, 1991), p. 39.

9 Richard A. Helmick, former NISN project manager, e-mail to author, March 21, 2007.

10 “Advanced Systems,” Tracking and Data Advanced Systems Fiscal Year 1989 Estimates, p. RD 17-2.

534
The decade of 1989–1998 was a period during which NASA was challenged to become more 

efficient and reduce costs, especially in the face of decreasing budgets. In the operations area, it 

attempted to achieve this through consolidation of facilities, control capabilities, and contracts.

In the early 1990s, Congress expressed concern about the lack of standardization, commonality, 

and interoperability associated with national security satellite control networks and the high costs 

associated with operating, maintaining, and upgrading these networks. Beginning in 1992, three 

studies were completed over a two-year period that focused on increasing network efficiency and 

effectiveness and achieving economies by combining or sharing intra- and interagency satellite 

control capabilities. 

In November 1992, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin initiated development of a 

comprehensive and integrated long-term plan for future aerospace facilities so that they could 

meet government and commercial needs for aeronautics and space research and development and 

space operations.11 This multi-agency effort involving NASA, DOD, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) , the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Commerce 

(DOC), included cataloging the existing government and industry facilities that supported 

aeronautics and astronautics research, development, testing, and operations. The resulting 

National Facilities Study, released at the end of April 1994, included recommendations and 

rationales for new facilities, upgrades, consolidation, and closure of existing facilities, along with 

their cost impacts and other considerations. Although the bulk of the report dealt with 

aeronautical facilities, it also recommended reducing and consolidating facilities, people, and 

11 U.S. General Accounting Office, Satellite Control Capabilities: National Policy Could Help Consolidation and 

Cost Savings, GAO/NSIAD-96-77, May 1996, p. 11, 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/gao/ns96077.pdf (accessed March 30, 2007).

535
programs in “command and control, training, [and] tracking . . .” The report suggested 

establishing a multi-agency task force to study network optimization and operational 

consolidation. This task force would address “reduced interoperability between governmentowned systems and less than optimal utilization of resources and facilities” resulting from the 

“historic development of independent satellite command and control systems.”12

A second study, under the auspices of the U.S. Space Command, dealt specifically with the 

defense space sector. Its report, issued in January 1994, called for the merger of Air Force and 

Navy satellite bus operations into a common satellite network.13

In January 1994, the Joint Chiefs of Staff initiated a third study—the Future Integrated 

Telemetry, Tracking and Commanding (TT&C) Architecture Study (FITAS)—which replaced 

the plans for action recommended in the National Facilities Study. FITAS involved participants 

from DOD, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office, and NOAA of DOC. The FITAS draft 

report, issued in September 1994, suggested a two-stage approach to consolidating and providing 

opportunities for streamlining operations and realizing significant cost savings by the involved 

organizations through the upgrade and shared use of facilities and capabilities. NASA, in its 

comments on the draft report, suggested considering an integrated multi-agency architecture.14

The final study report, released in April 1995, concluded that sharing satellite control resources 

12 National Facilities Study Team, National Facilities Study, Summary Report, April 29, 1994, pp. 14, 16, 24–25. 

13 U.S. GAO, Satellite Control Capabilities: National Policy Could Help Consolidation and Cost Savings, 

GAO/NSIAD-96-77, May 1996, p. 10. 14 Charles Force, Memo to U.S. Space Command, Cdr. Heatley, on the FITAS Draft Report, September 30, 1994.

536
could lead to efficiencies and stated that there was a clear need for a common satellite control 

architecture.15

In 1995, the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB) tasked NASA and DOD 

with pursuing cooperative ventures that targeted cost reductions.16 Joint DOD-NASA integrated 

product teams (IPTs) were formed in the areas of 1) technology and laboratories, 2) major 

facilities, 3) space launch, 4) center/base support and services, 5) satellite telemetry, 6) tracking 

and command, 7) personnel exchange, and 8) interagency agreements. The teams developed 

recommendations relating to a wide range of activities from specific technologies, such as microelectromechanical devices and fly-by-light systems, to infrastructure improvements, such as 

combined support contracts at field centers and exchange of scientists and engineers. The issue 

of spectrum management was specifically raised for the first time. Spectrum management was 

deemed important because DOD used an S-band frequency range for satellite command in the 

1700–1800 MHz range, while U.S. civilian agencies and the international satellite community 

used the 2025–2110 MHz range, rendering communication between the two systems 

incompatible.17 

In May 1996, the AACB met to review the results of the IPT efforts. It issued a final report with 

34 recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of operations and reducing 

costs. Among its recommendations were: 

15 U.S. GAO, Satellite Control Capabilities: National Policy Could Help Consolidation and Cost Savings, 

GAO/NSIAD-96-77, May 1996, p. 11.

16 The AACB was a senior management review and advisory body chartered in 1960 to help coordinate aeronautics 

and space activities and to meet the requirements of the Space Act.

17 John Rush and David Struba, NASA Headquarters, meeting with author, April 6, 2007.

537
• Combining spacecraft technology demonstrations and sharing the results from NASA and 

DOD experiments having similar objectives.

• sharing a C-17 aircraft hangar and cryogenics systems facility at Edwards Air Force Base/ 

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.

• joint use at Langley Air Force Base/NASA Langley Research Center of an alternative fueling

facility.

• Army Redstone Arsenal use of the photo laboratory at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center;

• NASA Kennedy Space Center use of Air Force medical supplies for its employee health 

facility at Patrick Air Force Base.18

Issues relating specifically to spectrum management and the lack of interoperability between 

DOD and NASA and other civilian and international agencies were not resolved. Rather, the 

committee passed on a recommendation to develop an “enduring management structure” to 

further study the issue.19 

In 1998, the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report reviewing the AACB 

initiative. It concluded that the cooperative initiative had succeeded in improving government 

operations and saving more than an estimated $1 billion for DOD and $45 million for NASA.20

However, the report concluded that actions to implement 18 of the 34 AACB recommendations 

18 “DOD/NASA Coordinating Board Finds Ways To Avoid Costs,” NASA News Release 96-91, May 8, 1996, 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1996/96-91.txt (accessed March 20, 2007). Also e-mail from David Harris to 

author, December 13, 2006.

19 John Rush and David Struba, NASA Headquarters, meeting with author, April 6, 2007.

20 DOD did not concur in this estimate. NASA Office of Inspector General, Review Report: Review of The 

Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB) DOD/NASA Cooperation Initiative P&A-98-003, 

September 28, 1998, p. 1, fn 1, http://oig.nasa.gov/old/partnerships_alliances/pa9803.pdf (accessed March 23, 

2007).

538
were incomplete because of “insufficient management oversight and commitment.”21 In 

particular, it stated that DOD and NOAA did not appoint people to manage the implementation. 

The report identified remaining opportunities to achieve significant operating improvements and 

savings, including 1) using excess DOD rocket motors to launch small scientific spacecraft, 2) 

conducting joint spacecraft flight demonstrations to reduce development and launch costs, and 3) 

developing standardized spacecraft and ground control systems to permit interoperability, 

resulting in improved support, increased support reliability, and reduced tracking costs.22

Further discussions continued between the NASA Administrator and senior DOD officials 

during the 1996–1998 time frame, but by the end of 1998 the spectrum issue had not been 

resolved and DOD continued to use a different spectrum range for satellite command 

incompatible with that used by other satellite users. The key result of discussions during this 

period was that they formed the foundation for future interoperability by studying a single band 

spectrum approach.23 Not until 2003 did DOD begin to phase in a “dual band” approach to 

satellite control whereby its equipment would use both the original DOD S-band spectrum range 

of 1700–1800 MHz and the civilian S-band range of 2025–2110 MHz.24

NASA also consolidated its operations contract structure during this decade. In 1996 and 1997, 

NASA began the process of consolidating and streamlining its major support contract services to 

reduce systems overlap and duplication in space operations, and reduce costs. Transition to a 

21 NASA Office of Inspector General, Review Report: Review of The Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating 

Board (AACB) DOD/NASA Cooperation Initiative P&A-98-003, September 28, 1998, p. 1. 22 NASA OIG, Review Report: Review of The Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB) 

DOD/NASA Cooperation Initiative P&A-98-003, p. 2.

23 John Rush and David Struba, NASA Headquarters, meeting with author, April 6, 2007. 24 John P. Stenbit, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments; Director, National Reconnaissance 

Office; Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Director, Missile Defense Agency; Subject: Space 

Systems Command and Control Spectrum Policy, August 4, 2003.

539
Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC) began in 1998. The acquisition process was 

implemented in two phases. Two eight-month fixed-price study contracts were awarded to 

Boeing North American and Lockheed Martin on May 16, 1997 to develop an Integrated 

Operations Architecture approach to consolidate space operations activities across the Agency. 

On September 25, 1998, CSOC was competitively awarded to the Lockheed Martin Space 

Operations Company. This 10-year, cost-plus-award-fee contract began on January 1, 1999, 

when five individual space operations contracts transitioned to CSOC. Ten additional existing 

space operations contracts were scheduled to transition to CSOC during the contract’s initial 

five-year period.25

According to the contract’s statement of work, the contractor’s mission was to manage, be 

responsible for, and provide space operations services to meet the requirements of NASA’s 

spaceflight and science programs. The contractor was to provide services that included acquiring 

data from a user vehicle or source, transmitting data to the end user, processing and storing data, 

and operating mission control centers. Services also included trajectory data processing, 

navigation analysis, and attitude determination. The services were to be available to all NASA 

space operations elements, including 

• Planetary spacecraft of the JPL.

• Earth-orbiting robotic spacecraft operated by Goddard Space Flight Center. 

• Suborbital programs conducted by the Wallops Flight Facility. 

• Robotic spacecraft operated by NASA-sponsored science institutes. 

• Human-tended spacecraft payload operations support at Marshall Space Flight Center. 

25 “Mission Communications Services,” Fiscal Year 1999 Estimates, p. SAT 5-3. Also “Space Communications 

Services,” Fiscal Year 2000 Estimates, p. MS 2-3; Rothenberg, statement, March 11, 1999, 

http://www.house.gov/science/Rothenberg_031199.htm (accessed September 20, 2006).

540
• Shuttle and space station programs at Johnson Space Center. 

• spacecraft launch processing at Kennedy Space Center. 

As a mechanism to further amortize investment and thereby reduce the overall cost to NASA, the 

contractor would also provide services to noncontract customers on an as-available basis and 

with government approval.26

Management of NASA’s Tracking and Data Acquisition and Space Operations Programs 

Until mid-1996, NASA’s tracking and data acquisition and space operations activities were 

managed by an independent HQ-level program office known as the Office of Space Operations 

(OSO) until 1992 and the Office of Space Communications (OSC) from 1992 to 1996. In 1996, 

NASA abolished the independent program office and folded OSC into the Office of Space Flight 

(OSF), which managed NASA’s human spaceflight activities. At the Center level, JPL managed 

and operated the DSN. Goddard managed and operated NASA’s Space Network and Ground 

Network. Marshall Space Flight Center managed NISN. 

Headquarters Level

At the start of the decade, OSO at NASA HQ (designated Code T within NASA) managed the 

Agency’s Ground Network, Space Network, and communications and data systems. From 1987 

through the first half of 1989, Robert Aller served as OSO Associate Administrator. In July 

1989, OSO Deputy Associate Administrator Charles Force replaced Aller as the new Associate 

Administrator. Jerry Fitts became the new Deputy Associate Administrator in September 1989, 

26 “Consolidated Space Operations Contract, Statement of Work,” 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/contracts/NAS998100/rfp/sow_and_drds.doc (accessed September 20, 2006).

541
succeeding Force (see figure 4-1). Albert Miller was Assistant Associate Administrator for Plans. 

OSO divisions and their directors were: 

• Administration and Resources Management Division—Ronald Dapice 

• Ground Network Division—Robert Hornstein

• Communications and Data Systems Division—Charles Fuechsel

• Space Network Division—Eugene Ferrick

Figure 4-1.Office of Space Operations (Derived from NASA HQ Telephone Directory). 

Early in 1990, OSO was redesignated Code O. Its functions remained the same.

In 1992, the name of the program office was changed to the Office of Space Communications 

(OSC). In 1993, a new division, the Program Integration Division, was added. David Harris was 

installed as its director.

542
In January 1994, Elmer Brooks replaced Fitts as OSC Deputy Associate Administrator. When he 

left that position in 1995, he was not replaced, and the position was eliminated in the 

reorganization that took place in 1996. In 1995, Fuechsel also left his position as Director of the 

Communications and Data Systems Division. Force took over as acting Division Director. The 

same year, Wilson Lundy replaced Ferrick as Director of the Space Network Division. In early 

1996, Hornstein left the Ground Network Division and was replaced by Lundy on an acting 

basis. Lundy also served as acting Director of the Communications and Data Systems Division.27

In 1995, NASA underwent a “zero-base review” “to identify strategies for sustaining its core 

programs in the face of significantly reduced future budget allowances, and to continue 

“implementing the principles underlying the NASA reinvention process.”28 Basically, each 

organization was instructed to justify its programs and activities in an effort to achieve cost 

savings. A major NASA-wide restructuring resulted that consolidated organizations and reduced 

their size. A Space Operations Management Plan, prepared by an Agency team, called for NASA 

to emphasize research and development while outsourcing many operational elements in an 

effort to provide higher quality service at a lower cost.29 

In 1996, NASA established the Space Operations Management Office (SOMO), centered at 

Johnson Space Center (JSC), to oversee the Agency’s space operations activities and to 

27 The Spring 1996 Headquarters Directory shows Lundy in these three positions. Charles Force is listed as 

Associate Administrator.

28 “Addressing the $4 Billion FY 1997–2000 Budget Challenge: NASA’s Zero Base Review (ZBR),” 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/97budget/zbr.txt (accessed October 11, 2006).

29 “Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1997,” 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/info/annualreports/1997/aerospace.html (accessed September 20, 2006).

543
implement a planned Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC). This Agency-wide 

organization was responsible for providing operations services such as communications, data 

transport, and space vehicle command and control. SOMO focused on reducing the cost of 

NASA’s space operations and was to respond to data and mission operations requirements 

identified by specific NASA programs and projects, as well as to external customer requests for 

similar services on a non-interference basis. Its key responsibility was to ensure the efficient use 

of Agency assets and avoid duplication. The organization was kept small, and management of 

operations facilities and physical assets was retained by the centers. The Data Services Manager 

was a JPL employee, the Mission Services Manager was from Goddard Space Flight Center, and 

the Commercialization/NISN Manager was a Marshall Space Flight Center employee.30 

This period was a time of extensive reorganization within NASA. In April 1996, Force retired 

from the Agency, leaving his position as OSC Associate Administrator. He was replaced 

temporarily by Lundy and then by David Harris, both on an acting basis. In October 1996, OSC 

was eliminated as an independent program office and was incorporated within the Office of 

Space Flight (OSF) (designated Code M within NASA) headed by William Trafton (see figure 4-

2). Other divisions within Code M were Space Station, Space Shuttle, and Business 

Management.31 The HQ’s role was reduced to external interface, developing program 

requirements, and strategic planning.32 

30 Joseph H. Rothenberg, statement before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives, March 11, 1999, http://www.house.gov/science/Rothenberg_031199.htm (accessed 

September 20, 2006).

31 See chapters 2 and 3 of volume VII of NASA Historical Data Book, 1989–1998, for additional details relating to 

the structure of Code M.

32 Rothenberg, statement, March 11, 1999, http://www.house.gov/science/Rothenberg_031199.htm (accessed 

September 20, 2006).

544
Figure 4-2.In 1996, the Office of Space Communications was incorporated into 

the Office of Space Flight (Derived from NASA HQ Telephone Directory). 

Within Code M, Harris was appointed the Deputy Associate Administrator for Space 

Communications. The divisions within the Space Communications organization continued to be 

Ground Network, Program Integration, Communications and Data Systems, Space Network. At 

the same time, Harris headed the Ground Network, Communications and Data Systems, and 

Space Network Divisions on an acting basis, and David Struba was acting head of the Program 

Integration Division. In addition, a Space Communications Office, within the Resources 

Management Division, was headed by Office Chief Joseph LaCurto. This office handled money 

issues for space communications. When Harris retired in September 1997, no one was appointed 

to fill his position as head of Space Communications, and the position was soon abolished. 

545
In January 1998, Goddard Director Joseph Rothenberg left the center and moved to NASA HQ, 

replacing Trafton as Associate Administrator for OSF. Rothenberg named Robert Spearing to 

head the Space Communications Division, which was placed under the Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Space Shuttle, led by Steve Oswald.33 

NASA Center Level

Deep Space Network—Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

JPL had responsibility for three Deep-Space Communications complexes in Canberra, Australia; 

Madrid, Spain; and Goldstone, California. It also managed and operated the Network Operations 

Control Center at Pasadena, California; the Space Flight Operations Facility at JPL; and the 

DSN’s Ground Communications Facility (see figure 4-3). During the first part of the decade, the 

Tracking and Data Acquisition (TDA) program office at JPL, headed by an Assistant Laboratory 

Director for Tracking and Data Acquisition (ALD/TDA), managed DSN activities.34 

33 Spring/Summer 1998 Headquarters Directory, NASA History Division electronic file, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

34 The basic structure of the JPL during this period consisted of offices headed by ALDs under the JPL director. 

Douglas J. Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink: A History of the Deep Space Network 1957–1997 (Washington, DC: 

NASA 4227, 2001), pp. 590, 606.

546
Figure 4-3.This undated photo shows the Space Flight Operations Facility at the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory. The facility was dedicated in May 1964. In 1985, the facility was designated a 

National Historic Landmark. It is still in use (NASA photo GPN-2003-00064). 

In 1994, to support the NASA Space Communications and Operations program defined in JPL’s 

Strategic Plan, and in an effort to be more efficient and cost-effective, JPL eliminated the TDA 

office and restructured and consolidated its functions. It merged the TDA and the Mission 

Operations Systems Office (MOSO) to create a new directorate, the Telecommunications and 

Mission Operations Directorate (TMOD), which drew on then-popular “reengineering” concepts 

and reflected a new and cost-effective approach to complex business management systems. The 

former TDA organization was consolidated into two offices: an office for planning, committing, 

and allocating DSN resources called the Plans and Commitments Office, and a second office for 

DSN operations and systems engineering called the DSN Data Services Office. DSN science and 

technology was handled in the Plans and Commitments Office, and development was 

incorporated in the Data Services Office. TMOD also included the Multimission Ground 

547
Systems office, project offices of the four current inflight missions, and a new business office.35

DSN operations, which did not change the way it delivered data to the customer, became referred 

to as the Data Capture Process.36 The new organization’s structure is shown in figure 4-4. 

Figure 4-4.Telecommunications and Mission Operations Directorate, 1996 (Adapted from 

Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink, p. 613). 

The heads of the DSN at JPL were Larry Dumas (ALD/TDA 1989–1992), Norman Haynes 

(ALD/TDA 1992–1996), Paul Westmoreland (TMOD Director 1996–1997), and Gael Squibb 

(TMOD Director 1997–2002). 

35 Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink, pp. 612–613.

36 Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink, p. 614.

548
DSN facilities outside of the United States were operated by the host countries. In Australia, an 

intergovernment agreement covered issues such as ownership, taxation, import/export, and 

immigration. Detailed interagency agreements, reviewed annually, specified funding levels and 

forecasted work commitments.37 On behalf of the Australian government, the Commonwealth 

Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Division of Telecommunications and 

Industrial Physics managed NASA activities in Australia. The staff and infrastructure providing 

engineering and operations support for the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex 

(CDSCC) were supplied by Australian industry under a contract with CSIRO acting on behalf of 

the Australian government, and the complex director was employed by CSIRO. The director was 

responsible for routine management of the complex, its staff, and its facilities. NASA bore all 

costs for operating the complex.38 

Similar agreements existed between NASA and Spain for the management, engineering, and 

operations support for the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex (MDSCC). In Spain, 

however, both the director and staff were employed by the Spanish government agency, Instituto 

Nacional Tecnica Aerospacial (INTA), until 1992 when INTA, retaining the NASA contract, 

delegated maintenance and operation to its wholly-owned company, Ingenieria y Servicios 

Aeroespaciales (INSA).39 

37 Jim O’Brien and Ian Tuohy, “Operation and Maintenance Support of the Canberra Deep Space Communications 

Complex,” International Astronautical Federation, 1998, 1, NASA History Division folder 008846, Historical 

Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

38 Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink, p. 605. Also Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, June 1997, 2, NASA 

History Division folder 8846, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

39 Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink, pp. 605–606.

549
Ground Network and Space Network—Goddard Space Flight Center

For most of the decade, the Mission Operations and Data Systems Directorate (MO&DSD) at 

Goddard Space Flight Center managed and operated the GN, the SN, TDRSS, NASA worldwide 

communications, and other functions needed to communicate, capture, process, and distribute 

data, and to compute orbit and attitude in support of space exploration and related activities. The 

heads of MO&DSD during this decade were Dale Fahnestock (1989–1995) and Arthur Fuchs 

(1995–1997). Specific divisions changed occasionally, but, in general, a Mission Operations 

Division developed, operated, and maintained mission planning systems and designed, 

developed, operated, and maintained the Goddard Payload Operations Control Centers, which 

were responsible for commanding a spacecraft and monitoring its health and safety status. The 

Flight Dynamics Division performed orbital computations, spacecraft attitude determination, and 

flight maneuvering, as well as commanding the spacecraft. The Networks Division provided 

tracking services and relayed commands to and data from user spacecraft through the Network 

Control Center (NCC). The NASA Communications (NASCOM) network provided data 

transport services. The Data Systems Technology Division advanced the quality and 

effectiveness of the data system by applying state-of-the-art technologies to system 

enhancements. The Information Processing Division was responsible for capturing and 

processing raw data so that end users would have usable information products.40 This division 

was eliminated in 1995 when most of its functions were moved to the Mission Operations 

Division, then renamed the Mission Operations and Systems Development Division. 

In 1997, Goddard underwent a “reengineering” and restructuring that aimed to improve 

efficiency and lessen redundancy in its programs. To bring MO&DSD functions closer to the 

40 Goddard Organizational Manual, January 1991 and January 1993.

550
overall work of the center, a separate MO&DSD was eliminated. Some MO&DSD offices were 

realigned and others moved into existing or newly formed directorates. Divisions that moved to 

the new Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate (AETD), headed by Brian Keegan, 

were replaced by “centers,” which were generally larger and encompassed more functions than 

the old divisions. Both the Data Systems Technology Division and the Mission Operations and 

Systems Development Division moved to the AETD Information Systems Center, with the 

functions of the former Information Processing Division handled by the Science Data Systems 

Branch. This center was headed by Marti Szczur. The Flight Dynamics Division moved to the 

Guidance, Navigation, and Control Center, headed by Frank Bauer. The Networks Division 

remained intact and was folded into the Flight Projects Directorate, creating an office called the 

Networks and Mission Services Project. This organization, headed by Philip Liebrecht, was 

responsible for NASA’s Space Network, Ground Network, and mission and data systems. The 

NASCOM network moved to the Management Operations Directorate.41 

Money for Tracking and Data Acquisition and Space Operations 

For the first part of the decade from 1989 to 1998, NASA’s tracking and data acquisition and 

space operations activities were funded almost entirely from the Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications (SFC&DC) appropriation. These funds provided tracking, telemetry, command, 

data acquisition, communications, and data processing support to meet the requirements of all 

41 Goddard Space Flight Center Telephone Directories, October 1996 and March 1998. Also personal 

communication with Arthur Fuchs, former MO&DSD chief, September 2006.

551
NASA flight projects.42 A small amount for advanced systems activities was funded by the 

Research and Development (R&D) appropriation. 

With the FY 1995 budget submission, NASA’s appropriations were reconfigured, and funding 

for data acquisition and space operations was split between the Mission Support (MS) and 

Science, Aeronautics, and Technology (SAT) appropriations. The MS appropriation provided 

funds to operate, sustain, and replenish the SN, which supported operation of TDRSS; the 

ground terminals at White Sands, New Mexico; and the Network Control Center (NCC) at 

Goddard. Funds for services provided to non-science users of TDRSS were included under this 

program. This appropriation also funded the NASCOM network and the PSCN. The SAT 

appropriation provided funds for communications support for elements most directly related to 

NASA’s science and aeronautics programs, including the GN, mission planning for robotics 

spacecraft programs, suborbital missions, and aeronautics test programs. Funds were provided to 

operate and sustain NASA’s DSN, STDN, Wallops Flight Facility and subsidiary facilities, and 

the Western Aeronautical Test Range, which supported NASA’s Robotic Science, Aeronautics, 

and Suborbital program.43

The budget for NASA’s tracking and data acquisition and space operations activities decreased 

significantly from 1989 to 1998, especially from FY 1993. At the end of the decade, funding 

programmed for these activities was $141 million less than at the start of the decade. From FY 

1993 on, Congress regularly reduced the amounts allocated for data acquisition and operations, 

causing the elimination of many support activities at NASA HQ and the cancellation of the 

42 “General Statement,” Fiscal Year 1991 Budget Estimates, p. AS 5.

43 “General Statement,” Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Estimates, pp. AS-9–AS-10.

552
Advanced Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System program. Programs were consolidated, and 

purchases and improvements were deferred. In an effort to increase efficiency and reduce costs, 

in FY 1998, NASA awarded a consolidated space operations contract to Lockheed Martin to 

outsource NASA’s space operations under a single contract. The contract would manage all of 

NASA’s data collection, telemetry, and communications operations supporting NASA’s Earthorbiting satellites, planetary exploration, and human spaceflight activities.44

Funding to develop TDRSS was handled differently from most NASA projects. Rather than 

receiving development funds directly from Congress, which the Agency would then pay to a 

contractor for its services, NASA borrowed funds from the Federal Financing Bank (FFB), a 

government corporation supervised by the Secretary of the Treasury. These funds went directly to 

the owner-operator of TDRSS, the Space Communications Company, for program development. 

NASA repaid the loan to the FFB in FY 1991 and accrued interest and fees in FY 1992.

Table 4-1 shows programmed amounts for the years 1989–1998. Tables 4-2 through 4-34 show 

budget requests and programmed amounts for tracking and data acquisition and space operations 

activities. Since NASA typically submits an original and a revised budget request before 

Congress acts on a budget, both amounts are indicated, separated by a “/.” Where no amount 

appears, there was no submission. Programmed amounts reflect the amounts actually available to 

be spent. Occasionally, a budget category is established during a fiscal year. When this happens, 

there will be a programmed amount but no budget request for that budget category. Funds for 

these activities often were transferred from another project’s budget through a “reprogramming” 

44 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1998 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, no date), p. 4.

553
of funds during the year. All amounts come from the annual budget requests prepared by the 

NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Explanations of changes in the budget 

figures also come from the annual CFO’s budget submissions. An explanation of NASA’s 

budget process can be found in chapter 1 of volume VII of this data book. 

Tracking and Data Acquisition/Space Operations 

NASA’s tracking and data acquisition/space operations included its GN and SN facilities and 

services, data processing, and mission operations. Table 4-35 lists NASA’s GN and SN tracking 

sites in use between 1989 and 1998. 

Ground Network 

NASA’s Ground Network (GN) supported Earth orbital spaceflight; planetary and solar system 

exploration; and aeronautics, balloons, and sounding rockets (AB&SR) missions. The STDN, a 

network of geographically disbursed ground stations, supported Earth orbital missions. The DSN 

ground stations, located at three complexes approximately 120 degrees apart in longitude, 

supported planetary and solar system exploration missions as well as Earth orbital missions that 

were not compatible with TDRSS on a limited basis when STDN did not provide support. 

AB&SR research was supported by specially instrumented tracking ranges as well as by mobile 

systems.45 

45 “Ground Networks,” Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems, Fiscal Year 1989 

Estimates, p. 3-11.

554
Ground Network Stations/STDN 

The STDN, NASA’s GN, was operated, maintained, and managed by Goddard Space Flight 

Center. It consisted of a number of tracking stations located around the world. Many of the 

STDN stations were located in polar locations to provide service to polar-orbiting spacecraft. 

The nonpolar ground stations supported low-inclination orbital missions, provided contingency 

support to geosynchronous spacecraft, and were located near launch ranges to provide effective 

launch range tracking support.46 In addition to using the NASA-wide network, some space 

missions, such as Landsat and Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), also used ground 

stations that were dedicated solely to receiving data from that mission.47 

The STDN’s primary requirements were to be available during the Space Shuttle launch 

countdown sequence so that launch could proceed as planned, and to provide at least 99 percent 

of Space Shuttle data during the launch phase.48 Stations at Merritt Island (MILA) and Ponce de 

Leon (PDL), Florida, and Bermuda were used primarily for Space Shuttle prelaunch, launch, 

range safety, and landing support. Also available on a standby basis for Space Shuttle missions 

and mission coverage beyond close-to-Earth phases were the DSN stations at Goldstone, Madrid, 

and Canberra.49 Dryden Flight Research Center provided Shuttle landing support, and Bermuda 

and Wallops Flight Facility provided range safety support. GN stations also supported 

spaceflight missions of the DOD and NOAA on a reimbursable basis. 

46 Ground Network (GN) Users’ Guide, Revision 1, p. 2-1, http://scp.gsfc.nasa.gov/gn/gnusersguide3.pdf. 47 “Chapter 4—Ground System,” Landsat 7 Science Data Users Handbook, 

http://landsathandbook.gsfc.nasa.gov/handbook/handbook_htmls/chapter4/chapter4.html (accessed 3 October 

2006).

48 “Mission Communications Services,” Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, p. SAT 5-7.

49 Keeping Track; GSFC Tracking and Data Acquisition Networks: 1957 to 1991 (Greenbelt, MD: Goddard Space 

Flight Center, no date, c. 1992), pp. 57, 76.

555
As the TDRSS became operational, the number of STDN stations fell from 20 in 1973 to 10 at 

the beginning of 1989 (plus facilities at Dryden).50 On 30 September 1989, ground station 

operations ceased at Guam; Santiago, Chile; Kauai, Hawaii; and Yarragadee, Australia. 

Ascension Island ceased operations in November 1989.51 Facilities in Hawaii were transferred to 

other NASA elements, the state of Hawaii, and the U.S. Air Force.52 The station at Santiago was 

transferred to the University of Chile, and NASA purchased tracking services. The station at 

Dakar, Senegal, which provided support to the Shuttle during the launch phase of a mission, 

originally had been scheduled to cease operating at the same time; however, in late 1988, a 

decision was made to keep Dakar open until the second TDRS became operational. Ground 

stations at Merritt Island and Ponce de Leon, Florida, and Bermuda remained open to provide 

launch and landing support for the Shuttle. 

In late 1993, NASA began phasing out the Dakar station. S-band voice communication ended in 

December 1993, and the facility was vacated in spring of 1994. UHF voice communication 

continued to be provided from a Senegalese government communication facility until December 

1995, when all support from Senegal ended. Termination was feasible at that time because the 

second TDRSS ground terminal at White Sands, New Mexico, had been completed.53 

In FY 1994, STDN began providing only launch and landing support for Shuttle deployments. It 

continued to provide launch support for ELVs. 

50 “Locations and Capabilities of Goddard Tracking Stations,” NASA News Fact Sheet No. 89-14, 1 February 1989, 

NASA History Division folder 6534, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also 

“Space and Ground Communications Networks To Provide Support for STS-29 Mission,” NASA News Release 89-

06, 1 February 1989, NASA History Division folder 6534, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

51 “Space and Ground Networks, Communications, and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1991 Estimates, p. SF 3-13.

52 Jim Costrell, e-mail to author, 27 March 2007.

53 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates, p. SAT 7-6.

556
In 1995, a new 10-meter (32.8-foot) antenna was installed at the National Science Foundation 

(NSF)’s McMurdo facility in Antarctica to acquire synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data from the 

NASA/Canadian Space Agency RadarSat spacecraft. The following year, new 11-meter (36-

foot) antenna systems were added at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks and at the Wallops 

Orbital Tracking Station for use with the Japanese-United States Advanced Earth Orbiting 

Satellite (ADEOS) and other missions. 

Between 1996 and 1998, the Norwegian Space Center (NSC) established a ground station on 

Norway’s Svalbard islands within the Arctic Circle. The most northerly ground station in the 

world (located at 78°13'N), Svalbard Satellite Station (SvalSat) was unique because it covered all 

14 daily passes of polar-orbiting satellites, allowing for a more continuous download of 

information. NASA triggered the station’s development when the Agency asked for a location 

for an antenna to be used for its Earth Observing System (EOS) Polar Ground Network. The 

station’s tracking, telemetry, and control activities were initiated in 1997 when Tromsø Satellite 

Station began operating the ground station under a contract with the NSC. NASA was its first 

customer, using it for its EOS satellites. NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility initially installed one 

11-meter (36-foot) S-X band antenna system at the site.54

Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft (ARIA)

From 1968 to August 2001, ARIA (developed by NASA and the DOD, and originally named the 

Apollo Range Instrumentation Aircraft) tracked lunar missions as well as orbital and ballistic 

54 “Svalbard Ground Station, Norway,” Aerospace Technology, http://www.aerospacetechnology.com/projects/svalbard/. Also T. Andreassen et al., “Polar Bears and Spacecraft Tracking,” ESA Bulletin

109 (February 2002): pp. 118–121 (both accessed 2 October 2006).

557
reentry programs. The program succumbed in 2001 to the costs associated with maintaining the 

aircraft and the network’s capabilities.55 

ARIA consisted of EC-135E and EC-18B aircraft used as flexible airborne telemetry data 

recording and relay stations. These aircraft were designed and developed to supplement land and 

marine telemetry stations in support of DOD and NASA space and missile programs. ARIA 

could acquire, track, record, and retransmit telemetry signals, primarily in the S-band frequency 

range from 2,200 to 2,400 megahertz and the C-band frequency range from 4,150 to 4,250 

megahertz. With additional modifications, ARIA could receive and record L-band and P-band 

frequencies.

ARIA deployed throughout the world to obtain telemetry data from orbital and reentry vehicles 

as well as air-to-air and cruise missile tests. Normally, the telemetry data were obtained in 

locations such as broad ocean areas and remote land areas outside the coverage of ground 

stations. Selected portions of data could be retransmitted in real time, via UHF satellite, to enable 

the launching agency to monitor system performance. All data were recorded on magnetic tape 

for postmission analysis. 

Each ARIA was modified externally and internally from a standard C-135 or C-18 aircraft. 

Externally, the most obvious difference in appearance was the large, bulbous, “droop snoot” 

nose, a 10-foot (3-meter) radome housing a 7-foot (2-meter) steerable parabolic tracking antenna. 

The function of this subsystem, which was controlled by the antenna control assembly and the 

55 Leigh Anne Bierstine, “ARIA Makes Final Touchdown at Edwards,” Air Force News Archives, 27 August 2001, 

http://www.flyaria.com/document/html/sources/airforcelink/finaltouchdown.htm (accessed 27 September 2006).

558
antenna operator, was to acquire and track telemetry signals. The ARIA also had a probe antenna 

on each wing tip and a trailing wire antenna on the bottom of the fuselage used for highfrequency radio transmission and reception. Further external modifications included antennas for 

data retransmission via UHF satellite. The internal modifications to the cargo compartment 

included all of the instrumentation subsystems installed in a 30,000-pound (13,608-kilogram) 

modular package.56

Deep Space Network (DSN)

56 “EC-18 ARIA,” FAS Military Analysis Network, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ec-18.htm (accessed 27 

September 2006).

57 “Tidbinbilla” is an Aboriginal name for a “place where boys become men.” Jim O’Brien and Ian Tuohy, 

“Operation and Maintenance Support of the Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex,” International 

Astronautical Federation, 1998, p. 5, NASA History Division folder 008846, Historical Reference Collection, 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

57 O’Brien and Tuohy, p. 4, NASA History Division folder 008846, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

The DSN was maintained and operated by NASA. It comprised three clusters of antennas, each 

consisting of one large quasi-parabolic dish (70 meters [230 feet] in diameter) and several 

smaller antennas (34 meters [11 feet], 26 meters [85 feet], and 11 meters [36 feet] in diameter). 

They were spaced approximately 120 degrees apart in longitude. This configuration ensured that 

an antenna would always be within sight of a deep-space mission as Earth rotated. The 

Goldstone complex was located on the U.S. Army’s Fort Irwin Military Reservation, 

approximately 72 kilometers (45 miles) northeast of Barstow, California, in the Mohave Desert. 

The Canberra complex was 40 kilometers (25 miles) southwest of Canberra near the Tidbinbilla 

Nature Reserve.57 The Madrid complex was 60 kilometers (37 miles) west of Madrid at Robledo 

de Chavela. Each complex was situated in semi-mountainous, bowl-shaped terrain to shield 

against radiofrequency interference. All the stations were remotely operated from a centralized 

signal-processing center at each complex. The centers housed the electronic subsystems that 

pointed and controlled the antennas, received and processed the telemetry data, transmitted 

559
commands, and generated the spacecraft navigation data. After the data were processed at the 

complexes, they were transmitted to the JPL for further processing and distribution to science 

teams over a ground communications network.58 Groups of antennas of the same size were 

referred to as “subnets” (e.g., the 34-meter [111-foot] subnet). Each antenna had a number 

designation preceded by “DSS.” Antennas at Goldstone were in the 10s and 20s range. Canberra 

used the 30s and 40s, and Madrid used the 50s and 60s to designate antennas at its complexes. 

The network supported all planetary and interplanetary spacecraft, and provided emergency and 

backup support to the Space Shuttle, the TDRSS, and several Earth-orbiting spacecraft, including 

the Hubble Space Telescope.59 DSN support of Earth-orbiting missions began with the 

International Cometary Explorer in 1984 and later included the Solar and Heliospheric 

Observatory (SOHO), Polar, Wind, Geotail, TOMS-EP, and Roëntgen missions.60

Communicating throughout the solar system and into interstellar space, the DSN supported 

spacecraft launched more than 25 years ago using a combination of heritage analogue 

communications systems involving 1960s technology and modern state-of-the-art digital signal 

processing systems. Whereas conventional space communications systems operated over the 

distance to geostationary orbit, the DSN regularly communicated with spacecraft at a distance of 

more than 10.5 billion kilometers (6.5 billion miles) from Earth.61

58 “Antennas,” Deep Space Network, http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/antennas/index.html (accessed 20 September 

2006).

59 Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink, pp. 335–336.

60 Ibid., pp. 169, 333–335, 408, 434.

61 O’Brien and Tuohy, p. 3, NASA History Division folder 008846, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

560
A centralized network control center, which was needed for advanced data handling, was located 

at the JPL. This control center provided seamless communications to the relevant mission control 

centers by scheduling the three complexes in sequence to enable a continuous link with the 

spacecraft.62 Other DSN facilities included a spacecraft compatibility test area at the JPL and a 

launch operations and compatibility facility at the STDN Merritt Island tracking station. The 

DSN facilities were also used for ground-based measurements in support of experiments in solar 

system radar and in the field of radio astronomy.63 

The DSN received science and engineering data from the spacecraft and transmitted navigation, 

command, and control signals to the spacecraft.64 The bandwidths typically used were S-band at 

approximately 2,000 megahertz, X-band at approximately 8,000 megahertz, Ku-band at 

approximately 15,000 megahertz, and Ka-band at approximately 32,000 megahertz.65 

The major objectives of the DSN were to

• provide communications links to scientific spacecraft at greater distances and to increase the 

capability to receive images at these distances;

• increase the frequency range and data rate capability of the ground network to accommodate 

new deep-space missions; 

• provide mission support for Earth-orbiting spacecraft that were not TDRSS-compatible and 

for which STDN required additional services (STDN was the primary resource for low-Earthorbiting mission support when the mission was not designed for TDRSS support); 

62 Ibid., p. 4.

63 “Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1990 Estimates, pp. SF 3-12–SF 

3-13.

64 Ibid.

65 Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, June 1997, p. 8.

561
• provide improved navigation capabilities for precise spacecraft targeting and probe delivery; 

• provide emergency support to TDRSS-compatible spacecraft.66

In 1993, NASA began a phased upgrade program to increase the DSN’s capacity and add new 

capabilities required for current and future missions. The upgrade was needed to accommodate 

the increasing number and sophistication of spacecraft. Specific improvements included 

additional antenna subnets, which could be arrayed together to effectively improve performance 

and implementation of systems for orbiting very-long-baseline interferometry (OVLBI) 

astronomy missions, deep-space missions, and Earth-observation missions.67 

The 26-meter (85-foot)-diameter antennas were originally built to support the Apollo missions 

to the Moon between 1967 and 1975. In later years they supported Earth-orbiting spacecraft, 

most of which orbited between 160 and 1,000 kilometers (100–630 miles) above Earth, as well 

as highly elliptical missions such as the SOHO spacecraft that were out of view of TDRSS. The 

X-Y mount on these antennas allowed them to point low on the horizon to pick up the fastmoving Earth orbiters as soon as they rose into view. The maximum tracking speed was 3 

degrees per second.68 

The 70-meter (230-foot)-diameter antennas were the largest and therefore the most sensitive 

DSN antennas. They could track a spacecraft traveling more than 16 billion kilometers (10 

billion miles) from Earth. Massive in size, the hydraulically-driven dish reflectors and their 

66 “Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1991 Estimates, p. SF 3-14.

67 “Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems,” Space Flight, Control and Data 

Communications, Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. SF 4-15.

68 “26-meter Antennas,” http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/antennas/26m.html (accessed 20 September 2006).

562
azimuth-elevation mounts atop the concrete pedestals weighed nearly 2.7 million kilograms 

(2,970 tons).69 Because of their size, these antennas rotated on an unusual azimuth bearing 

system, called a hydrostatic bearing, that allowed them to rotate smoothly. The rotating mass was 

supported on a 0.25-millimeter-thick film of oil. Large amounts of lead counter balanced the 

antennas’ tipping structure.70 Figure 4-5 shows the Canberra 70-meter antenna.

Figure 4-5. This photo shows the 70-meter (230-foot) antenna at Canberra 

(NASA photo GPN-2000-000502). 

69 “70-meter Antennas,” http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/antennas/70m.html (accessed 20 September 2006).

70 Also Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, June 1997, 4, NASA History Division folder 8846, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

563
The 70-meter antennas were originally built as 64-meter (210-foot)-diameter antennas. They 

were expanded to 70 meters between 1982 and 1988 to increase their sensitivity to support 

Voyager 2’s encounter with Neptune. These antennas were used for Very-Long-Baseline 

Interferometry (VLBI) and supported both X- and S-band uplink and downlink. The 70-meter at 

Goldstone was also used for radar astronomy, or Goldstone Solar System Radar (GSSR).71

Figure 4-6 shows the structure housing the electronics of the 70-meter antenna at Goldstone. 

Figure 4-6. This photo shows the structure housing the electronics on the 70-meter (230-foot) 

antenna at the Goldstone Complex. Note the size of the person on the ladder at the center of the 

vertical pointing antenna in comparison to the size of the dish (NASA photo JPL 9015). 

71 “Chapter 18. Deep Space Network,” Basics of Space Flight, Section III, http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf18-

2.html (accessed 18 September 2006).

564
On 28 June 1992, the Goldstone area was hit by two major earthquakes within a few hours of 

each other. The 70-meter antenna (DSS 14) was damaged, but parts were repaired or replaced 

and the antenna returned to full use within three weeks. An engineering team that was formed 

immediately after the earthquake assessed the damage, assisted with the antenna’s return to 

service, and recommended action to ensure that all of the 70-meter antennas would have 

increased protection against future earthquakes. Over the next three years, equipment was 

installed on all 70-meter antennas to make them more earthquake-resistant.72

Other maintenance has been required on the 70-meter antennas. In the spring of 1990, following 

the failure and repair of the elevation bearing on Madrid’s 70-meter antenna (DSS 63) in 

December 1989, the DSN temporarily halted the use of all the 70-meter antennas in order to 

inspect the bearings and equalize the loads on inboard and outboard elevation bearings. In 1991, 

the original roller bearings were replaced with solid roller bearings.

The 34-meter (111-foot) high-efficiency (HEF) antennas (DSS 15, 45, and 65) were installed 

at each complex in the 1980s to replace the older 34-meter standard (STD) subnet antennas that 

were to be decommissioned in the 1990s. The 34-meter STD antennas had a polar-axis design. 

They were originally built with 26-meter (85-foot)-diameter reflectors and later upgraded to 34 

meters. The upgrade required the entire antenna to be repositioned on concrete footings so that 

the reflector could point to low elevations without striking the ground. The 34-meter STD 

antenna at Goldstone (DSS 12) was decommissioned in 1996 and converted to an educational 

72 Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink, pp. 341–342.

565
resource named the Goldstone-Apple Valley Radio Telescope (GAVRT).73 The 34-meter STD 

antennas at Madrid (DSS 61) and Canberra (DSS 42) were decommissioned in 1999.74 

The 34-meter HEF subnet was designed with the more efficient azimuth-elevation mounting and 

a 34-meter reflector, with a precision-shaped surface for maximum signal-gathering capability at 

X-band radiofrequencies. In addition to tracking spacecraft, the DSN 34-meter HEF subnet was 

used for VLBI and radio-source catalog maintenance.75 These antennas supported X-band uplink 

and downlink, and S-band downlink.76 DSS 15 (at Goldstone) and DSS 45 (at Canberra) became 

operational in 1984, and DSS 65 (at Madrid) became operational in 1987. All remain in use. 

A small antenna located near DSS 45 at Canberra was connected to the Global Positioning 

System (GPS) receiver. This allowed simultaneous tracking of up to eight NAVSTAR GPS 

satellites, and its applications included ionospheric calibration, geodesy, satellite orbit 

determination, and clock synchronization. The receiver was fully automated and did not require 

an operator except for occasional calibration and maintenance. It was in use 24 hours per day, 

every day of the year.77

The 34-meter (111-foot) beam waveguide (BWG) subnet primarily supported deep-space 

missions but could occasionally support a mission in high Earth orbit. These antennas generally 

73 Ibid., p. 438.

74 Ibid., p. 439. 75 Interplanetary Network Directorate, DSMS Telecommunications Link Design Handbook, DSMS No. 810-005, 

Rev. E, 15 January 2001. JPL D-19379, Rev E, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2000, Module 104, Rev. B, “Module 103, 

“34-m HEF Subnet Telecommunications Interfaces,” p. 5, http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsndocs/810-

005/103/103.pdf (accessed 26 September 2006).

76 “Chapter 18. Deep Space Network,” Basics of Space Flight, Section III, http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf18-

2.html (accessed 18 September 2006). 77 Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, June 1997, 20, NASA History Division folder 8846, Historical 

Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

566
had X- and S-band uplink and downlink capabilities, although some at the Goldstone complex 

also had Ka-band capability.78 The antenna subnet met expanded coverage requirements and 

could provide coverage of two deep-space missions simultaneously.79 The BWG antenna was 

recognizable by the opening in the middle of the main reflector rather than a cluster of 

microwave equipment in the feed cone. It incorporated a dual-shape design as well as a BWG. A 

series of five precision radiofrequency reflectors reflected radio signals along a BWG tube from 

the vertex of the antenna to the stationary pedestal equipment room below the dish, ensuring that 

the signal would be focused onto the receiver as the antenna moved around in azimuth and in 

elevation.80 The transmission and reception equipment for the BWG antenna was located 

underground, which reduced the dish’s weight and allowed for maintenance of equipment while 

the antenna was tracking.81

The design of the first 34-meter multifrequency BWG antenna was initiated in 1989 at 

Goldstone, and construction of the first antenna was completed in 1991. The antenna (DSS 13) 

replaced a 26-meter (85-foot) antenna that had been at the Venus site since 1962. DSS 13 was 

the first antenna of its kind used for deep-space communications.82 

78 “Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. SF 4-15. Also 

“Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates, p. SAT 7-18; “Mission Communications 

Services,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 5-8; and “Chapter 18. Deep Space Network,” Basics of Space Flight, 

Section III, http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf18-2.html (accessed 18 September 2006).

79 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1999 Estimates, p. SAT 5-5.

80 J. W. Layland and L. L. Rauch, “The Evolution of Technology in the Deep Space Network: A History of the 

Advanced Systems Program,” TDA Progress Report 42-130 (15 August 1997): p. 3, 

http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/95_20/95-20.pdf (accessed 25 September 2006). Also “34-Meter 

Antennas,” http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/antennas/34m.html (accessed 20 September 2006).

81 “Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex,” http://www.cdscc.nasa.gov/Pages2/pg01h_history.html

(accessed 19 September 2006). Also “Tidbinbilla,” Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, 

http://www.cdscc.nasa.gov/Pages2/pg01g_history.html (accessed 18 September 2006).

82 “New Beam-Waveguide Antenna at the Venus Research and Development Site, Goldstone, California,” 

http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/history/dsn75.html (accessed 15 September 2006). 

567
Construction of two new BWG antennas began at Goldstone in FY 1993. These new antennas 

became operational in 1995. Two additional BWG antennas at Goldstone became operational in 

1996. Funding in FY 1994 provided for an additional 34-meter BWG antenna at the Canberra 

complex that became operational in FY 1997. The Madrid BWG antenna became operational in 

FY 1998. Figure 4-7 shows three 34-meter BWG antennas at the Goldstone complex.

Figure 4-7. This photo shows three 34-meter (111-foot)-diameter beam waveguide antennas at 

the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex (NASA photo GPN-2000-000506). 

The newer high-speed BWG (HSB) antennas (DSS 27 and DSS 28) differed from the older 

BWG antennas in that the pedestal room was above ground level, the microwave optics design 

was different, and the subreflector did not focus automatically for the purpose of maintaining 

568
gain as the antenna’s elevation angle changed. The HSB antenna had higher tracking rates than 

the older BWG antenna and was equipped primarily for tracking Earth-orbiting satellites.83

In 1996, NASA obtained two experimental 34-meter antennas for use at Goldstone as a result of 

an agreement with the U.S. Army. These antennas differed in design from the DSN antennas and 

would require extensive modifications before they could be used for deep-space tracking. In the 

meantime, the first antenna became operational in late 1996 and was used to track highly 

elliptical Earth orbiters.84 

An 11-meter (36-foot) capability for the OVLBI mission became available at Greenbank, West 

Virginia, in 1996 as a result of a joint NASA-NSF project that restored an obsolete 14-meter (46-

foot) NSF antenna for the program.85 In 1996, the VLBI technique was expanded into space with 

the installation of 11-meter antennas at each DSN complex to provide data acquisition capability 

for the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) Japanese VLBI Space Operations 

Program (VSOP) spacecraft, launched in February 1997.86 

Arraying Antennas 

Arraying antennas was a technique used to increase the effective aperture, strengthen the 

reception of a spacecraft’s weak signals, and permit spacecraft to downlink data at a higher rate. 

83 Interplanetary Network Directorate, DSMS Telecommunications Link Design Handbook, DSMS No. 810-005, 

Rev. E, 15 January 2001. JPL D-19379, Rev E, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2000, Module 104, Rev. B, “34-m BWG 

Stations Telecommunications Interfaces,” p. 6, http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsndocs/810-005/104/104B.pdf

(accessed 28 September 2006).

84 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates, p. SAT 7-18.

85 “Mission Communications Services,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 6-5.

86 “Tidbinbilla,” Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, 

http://www.cdscc.nasa.gov/Pages2/pg01g_history.html (accessed 18 September 2006). Also “Mission 

Communications Services,” Fiscal Year 1999 Estimates, p. SAT 5-5.

569
It consisted of electronically combining the signals from two or more antennas at the same DSN 

complex, at two different complexes, or with a non-DSN radio telescope. The DSN used 

arraying for single missions in the early 1970s, and in 1977 began to develop arraying capability 

for the entire network. To create more receiving capability for Voyager’s encounter with 

Neptune in 1989, the Australian government provided the Parkes Radio Telescope used in 

combination with the DSN site at Canberra. Signals were combined from the 27 antennas of the 

NSF’s Very Large Array in New Mexico into a single signal and then further combined with 

those at the Goldstone DSN site. The Japanese Deep Space Station at Usuda was also used 

during the closest approach to Neptune to provide radio science data as Voyager passed behind 

Neptune and its moon, Triton.87 The Galileo mission to Jupiter used arraying from June 1996 to 

November 1997 to increase the science data return during its primary mission. This was 

especially important given the failure of the high-gain antenna on the spacecraft. For this 

mission, the DSN arrayed up to five antennas from tracking facilities at Goldstone, Canberra, 

and Parkes in Australia. The result was a threefold improvement in data return compared to that 

achieved with a single 70-meter (230-foot) antenna.88

Aeronautics, Balloons and Sounding Rockets (AB&SR) 

The AB&SR program encompassed the ground support capabilities needed to capture scientific 

and engineering data from aircraft, balloons, sounding rockets, and some Earth-orbiting vehicles 

engaged in scientific research. The primary fixed facilities were located at Wallops Flight 

Facility (WFF, managed by Goddard), the Moffett Field Flight Complex (MFFC), and the 

87 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 40.

88 “Antenna Arraying,” http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/antennas/arrays.html (accessed 26 September 2006). Also 

“Chapter 18. Deep Space Network,” Basics of Space Flight, Section III, http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf18-

2.html (accessed 18 September 2006).

570
Dryden Flight Research Facility (DFRF), which was part of Ames Research Center until 1994, 

when it returned to independent NASA center status. 

Ames Research Center managed the ranges at MFFC, Crows Landing, and DFRF.89 These sites 

were configured to support aeronautics research. Dryden had the additional capability to support 

Shuttle tracking and telemetry landing operations. 

The operations program included the operations and maintenance of ground-based fixed and 

mobile instrumentation systems. These facilities supported NASA aeronautics and suborbital 

programs, as well as a limited number of Earth-orbit research programs. The Western 

Aeronautics Test Range (WATR), which consisted of test ranges at Dryden and Moffett Field, 

provided communications, tracking, data acquisition, and mission control for aeronautics and 

aerospace vehicles, including the Shuttle and Mir operations during the Shuttle-Mir series of 

flights. WATR customers included other NASA centers; the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy; 

the Federal Aviation Administration; and the aerospace industry.90 Activities at Wallops 

supported aeronautics programs as well as sounding-rocket, balloon, and Earth-orbiting satellite 

programs.91 

In 1992, NASA installed an 8-meter (26-foot) precision tracking telemetry antenna at the Poker 

Flat Research Range, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) northeast of Fairbanks, Alaska, to support 

the NASA Plasma Physics Program. A new precision tracking mobile C-band NASA radar was 

89 Crows Landing was approximately 80 miles (129 kilometers) southeast of San Francisco.

90 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 2000 Estimates, p. SAT 5-9.

91 “Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1990 Estimates, pp. SF 3-18–SF 

3-20.

571
also placed in operation at the site.92 Two additional antennas (5 meters [16 feet] and 11.3 meters 

[37 feet]) were installed in 1995 to form the Poker Flat Tracking Station (PFTS). The station 

provided a beneficial tracking location for polar-orbiting satellites due to its high latitude.93 The 

Poker Flat Research Range, which was owned by the University of Alaska and had been the site 

for sounding-rocket launches since the 1970s, was the only nonfederal university owned and 

operated range in the world, and the only high-latitude, auroral-zone rocket launching facility in 

the United States.94 (See chapter 4 [“Space Science”] of volume VII of the NASA Historical Data

Book, 1989–1998, for a description of NASA’s Sounding-Rocket and Balloon program.) 

The Automated Wallops Orbital Tracking Station (AWOTS) consisted of three highly automated 

tracking systems: a 5-meter (16-foot) Low-Earth-Orbiter Terminal (LEO-T), an 8-meter (26-

foot) Transportable Orbital Tracking System (TOTS), and an 11.3-meter (37-foot) X- and S-band 

tracking system. The station provided 24-hour space tracking operations for missions such as the 

Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE), Interplanetary 

Monitoring Platform-8 (IMP-8), Nimbus-7, Meteosat and Landsat, NOAA polar-orbiting 

satellites, Total Ozone Mapper (TOMS)/Meteor-3, and Roëntgen Satellite (ROSAT).95 

Through a series of interagency and international agreements and collaborations, NASA’s GN 

program provided an increasing level of tracking, command, and data acquisition support for 

NASA and other U.S. and international flight agencies studying global change. In cooperation 

with other U.S. agencies, facilities at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, and Fairbanks, Alaska, were 

92 “Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. SF 4-20.

93 “NASA/GSFC/WFF Ground Network Resources,” October 1997.

94 “Poker Flat Research Range,” http://www.pfrr.alaska.edu/pfrr/index.html (accessed 4 October 2006).

95 “Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, p. SF 4-18.

572
developed as the principal ground stations for the joint U.S.-Canada RadarSat mission and the 

international Advanced Earth Observing System (ADEOS) mission, respectively. The Fairbanks 

site served as the main U.S. ground communication facility for the international Earth Remote 

Sensing Satellite (ERS) and the Japanese Earth Resources Satellite (JERS) synthetic aperture 

radar (SAR) missions. The site consisted of two automated tracking systems: a 10-meter (33-

foot) X- and S-band system, and an 11.3-meter (37-foot) X- and S-band tracking system.96 The 

McMurdo facility consisted of an automated 10-meter tracking system that provided a beneficial 

tracking location for polar-orbiting satellites due to the station’s high latitude. Its primary 

functions were to perform tracking and data acquisition for the SAR satellite systems and polarorbiting S-band missions, and launch vehicle/payload tracking during launch and early orbit 

periods of high-inclination missions. The station also supported TDRSS.97 

In 1995, Wallops was the primary ground station for the IUE, Earth Radiation Budget Satellite 

(ERBS), Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer (SAMPEX), COBE, and 

Nimbus-7 missions, and the primary U.S. ground station for the international TOMS-Meteor, 

European Remote Sensing Satellite (ERS-1), JERS-1, ROSAT, and IMP-8 platform. Operational 

support for NOAA-9 and NOAA-10 was also provided.98

WFF was upgraded in the mid-1990s. Systems design was completed in 1995, and installation of 

upgraded data-handling systems followed. A new 11-meter (36-foot) antenna was installed in 

96 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 6-6. Also “NASA/GSFC/WFF Ground 

Network Resources,” October 1997.

97 “NASA/GSFC/WFF Ground Network Resources,” October 1997.

98 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates, p. SAT 6-11.

573
1997 and a second was mounted in 1998.99 Wallops also installed and tested a Redstone 

Telemetry system at the White Sands Missile Range and the Poker Flat Research Range. Both 

units were to support sounding-rocket launches. In Svalbard, Norway, and Fairbanks, Alaska, 

WFF installed 11-meter (36-foot) systems to provide backup and housekeeping support to the 

EOS AM-1 spacecraft and the Landsat-7 spacecraft. 

Toward the end of the decade, significant modernization work was completed at the WATR in 

California. This included refurbishing the Dryden radar systems, replacing the graphic display in 

the mission control center for faster and higher-resolution data presentation, and overhauling 

Dryden’s telemetry antennas.100 The ability to present research data in real time to researchers 

remote from Dryden was critical to the future success of the WATR and the research missions it 

supported. The capability to process and display GPS parameters was incorporated in the 

Mission Control Center (MCC) and used to support the F-18 Sequential Ranging Assembly 

(SRA). Other projects, such as the Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle (UAV) missions, also used the new 

capability. GPS flight units were demonstrated and implemented on NASA-sponsored missions. 

The demonstration aimed to minimize future tracking and navigation activities. The Student 

Nitric Oxide Explorer (SNOE) mission demonstrated the new capabilities using commercial 

flight units as the primary source of the function.101 The Global Real-time Interactive Map 

(GRIM) was upgraded to handle the added requirements of projects such as the X-38, Linear 

Aerospike (LASRE), X-36, and Environmental Research Aircraft Sensor Technology (ERAST). 

The Test Evaluation Command Control System was installed in the MCC to provide backup to 

GRIM. The Telemetry and Radar Acquisition Processing System (TRAPS) was upgraded to 

99 Ibid., p. SAT 6-12.

100 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SAT 6-8.

101 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 2000 Estimates, p. SAT 5-5.

574
support four real time Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) telemetry streams. In addition, the 

capability to process up to 32 streams of wideband frequency-modulated (FM) and constantbandwidth data was incorporated into TRAPS and used successfully by the F-16 Supersonic 

Laminar Flow Control project. The relocation of the mobile systems from Ames Research Center 

to Dryden was accomplished, as was the relocation of aircraft from Ames to Dryden.102

Space Network (SN) 

NASA’s SN consisted of the TDRSS and the associated ground elements needed to meet the 

communications requirements of low-Earth-orbital spacecraft missions.103 The network provided 

uplink and downlink satellite and ground communication links connecting the NASA elements 

of the network and any remotely located user facilities.104 It also provided inflight 

communication with spacecraft in low-Earth orbit and tracking, telemetry, data acquisition, and 

command services. NASA also occasionally leased particular bandwidths for use by commercial 

telecommunications entities.105 The fully operational TDRSS consisted of three satellites, 

including an on-orbit spare in geostationary orbit and networked ground facilities located at 

White Sands, New Mexico, and (since 1998) on Guam (see figure 4-8). 

102 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1999 Estimates, pp. SAT 5-9–5-10.

103 The satellites are referred to as the “space segment.” The ground elements are called the “ground segment.”

104 “Space Network,” Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems, Fiscal Year 1989 Estimates, 

p. 3-4. Also “Space Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates, p. MS 2-4.

105 “TDRSS C-Band Agreement Extended,” NASA News Release 91-181, 1 November 1991, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1991/91-181.txt (accessed 17 October 2006).

575
Figure 4-8. TDRSS constellation showing three interchangeable spacecraft (STS-29 press kit). 

The TDRSS was initiated after studies in the early 1970s concluded that a system of 

telecommunications satellites, operated from a single ground station, could meet the needs of 

NASA’s mission better and more cost-effectively than the existing network of tracking and 

communications ground stations located around the world. Analyses conducted by the General 

Accounting Office, NASA, and Congress indicated that a leased system would be most efficient. 

In December 1976, NASA awarded a contract to Western Union Space Communications, Inc. 

(Spacecom) for development and 10 years of operations of telecommunications services that 

would be leased to NASA. Western Union would build, own, and operate the system, which 

576
would consist of a space segment (initially a single spacecraft) and ground terminal at White 

Sands, New Mexico. The contract included both a single spacecraft providing domestic 

communications services and a ground segment. NASA and Western Union planned to share the 

spacecraft, which would carry both Advanced Westar commercial communications equipment 

and TDRSS hardware. 

In 1980, the contract was transferred to a partnership of Western Union, Fairchild, and 

Continental Telephone. However, NASA and Western Union soon decided that a single satellite 

would not meet the needs of both NASA and Western Union, and that separate satellites were 

preferable. In 1983, Western Union sold its share of the network to Continental Telephone and 

Fairchild. In 1985, Fairchild sold its share to Continental Telephone (Contel), leaving Contel as 

the single remaining partner. TRW and Harris were major subcontractors; TRW built the 

spacecraft, and TRW and Harris built the ground station. This unusual contractual arrangement 

left NASA without direct management of the spacecraft and ground station builders, creating 

many technical and contractual challenges to achieving operational status. Contel continued its 

ownership and operation of the system until 1 July 1990, when NASA took title of TDRSS—42 

months earlier than called for in the existent contract, which specified a date of 29 December 

1993. The remaining two TDRSs (TDRS-E and TDRS-F) were built under direct NASA contract 

with TRW. Contel continued to provide maintenance and operations support to the space 

segment (satellites), and its contract to operate and maintain the White Sands Ground Terminal 

(WSGT) was extended through 30 September 1995. Allied-Signal Technical Services 

Corporation (later Bendix Corporation) was selected to operate the Second TDRSS Ground 

577
Terminal (STGT) and won the contract for operations at both ground terminals when the Contel 

contract concluded.106

In addition to the S- and Ku-band capacity used by NASA, the TDRSS satellites also carried a Cband capacity antenna designed for commercial use. The bandwidth could provide commercial 

and government voice, data, and video services linking Asia, North America, and Europe. In late 

1988, discussions began between NASA and Intelsat regarding the possibility of using this Cband capacity on the TDRSS network. NASA received bids from Intelsat and Columbia 

Communications Corporation for lease of the bandwidth. Columbia’s $61 million offer exceeded 

Intelsat’s by more than $10 million, and NASA selected Columbia to lease the C-band capacity. 

Although the relationship between NASA and Columbia was difficult and complicated by delays 

and legal wrangling before the bandwidth was used, the agreement progressed and Columbia 

made its first payment of more than $10 million to NASA in 1991.107 In November 1991, NASA 

and Columbia agreed to delay for up to six months the commencement of C-band operations. To 

compensate NASA for the extension, Columbia agreed to pay “anywhere from $2.5 million to 

$10 million in increased payments” later in the lease period depending on when operations 

actually began. A restructuring in July 1993 allowed Columbia to share with NASA all revenues 

received from leasing the C-band capacity to third parties.108 On-orbit testing and transmissions 

106 Keeping Track: A History of the GSFC Tracking and Data Acquisition Networks: 1957 to 1991 (Greenbelt, MD: 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, no date, c. 1992), p. 75. Also “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System 

(TDRSS), http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~dglover/sat/tdrss.html; “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System,” Mission 

and Spacecraft Library, http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/Programs/tdrss.html (both accessed 17 October 2006); “Contel To 

Transfer Title of TDRSS to NASA,” NASA News Release 90-86, 21 June 1990, NASA History Division folder 

6534, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC; Phil Liebrecht, “NASA Takes Title 

to the TDRSS,” Mission Operations and Data Systems Newsletter 6, no. 4 (September 1990): pp. 3–4; Rumerman, 

NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VI, p. 314.

107 David Harris, e-mail to author, 20 December 2006.

108 “TDRSS C-band Agreement Extended,” NASA News Release 91-181, 1 November 1991, 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1991/91-181.txt. Also “TDRSS C-Band Agreement Restructured,” NASA News

578
using the C-band began in 1993, and the bandwidth was used to carry telephone service to wartorn Bosnia in August 1993.109 In November 1994, the Federal Communications Commission 

granted Columbia special temporary authority to provide simultaneous domestic and 

international service using the TDRSS C-band capacity. In December, Columbia announced it 

would use TDRSS to provide this service across North America, Europe, and Asia.110 The next 

year, Columbia used TDRSS to transmit television shows (for example, it delivered David 

Letterman’s show from CBS in New York to London). In November 1995, NASA and Columbia 

agreed to extend Columbia’s commercial C-band operations on TDRSS through December 

2001.111

The first TDRS, TDRS-1 (A), was launched in 1983. TDRS-B was lost in the Challenger

accident in 1986.112 TDRS-3 (C) was launched in 1988 on the return-to-flight STS-26 mission. 

When on-orbit checkout of this satellite was completed in 1989, the satellite was redesignated 

TDRS-3, and the system was declared fully operational.113 

Release 93-126, 13 July 1993, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1993/93-126.txt (both accessed 19 December 

2006).

109 “Columbia Carries Telephone Service to Bosnia,” Columbia Communications Corporation Press Releases, 16 

August 1993, http://www.davidchurchill.com/sections/sites/ccc/releases/pr-aug16-93.html. Also “Columbia 

Communications To Carry Digital Global Service for Associated Press Television,” Columbia Communications 

Corporation Press Releases, 17 December 1994, http://www.davidchurchill.com/sections/sites/ccc/releases/prdec17-94.html (accessed 19 December 2006); “TS News—New Columbia TDRSS Satellite Enters Service,” 

http://www.sat-net.com/listserver/ts-news/msg00039.html (both accessed 26 March 2007).

110 “Columbia Communications Corporation Receives FCC Authority To Provide a Full Range of Domestic 

Services,” Columbia Communications Corporation Press Releases, 

http://www.davidchurchill.com/sections/sites/ccc/releases/pr-nov07-94.html. Also “Columbia Communications To 

Carry Digital Global Service for Associated Press Television, Columbia Communications Corporation Press 

Releases, http://www.davidchurchill.com/sections/sites/ccc/releases/pr-dec17-94.html (both accessed 19 December 

2006).

111 “NAA Extends Columbia/TDRSS Agreement until 2001,” Columbia Communications Corporation Press 

Releases, http://www.davidchurchill.com/sections/sites/ccc/releases/pr-nov16-95.html (accessed 19 December 

2006).

112 Typically, a satellite receives a number designation when it is declared operational. TDRS-B was lost in the 

Challenger accident and the number 2 was never used to designate this satellite, nor was it reassigned. 

113 See volume VI of the NASA Historical Data Book, 1979–1998, for additional details of the earlier TDRSS.

579
TDRS-4 (D) was launched on 13 March 1989 and declared operational on 5 June 1989.114 It 

replaced TDRS-1 at 41°W over the Atlantic.115 TDRS-5 (E) was launched on 2 August 1991 and 

became operational in October 1991. It replaced TDRS-3 at 174°W in the TDRSS constellation. 

TDRS-3 was then moved to a central location and designated the on-orbit emergency backup 

spacecraft for the network.116 TDRS-6 (F) was launched 13 January 1993, and TDRS-7 (G) was 

launched on 13 July 1995. The last two satellites were initially stored on orbit. TDRS-7 was the 

final TDRS in the original series of satellites. It replaced TDRS-B, which had been lost in the 

1986 Challenger accident.117 After the TDRS-7 launch and checkout, the system achieved the 

requirement of having two fully operational satellites and two fully operational “ready reserve” 

satellites.118 At the time of the TDRS-7 launch, TDRS-1 was used primarily to provide service to 

the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) spacecraft, which had a failed tape recorder. 

All of the satellites were launched from the Space Shuttle and placed in geosynchronous orbit by 

means of an inertial upper stage. Figure 4-9 shows the deployment sequence for TDRS-F. Figure 

4-10 shows the satellite as it is about to be released from the Endeavour’s cargo bay. 

114 “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite-4 Declared Operational,” NASA News Release 89-86, 5 June 1989, NASA 

History Division folder 6545, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

115 TDRS-1 was moved to the Pacific as a spare because of minor failures on TDRS-3. In 1993, TDRS-1 was moved 

to 85°E to provide service the Gamma Ray Observatory. Donald H. Martin, Communication Satellites, 4th ed. (El 

Segundo, CA: Aerospace Corporation, 2000), p. 298.

116 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1992), p. 43. Also “New TDRS Operational over Pacific, Boosting System 

Capacity, Aerospace Daily (10 October 1991): p. 66, NASA History Division folder 6534, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

117 The designation TDRS-2 was never used.

118 Space Shuttle Mission STS-70 Press Kit,” May 1995, p. 20, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_070_STS-070_Press_Kit.pdf. 

580
Figure 4-9. TDRS-F deployment sequence (STS-54 press kit). 

581
Figure 4-10. This photo shows TDRS-F as it is about to be released from its cradle/tilt table in 

Endeavour’s cargo bay (NASA photo STS 054-71-025). 

TDRSS enabled NASA to cut telecommunications costs and increase global coverage of Earthorbiting spacecraft from 15 percent to 85 percent for most satellites, and data acquisition and 

communications contact time with spacecraft by a factor of 6. In April 1994, the opening of the 

GRO Remote Terminal System (GRTS) in Tidbinbilla, Australia, at the Canberra DSN to 

582
support the CGRO further increased coverage of orbiting spacecraft to 100 percent. Until this 

ground station opened, the TDRSS could not “see” a spacecraft during approximately 15 percent 

of its orbit over an area of the Indian Ocean (called the zone of exclusion). GRTS closed in 1998, 

when it was replaced by the Guam Remote Ground Terminal (GRGT).

The satellite system served as a repeater, or “bent pipe,” transmitting voice, television, and 

analog and digital data signals between the user spacecraft and the ground terminal in both 

directions without processing or altering data. After the signals were received at White Sands, 

telemetry reached the Earth-based operator or researcher of a particular spacecraft through 

NASCOM (renamed the NASA Integrated Services Network [NISN] in 1997), based at Goddard 

Space Flight Center. NASCOM was a global system that used a variety of communication lines, 

including commercial satellites, to transmit data. Thus, transmissions sent by a low-Earthorbiting spacecraft could take a path that included a TDRS to White Sands, perhaps back up to a 

commercial communications satellite, and then down again to Goddard. Then the signal could go 

from Goddard back to another commercial communications satellite, and from there to its final 

destination: the operator of the spacecraft (such as Mission Control at Johnson Space Center in 

the case of the Space Shuttle).119 At its highest capacity, the TDRSS could transfer in 1 second 

the equivalent of a 20-volume encyclopedia containing more than 34 million words.120 

The TDRSS offered communications service in three frequency bandwidths: S-band, highcapacity Ku-band, and C-band. NASA used the S- and Ku-bands. The C-band was used by the 

119 “NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite: Tracking and Communications,” KSC Release No. 63-88, 

December 1992, http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/tdrstac.htm (accessed 11 September 2006).

120 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1994), p. 35.

583
commercial sector to relay domestic and international ground television and data transmissions. 

The S- and Ku-bands each included forward data links from the ground through a satellite to 

users, return data links, and tracking links for gathering data used to compute the orbits of user 

satellites.121 Nominally, the system could support up to 24 user spacecraft (including the Space 

Shuttle) simultaneously. S-band multiple-access (MA) service could relay data from as many as 

20 low-data-rate customer satellites simultaneously. One return link was used for calibration, 

leaving 19 links available to users. S- and Ku-band single-access (SA) antennas provided two 

high-data-rate channels from both the eastern and western locations.122 SA service included 

simultaneous forward and return links. 

In the second half of the decade, the TDRSS began to assume responsibility for ELV launch 

support, which at the time was provided by the U.S. Air Force’s ARIA, for major phases of the 

Titan IV and Atlas II missions. Previously, up to five ARIA were needed to support a launch. 

The TDRSS remote ground terminal in Australia also supported Shuttle-Mir crews during 

rendezvous and docking operations.123

The TDRSS satellites were positioned in geosynchronous orbits above the equator at an altitude 

of 22,300 statute miles (35,888 kilometers). At this altitude, each satellite would remain fixed in 

orbit over one location because its speed was the same as the rotational speed of Earth. TDRS121 Martin, Communication Satellites, 4th ed., p. 295. 122 Space Shuttle Mission STS-70 Press Kit,” May 1995, p. 18, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_070_STS-070_Press_Kit.pdf. Also “STS-43 Press 

Information,” July 1991, Rockwell International Space Systems Division, p. 34, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/mrk/FLIGHT_042-STS-043_MRK.pdf (both accessed 28 September 

2006).

123 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, no date), p. 42.

584
East and TDRS-West were positioned 130 degrees apart. This positioning reduced the ground 

station requirements to one station.124 

Figure 4-11 shows the system with five orbiting satellites as it was configured in 1993—with 

two operational satellites, two backups, and TDRS-1 dedicated primarily to Gamma Ray 

Observatory tracking.

Figure 4-11. The TDRS system with five orbiting satellites (two operational satellites and three 

backups) after the launch of TDRS-6 (F) in 1993 (STS-54 press kit). 

The four TDRSs launched during this decade were virtually identical. Each consisted of three 

distinct modules: an equipment module, a communications payload module, and an antenna 

124 The satellites were generally repositioned after on-orbit checkout. At the time of the TDRS-7 launch in 1995, six 

satellites were orbiting and being used in an active or backup capacity. 

585
module. The modular design reduced the cost of individual design and construction efforts, 

which in turn lowered the cost of each satellite. Each satellite used three-axis stabilization, 

measured 57 feet (17.4 meters) across its solar panels, and weighed about 5,000 pounds (2,540 

kilograms). They were among the largest, heaviest, and most complicated satellites ever 

launched into geosynchronous orbit. In their first 10 years of operations, through April 1993, the 

TDRSS relayed approximately 3.5 million minutes of data to the ground.125

The equipment module, located in the lower hexagon portion of the main body of the spacecraft, 

housed the subsystems that operated the satellite. The attitude control subsystem stabilized the 

satellite to provide accurate antenna pointing and proper orientation of the solar panels to the 

Sun. The electrical power subsystem consisted of two solar panels that provided a 10-year power 

supply of approximately 1,700 watts. Nickel cadmium rechargeable batteries supplied full power 

when the satellite was in Earth’s shadow. The thermal control subsystem consisted of surface 

coatings and controlled electric heaters. 

The payload module, located on the upper hexagon portion of the main body of the spacecraft, 

contained the electronic equipment and associated antennas required for communications 

between the user spacecraft and the ground terminal. The receiver and transmitter services were 

mounted in compartments on the back of the SA antennas.126 

The antenna module consisted of five antenna systems, and each system had seven antennas (two 

SA antennas, an MA antenna array, the space-to-ground-link [STGL], and the S-band omni 

125 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 35.

126 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-43 Press Kit,” July 1991, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_042_STS-043_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed 28 September 2006).

586
antenna for satellite health and housekeeping; see figure 4-12). For SA service, each TDRS had 

two dual-feed, S-band/Ku-band deployable parabolic antennas. These antennas were attached on 

two axes that could move horizontally or vertically, directing the radio beam to orbiting user 

spacecraft below. When deployed, they measured 16 feet (4.9 meters) in diameter and spanned 

43 feet (13.1 meters) from tip to tip. They could be pointed up to 90 degrees off nadir away from 

the satellite or up to 30 degrees off nadir toward the satellite body, and rotated ±90 degrees from 

nadir about the axis that included their deployment booms.127 The SA antennas were used 

primarily to relay communications to and from user spacecraft. The high data rate provided by 

these antennas was available to users on a time-shared basis. Each antenna could support two 

user spacecraft services simultaneously (one at S-band and one at Ku-band), provided that both 

users were within the antenna’s beam width. The antenna’s primary reflector surface was a goldclad molybdenum wire mesh woven like cloth. When deployed, each antenna’s 203 square feet 

(18.9 square meters) of mesh was stretched tautly on 16 supporting tubular ribs by fine threadlike 

quartz cords. The entire antenna structure, including the ribs, reflector surface, a dual-frequency 

antenna feed, and the deployment mechanisms that folded and unfolded the structure, weighed 

approximately 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms).128 Table 4-36 summarizes the TDRSS baseline 

service.

127 Martin, p. 296.

128 “STS-43 Press Information,” July 1991, Rockwell International Space Systems Division, p. 34, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/mrk/FLIGHT_042-STS-043_MRK.pdf (accessed 28 September 2006).

587
Figure 4-12. TDRS on-orbit configuration (Derived from STS-43 press kit). 

For MA service, the multielement S-band phased array consisting of 30 helix antennas was hardmounted on the spacecraft body on the surface of the antenna module facing Earth. The MA 

forward link (between the TDRS and user spacecraft) transmitted command data to the user 

spacecraft, and the return link sent the signal outputs separately from the array elements to the 

ground terminal’s parallel processors. Signals from each helix antenna were received at the same 

frequency, frequency-division-multiplexed into a single composite signal, and transmitted to the 

ground. On the ground, the signal was demultiplexed and distributed to 20 sets of beam-forming 

588
equipment that discriminated among the 30 signals to select the signals of individual users. The 

MA system used 12 of the 30 helix antennas on each TDRS to form a transmit beam.129

The space-to-ground-link (STGL) antenna, a 6.5-foot (2-meter) parabolic reflector, provided the 

prime link for relaying transmissions to and from the ground terminal at Ku-band. The S-band 

omni telemetry, tracking, and communication antenna was used to control TDRS while it was in 

transfer orbit to geosynchronous altitude. Commercial K- and C-band antennas also transmitted 

and received data.130 The D-shaped antenna to one side of the body, and the circular antenna on 

the face of the satellite were part of the Advanced Westar subsystem and were not used by the 

TDRSS. This equipment was carried on the first six satellites in the series even though it was not 

used. It was removed from TDRS-7, which replaced TDRS-B after it was destroyed in the 

Challenger accident.131 See tables 4-37 through 4-40 for further details.

129 “Communications: Space Flight Tracking and Data Network,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/stsnewsref/sts-jsc-comm.html (accessed 22 March 2007).

130 “STS-43 Press Information,” July 1991, Rockwell International Space Systems Division, p. 36, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/mrk/FLIGHT_042-STS-043_MRK.pdf (accessed 28 September 2006).

131 Martin, p. 296.

589
Ground Segment

The Ground Segment supported the TDRSS. It provided the communications equipment needed 

to transmit and receive data, and track information relayed via each TDRS. The functions of the 

Ground Segment were to 

• maintain each TDRS in a nominal (Ku-band) mode at all times and ensure that all on-board 

systems were properly configured and functioning within specified parameters; 

• transmit forward link traffic from the ground to each TDRS for transmission to the 

designated customer spacecraft; 

• receive and process customer spacecraft return link traffic from each TDRS, and format and 

transmit the data to the NASCOM (NISN) interface; 

• monitor the state of health and control of the assigned TDRSs; 

• measure the range of each assigned TDRS relative to the ground terminal; 

• measure the closed-loop (two-way) range and Doppler or open-loop (one-way) Doppler for 

the customer spacecraft, and format and transmit the measured data to the NASCOM (NISN) 

interface; 

• simulate the customer spacecraft for the purpose of system performance evaluation.132 

The Ground Segment consisted of two ground stations at the White Sands Complex (WSC) 

located within the White Sands Missile Range east of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and (beginning 

in 1998) the Guam Remote Ground Terminal (GRGT). The WSC was at a longitude with a clear 

line of sight to the satellites and was located in an area that received very little rain, because rain 

could interfere with the Ku-band uplink and downlink channels. The two ground stations at 

132 “White Sands Complex,” http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/wsc.html (accessed 11 September 2006).

590
White Sands—the White Sands Ground Terminal (WSGT) and the Second TDRSS Ground 

Terminal (STGT)—were functionally identical. They were independently operated ground 

terminals, and each housed a number of autonomous Space-Ground Link Terminals (SGLTs). 

WSGT contained two SGLTs, and STGT contained three SGLTs. The GRGT was an SGLT 

extended from and operated remotely via the WSGT. 

Each SGLT contained the hardware and software needed to provide customer 

telecommunications and tracking services and tracking, telemetry, and command (TT&C) 

functions for the assigned TDRS. If a single SGLT became inoperative, only the TDRS and 

services supported by that SGLT would be affected. SGLT operations were controlled and 

monitored through the TDRSS Operations Control Center (TOCC). A data link, known as the 

Interfacility Link (IFL), existed between the WSGT and the STGT for the exchange of customer 

data and tracking information. The interface between WSGT and GRGT was accomplished by a 

commercial common carrier provided by NISN. Equipment was available at all three sites to 

provide customers with end-to-end system testing capabilities. Additional WSC functions 

included both data handling and unique support for the Space Shuttle.133

Each SGLT could provide four SA forward and return customer telecommunication services and 

corresponding tracking services. Two of the three SGLTs within each ground terminal could 

support five MA return services (a total of 20 services between the two ground terminals) and 

one forward MA service per MA-equipped SGLT (a total of four MA forward services between 

the two ground terminals). 

133 Mission Services Program Office, Space Network Users’ Guide (SNUG), Revision 8 (Greenbelt, MD: Goddard 

Space Flight Center, 2002), p. 2-10, http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/snug_main.pdf (accessed 10 October 2006). Also 

“White Sands Complex,” http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/wsc.html (accessed 11 September 2006).

591
The Network Control Center (NCC), originally located at Goddard, was the operational hub for 

the SN and GN. It also provided coordination functions with other network assets.134 The NCC 

scheduled and configured the TDRSS and monitored the status of data that had been sent back 

for ongoing scheduled services. Operators scheduled emergency services, isolated any problems 

in the system, and restored faulty user services. The NCC could communicate with other ground 

tracking stations through NASCOM. Console operators monitored network performance, 

scheduled emergency interfaces, isolated faults in the system, accounted for system use, tested 

the system, and conducted simulations.135 The STDN NCC scheduled all mission support 

activities and provided the interface for all STDN operations and network control activities.136

The NCC Data System (NCCDS) was the primary computer system within the SN NCC. It 

provided the capability to plan and control use of the TDRSS in response to customer requests. 

In 1998, NASA issued a new version of the data system, called NCC 98.137 The NCC was 

eliminated as a separate entity in 2002, and NASA moved its functions to a single control facility 

at White Sands and replaced it with the Data Services Management Center (DSMC). The DSMC 

provided support to both the SN and GN. The DSMC scheduled all SN elements and supporting 

elements, and provided interfaces for planning, acquisition, control, and status of the SN. 

The NASA Ground Terminal (NGT) was colocated with WSGT. The NGT in combination with 

NASCOM was NASA’s physical and electrical interface with the TDRSS. The NGT provided 

134 Jeffrey Glass, e-mail to author, 3 April 2007.

135 “About Goddard > Resources,” http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/indepth/about_resources.html (accessed 29 March 

2007).

136 “Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network Facilities,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/stsnewsref/sts-jsc-comm.html (accessed 4 June 2007).

137 “What’s NCC 98?” http://ncc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ncc98/wncc98.htm (accessed 14 September 2006). In FY 2002, 

NASA moved functions and interfaces supported by the NCC at Goddard to the Data Services Management Center 

(DSMC), which was colocated with the White Sands Complex. It supported both the SN and GN. Mission Services 

Program Office, Space Network Users’ Guide (SNUG), Revision 8 (Greenbelt, MD: Goddard Space Flight Center, 

2002), pp. 2-10–2-11, http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/snug_main.pdf (accessed 10 October 2006).

592
interfaces with the common carrier, monitored the quality of the service from the TDRSS, and 

remoted data to the NCC. It was abolished when the STGT became operational and was replaced 

by the Data Interface System (DIS).

The DIS provided a secure operational interface with the DSMC and automatic routing of 

customer data. The DIS could configure itself in response to the customer’s service schedule. 

The DIS also provided data-quality monitoring, fault-detection management, and the interface to 

the NISN interface. Additionally, it provided the IFL between the WSGT and STGT used for the 

exchange of customer data and tracking information. The DIS replaced the NASA Ground 

Terminal (NGT) when STGT became operational.

The S-band TT&C System (STTCS) was used to provide contingency support to a TDRS in the 

event of an SGLT failure that precluded it from providing TT&C support to the TDRS. The 

STTCS also provided support to on-orbit spare TDRSs. 

The Common Time and Frequency System (CTFS) generated and distributed highly accurate and 

stable timing and frequency references to the ground terminal elements. It provided the 

capability for time correlation with the United States Naval Observatory using cesium beam 

frequency standards and associated signal distribution equipment. 

The Software Maintenance and Training Facility (SMTF) provided the capability for on-site 

development, enhancement, testing, and validating of ground terminal software, and training of 

operations staff and software maintenance personnel. The SMTF was also responsible for 

593
configuration management and software quality assurance. The facility provided an environment 

that was similar to the actual ground terminal operational environment for training and software 

testing with the use of identical computer equipment. Console equipment and TDRS simulators 

were also provided to support operator training.138 

The Hardware Maintenance Depot (HMD) provided maintenance and testing for line-replaceable 

units that had been removed from operational equipment. Project management and systems 

engineering for the WSC were provided by the Space Network Project Office at Goddard.

In addition to the White Sands Complex, the Merritt Island Launch Area (MILA) TDRSS Relay 

provided RF signal routing between the TDRS and payloads or platforms under test before 

launch in support of Kennedy Space Center, Johnson Space Center, or customer mission 

operation centers. MILA also provided a relay between payloads and NISN facilities for the 

mission operation centers during the prelaunch period, when needed.139

The WSGT was built in 1978 and became operational in 1983 when NASA launched TDRS-A. 

The WSGT building housed all of the equipment needed to operate the TDRSS, as well as space 

for the installation of mission-unique equipment. In 1988, NASA awarded a contract to GE 

Military and Data Systems Operations in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, to design and install the 

hardware for a second TDRSS ground terminal (STGT), develop command and control software, 

and provide training to operating personnel. The STGT was dedicated in 1990 and completed in 

April 1994. The new ground terminal eliminated a critical single point of failure and added the 

138 Space Network Users’ Guide (SNUG), p. 2-10. “White Sands Complex,” http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/wsc.html

(accessed 11 September 2006).

139 Ibid.

594
necessary capability to operate additional TDRSs in the future when user demands for spacecraft 

would increase. It also allowed the WSGT to be taken out of service for modernization. STGT 

became fully operational on 10 March 1995 as the primary TDRSS ground terminal. Both 

stations operated until April 1995, when the WSGT was temporarily removed from service for 

modernization and the STGT assumed the full operations load. End-to-end systems-level tests of 

the modernized WSGT were completed in February 1996. It became fully functional in May, and 

technicians completed the modernization in June 1996, allowing the updated ground station to 

return to service. The two ground stations received Native American names as a result of a 

contest held among New Mexican students. The WSGT received the name Cacique, meaning 

“leader,” and the STGT received the name Danzante, meaning “dancer.”140

A third NASA TDRSS ground terminal, located in Australia, operated from 1994 to 1998. In 

September 1992, NASA began constructing the GRO Remote Terminal System (GRTS) at 

Tidbinbilla in the Canberra DSN complex to support CGRO. CGRO had been designed to record 

data on tape recorders and downlink the recorded data through the geostationary TDRS-East and 

TDRS-West spacecraft in short bursts when it could point at either of the two satellites. Early in 

the mission, however, both on-board CGRO tape recorders had failed, necessitating continuous 

downlink of CGRO data as they were being encoded on the spacecraft. Valuable data were being 

lost because CGRO could relay only slightly more than half of its data. Because of the “zone of 

exclusion” over the Indian Ocean, the observatory could point at a TDRS about 65 percent of the 

time. It also lost data when it had to turn off its instruments as it passed through background 

140 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, pp. 39–40. Also “Space Communications 

Services,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. MS 2-6; “TDRS-I Mission Press Kit,” NASA Goddard Space Flight 

Center, p. 10, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/tdrs/tdrs_presskit.pdf (accessed 16 October 2006); Aeronautics 

and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1996 Activities, p. 42; Aeronautics and Space Report of the 

President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 35.

595
radiation caused by the South Atlantic Anomaly. Consequently, NASA decided to position 

TDRS-1 (then a spare satellite and redesignated TDRS Z) at 85°E longitude over the Indian 

Ocean. This would close the zone of exclusion and enable CGRO to transmit data 100 percent of 

the time. TDRS-Z began relaying data operationally on 6 December 1993 during the shift from 

its former location to its new one. It was in position by 7 February 1994. 

This additional operational TDRS required an extra receiving station, and GRTS was built to 

support the satellite. The new ground station was declared operational on 1 April 1994, with a 

proficiency of more than 97 percent.141 The GRTS antennas (one 4.5 meters [14.8 feet] and one 

11 meters [36.1 feet]) were in a fixed position and were also occasionally used to support Space 

Shuttle missions and the Hubble Space Telescope via TDRSS when they passed over the Indian 

Ocean and Australia.142 The station was used until 1998, when it was replaced by the Guam 

Remote Ground Terminal (GRGT). GRGT was considered part of the White Sands Complex, 

and was equipped with an 11-meter (36-foot) and a 4.5-meter (15-foot) antenna. 

Advanced TDRSS 

NASA anticipated that by the mid-1990s, the stock of spare spacecraft for the TDRSS would be 

exhausted, and the Agency began planning for the next TDRS series. The purpose of the new 

system, called Advanced TDRS (ATDRS), would be to maintain and augment the current TDRS 

system when available satellite resources were expended in the latter part of the 1990s, meet 

141 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1994 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1995), pp. 33–34. 142 Called the Ground Relay Tracking System in Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, June 1997, p, 18, 

NASA History Division folder 8846, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Also 

O’Brien and Tuohy, 8, and “NASA’s GRO Remote Terminal System (GRTS), http://projecttools.com/pages/grts1.htm (accessed 28 September 2006).

596
evolving needs for satellite tracking and communications through 2012, and introduce new 

technology to reduce system life-cycle costs.143 The ATDRS program (later called TDRS II) was 

to design, develop, and competitively procure technologically advanced satellites to sustain SN 

operations. 

Initial studies were performed in 1986, and NASA released a Request for Proposal for 

contractors to perform ATDRS definition studies in 1990. The three participating contractors 

completed their studies in December 1991. The principal objectives were to minimize life-cycle 

costs and technical risks, and to develop transition procedures for integrating new capabilities at 

the ground terminals without interfering with ongoing operations.144 However, the program was 

canceled in 1992. Instead, NASA decided to procure spacecraft that were functionally equivalent 

to the existing design as an interim solution to the need for additional communications satellites.

The TDRSS II program evolved into the TDRSS Replenishment program to develop TDRS-8 

through TDRS-10. A firm fixed-price contract for the new series of three satellites, valued at 

$486.1 million, was awarded in February 1995 to Hughes Space and Communications Company. 

In addition to hardware, the contract included management, development, integration and testing, 

shipment, launch support, and operations support of the spacecraft. The procurement marked the 

first time NASA had used a new and innovative acquisition method to maximize the quality and 

reliability of NASA hardware. Instead of developing detailed specifications that contractors were 

required to meet, NASA adopted commercial practices, identifying requirements and giving the 

143 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 40. 144 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 44.

597
contractor flexibility to determine how to meet those requirements. The contractor was also held 

accountable for failures. In the event of a spacecraft failure, NASA would be reimbursed.145

Work on the project began in July 1995 following resolution of a protest over the contract award. 

The first launch was scheduled for the third quarter of 1999 (later rescheduled to the fourth 

quarter). The Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review took place in 1996 and 

1997, respectively. These reviews verified that the proposed contractor design would meet 

NASA performance requirements and that the contractor was prepared to proceed with 

manufacturing, assembly, integration, and test of the spacecraft. Integration and testing (I&T) of 

TDRS-H, the first spacecraft in the series, began in December 1997.146 I&T for TDRS-J began in 

September 1998. TDRS-H launched in June 2000. The new spacecraft provided SA Ka-band 

forward and return service, which was useful for customers who needed extremely high data 

rates, and an enhanced MA capability that offered a greater number of MA links per 

spacecraft.147 The satellites in this series were launched by ELVs rather than by the Shuttle.

Communications and Data Systems

The Communications and Data Systems program played a major role in transmitting and 

processing large volumes of data produced by NASA’s operational spacecraft. Elements of the 

program linked the data acquisition stations and the scientific users and project facilities, and 

managed the operation, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and systems for data processing 

and data transmission between remote tracking and data acquisition facilities, the TDRSS ground 

145 “NASA Awards $481.6 Million Contract to Hughes,” NASA News Release 95-16, 23 February 1995, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1995/95-16.txt (accessed 17 October 2006). Also “TDRSS: Tracking and 

Data Relay Satellite System,” Mission and Spacecraft Library, http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/Programs/tdrss.html

(accessed 4 May 2007).

146 “Space Communications Services,” Fiscal Year 1999 Estimates, p. MS 2-6. 

147 “TDRS/TDRS H, I, J Baseline Service Comparison,” http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/services.html (accessed 11 

September 2006). Also “Space Network Project; Code 452 NASA/GSFC,” 

http://scp.gsfc.nasa.gov/sn/spacesegment.htm (accessed 14 September 2006).

598
terminals, launch areas, and mission control centers. Mission controllers required real time 

information to determine a spacecraft and payload’s condition, respond to failures or dangerous 

situations, and generate spacecraft and payload control commands. Furthermore, data received 

from the spacecraft had to be transformed from their raw form into a form that would be useful 

for spacecraft monitoring and analysis by scientific investigators. This was all accomplished by 

NASA’s Communications and Data System facilities and systems. During the decade, as new 

missions were added to the existing fleet of older spacecraft, and the volume of data being 

acquired increased exponentially, the capabilities required of these facilities and systems 

increased sharply.148 

Major system improvements during this decade included 

• upgrading the data-handling capability of the DSN approximately fourfold; 

• implementing a fiber-optic system to connect the two TDRSS ground terminals at the White 

Sands Complex; 

• implementing a new backbone multiplexer/demultiplexer system between the White Sands 

Complex, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Johnson Space Center.149

Communications

The Communications program consisted of two major networks: the NASA Communications 

(NASCOM) network and the Program Support Communications Network (PSCN). In 1995, 

these networks were integrated into NISN.150

148 “Communications and Data Systems,” Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems, Fiscal 

Year 1989 Estimates, p. 3-20.

149 “Communications and Data Systems,” Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems, Fiscal 

Year 1993 Estimates, p. SF 4-21.

599
NASCOM

NASCOM was a global communications network that connected the tracking and data 

acquisition facilities that supported all flight projects by means of leased voice, data, and 

wideband circuits. It also linked various facilities, such as launch areas, test sites, and mission 

control centers, and provided links to mobile tracking stations. Goddard operated NASCOM and 

served as its major switching control point. The overseas elements of NASCOM used subswitching centers at JPL and the Madrid DSN complex. Direct service from Madrid and the 

Canberra DSN complex to JPL was established in 1992 to economically provide the increased 

bandwidth required by new spacecraft. NASCOM also included the Agency’s television service, 

NASA SELECT, which enabled the public to view all human spaceflight missions and learn 

about the achievements and discoveries of NASA’s scientific missions.151

In 1991, NASCOM began working with the General Services Administration to transfer most of 

its voice/data and wideband services from dedicated point-to-point services to multiplexed 

dedicated transmission services using the Federal Telecommunications System (FTS) 2000 

network.152

In FY 1993, NASA completed an Interfacility Fiber-Optic Link (IFL) connecting the WSGT and 

the STGT in New Mexico. The link enhanced the exchange of operational data between those 

150 NASA Information Locator Record, “NASA Integrated Services Network,” NASA-MSFC-01022, 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gils_public.pl?Submit=Display&Control_Identifier=NASA-MSFC-01022 (accessed 

21 March 2007).

151 “Communications and Data Systems,” Space and Ground Networks, Communications and Data Systems, Fiscal 

Year 1993 Estimates, p. SF 4-22.

152 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 45.

600
sites, increased ground terminal capacity, and improved the reliability of the expanded TDRS 

constellation that was being planned to meet the requirements for future data-intensive scientific 

missions. NASCOM also implemented the German Space Operations Center multiplexer system 

used for the German Spacelab mission (Spacelab D2) in April 1993. NASCOM established 

diversely routed circuits from Goddard to Germany, providing the data and voice capability for 

ground control operators in Germany to communicate with the astronauts on board the Shuttle.153 

In 1996, NASA extended networking services into Russia to meet the requirements of the 

International Space Station and other collaborative flight and scientific missions. This network 

implementation represented the first step toward achieving a single network that would satisfy 

both operational and programmatic requirements. Specifically, multiple wideband circuits were 

implemented between the United States and a NASA network gateway in Moscow. Connectivity 

was then established between the gateway and approximately 10 locations in Russia. The 

locations included the U.S. Embassy, Russian Space Agency, Moscow Mission Control Center, 

Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, and Institute of Space Research. Voice, data, video 

conferencing, and electronic mail services were available to users at all locations.154

Program Support Communications Network

The PSCN provided administrative and data-handling services for NASA centers, NASA 

Headquarters, international space agencies, major contractors, university locations, and other 

domestic users to enable the transfer of program and scientific information. The system included 

computer networking, electronic mail and voice, and video teleconferencing. Marshall Space 

153 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 35.

154 “Space Communications Services,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. MS 2-11.

601
Flight Center operated the PSCN and served as its major switching control point. The network 

supported all NASA programs and projects, including robotic missions, the Space Shuttle, and 

the space station.155 At the start of the decade, service was provided through leased voice, data, 

and wideband circuits. The network completed the transition to FTS 2000 in FY 1991.156

Beginning in FY 1992, many domestic PSCN circuits were provided by the FTS 2000 program. 

NASA Integrated Services Network 

In 1995, in order to reduce costs and eliminate the duplication associated with separate programs, 

NASA began integrating the programmatic elements of its independent special purpose networks 

into NISN, replacing the independent special purpose networks that had previously served 

individual NASA customers for decades (the physical infrastructures remained separate).157

NASCOM and PSCN were the first elements to be integrated into the new network. The NASA 

Science Internet (NSI) and Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Network (NASnet), both located 

at Ames Research Center, were also merged into NISN. NISM became NASA’s wide-area 

network provider, supplying mission and mission-support telecommunications services to all 

NASA centers, supporting contractor locations, international partners, research institutes, and 

universities.158 Its goal was to transmit digital data, voice, and video information in the most 

cost-effective manner possible. By implementing NISN, NASA was able to eliminate the 

duplication between previous networks and to use new communications technology wherever it 

was appropriate. Most significantly, NASA looked to the commercial communications 

155 “Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1993 Budget Estimates, p. SF 4-22.

156 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 45.

157 Richard Helmick, former NISN project manager, 21 March 2007.

158 Services to non-NASA customers were provided on a reimbursable basis.

602
marketplace to provide services wherever they were cost-effective.159 Marshall managed the 

network in partnership with Goddard. 

Mission Control 

The Mission Control program provided control and performance analyses of NASA’s robotic 

Earth-orbiting spacecraft. The control facilities generated instructions for the spacecraft to make 

observations and measurements, monitor spacecraft status, and maneuver the spacecraft.160 Each 

year, NASA provided tens of thousands of hours of mission control services to on-orbit science 

missions.

Data Processing

The Data Processing program included the Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) and other major 

systems and facilities for processing payload data. The program’s responsibilities included 

acquiring the equipment necessary to replace the DSN’s ground communications data-handling 

capability with higher-capacity systems at the DSN complexes and the JPL. A data-processing 

facility, the Generic Time Division Multiplexer (GTDM) Facility, was completed in 1990 and 

processed data from satellites using time-division telemetry. The Packet Processor (PACOR) 

processed data from satellites using packet technology and protocols. The PACOR Data 

Processing Facility (DPF), also completed in 1990, was initially designed to meet the unique 

requirements of the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO). The PACOR Facility used a 

new type of data protocol to ease spacecraft message handling. It replaced the Telemetry 

159 “Space Communications Services,” Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates, pp. MS 2-7–MS 2-8. Also NASA Information 

Locator Record, NASA Integrated Services Network,” NASA-MSFC-01022, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/cgibin/gils_public.pl?Submit=Display&Control_Identifier=NASA-MSFC-01022 (accessed 21 March 2007).

160 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1989–1990 Activities, p. 41.

603
Processing Facility once NASA spacecraft no longer used the GDTM approach. The PACOR 

system was upgraded to a distributed workstation environment to manage the increasing volume 

and rate of data processing.161 In FY 1992, the PACOR DPF was redesignated as a multi-satellite 

facility that would use packet data standards developed by the international Consultative 

Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). The design was based on the use of power 

workstations, rather than large central computers, and Very Large Scale Integration 

microelectronics to enable high-speed processing that could not be achieved with software 

solutions.162 

In FY 1991, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) began operations using a newly developed 

dedicated control center and data-capture facility. The HST Data-Capture Facility (HSTDCF) 

was the most complex facility to date for an automated satellite. It effectively handled Hubble’s 

early on-orbit operations problems by modifying the ground and spacecraft software.163 Other 

dedicated data-processing facilities, such as the International Solar Terrestrial Physics Data 

Capture Facility and the Spacelab Data Processing Facility (SLDPF), provided specialized dataprocessing services. A Central Data Acquisition Facility provided backup data-capture services, 

and the Data Distribution Facility produced electronic media and distributed NASA spaceflight 

data to interested users. Specialized telemetry processing systems for NASA’s SN systems were 

also provided.164 In October 1993, NASA refurbished the HSTDCF to be ready for the first 

Hubble Servicing Mission in December 1993.165 In 1997, the HSTDCF was closed, and HST 

161 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Estimates, p. SAT 6-14.

162 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities, p. 29.

163 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1991 Activities, p. 45.

164 “Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1993 Budget Estimates, p. SF 4-26. Also “Mission 

Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Estimates, p. SAT 6-15.

165 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 35.

604
science processing moved to the PACOR system. In FY 1995, the SLDPF, then located at 

Goddard, was consolidated successfully at Marshall, resulting in a cost savings of more than 50 

percent for the processing of Spacelab and Shuttle-attached payloads data.166

In a continuing effort to achieve efficiencies by adopting international space data systems 

standards, NASA agreed in FY 1992 that most new missions scheduled for launch after 1993 

would use CCSDS-compatible telemetry systems. This would reduce the need for missionunique hardware, software, and operating procedures. International partnerships in space 

activities would also benefit from adopting CCSDS standards by simplifying the sharing of 

operations functions and data among partners.167

The Flight Dynamics Facility, located at Goddard, provided support in the areas of attitude 

determination, prediction, and control; expendable launch vehicle and Shuttle launch trajectory 

support; mission design, analysis, and orbit maneuvers; orbit determination and contact 

acquisition aids; and tracking station, network, and data evaluation. It provided expert tracking 

system performance evaluation, calibration, and validation for the SN and GN. The FDF also 

provided tracking data analysis on an as-needed basis for satellite projects supported by other 

networks, such as the DSN, DOD C-band radars, and the European Space Agency (ESA). 

Mission support ranged from launch support for both expendable boosters and the Space Shuttle 

to science mission satellites in low-Earth orbit, geostationary orbiting weather satellites, and the 

166 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1995 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, no date), p. 40.

167 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1992 Activities (Washington, DC: National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1993), p. 29.

605
TDRSS network. It also included Sun-Earth libration point missions, and lunar and deep-space 

probes. Experts formulated spacecraft attitude requirements and provided sensor performance 

and calibration analysis, telemetry evaluation, and operational attitude determination, prediction, 

and control. Other services included premission trajectory design and analysis, operational orbit 

control and maintenance, and extended mission trajectory redesigns as needed during a mission. 

This facility also provided premission orbit error analysis, tracking requirements analysis, and 

operational orbit determination and contact acquisition aids. Other services included tracking 

station and network trouble-shooting, transponder and link analysis, and tracking data 

evaluation.168

Mission Facilities and Operations

The Mission Facilities and Operations program provided the systems and capabilities necessary 

to command and control uncrewed scientific satellites, and to operate the Payload Operations 

Control Centers (POCCs). It also provided the related software and support services needed to 

monitor and control on-orbit spacecraft and prelaunch preparations. Control facilities received, 

processed, and displayed spacecraft engineering and telemetry data. They generated commands 

in response to emergencies, as well as preplanned command sequences generated in advance to 

accomplish the mission objectives. Mission operations facilities were operated 24 hours per day, 

seven days per week.169 

The Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE), launched in 1992, was the last spacecraft controlled 

from the aging Multi-Satellite Operations Control Center. SAMPEX, a Small Explorer mission 

168 “About the FDF; Flight Dynamics Facility,” http://fdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/overview.htm (accessed 3 October 2006).

169 “Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1991 Budget Estimates, p. SF 3-24.

606
launched in 1992, was the first spacecraft to be controlled using the Transportable Payload 

Operations Control Center (TPOCC) architecture, which consisted of distributed workstations. 

This concept allowed significant reuse of software (over 75 percent), resulting in lower costs, 

and took advantage of increased processing capability.170 During the second half of the decade, 

NASA moved to consolidate functions, close marginal facilities, and reduce the overall 

contractor workforce. In 1997, EUVE and CGRO were phased into the TPOCC architecture. 

Goddard worked with the University of California–Berkeley (UCB) to install and test the 

TPOCC architecture in the EUVE Mission Operations Center. In 1998, EUVE operations were 

outsourced to UCB, in line with the 1996 national space policy stipulating that NASA would 

“seek to privatize or commercialize its space communications operations no later than 2005.”171

The transfer of EUVE to UCB and the relocation of CGRO processing to the workstation-based 

PACOR II resulted in the closure of the older PACOR I system.172

Other mission control systems included the Shuttle POCC Interface Facility (SPIF) and the 

Command Management System. The SPIF provided a single interface to the Mission Control 

Center for Space Shuttle operations. The facility was successfully transitioned to the TPOCC 

architecture in 1997. The Command Management System generated all command sequences to 

be used by mission control centers to support spacecraft systems.173 

170 “Communications and Data Systems,” Fiscal Year 1994 Budget Estimates, pp. SF 4-24–SF 4-25. Also 

Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 1993 Activities, p. 36.

171 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Estimates, p. SAT 5-11. Also the White House, 

National Science and Technology Council, “National Space Policy, Fact Sheet” 19 September 1996, 

http://history.nasa.gov/appf2.pdf (accessed 11 October 2006).

172 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Estimates, p. SAT 5-13.

173 “Mission Communication Services,” Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Estimates, p. SAT 6-14.

607
CHAPTER 5: FACILITIES AND FIELD CENTERS

Introduction

During the first part of the decade of 1989 to 1998, NASA consisted of nine field centers, the 

contractor-operated Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a number of component facilities, and NASA 

Headquarters in Washington, DC. Four of the field centers, Ames Research Center, Langley 

Research Center, Lewis Research Center, and Dryden Flight Research Center, and one 

component facility—Wallops Flight Facility (part of Goddard Space Flight Center)—had been 

part of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), NASA’s predecessor. These 

facilities were transferred to NASA when the Agency was established in 1958. Three additional 

field centers, Goddard Space Flight Center, Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight 

Center, and the contractor-owned JPL were transferred to NASA from the U.S. military space 

program soon after. NASA established the National Space Technology Laboratories as a NASA 

center in 1974 and renamed it the Stennis Space Center (SSC) in 1988. Dryden was an 

independent center until 1981, when it became part of Ames Research Center. It regained its 

independent center status in 1994, becoming NASA’s 10th field center. Figure 5-1 shows the 

locations of NASA’s major centers and facilities. Figure 5-2 chronicles their establishment.

608
Figure 5-1. Major and Component NASA Field Centers (1994) (NASA Fiscal Year 1995 Budget 

Estimates).

609
Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center Authorized 1939 and named for NACA chair Joseph S. Ames; dedicated June 1940

Dryden Flight Research 

Facility

Authorized 1952; named NACA High Speed Flight Station 

and made autonomous in July 1954; designated Flight 

Research Center in September 1959; renamed Dryden Flight 

Research Facility in March 1976; consolidated with Ames 

Research Center in October 1981 as Dryden Flight Research 

Facility

Became an independent NASA center in April 

1994 as Dryden Flight Research Center 

Goddard Space Flight Center Authorized 1958; dedicated in March 1961

Jet Propulsion Laboratory Organized 1944

Johnson Space Center Established in January 1961 as the Space Task Group; major occupancy of Clear Lake site in February 1964; 

renamed Johnson Space Center in February 1973 

Kennedy Space Center Established in March 1962, effective in July 1962, as Launch Operations Center; redesignated Kennedy Space 

Center in December 1963 

Langley Research Center Authorized 1917; dedicated in June 1920 and named Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in honor of 

610
Samuel P. Langley; renamed Langley Aeronautical Laboratory in 1948; renamed Langley Research Center in 

1958 

Lewis Research Center Established in 1941 as the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory; renamed the Flight Propulsion Research 

Laboratory in April 1947; renamed Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in 1948; renamed Lewis Research 

Center in 1958

Marshall Space Flight Center Established in March 1960; transfer of personnel from U.S. Army effective in July 1960; dedicated in 

September 1960 

Stennis Space Center Established as the Mississippi Test Operations in October 1961; renamed the Mississippi Test Facility in 1965; 

established as an independent NASA center named the National Space Technology Laboratories in June 1974; 

renamed the Stennis Space Center in May 1988 

Figure 5-2. NASA Centers (1989–1998). 

611
Each NASA field center focuses its resources on particular major programs and mission areas. 

Beginning in 1996, each center was designated as a particular Center of Excellence. Table 5-1 

lists these areas of concentration. 

During this decade, changes in NASA’s facilities and field centers consisted primarily of adding 

to and upgrading equipment, and increasing the number of buildings and other structures. Of the 

NASA centers, Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, California, was the only one to 

significantly increase the number of acres of land it controlled when the adjoining Moffett Naval 

Air Station closed and NASA took over the land and facilities. The only major organizational 

change made during the decade was that the Dryden Flight Research Facility, which had been a 

component of Ames, was returned to independent center status in 1994 and renamed the Dryden 

Flight Research Center. 

The first part of this chapter reviews NASA’s aggregate facilities, including the value and size of 

its total holdings and the centers’ holdings grouped together for easy comparison. The second 

part of the chapter describes NASA Headquarters and the individual NASA centers that existed 

during all or part of the years from 1989 to 1998. It briefly describes their history and mission 

and also provides tables characterizing the property, personnel, funding, and procurement 

activity of each center during this period. 

612
Aggregate Facilities

Definition of Terms

This discussion of facilities and field centers uses several terms with which the reader may be 

unfamiliar. The following definitions are derived from NASA Management Instructions and 

NASA Management Handbooks in use during the decade covered in this chapter.1

Building: Facilities having the basic function to enclose usable space. 

Capital Equipment: An item of equipment with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more that has an 

estimated service life of two years or more, that will not be consumed in an experiment, and that 

most generally will be identified as an independently operable item.

Centers: Primary NASA field entities, each led by a Center Director. Some centers have 

component facilities, which may be geographically separate from the parent center. Such 

facilities are led by a Manager or Head who reports to the parent center official. In most cases, 

the term “center” has replaced the term “installation.”

Collateral Equipment: Encompasses building-type equipment, built-in equipment, and large, 

substantially affixed equipment or property, and is normally acquired and installed as a part of a 

facility project. It includes the following: 

1 NASA Handbook (NHB) 4200.1D, Equipment Management Manual, April 1992. NHB 8800.15, Real Estate

Management Program Implementation Handbook, October 1991. NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8820.2, Design

and Construction of Facilities, December 2, 1998. NASA Procedures and Guidelines (NPG) 8820.2B, Facility

Project Implementation Handbook, April 27, 1997. NHB 8831.2A, Facilities Maintenance and Energy Management

Handbook, 31 December 1996. Note: except for NPD 8820.2, all directives and guidelines listed have been 

canceled. They are cited because they were in effect during the period being discussed in this chapter.

613
• Building-Type Equipment: Equipment that is normally required to make a facility useful 

and operable. It is built in or affixed to the facility in such a manner that removal would impair 

the usefulness, safety, or environment of the facility. Such equipment includes elevators, heating, 

ventilating, and air-conditioning systems, transformers, compressors, and other like items 

generally accepted as being an inherent part of a building or structure and essential to its utility. 

It also includes general building systems and subsystems such as electrical, plumbing, 

pneumatic, fire protection, and control and monitoring systems. 

• Built-in or Large, Substantially Affixed Equipment or Property: The unit of equipment or 

property of any type other than building-type equipment that is built in, affixed to, or installed in 

real property in such a manner that the Center cost, including special foundations or unique 

utility services or facility restoration work required after its removal, exceeds $100,000. 

Component Facilities: Organizations geographically separate from the NASA centers to which 

they are assigned. During this decade, NASA’s component facilities and the centers to which 

they were assigned included:

• Deep Space Network (Goldstone, California; Canberra, Australia; and Madrid, Spain) 

(JPL)

• Downey Facility (DF) (California) (JSC) (closed in 1999) 

• Ground Network at Kennedy Space Center (GSFC) 

• Independent Verification and Validation Facility (IV&V) (West Virginia) (GSFC)

• Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) (MSFC) 

• NASA Management Office (NMO)/JPL (HQ/Code S)

• Palmdale (California) (JSC)

614
• Plum Brook Station (PBS) (Ohio) (LeRC)

• Santa Susana Field Laboratory (California) (MSFC)

• Slidell Computer Complex (MSFC) (transferred to the City of Slidell, Louisiana, 

December 14, 1994) 

• Space Network (White Sands, New Mexico) (GSFC)

• Wallops Flight Facility (Wallops Island, Virginia) (GSFC)

• White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) (Las Cruces, New Mexico) (JSC)

Equipment: An item of real or personal property, generally in the configuration of a mechanical, 

electrical, or electronic apparatus or tool, normally costing in excess of $100, that may perform a 

function independently or in conjunction with other equipment or components. Includes 

collateral equipment, general purpose equipment, special test equipment, ground support 

equipment, and other special purpose equipment, such as automatic data processing equipment, 

data control consoles, and instrumentation that may or may not be capitalized. 

Facility: Land, buildings, structures, and other real property improvements, including utility 

systems and collateral equipment permanently affixed to land. The term does not include 

operating materials, supplies, special tooling, special test equipment, and noncapitalized 

equipment. The term “facility” is used in connection with land, buildings (facilities having the 

basic function to enclose usable space), structures (facilities having the basic function of a 

research or operational activity), and other real property improvements. The term “facility” is 

synonymous with “real property.” 

615
Fixed Assets: Assets of a permanent character having a continuing value, such as land, buildings, 

and other structures and facilities, including collateral and noncollateral equipment meeting the 

criteria for capitalization.

Integral Equipment: Equipment normally required to make a facility useful and operable as a 

facility and built in or permanently affixed to it in such a manner that removal would impair the 

usefulness, safety, or comfort of the facility. 

Investment Value: A figure representing the total of real property value (including land, 

buildings, and other structures and facilities), leasehold improvements value, capitalized 

equipment value, and assets-in-progress value.

Land: A category of real property including all acquired interests in land (for example, owned, 

leased, or acquired by permit) but excluding NASA-controlled easements and rights-of-way 

included under leasehold improvements. 

Leased Property: Property under the control of NASA through lease, administrative agreement, 

temporary permit, licensee, or other arrangements.

Leasehold Improvement: Includes NASA-funded costs of long-term capital improvements (more 

than three years) to leases, rights, interests, and privileges relating to land not owned by NASA, 

such as easements, right-of-ways, permits, use agreements, water rights, air rights, and mineral 

rights. The cost of short-term (three years or less) rights, interests, and privileges relating to such 

616
land are charged to the operating cost of a facility project as appropriate. Leasehold 

improvements also include NASA-funded costs of improvements made to land, buildings, and 

other structures and facilities not owned by NASA. 

Noncollateral Equipment: Noncollateral equipment imparts to the facility or test apparatus its 

particular character at the time, e.g., furniture in an office building, laboratory equipment in a 

laboratory, test equipment in a test stand, machine tools in a manufacturing facility, or computers 

in a building that is useful or operable (as a structure or building). Such equipment, when 

acquired and used in a facility or a test apparatus, can be severed and removed after erection on 

Center, without substantial loss of value or damage thereto or to the premises where installed. 

Other Structures and Facilities: A category of real property that includes facilities having the 

basic function of research or operational tools or activities as distinct from buildings. The 

category includes items such as airfield pavements; harbor and port facilities; power production 

facilities and distribution systems; reclamation and irrigation facilities; flood control and 

navigation aids, storage, industrial service, and research and development facilities other than 

buildings; utility systems (heating, sewage, water, and electrical) when they serve several 

buildings and/or structures; communications systems; traffic aids, roads, and bridges; railroads; 

monuments and memorials; and other nonstructural improvements such as sidewalks, parking 

areas, and fences. This also includes all equipment of any type built in, affixed to, or installed in 

such a manner that the installation cost, including special foundations or unique utilities or 

services, or the facility restoration cost after removal, is substantial.

617
Personal Property: Property of any kind, including equipment, materials, and supplies, but 

excluding real property.

Real Property: Land, buildings, structures, utility systems, and improvements and appurtenances 

permanently annexed to land. Also includes collateral equipment (i.e., building-type equipment, 

built-in equipment, and large substantially affixed equipment).

NASA Property Statistics

Tables 5-2 through 5-17 include statistics for 1989–1998 on NASA real property, investment 

values, land, buildings, other structures, and capitalized equipment. 

618
Headquarters and Field Centers

In the following pages the mission and history of each NASA center are briefly described, and 

their directors and deputy directors are listed. Table 5-18 details the 1998 budget plan by field 

center and program office. The tables that follow list the property holdings and their value, 

personnel levels and characteristics, funding levels, and procurement activity for each field 

center. The names and dates of center directors and deputy directors who served between 1989 

and 1998 come from official biographies, personnel announcements, and press releases, as well 

as from information provided by center personnel. Director and deputy director names and dates 

for the period before 1989 come from earlier volumes of the NASA Historical Data Book. 

619
NASA Headquarters 

Location 

From the time the Agency was established in 1958 until October 1961, NASA Headquarters was 

located in the “Little White House” at 1520 H Street NW in Washington, DC. Built in 1820 by 

Richard Cutts, the house was also called the Dolly Madison House because the widow of 

President James Madison had lived there from 1837 until her death in 1849. In the fall of 1961, 

NASA moved its Headquarters to Federal Office Building 6 at 400 Maryland Avenue SW in 

Washington, sharing it with the Department of Education. In 1963, NASA Headquarters 

expanded into Federal Building 10-B at 600 Independence Avenue SW and the Reporters 

Building at 300 7th Street SW. It also occupied space at L’Enfant Plaza in southwest 

Washington, and other locations in the city. In July 1990, NASA broke ground for a new 

Headquarters that would house all Headquarters staff. This nine-story building, known as Two 

Independence Square, is located at 300 E Street in the southwest quadrant of the city.2

 Most of 

the staff gradually moved into the 450,000-square-foot (41,806-square-meter) building during 

1992 and 1993. The remaining staff members were temporarily housed at One Independence 

Square and moved into the new building by the end of September 1995.3 

Administrator (1958–1998) 

Daniel S. Goldin, April 1992–November 2001 

Richard H. Truly, May 1989–March 1992 

James C. Fletcher, May 1986–April 1989 

2 One Independence Square, a similar building next door, housed the Comptroller of the Currency.

3 “NASA Center: Headquarters,” http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000092.html (accessed November 

8, 2006). Also memo (Independence News) from Paula Geisz to NASA staff, September 21, 1994. (NASA History 

Office NASA History Division folder 4533, Historical Reference Section, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

620
William R. Graham (acting), December 1985–May 1986

James Beggs, July 1981–December 19854

Alan M. Lovelace (acting), January 1981–July 1981 

Robert A. Frosch, June 1977–January 1981 

James C. Fletcher, April 1971–May 1977 

George M. Low (acting), September 1970–April 1971 

Thomas O. Paine, March 1969–September 1970 

James E. Webb, February 1961–October 1968 

T. Keith Glennan, August 1958–January 1961 

Deputy Administrator (1958–1998) 

John R. Dailey (acting), November 1992–December 1999 

Aaron Cohen (acting), February 1992–November 1992

James R. Thompson, Jr., July 1989–November 1991 

Dale D. Myers, October 1986–May 1989 

William R. Graham, November 1985–October 1986 

Hans Mark, July 1981–September 1984 

Alan Lovelace, July 1976–December 1980

George M. Low, December 1969–June 1976 

Thomas O. Paine, March 1968–March 1969 

Robert C. Seamans, Jr., December 1965–January 1968

Hugh L. Dryden, September 1959–December 1965 

4 James Beggs went on an indefinite leave of absence beginning 4 December 1985 while he was answering charges 

of fraud alleged to have occurred while he was Executive Vice President of General Dynamics Corporation. He was 

cleared of all charges.

621
History

During the decade from 1989 through 1998, several changes occurred in Headquarters-level 

organizations that reflected the changing priorities of the Agency. A detailed description of 

major HQ-level organizations can be found in the appropriate chapters of this book and volume 

VII. 

Many of the changes that occurred during this decade reflected the importance of the Space 

Shuttle program and the developing space station. At the start of the decade, the Office of Space 

Flight, which was responsible for all facets of the Space Shuttle program, and the Office of 

Space Station were two separate organizations. In December 1989, they were consolidated into a 

single organization because of the close relationship of the two programs (most space station 

components would be launched using the Shuttle and assembled by astronauts on-orbit). In 1990, 

on the recommendation of an advisory committee headed by Norman Augustine, development of 

the planned Space Station Freedom was moved to a new organization— the Office of Space 

Systems Development. This organization was also responsible for developing other large 

propulsion and launch systems and planning other advanced transportation systems. The scaleddown Office of Space Flight continued to focus on Space Shuttle operations and retained 

responsibility for space station and Spacelab operations and utilization, expendable launch 

vehicle (ELV) operations, and upper stages. This change lasted only until October 1993, when 

NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin returned responsibility for the Space Station program to the 

Office of Space Flight.

622
In 1992, a new organization, called the Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology, was 

formed that incorporated the Space Technology program and former Office of Commercial 

Programs, which disbanded. In September 1994, this office and the Office of Space Systems 

Development were consolidated into a new Office of Space Access and Technology. This office 

focused on developing new transportation systems, such as a reusable launch vehicle (RLV), and 

was also the interface with other government agencies and the commercial sector.

During this period, the Space Station Program Office was centered in Reston, Virginia, about 25 

miles (40 kilometers) from NASA Headquarters. This office, headed by a director, was 

responsible for day-to-day management, developing the space station, ensuring the operational 

capability of its flight and ground systems, and controlling internal and external interfaces. 

Individual field centers, which reported to the office at Reston, and several international partners 

were responsible for developing the various space station components. However, in October 

1993, following the redesign of the space station, management of the space station moved from 

Virginia to Johnson Space Center in Houston. The new program office had all implementation 

responsibilities and employees were invited to relocate to the new site from Virginia.

NASA’s science programs also reorganized during this decade. In October 1992, the Office of 

Space Science and Applications (OSSA) split into the Office of Space Science and the Office of 

Mission to Planet Earth, effective in March 1993. In March, a separate Office of Life and 

Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) was established from OSSA’s Life Sciences 

and Microgravity divisions. OLMSA focused on the effects of long-duration spaceflight on 

humans and other living creatures, as well as on microgravity and other life-science areas.

623
Reducing the size of Headquarters and moving the management of as many programs as possible 

to the field centers were also priorities. In October 1996, a major agencywide restructuring took 

place that merged the Office of Space Communications, which managed Agency network and 

tracking activities, into the Office of Space Flight. The Office of Space Access and Technology 

was disbanded, and work on developing an RLV was moved to the Office of Aeronautics and 

Space Transportation Technology. Johnson Space Center had lead responsibility for Space 

Shuttle program management.

In February 1995, NASA moved to a Strategic Enterprise structure, as described in its 1995 

Strategic Plan. Five Strategic Enterprises were formed to provide a framework for strategic 

planning at the Agency: (1) Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), (2) Aeronautics; (3) Human 

Exploration and Development of Space, (4) Space Science, and (5) Space Technology.5 The 

1996 Strategic Plan deployed a new “Centers of Excellence” approach to streamline and 

consolidate the Agency’s technical capabilities.6 In the Strategic Management Handbook, 

published in October 1996, the Space Technology enterprise was eliminated.7 The functions of 

this enterprise were transferred to the Aeronautics enterprise, which in 1996 was renamed the 

Aeronautics and Space Transportation enterprise (soon shortened to the Aero-Space Technology 

enterprise).

Table 5-19 lists the major organizations at Headquarters in 1989 and in 1998. 

5 NASA Strategic Plan, February 1995, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/stratplans/1995/Enterprises.html

(accessed November 9, 2006).

6 NASA Strategic Plan, February 1996, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/stratplans/1996/cover.html (accessed 

November 9, 2006).

7 NASA Strategic Management Handbook, October 1996, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/frontpg.htm

(accessed November 9, 2006).

624
Mission

NASA Headquarters provides the organizational structure for the entire Agency and is 

responsible for the overall planning, coordination, and control of NASA programs. Headquarters 

consists of program offices in charge of planning and directing agencywide research and 

development programs and management and administrative processes; staff offices that provide 

agencywide leadership in certain administrative and specialized areas; and the Office of the 

Associate Deputy Administrator. Strategic Enterprise management at Headquarters manages 

individual NASA centers and programs. In addition, other offices with specific functions, such as 

the Office of the Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Scientist, and Office of Policy and Plans, 

have been established and disbanded over time. The head of each office reports directly to the 

Administrator, who is appointed by the President. 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to prevent crime, fraud, waste, and 

abuse in government programs. Public Law 95-452, known as the Inspector General Act of 1978, 

created independent audit and investigative units, called Offices of Inspector General (OIGs), at 

61 federal agencies. At NASA, the OIG conducts objective oversight of NASA programs and 

operations and independently reports to the Administrator, Congress, and the public to further 

the Agency’s accomplishment of its mission. The OIG is funded by Congress separately from 

NASA’s other activities and consists of four offices: Audits, Investigations, Counsel, and 

Management and Planning. The mandate of the OIG, as stated in the Act, is to: 

• conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations relating to 

Agency programs and operations; 

• promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the Agency; 

625
• prevent and detect crime, fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency programs and operations; 

• review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and 

regulations relating to Agency programs and operations; 

• keep the Agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems in 

Agency programs and operations.8

 

Tables 5-20–5-23 provide data about Headquarters facilities, personnel, funding, and 

procurements. 

8 “NASA OIG Mandate, Mission and Guiding Principles,” http://oig.nasa.gov/mission.html (accessed December 11, 

2006).

626
Ames Research Center

Location 

Ames Research Center is located at the south end of San Francisco Bay, approximately 35 miles 

southeast of San Francisco and 10 miles northwest of San Jose. It was adjacent to the U.S. Naval 

Air Station at Moffett Field, California, when the base was active. When the base closed in 1993, 

Ames absorbed the air station.

Director

Henry McDonald, March 1996–September 2002 

Ken Munechika, January 1994–March 1996 

Dale L. Compton, December 1989–January 1994 

Dale L. Compton (acting), July 1989–December 1989

William F. Ballhaus, Jr., February 1989–July 1989 

Dale L. Compton (acting), February 1988–February 1989 

William F. Ballhaus, Jr., January 1984–February 1988 

Clarence A. Syvertson, April 1978–January 1984 

Clarence A. Syvertson (acting), August 1977–April 1978 

Hans Mark, February 1969–August 1977 

H. Julian Allen, October 1965–February 1969 

Smith J. De France, October 1958–October 1965 

Deputy Director

William E. Berry, October 1997–April 2002 

627
William E. Berry (acting), February 1997–September 1997 

William E. Dean, July 1994–January 1997 

William E. Dean (acting), January 1994–July 1994 

Victor L. Peterson, March 1990–January 1994 

Victor L. Peterson (acting), July 1989–March 1990 

Dale Compton, February 1989–July 1989 

Victor L. Peterson (acting), February 1988–January 1989 

Dale Compton, January 1985–February 1988 

Angelo Guastaferro, October 1980–January 1985 

A. Thomas Young, February 1979–February 1980 

Clarence A. Syvertson, February 1969–April 1978 

History

Ames Research Center was established in 1939 as the second laboratory of the National 

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA).9 Its original name was the Moffett Field 

Laboratory. In 1944, the center was renamed the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory in honor of 

Joseph S. Ames, chair of NACA from 1927 to 1939, former president of Johns Hopkins 

University, and a leading authority on aerodynamics. Ames became part of NASA in 1958 and 

was renamed Ames Research Center. In 1981, NASA merged Ames with the Dryden Flight 

Research Center. The two field centers were then referred to as Ames-Moffett and AmesDryden. In March 1994, Dryden once again became an independent NASA center. 

9 “Ames History,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/about/history.html (accessed October 23, 2006).

628
On December 22, 1993, NASA and the U.S. Navy signed a MOU under which Moffett Naval 

Air Station land would be transferred to NASA. The agreement implemented recommendations 

made by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission in July 1991 concerning future 

use of the land on which the air station was located.10 On 1 July 1994, Moffett Field was closed 

as a military base. Supervision of Moffett’s facilities, two runways, and three aircraft hangars 

was turned over to Ames. NASA serves as the host agency for the federal facility, which is 

occupied by more than 10,000 active-duty military, civilian, and military reserve personnel.11

Mission

Ames Research Center participates in a wide range of programs. Its program areas include 

computer science and applications, computational and experimental aerodynamics, flight 

simulation, flight research, hypersonic aircraft, rotorcraft and powered-lift technology, 

aeronautical and space human factors, life sciences, space sciences, solar system exploration, 

airborne science and applications, and infrared astronomy. The center also supports military 

programs, the Space Shuttle, and various civil aviation projects, and focuses on meeting the 

needs of the U.S. aerospace industry. 

Prime areas of flight research at Ames include icing research; transonic model testing; 

aerodynamics research; flying qualities, stability and control, and performance evaluations; 

variable-stability aircraft; gunsight tracking and guidance and control displays; inflight thrust 

reversing and steep approach research; boundary-layer control research; short takeoff and 

10 Del Harding, “Agreement Reached To Transfer Navy Land to Ames,” Astrogram, 8 January 1993, p. 1, NASA 

History Division folder 4563, Historical Reference Section, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

11 “NASA Ames Director To Take Top Moffett Field Post,” Ames News Release 96-7, 17 January 1996, NASA 

History Division folder 4563, Historical Reference Section, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

629
landing (STOL) and vertical and short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft research; and 

rotorcraft research.12 Ames has housed several wind tunnels, including the largest wind tunnel in 

the world. Restoration of the 12-foot (6.5-meter) Pressure Wind Tunnel, which was built in 1946, 

was completed in 1994 after four years of work. The tunnel has been used to test models of most 

U.S. commercial aircraft in service over the past 50 years. (See chapter 3 of this volume for a 

description of the Ames wind tunnels.) 

Ames is NASA’s lead center for astrobiology, focusing on research to determine the effects of 

gravity on living creatures. The center plays a major role in efforts to understand the origin, 

evolution, and distribution of stars, planets, and life in the universe; in ecosystem and 

atmospheric science in support of Earth science projects; and in developing thermal protection 

systems for future access to space and for planetary atmospheric entry vehicles.13 Tables 5-24 

through 5-28 provide data about Ames. 

12 Paul F. Borchers, James A. Franklin, Jay W. Fletcher, Flight Research at Ames, 1940–1997 (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP-3300, 1998), p. 2. (Available at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-3300/sp3300.htm.) 

13 “NASA Headquarters and Centers,” NASA Spinoff 1997, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/contents.html

(accessed November 7, 2006).

630
Dryden Flight Research Center

Location 

Dryden Flight Research Center is located at the north end of Edwards Air Force Base, California, 

in the Mojave Desert approximately 80 miles (130 kilometers) north of the Los Angeles 

metropolitan area. It occupies 838 acres under a permit from the U.S. Air Force. Dryden is 

adjacent to Rogers Dry Lake, a 44-square-mile (114-square-kilometer) natural surface used for 

Shuttle landings and aviation research and test operations. Nearby Rosamond Dry Lake provides 

an additional 22 square miles (57 square kilometers) of similar smooth clay surface. The desert 

environment offers good flying weather an average of 345 days a year, and the absence of large 

population centers throughout the high desert helps eliminate problems associated with aircraft 

noise and flight patterns.14

Director

Kevin L. Petersen (acting), August 1998–February 1999 

Kenneth J. Szalai, Director, March 1994–July 1998 

Kenneth J. Szalai, Ames Deputy Director and Dryden Facility Director, December 1990–March 

1994 

Martin Knutson, Director of Flight Operations and Site Director, Ames-Dryden Flight Research 

Facility, May 1984–December 1990 

Martin A. Manke, Director of Flight Operations, Ames Research Center (after Dryden was 

consolidated with Ames as the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility), October 1981–April 

1984 

14 “Dryden Flight Research Center,” Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-001-

DFRC.html (accessed October 23, 2006).

631
Isaac T. Gillam IV, June 1978–September 1981 

Isaac T. Gillam IV (acting), October 1977–June 1978 

David R. Scott, August 1977–October 1977 

David R. Scott (acting), April 1975–August 1977 

Lee R. Scherer, October 1971–January 1975 

Paul F. Bikle, September 1959–May 1971 

Walter C. Williams, October 1958–August 1959 

Deputy Director

Kevin Peterson, January 1996–July 199815

Kevin Peterson (acting), April 1994–January 1996 

Robert P. Johannes, December 1979–October 1980 

John Boyd, January 1979–December 1979

Isaac T. Gillam IV, August 1977–June 1978 

William H. Rock, November 1975–January 1976 

David R. Scott, August 1973–November 1975 

D. E. Beeler, April 1958–August 1973 

History

The U.S. Army originally used the Dryden area as a bombing and gunnery range before World 

War II. In July 1942, the Army established a formal air base near the town of Muroc, California. 

The first NACA group of engineers, technicians, and support staff arrived at Muroc from 

15 “NASA Administrator and Center Directors Biographies,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Biographies/Directors/index.html (accessed October 23, 2006).

632
Langley Research Center in 1946 on temporary assignment. In early 1947, the contingent 

became known as the NACA Muroc Flight Test Unit and the site was made a permanent facility, 

under Langley management. The group used Muroc as a test site when it designed and built a 

research aircraft to break the sound barrier. 16

In 1949, Muroc was renamed Edwards Air Force Base. Also that year, the name of the NACA 

facility was changed to the NACA High Speed Flight Research Station. It became an 

autonomous facility in 1954, reporting directly to NACA headquarters. In March 1976, the 

center became the Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center, in honor of Hugh L. Dryden, the 

internationally renowned aerodynamicist who had been NACA’s director from 1947 to 1957. In 

October 1981, the center’s independent status was removed and it was redesignated the Dryden 

Flight Research Facility under the administration of the Ames Research Center. It returned to 

independent status in March 1994. The change meant that Dryden could work directly within 

NASA at senior management levels, and that decisions and communication no longer needed to 

go through the extra level of management at Ames. 

Dryden is home to a varied fleet of research and support aircraft and is the only NASA center 

that is able to test aircraft in real world situations (as opposed to the artificial environment of 

wind tunnels and computer models).17 The center’s facilities include a high-temperature and 

loads-calibration laboratory to ground-test aircraft and structural components for the combined 

effects of loads and heat, a highly developed aircraft flight instrumentation capability, a flow16 Wallace Lane, Flights of Discovery: 50 Years at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP-4309, 1996), p. 3.

17 Allison Gatlin, “Dryden Returns to Independence,” Antelope Valley Press, March 1, 1994NASA History Division 

folder 004576, Historical Reference Section, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

633
visualization facility to study flow patterns on models and small aircraft components, a dataanalysis facility to process flight research data, and a facility for flight research with remotely 

piloted vehicles. 

Dryden’s Research Aircraft Integration Facility (RAIF), which became operational in 1992, is 

the only facility of its type at NASA. It has been used to carry out simultaneous checks of flight 

controls, avionics, electronics, and other systems on a variety of aircraft. The facility was 

designed to speed up and enhance systems integration and preflight checks on all types of 

research aircraft. Working in this facility gives Dryden pilots, engineers, scientists, and 

technicians a unique and highly specialized capability to conduct flight research programs.18

Mission

Dryden’s mission is to perform flight research and technology integration to revolutionize 

aviation, pioneer aerospace technology, validate space exploration concepts, conduct airborne 

remote sensing and science missions, and support operations of the Space Shuttle and the 

International Space Station. It participated in the approach and landing tests of the Space Shuttle 

orbiter Enterprise, serves as a backup Shuttle landing site, is used as a facility to test and validate 

design concepts and systems used to develop and operate the orbiters, and processes the orbiter 

for ferry flights back to the launch site.19 Research thrusts in the 1990s have included high-speed 

research, remotely piloted research vehicles, high-performance aircraft operation, and less costly 

access to space.20 Tables 5-29 through 5-33 provide data about Dryden. 

18 “Dryden Flight Research Center,” Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-001-

DFRC.html (accessed October 23, 2006).

19 “About Dryden,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryde-bout/Dryden/mission.html (accessed November 9, 2006).

20 Wallace, pp. 158–159.

634
Goddard Space Flight Center 

Location 

Goddard Space Flight Center is located in Greenbelt, Maryland, approximately 10 miles (16 

kilometers) northeast of Washington, DC. In addition to its main site, until FY 1981, Goddard 

leased 620 acres of nearby land from the Department of Agriculture for the Goddard Antenna 

Test Range, Magnetic Test Facility, Optical Tracking and Ground Plane Test Facility, BiPropellant Test Facility, and Network Test and Training Facility. In 1981, 544 acres of this land 

were transferred to Goddard. The remaining land stayed with the Department of Agriculture. 

Goddard also manages the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, which 

was established in 1961. Since October 1981, Goddard’s facilities have included the Wallops 

Flight Facility (which formerly was an independent center) on Wallops Island on the eastern 

shore of Virginia. 

Director

Alphonse V. Diaz, January 1998–August 2004 

Joseph H. Rothenberg, October 1995–January 1998 

John Klineberg, July 1990–April 1995 

John W. Townsend, Jr., June 1987–June 30, 1990 

Noel W. Hinners, June 1982–June 1987 

Leslie H. Meredith (acting), March 1982–June 1982 

A. Thomas Young, February 1980–March 1982 

Robert E. Smylie (acting), June 1979–February 1980 

Robert Cooper, August 1976–June 1979 

635
John F. Clark, May 1966–August 1976 

Harry J. Goett, September 1959–July 1965 

Deputy Director

William F. Townsend, March 1998–September 2004 

Vacant, January 1998–March 1998 

Alphonse V. Diaz, February 1996–January 1998 

Vacant, July 1995–February 1996 

Joseph H. Rothenberg, April 1995–July 1995 

Thomas E. Huber, July 1994–March 1995 

Peter T. Burr, February 1991–July 1994 

Vacant, January 1988–February 1991 (James H. Trainor, Associate Director) 

John J. Quann, September 1982–January 1988 

John McElroy, September 1980–September 1982 

Robert E. Smylie, December 1976–February 1980 

Donald P. Hearth, April 1970–September 1975 

Vacant, July 1968–April 1970

John W. Townsend, July 1965–July 1968 

History

In August of 1958, Senator J. Glenn Beall of Maryland announced that the federal government 

would establish a “Space Projects Center” in Greenbelt, Maryland. On January 15, 1959, the 

NASA Administrator established the Beltsville Space Center on land that was originally part of 

636
the Department of Agriculture’s Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.21 On May 15, the 

center was formally renamed the Goddard Space Flight Center “in commemoration of Dr. Robert 

H. Goddard, American pioneer in rocket research.” It was the first facility built specifically for 

the new Agency.22 The first 157 Goddard employees, who were working on the Vanguard 

project, transferred from the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington. 

From NASA’s early days, Goddard managed the facilities of the Space Tracking and Data 

Network (STDN), a series of tracking stations located around the world. At its height during the 

late 1970s and the early days of the Shuttle program, the network consisted of approximately 20 

stations worldwide. The number of stations decreased as the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 

System (TDRSS), also managed by Goddard, became operational; however, the STDN continued 

to support missions that could not be tracked by the TDRSS and provided additional Shuttle 

tracking support. (See chapter 4 for a description of NASA’s tracking activities.) The center was 

also responsible for robotic spacecraft and sounding-rocket experiments in basic and applied 

research, and managed development and launch of the Thor-Delta launch vehicle.23

The Goddard facility at Greenbelt covers 1,270 acres. It maintains the adjacent Magnetic Test 

Facility and Propulsion Research site and outlying sites, including the Antenna Performance 

Measuring Range and the Optical Tracking and Ground Plane Facilities. The unique Magnetic 

Test Facility is a magnetic quiet area and is operated from a single control building. Other unique 

facilities at Goddard include the Flight Dynamics Facility and a high-capacity centrifuge that is 

21 “Goddard Space Flight Center,” NASA Facts, September 1991. 22 Ibid., p. 1.

23 “Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC),” http://www.history.nasa.gov/centerhistories/goddard.htm (accessed 15 

November 2006).

637
capable of rotating 5,000-pound (2,268-kilogram) payloads at up to 30 revolutions per minute. In 

1990, the Space Systems Development and Integration Facility, an 86,000-square-foot (7,989.4-

square-meter) building used to integrate and test space hardware, opened.24 This facility houses 

the 1.3 million-cubic-foot (36,811.76-cubic-meter) High Bay Clean Room.25

In the second half of the 1990s, Goddard added two large facilities to its campus. The Earth 

Observing System Data and Information System building officially opened in July 1995. This 

facility is a data-compilation center for spacecraft dedicated to the Earth Observing System 

(EOS), the largest segment of NASA’s Earth science program. It is also used to compile data 

from other Earth science data sources. It has the largest Data Active Archiving Center (DAAC) 

and is the center for all real time EOS operations. The building has approximately 190,000 

square feet (17,650 square meters) of office and data-processing/archiving space, housing stateof-the-art equipment. Late in 1998, the Earth System Science Building (ESSB) opened. This 

building provides technical facilities and support space to conduct interdisciplinary Earth science 

research on a worldwide scale for the EOS program.26

An important part of Goddard Space Flight Center is the Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), which 

had been an independent NASA center but was consolidated with Goddard on October 19, 1981, 

becoming the Suborbital Projects and Operations Directorate of Goddard Space Flight Center. 

24 “Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC),” http://www.history.nasa.gov/centerhistories/goddard.htm (accessed 

November 15, 2006).

25 “Hubble Space Systems Development and Integration Facility,” http://sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssdif.html (accessed 

April 30, 2007).

26 NASA Office of Inspector General, “Management Controls on the Earth Science Building (ESSB) Contract,” 

Audit Report IG-98-015, June 8, 1998, http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY98/pdfs/ig-98-015.pdf (accessed 

November 7, 2006).

638
WFF is located on Wallops Island, off the Delmarva Peninsula in Virginia, and on additional 

nearby property on the Virginia mainland. 

Wallops is one of the oldest launch sites in the world. Wallops Flight Center was established in 

1945 by NACA when it authorized the Langley Research Center to develop Wallops Island as a 

site for research with rocket-propelled models and as a center for aerodynamic research. Before 

NASA was established in 1958, the facility helped build the foundation for aerodynamic and 

heat-transfer research by providing a high-speed aeronautics launch site that used rockets to 

propel aircraft models. The facility allowed researchers to overcome the limited capabilities 

offered by the wind tunnels of the day. 

Research conducted at Wallops includes developing components for the human space program, 

such as capsule-escape techniques, maximum-pressure tests, and recovery systems. Wallops 

provides range support for research in reentry and life-support systems, Scout launch vehicles, 

and mobile research projects. It also has expanded its scope to include Earth studies of ocean 

processes, and uses the Wallops Research Airport for runway surface and aircraft noise reduction 

studies. Wallops uses relatively small solid rockets staged in various ways to meet the propulsion 

requirements of its research tasks. The largest and most sophisticated of its launch vehicles was 

the Scout four-stage solid-fuel vehicle, which could launch small scientific satellites, space 

probes, and reentry missions. 

639
Goddard Institute for Space Studies 

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), located at Columbia University in New York 

City, conducts basic research in space and Earth sciences in support of Goddard’s programs by 

working cooperatively with New York area universities and research organizations. The institute 

focuses particularly on the study of global change, including long-range climate, biogeochemical 

cycles, and planetary atmospheres. Research at GISS combines analysis of comprehensive global 

datasets with global models of atmospheric, land surface, and oceanic processes. Past events on 

Earth, as well as other planets, are examined to aid in predicting the future evolution of Earth. 

Independent Verification and Validation Facility 

Located in Fairmont, West Virginia, the NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) 

Facility was established in 1993 as part of an agencywide strategy to provide the highest 

achievable level of safety and cost-effectiveness for mission-critical software. It was founded 

under the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance as a result of recommendations made 

by the National Research Council and the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space 

Shuttle Challenger accident.27

Mission

Goddard Space Flight Center’s mission is to expand our knowledge of Earth and its 

environment, the solar system, and the universe through the development and use of near-Earthorbiting spacecraft. It is responsible for supporting NASA’s role in space and Earth sciences; 

conducting research and applying technology for sensors, instruments, and information systems; 

27 “NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,” NASA Facts, FS-2005-5-071-GSFC, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/pdf/118885main_FS-2005-5-071-GSFC_finalv2.pdf (accessed November 9, 

2006).

640
planning and executing spaceflight projects for scientific research; and tracking Earth satellites 

by means of a worldwide communications system.

The Wallops Flight Facility mission includes managing and implementing NASA’s soundingrocket and balloon programs, conducting observational Earth sciences studies, providing flight 

services for scientific investigations, and operating the Wallops Test Range and Orbital Tracking 

Station. Tables 5-34 through 5-38 provide data about Goddard.

641
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) 

Location 

The JPL’s main site is at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains near Pasadena, California, 

approximately 12 miles (32 kilometers) northeast of Los Angeles. At Pasadena, the Laboratory 

occupies 177 acres of land. At Goldstone, California, Deep Space Network facilities are located 

on land occupied under permit from the U.S. Army. At Edwards Air Force Base, facilities are 

located on land occupied under permit from the U.S. Air Force. The facilities at Table Mountain 

are located on land occupied under permit from the Forest Service of the Department of 

Agriculture.28

Director

Edward C. Stone, January 1991–January 2001 

Lew Allen, Jr., July 1982–December 31, 1990 

Bruce C. Murray, April 1976–June 1982 

William H. Pickering, October 1958–March 1976 

Louis Dunn, 1946–1954 

Frank Malina, 1944–1946 

Theodore von Kármán, 1944 and forerunner organization 

Deputy Director

Larry N. Dumas, July 1992–2001 

Peter T. Lyman, July 1987–July 1992 

28 “Jet Propulsion Laboratory,” NASA History Division folder 4527, Historical Reference Section, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

642
Robert J. Parks, January 1984–September 1987 

Charles H. Terhune, Jr., 1969–December 1983

History

JPL is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility that is staffed and managed by the 

California Institute of Technology (Caltech). It dates back to the 1930s, when Theodore von 

Kármán, head of the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at Caltech, oversaw pioneering work 

in rocket propulsion. After the Caltech group performed successful rocket experiments, the Army 

helped Caltech acquire land in the Arroyo Seco near Pasadena, California, for rocket tests and 

workshops. The term “Jet Propulsion Laboratory” was first used during World War II to refer to 

a group of researchers in a proposed project headed by von Kármán to analyze the German V-2 

program. During the war years, teams of rocket engineers tested small unguided missiles, 

experimented with radio telemetry, and began planning for ground radar and radio sets. By 1945, 

the group had begun launching test vehicles from White Sands, New Mexico, to an altitude of 

200,000 feet (60,960 meters). Researchers continued developing missiles that could fly and 

survive in the field under stressful conditions, as well as a supersonic wind tunnel and an array of 

environmental test technologies.29 

JPL flew the first successful U.S. space mission, Explorer 1, on January 31, 1958. On 3 

December 1958, JPL was transferred from Army jurisdiction to NASA control. NASA’s 

contractual arrangement with Caltech for research and development at JPL dates from 1962. The 

29 “Jet Propulsion Laboratory,” NASA Facts, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/jpl.pdf (accessed 9 

November 2006).

643
NASA Management Office in Pasadena administers the contract.30 A series of “space-related” 

and laboratory buildings were constructed in the 1960s. New building projects have continued, 

including several laboratory buildings in the 1980s and 1990s. Its main campus is approximately 

177 acres in size.31

Major missions at JPL during the decade from 1989 to 1998 included the Mars Observer, 

Topex/Poseidon (with the French space agency), Magellan, Galileo, Mars Pathfinder (a 

(Discovery program mission), Mars Global Surveyor, Cassini-Huygens, Mars Climate Orbiter, 

and Mars Polar Lander. It also built several instruments for NASA’s MTPE missions.32 Details 

of these missions can be found in chapter 4 (“Space Science”) of volume VII of the NASA 

Historical Data Book, 1989–1998, and in chapter 2 (“Earth Science and Applications”) of 

volume VIII of the Data Book. 

Mission

JPL is NASA’s lead center for robotic exploration of the solar system. Its major programs 

involve exploring Earth and the solar system, managing the Deep Space Network for 

communications, data acquisition, mission control, and radio-science space study, and 

performing basic and applied scientific and engineering research. Its spacecraft have visited all 

known planets except Pluto. In addition to its work for NASA, JPL conducts tasks for a variety 

of other federal agencies. Tables 5-39 to 5-42 provide data about JPL. 

30 “Jet Propulsion Laboratory,” NASA Facts, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/jpl.pdf (accessed November 

9, 2006). Also “Jet Propulsion Laboratory,” http://history.nasa.gov/centerhistories/printFriendly/jpl.htm (accessed 

November 13, 2006).

31 “Jet Propulsion Laboratory,” NASA Facts, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/jpl.pdf (accessed November 

9, 2006).

32 “JPL History: The 80s,” http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/jplhistory/the80/index.php and “JPL History: The 90s,” 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/jplhistory/the90/index.php (accessed May 1, 2007).

644
Johnson Space Center

Location 

Johnson Space Center is located at Clear Lake, Texas, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) southeast 

of downtown Houston. Additional facilities are located at Ellington Air Force Base, 

approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) north of the main facility. It also manages the White 

Sands Test Facility, a component facility near Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Director

George W. S. Abbey, January 1996–February 2001 

George W. S. Abbey (acting), August 1995–January 1996 

Carolyn Huntoon, January 1994–August 1995 

Paul J. Weitz (acting), August 1993–January 1994 

Aaron Cohen, October 1986–August 1993 

Jesse Moore, January 1986–October 1986 

Robert Goetz (acting), January 1986 (two-week duration) 

Gerald Griffin, August 1982–January 1986 

Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., January 1972–August 1982 

Robert R. Gilruth, November 1961–January 1972 

Deputy Director

James D. Wetherbee, August 1995–April 2000 

George Abbey, January 1994–August 1995 

Paul J. Weitz, December 1986–January 1994 

645
Robert C. Goetz, July 1983–October 1986 

Charles E. Charlesworth, August 1979–May 1983 

Sigurd A. Sjoberg, January 1972–May 1979 

Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., November 1969–January 1972 

George S. Trimble, October 1967–September 1969 

George M. Low, February 1964–April 1967 

James C. Elms, November 1963–February 1964 

History

Johnson Space Center was established in September 1961 as the Manned Spacecraft Center in 

response to the need for a center to manage the design, development, and manufacture of crewed 

spacecraft; to select and train astronaut crews; and to conduct human spaceflight missions. It was 

renamed Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in February 1973. The complex includes 

approximately 100 buildings on a 1,620-acre site. Its specialized training facilities include 

Shuttle simulators, the Space Shuttle Orbiter Trainer, the Manipulator Development Facility, the 

Precision Air Bearing Facility, Space Station mockups, and the Weightless Environment 

Training Facility.33

The White Sands Test Facility, a component center of Johnson, was established in 1962 at Las 

Cruces, New Mexico, to test Apollo propulsion and power systems. It supports spacecraft 

propulsion checkout, power system evaluations, and materials testing. Much of the land used by 

NASA at this facility is owned by the U.S. Army or the Bureau of Land Management. 

33 “Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,” 1997 Spinoff, www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/ar5.html (accessed 

November 7, 2006).

646
Ellington Field is responsible for center flight operations. The aircraft based there include a KC135 four-engine jet used to produce space-like weightlessness, a specially modified twin-engine 

Gulfstream that performs like a landing shuttle orbiter, and T-38 jet trainers flown by astronauts 

to maintain their proficiency.34

Johnson is also responsible for the Palmdale facility in Palmdale, California, and until 1999 it 

was in charge of the Downey Facility in Downey, California. Both of these facilities, operated by 

Rockwell International/Rocketdyne (later Boeing), were used to manufacture and assemble 

various parts of the Space Shuttle. The Downey facility was closed in 1999 in an effort to reduce 

costs. The majority of work performed at Downey was transferred to Boeing’s Huntington 

Beach, California, facility.35

Mission

Johnson Space Center has program management responsibility for the Space Shuttle program. It 

is home to the Astronaut Corps and is responsible for training people from the United States and 

abroad who will be traveling in space. It also has a major responsibility for developing the 

International Space Station (ISS) and is responsible for the interfaces between the ISS and Space 

Shuttle, and the flight operations of both. Its areas of expertise include the fields of space 

systems, engineering, life sciences, and lunar and planetary geosciences, and it participates in 

medical, scientific, and engineering experiments.36 Additionally, Johnson manages the 

34 “Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC),” http://history.nasa.gov/centerhistories/johnson.htm (accessed 

November 13, 2006).

35 Audit Report, Impact of the Boeing Company’s Restructuring on NASA, November 27, 2000, IG-01-006, p. 5, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits/reports/FY01/ig-01-006.pdf (accessed December 11, 2006).

36 “Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,” NASA Facts, NASA History Division folder 4703, Historical Reference 

Section, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

647
development, testing, production, and delivery of various types of hardware, such as power 

systems, crew equipment, electrical power generation and distribution, navigation and control, 

cooling systems, structures, flight software, robotics, spacesuits, and spacewalking equipment.37

Tables 5-43 through 5-47 provide data about Johnson. 

37 “Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC),” http://history.nasa.gov/centerhistories/johnson.htm (accessed 

November 13, 2006).

648
Kennedy Space Center

Location 

John F. Kennedy Space Center is located on the east coast of Florida, immediately north and 

west of Cape Canaveral, midway between Jacksonville and Miami, and approximately 45 miles 

(72 kilometers) east of Orlando. The center consists of 140,000 acres encompassing more than 

20 major facilities. The environmentally unique federal property coexists with the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge and is home to more than 500 species of wildlife, including 21 (as of 

1997) on threatened or endangered lists.38

Director

Roy D. Bridges, March 1997–June 2003 

Jay F. Honeycutt, January 1995–March 1997 

Robert L. Crippen, January 1992–January 1995 

Forrest McCartney, October 1986–December 1991 

Thomas E. Utsman (acting), July 1986–October 1986 

Richard G. Smith, September 1979–July 1986 

Lee R. Scherer, January 1975–September 1979 

Kurt H. Debus, March 1962–October 1964 

Deputy Director

James L. Jennings, August 1997–May 2000, Deputy Director for Business Operations 

Loren J. Shriver, July 1997–April 2000, Deputy Director for Launch and Payload Processing 

38 Annual Report FY 1997, Kennedy Space Center, p. 13, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/66712main_annrpt97.pdf (accessed November 13, 2006).

649
James L. Jennings (acting), January 1997–August 1997 

James A. (Gene) Thomas, January 1990–January 1997 

Thomas E. Utsman, August 1985–January 1990 

Horace Lamberth (acting), November 1984–August 1985 

George F. Page, July 1982–October 1984 

Gerald D. Griffin, July 1977–August 1981; on Headquarters assignment July 1980–May 1981 

Miles Ross, June 1970–May 1977 

Miles Ross, July 1970–1977, Deputy Director 

Miles Ross, September 1967–March 1970, Deputy Director for Operations 

Albert F. Siepert, September 1967–March 1970, Deputy Director for Center Management 

Albert F. Siepert, April 1963–September 1967 

History

The site of Kennedy Space Center had been used as a missile launching ground since the late 

1940s. In 1951, it was used for test flights of the U.S. Army’s Redstone intermediate-range 

ballistic missile. In January 1953, its name was changed from the Long-Range Proving Ground 

to the Missile Firing Laboratory. In July 1960, it became part of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight 

Center’s Launch Operations Directorate. The directorate was disbanded in March 1962. 

Congress approved the development of Cape Canaveral, the strip of land on Florida’s east coast, 

in 1961, soon after President John F. Kennedy announced plans to fly American astronauts to the 

Moon. In August 1961, NASA announced its intention to expand the Cape Canaveral facilities 

for piloted lunar flight and other missions requiring advanced Saturn and Nova boosters by 

650
acquiring 80,000 acres of land north and west of the Air Force Missile Test Center facilities at 

the Cape.39 NASA began acquiring land across the Banana River from Cape Canaveral in 1962, 

taking title to 83,894 acres by outright purchase. It negotiated with the state of Florida for use of 

an additional 55,805 acres of state-owned submerged land, most of which lies within the 

Mosquito Lagoon. The investment in property reached approximately $71,872,000. In July 1962, 

the Launch Operations Directorate at the Cape was separated from the Marshall Space Flight 

Center by executive order. It became the Launch Operations Center, an independent NASA 

installation.40

Construction of NASA’s Vehicle Assembly Building began in July 1963 and was substantially 

completed early in 1966. At the time of its construction, it was the largest building in the world, 

with an enclosed area of 129,482,000 cubic feet (3,666,522 cubic meters) and a height of 525.8 

feet (160.3 meters) to the top of the finished roof of its high bays. It was constructed with 98,590 

tons of steel and 65,000 cubic yards (49,696 cubic meters) of concrete.41

President Johnson renamed both the Launch Operations Center and the Cape Canaveral 

Auxiliary Air Force Station the John F. Kennedy Space Center seven days after the President 

was assassinated. NASA Administrator James Webb officially issued a similar order changing 

the name of NASA’s facility on December 20, 1963. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s 

Board of Geographical Names changed the name of the geographical cape from Cape Canaveral 

39 “Historical Timeline, 1960s” Kennedy Space Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/timeline/1950.html (accessed May 1, 2007).

40 Kennedy Space Center Story, chapter 1, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/story/ch1.html

(accessed May 2, 2007).

41 “Historical Timeline, 1960s” Kennedy Space Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/timeline/1950.html (accessed May 1, 2007).

651
to Cape Kennedy the following year. In May 1973, after almost 10 years, Florida Governor 

Reuben Askew signed a legislative enactment restoring the name of the geographic cape to Cape 

Canaveral. The Department of the Interior’s Board of Geographical Names followed suit in 

October.42

In May 1964, the Air Force Atlantic Missile Range at Cape Canaveral, which is adjacent to the 

northern part of Merritt Island and has been used since the early 1950s, was redesignated the 

Eastern Test Range. It would be the site of the Mercury and Gemini launches.

By 1967, Kennedy Space Center’s Complex 39 was operational. The complex was strategically 

located next to a barge site and consisted of a variety of structures, including a vehicle assembly 

building, processing facilities, press site, crawlerways to Complex 39 launch pads, and the 

Launch Control Center. On November 9, 1967, Pad A, one of the two new launch pads at 

Launch Complex 39, was used for the first time to launch the first Saturn V on Apollo 4, the first 

Apollo launch. Between 1967 and 1973, 13 Saturn V launches (12 Apollo missions and the first 

Skylab space station) took place at Kennedy. Three three-member Skylab missions were also 

launched from Kennedy aboard Saturn 1Bs in 1973. The Saturn-Apollo era ended in 1975 with 

the launch of a Saturn IV/Apollo crew on the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, a joint mission with the 

Soviet Union. 

The Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF), which was specifically designed for returning Space Shuttle 

orbiters, was first used in 1976. Longer and wider than the runways at most commercial airports, 

42 “Historical Timeline, 1970s” Kennedy Space Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/timeline/1970.html (accessed May 1, 2007).

652
the paved runway was 15,000 feet (4,572 meters) long, with a 1,000-foot (305-meter) overrun on 

each end. In 1979, an Orbiter Processing Facility was built, and the Orbital Flight Test Program 

began at Kennedy. NASA launched the first Shuttle mission from Kennedy on April 12, 1981.43

All of NASA’s Space Shuttle missions, as well as hundreds of expendable launch vehicle (ELV) 

missions, have been launched from Kennedy. ELV operations are conducted at both the Air 

Force’s Eastern Space and Missile Center at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and the 

Western Space and Missile Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, located 6 miles 

(9.6 kilometers) west of Lompoc, California. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, several new facilities were added for solid rocket booster 

processing, Shuttle logistics, orbiter modification and refurbishment, and repair and final 

manufacture of thermal protection system materials. In addition to the SLF and the Orbiter 

Processing Facility, major facilities involved in Shuttle launch and landing include the Thermal 

Protection System Facility, Logistics Facility, Launch Equipment Test Facility, Multi-Payload 

Processing Facility, Spacecraft Assembly and Encapsulation Facility 2, Space Station Processing 

Facility, Vertical Processing Facility, Solid Rocket Booster Processing Facility, Vehicle 

Assembly Building, Launch Control Center, and a variety of transportable equipment and 

facilities.44 In September 1991, a third Orbiter Processing Facility bay was dedicated. The former 

Orbiter Modification and Refurbishment Facility, which had been used for off-line orbiter 

inspection, modifications, and repair work, was converted using existing service structures and 

work platforms transported to Kennedy from Vandenberg Air Force Base, NASA’s West Coast 

43 “Kennedy Space Center,” http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/ar6.html (accessed November 7, 2006). 44 “Countdown,” Information Summary, http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/Countdown2005.pdf

(accessed November 7, 2006).

653
launch site.45 In June 1994, the Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF), which serves as the 

central preflight checkout and processing point for elements of the International Space Station, 

was dedicated. Construction of the 457,000-square-foot (42,457-square-meter) facility had begun 

in April 1991. The facility includes clean rooms and supporting control rooms and laboratories 

for processing Space Station elements, and office space to accommodate more than 1,000 

employees. The first piece of hardware to be processed for flight in the SSPF, the Russian 

Docking Module, arrived at Kennedy on June 7, 1995.46

Mission

Kennedy Space Center has primary responsibility for ground turnaround and support operations, 

prelaunch checkout, and launch of the Space Shuttle and its payloads, including the ISS. The 

center’s responsibility also extends to the facilities and ground operations at Vandenberg Air 

Force Base in California and designated contingency landing sites. It is also the prime center for 

payload testing and checkout.47 In October 1997, Kennedy was designated the lead center for 

acquisition and management of ELV Services for the Agency. The Kennedy team manages all 

NASA ELV launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

Kodiak Island in Alaska, Kwajalein Island in the Pacific, and elsewhere.48 

In August 1998, the repainting of the Vehicle Assembly Building began in celebration of 

NASA’s upcoming 40th anniversary on 1 October. It was the first time that the American flag, 

45 “Historical Timeline, the 1990s,” Kennedy Space Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/timeline/1990.html (accessed May 1, 2007).

46 Ibid.

47 “Kennedy Space Center,” http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/ar6.html (accessed November 7, 2006).

48 “Historical Timeline, the 1990s,” Kennedy Space Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/timeline/1990.html (accessed May 1, 2007).

654
which was originally added to the building in celebration of America’s 200th birthday in 1976, 

had been repainted. The Bicentennial emblem was replaced with the NASA logo.49 Tables 5-48 

to 5-52 provide data about Kennedy. 

49 Ibid.

655
Langley Research Center

Location 

Langley Research Center is located at Langley Field in Hampton, Virginia, between Norfolk and 

Williamsburg, Virginia, and approximately 135 miles (217 kilometers) southeast of Washington, 

DC. Its campus covers 788 acres, plus 20 acres “permitted” by Langley Air Force Base. Under a 

permit from the Department of the Interior, Langley has access to 3,276 acres.50 The campus 

includes 220 buildings (in 2000).51

Director

Jeremiah F. Creedon, August 1996–June 2002 

Paul F. Holloway, October 1991–August 1996 

Richard H. Petersen, November 1984–December 1991

Donald P. Hearth, September 1975–November 1984 

Edgar M. Cortright, May 1968–September 1975 

Floyd L. Thompson, May 1960–May 1968 

Henry J. E. Reid, October 1958–May 1960 

Deputy Director

H. Lee Beach, Jr., December 1991–July 199852

Paul F. Holloway, February 1985–October 1991 

50 Media Guide and Public Affairs Contacts, June 1989, p. 25, NASA History Division folder 4527, Historical 

Reference Section, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

51 “NASA Langley Research Center: Revolutionizing Aerospace for the Millennium,” FS-2000-06-27-LaRC, June 

2000 (accessed October 15, 2000); replaced by 2004 update: http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/FS-2004-02-84-

LaRC.html (accessed November 16, 2006).

52 “Beach Named Langley Deputy Director,” NASA News Release 91-198, December 4, 1991, 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1991/91-198.txt (accessed November 16, 2006).

656
Richard H. Petersen, July 1980–November 1984 

Oran W. Nicks, November 1970–July 1980 

Charles J. Donlan, November 1967–May 1968 

History

In 1916, NACA selected a site near Hampton, Virginia, for Langley Field, its experimental air 

station named after Samuel Pierpont Langley, the third secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 

and an aeronautical pioneer. Construction of the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, the 

first national civil aeronautics laboratory, began in 1917. Until 1940, Langley was the only 

NACA laboratory. In 1948, NACA changed the laboratory’s name to the Langley Aeronautical 

Laboratory. When NASA was formed in 1958, it was renamed Langley Research Center.

In 1958, NASA selected Langley to manage Project Mercury, the first U.S. human spaceflight 

project. Heading the project was Langley’s Space Task Group, a group of NASA employees who 

led the original seven astronauts through the initial phases of their spaceflight training. The 

group later expanded and moved on to become the Manned Spacecraft Center (later Johnson 

Space Center). From 1959 until 1991, Langley managed the Scout launch vehicle program. The 

first Scout launch took place in 1960. On January 1, 1991, Langley transferred management of 

the Scout project to Goddard Space Flight Center.53 Langley was also responsible for NASA’s 

Lunar Orbiter project in the 1960s and the Viking project that orbited and landed spacecraft on 

Mars in 1976. In the late 1960s, environmental space science became a major research thrust at 

Langley. The goal of this research was to preserve Earth’s ecological balance and prevent 

undesirable environmental conditions. 

53 “Scout Launch Vehicle Program,” NASA Facts, NF 173, April 1992.

657
In the early stages of the Space Shuttle program, Langley conducted thousands of hours of wind 

tunnel tests on the orbiter. The center was also responsible for optimizing the design of the 

Shuttle’s thermal protection system. Langley investigated technologies necessary for the design 

and operation of the space station. In 1985, the U.S. Department of the Interior designated five 

Langley facilities as National Historic Landmarks: the Variable-Density Tunnel (built in 1921), 

Full-Scale Tunnel (1930), Eight-Foot High-Speed Tunnel (1935), Rendezvous Docking 

Simulator (1963), and Lunar Landing Research Facility (1965). Langley has also received five 

Robert J. Collier Trophies in 1929 for the low-drag engine cowling, in 1946 for de-icing 

research, in 1947 for supersonic flight research, in 1951 for the slotted-throat transonic wind 

tunnel, and in 1954 for the transonic area rule). 

Mission

Langley Research Center is NASA’s Center of Excellence for structures and materials research, 

and the Agency’s focal point for wind tunnels and test facilities.54 Its primary mission is the 

research and development of advanced concepts and technology for future aircraft and spacecraft 

systems, with particular emphasis on environmental effects, performance, safety, range, and 

economy. Langley also focuses on systems analysis and independent evaluation and assessment 

of NASA programs before the commitment of major development funding. The center has 

expertise in airborne systems, aerodynamics, mission and systems analysis, and hypersonic 

technologies. In the 1990s, Langley and industry participated in the High Speed Research (HSR) 

program, which examined the advantages of supersonic transport configurations that abandoned 

54 “Langley Research Center,” 1997 Spinoff, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1998/ard7.htm (accessed November 

13, 2006).

658
the drooped-nose concept used by the Concorde in order to obtain visibility for takeoff and 

landing. It also participated in hypersonic air-breathing research with the U.S. Air Force and 

industry.55

Langley is home to several unique wind tunnels. See chapter 3 of this volume for detailed 

descriptions. Tables 5-53 through 5-57 provide data about Langley. 

55 Mark A. Chambers, From Research to Relevance: Significant Achievements in Aeronautical Research at Langley 

Research Center (1917–2002), http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/pdf/70787main_FR2R.pdf (accessed November 

14, 2006).

659
Lewis Research Center

Location 

Lewis Research Center is located approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) southwest of 

Cleveland, Ohio, adjacent to the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Plum Brook Station, a 

satellite of Lewis, is located about 3 miles (5 kilometers) south of Sandusky, Ohio, and 56 miles 

(90 kilometers) west of Cleveland on 6,400 acres of land. 

Director

Donald J. Campbell, January 1994–October 2003 

Lawrence J. Ross, July 1990–January 1994 

John M. Klineberg, May 1987–July 1, 1990 

John M. Klineberg (acting), June 1986–May 1987 

Andrew J. Stofan, July 1982–June 1986 

John F. McCarthy, October 1978–July 1982 

Bernard Lubarsky (acting), August 1977–October 1978 

Bruce T. Lundin, November 1969–August 1977 

Abe Silverstein, November 1961–October 1969 

Eugene J. Manganiello (acting), January 1961–October 1961 

Edward R. Sharp, October 1958–December 1960 

Deputy Director

Martin Kress, August 1995–July 1999 

Fred Povinelli (acting), September 1994–August 1995 

660
J. Stuart Fordyce, April 1991–September 1994 

Vacant, July 1990–April 1991

Lawrence J. Ross, December 1987–July 1, 1990 

John M. Klineberg, July 1979–May 1987 

Bernard Lubarsky, 1974–July 1979 

Eugene J. Manganiello, December 1961–1972 

History

In 1940, NACA selected Cleveland, Ohio, as the site of the new NACA aircraft engine research 

laboratory. Groundbreaking took place in 1941, and the NACA Aircraft Research Laboratory 

was officially dedicated in 1943. As one of the three original NASA research laboratories, during 

World War II the laboratory concentrated on investigating the problems of aircraft reciprocating, 

or piston, engines. Lewis engineers also contributed to solving engine-cooling problems on the 

Super Fortress (B-29) bomber. Before the end of the war, the turbojet engine began to 

revolutionize the field of aircraft propulsion. The Altitude Wind Tunnel, completed in 1944, 

contributed to the early testing of U.S.-built jet engines and started the facility on what would 

become its major focus: jet propulsion studies. 

In 1948, the name of the laboratory was changed to NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory 

in memory of George W. Lewis, NACA’s director of research from 1924 to 1947. The facility 

broadened its scope of research to include turbojet engines, ramjets, and rockets, and constructed 

new facilities, including two supersonic wind tunnels and the Propulsion Systems Laboratory. 

Lewis became one of the original NASA centers when the Agency was established in 1958. 

661
During the energy crisis of the 1970s, Lewis worked with the U.S. Department of Energy to 

investigate wind and solar power and to improve the fuel efficiency of automobile engines. 

Engineers also began work on the advanced turboprop engine. In 1987, a government-contractor 

team won the Collier Trophy for its work on the advanced turboprop project. 

From 1963 to 1998, Lewis was responsible for NASA’s launch vehicle program, and the Centaur 

rocket was one of the most important contributions Lewis made to the space program. The center 

was responsible for managing the design, building, and launch of the Atlas/Centaur and 

Titan/Centaur booster vehicles. Lewis also managed the Agena upper stage on several booster 

vehicles. The center managed the launches of a variety of communications, weather, planetary 

exploration, and scientific payloads—notably the Surveyor, Viking, Pioneer, and Voyager 

missions, which studied the Moon, Mars, and outer planets, respectively. Altogether, Lewis 

managed more than 119 uncrewed launches. 

Plum Brook Station near Sandusky, Ohio, is a component facility of Lewis. Its history dates back 

to 1941, when the War Department acquired about 9,000 acres of land to construct a munitions 

plant. The plant, then called the Plum Brook Ordinance Works (after the creek running through 

the site), produced munitions, such as TNT (trinitrotoluene), until the end of World War II. After 

the war, the land remained idle until 1956, when NACA obtained 500 acres for construction of a 

nuclear research reactor. The Reactor Facility, which was designed to study the effects of 

radiation on materials used in spaceflight, was the first of 15 test facilities eventually built by 

NASA at Plum Brook Station. By 1963, NASA acquired the remaining land at Plum Brook for 

662
these additional facilities. The station covers 6,565 acres owned by NASA and approximately 47 

acres in easements.56

In the post-Apollo era of the early 1970s, NASA faced budget reductions that caused it to defer 

many of its longer-term research and development programs. It ceased operations at several 

research facilities across the country, and in 1973 placed Plum Brook’s major test facilities in a 

standby mode, capable of being reactivated for future use. Smaller facilities were not maintained 

and some were dismantled. The Reactor Facility was shut down and all of the nuclear fuel was 

removed and shipped offsite to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility in Idaho for disposal 

or reuse. NASA placed the facility in a safe, secure, dry-storage mode and conducted strict 

oversight and ongoing environmental monitoring around the reactor.57

In 1987, NASA, along with several other government agencies and the private sector, expressed 

a renewed interest in the facilities in standby mode at Plum Brook Station. Because reactivating 

these facilities would be expensive and would take years to accomplish, NASA decided to 

perform this work in partnership with its potential users. NASA arranged for users to pay for 

costs associated with their individual test programs at Plum Brook, including the up-front cost of 

reactivating the facility from its standby mode. NASA civil servants working at Plum Brook 

Station would oversee all of the work performed. Some facilities at Plum Brook Station, such as 

the Reactor Facility, have remained closed. In 1998, a decommissioning plan was formed to 

56 Media Guide and Public Affairs Contacts, June 1989, NASA History Division folder 4527, Historical Reference 

Section, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

57 “The History of NASA’s Plum Brook Station,” http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/pbrf/factsheets/nasa%20history%20fact.pdf (accessed November 13, 2006). Also Mark D. Bowles and Robert S. Arrihgi, 

NASA’s Nuclear Frontier; The Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 33 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP-4533, 2004), p. 5.

663
dismantle the Reactor Facility.58 Decommissioning began in March 2002, and by October 2006, 

NASA had removed more than 98 percent of the radioactive inventory that existed at the start of 

the project. The four remaining active test facilities at Plum Brook Station are the Space Power, 

Spacecraft Propulsion, Hypersonic Tunnel, and Cryogenic Propellant Tank facilities.59

Lewis Research Center was renamed John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field in 1999 in 

honor of Ohio astronaut and U.S. Senator John H. Glenn, and in commemoration of the legacy of 

George W. Lewis.60

Mission

Lewis Research Center has been designated NASA’s lead center for aeropropulsion. It develops 

and verifies aeropropulsion technologies, and transfers them to U.S. industry. As NASA’s 

designated Center of Excellence for turbomachinery, it develops new and innovative 

turbomachinery technology to improve the reliability, performance, efficiency, affordability, 

capacity, and environmental compatibility of future aerospace vehicles.61 Until 1 October 1998, 

when the function was transferred to Kennedy Space Center, Lewis was responsible for the 

overall management of commercial launch services for intermediate and large ELVs for NASA 

and other government payloads.62 Lewis also was responsible for developing the electrical space 

58 “The History of NASA’s Plum Brook Station,” http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/pbrf/factsheets/nasa%20history%20fact.pdf (accessed November 13, 2006).

59 “Plum Brook Reactor Facility Decommissioning, Plum Brook Station, Sandusky, Ohio, Frequently Asked 

Questions,” http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/pbrf/faq.htm (accessed November 13, 2006).

60 “NASA Glenn History,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/history/index.html (accessed April 29, 2007).

61 “LeRC Fact Sheet,” http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/factslew.htm (no longer available online) 

(accessed June 25, 1997).

62 “NASA Glenn Launch Vehicle History (1963–1998),” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glen-bout/history/lvpo.html

(accessed November 13, 2006).

664
power system for the life-support systems and research experiments on the space station. Tables 

5-58 through 5-62 provide data about Lewis. 

665
Marshall Space Flight Center

Location 

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center is located at the U.S. Army’s Redstone Arsenal in 

Huntsville, Alabama. Marshall also manages the Michoud Assembly Facility, an 832-acre 

manufacturing site in New Orleans, Louisiana, and until the end of 1994 was in charge of the 

Slidell Computer Complex in Slidell, Louisiana, a facility that provided computer services to 

Marshall and to Stennis Space Center. The Slidell Complex was transferred to the City of Slidell, 

Louisiana, on December 14, 1994. 

Director

Arthur G. Stephenson, September 1998–June 2003 

Carolyn S. Griner (acting), January 1998–September 1998 

J. Wayne Littles, February 1996–January 1998 

G. P. ‘Porter’ Bridwell, January 1994–February 1996 

Thomas J. Lee, July 1989–January 1994 

James R. Thompson, Jr., September 1986–July 6, 1989 

William R. Lucas, June 1974–July 1986 

Rocco A. Petrone, January 1973–March 1974 

Eberhard F. M. Rees, March 1970–January 1973 

Wernher von Braun, July 1960–January 1970 

Deputy Director

Carolyn Griner, December 1994–January 2001 

666
Chester ‘Chet’ Vaughn (acting), October 1994–December 1994 

Charles Blankenship (acting), April 1994–October 1994 

Jay Honeycutt (acting), September–December 1990

J. Wayne Littles, July 1989–December 199463

Thomas J. ‘Jack’ Lee, December 1980–July 1989 

Richard G. Smith, November 1974–August 1978 

History

Steps toward establishing Marshall Space Flight Center began early in 1960 when President 

Dwight Eisenhower submitted a request to Congress to transfer the Army Ballistic Missile 

Agency’s (ABMA) space missions, including certain facilities and personnel (chiefly the 

Development Operations Division), to NASA. The transfer became effective March 14, 1960, 

and NASA set up its “Huntsville Facility” in preparation for formal establishment of the field 

center later that year. On March 15, President Eisenhower proclaimed that the NASA facility 

would be called George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, in honor of George C. Marshall, the 

Army Chief of Staff during World War II, Secretary of State, and Nobel Prize winner for his 

Marshall Plan. 

On July 1, 1960, Marshall officially began operations with the formal transfer of personnel, 

space projects, and facilities from the U.S. Army. Dr. Wernher von Braun was the center’s first 

director. The center’s primary mission responsibility was to develop the Saturn family of launch 

63 Littles attended Harvard Business School program in the fall of 1990 for three months. He also was temporarily 

assigned to NASA Headquarters from April 1994 to December 1994.

667
vehicles used in the Apollo lunar-landing program, the Skylab experimental space station 

program, and the U.S.-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. 

In 1961, Marshall’s Mercury-Redstone launch vehicle boosted America’s first astronaut, Alan B. 

Shepard, on a suborbital flight. Other Marshall projects included Pegasus in 1965, the Lunar 

Roving Vehicle in 1971 for transporting astronauts on the lunar surface, the Skylab and Apollo 

Telescope Mount in 1973 (the first U.S.-crewed orbiting space station), the three High Energy 

Astronomy Observatories to study stars and star-like objects, and the Hubble Space Telescope, 

before its transfer to Goddard Space Flight Center. Marshall led NASA’s Spacelab missions and 

was also responsible for the definition and preliminary design of pressurized common modules, 

environmental-control, life-support, and propulsive systems, and other elements of the space 

station. In 1998, NASA launched the first U.S. space station element—the Unity node, built by 

the Boeing Company at Marshall. 

Marshall was responsible for the Space Shuttle’s solid-fueled rocket booster, main engine, and 

external tank.64 The center also led the redesign of the solid rocket motor for the Return to Flight 

mission following the Challenger accident. In 1999, NASA and Boeing entered into a $173 

million cooperative agreement to develop a new experimental space plane called the X-37, which 

was to be ferried into orbit to test new technologies for RLVs.65

64 “Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC),” http://history.nasa.gov/centerhistories/marshall.htm (accessed 

November 13, 2006). Also “MSFC Historical Synopsis,” http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/synopsis.html (accessed 

November 13, 2006).

65 “MSFC Historical Synopsis,” http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/synopsis.html (accessed November 13, 2006).

668
Marshall manages the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, and until 1994 was in charge 

of the Slidell Computer Complex at Slidell, Louisiana. Michoud was established in during World 

War II to manufacture cargo planes and landing craft. It was used during the Korean conflict to 

produce engines for Sherman and Patton tanks. NASA took over the facility in 1961 through a 

congressionally approved property transfer from DOD for the design and assembly of large 

space vehicles. Michoud was the site of construction of the Saturn S1B and S1C boosters. In 

1973, NASA awarded Martin Marietta Aerospace a contract to design, develop, and manufacture 

the external propellant tanks for the Space Shuttle system. Lockheed Martin is currently 

responsible for manufacturing these components. The Michoud Assembly Facility features one 

of the world’s largest manufacturing plants and a port with deepwater access for transporting 

large space structures. Michoud Operations also plays a leading role in developing experimental 

space vehicles and related projects.66

Marshall acquired the 14-acre Slidell site in May 1962, and a high-speed computer facility began 

operating in August 1962. Slidell supported the Mississippi Test Facility (later Stennis Space 

Center), where the first two stages of the Saturn V rockets were static-fired. Over the years, the 

complex supported NASA’s space science and Skylab and Earth resources missions, Shuttle 

launch processing, and external tank processing. In 1994, NASA decided to move the External 

Tank Automated Data Processing support from the complex at Slidell, Louisiana, to Marshall, 

resulting in the closure of the Slidell facility.67 

66 “History of Michoud,” Lockheed Martin, 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15374&rsbci=15260&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

(accessed December 5, 2006). Also “Center Director Welcome,” 

http://employeeorientation.nasa.gov/michoud/welcome.htm (accessed December 5, 2006).

67 “Management Announcement; Creation of the Slidell Computer Complex (SCC) Closure Team” Marshall Space 

Flight Center, May 11, 1994. Also “Chronological History” prepared by Marshall Space Flight Center Historian 

669
Marshall manages the Santa Susanna Field Laboratory (SSFL) in Ventura County, California. 

Rocket engines, including early Saturn engines, Shuttle engines, and the linear aerospike engine 

for the planned X-33, were tested at the facility, which was operated by the Rocketdyne 

Division. Of the SSFL’s 2,700 acres, NASA-owned facilities and land comprised 452 acres. The 

initial parent company, North American Aviation, which became Boeing North American, Inc., 

established the Rocketdyne Division in 1955 to operate the SSFL. North American Aviation had 

owned much of the land at the SSFL since 1954 and operated most of the facilities since 1947. In 

1955, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) acquired title to the Liquid Oxygen Plant in Area 1 and all of 

Area II from Rocketdyne. NASA negotiated a facilities contract in August 1962 with the Air 

Force for joint usage of Area II. NASA acquired this property in November 1973 to support the 

Space Shuttle Main Engine project. Until 1961, environmentally hazardous materials were used 

to flush engines and test stands after test firings, resulting in significant environmental 

contamination. At least into the late 1990s, in compliance with federal law, NASA worked with 

Rocketdyne to clean up the hazardous waste site.68

Mission

Marshall Space Flight Center is NASA’s lead center for space transportation systems 

development and microgravity research. The center is the designated Center of Excellence for 

space propulsion. Major program areas include RLV technology, advanced space transportation, 

microgravity research, Space Shuttle propulsion systems, space station support and utilization, 

Mike Wright, December 2, 1994, NASA History Division folder 8720, Historical Reference Section, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

68 “Executive Summary: Cost Sharing for Santa Susana Field Laboratory Cleanup Activities,” IG-98-024, 

http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY98/executive_summaries/ig-98-024es.htm (accessed December 11, 2006). Also 

Audit Report: Cost Sharing for Santa Susana Field Laboratory Cleanup Activities, August 18, 1998, p. 3,

http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY98/pdfs/ig-98-024.pdf (accessed December 11, 2006).

670
the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), scientific payloads and research, and 

Spacelab missions.69 Tables 5-63 through 5-67 provide data about Marshall. 

69 George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Implementation Plan, November 1996, p. iv. 

671
Stennis Space Center

Location 

Stennis Space Center is located in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, approximately 48 miles (77 

kilometers) west of Biloxi and 45 miles (72 kilometers) east of New Orleans.

Director

Roy S. Estess, January 1989–August 2002 

Jerry I. Hlass, September 1, 1976–January 23, 198970

Jackson M. Balch, June 1974–August 1976 

Deputy Director

Mark Craig, January 1995–January 2001 

Gerald Smith, June 1989–January 1995 

Roy Estess, August 1980–January 23, 1989 

Harry Auter, 1963–February 1979 

History

Stennis Space Center began as Mississippi Test Operations in October 1961 when the federal 

government selected the area in Hancock County, Mississippi, as the site of a static test facility 

for launch vehicles to be used in the Apollo lunar landing program. The site was originally 

designated as the location for a large booster test facility under the direction of NASA’s Marshall 

Space Flight Center. It was chosen because of its deepwater access via the Pearl River and the 

70 Before National Space Technology Laboratories was renamed Stennis Space Center in 1988, the director and 

deputy director held the titles of “manager” and “deputy manager,” respectively. Therefore, Hlass was “manager” 

until May 20, 1988, when he became “director.”

672
Intercoastal Waterway, which was essential for transporting large rocket stages, components, and 

loads of propellants. The 13,500-acre test facility also had a sound buffer of almost 125,000 

acres. In 1965, the center’s name was changed to the Mississippi Test Facility.71 During its early 

years, the center flight-certified all first and second stages of the Saturn V rocket for the Apollo 

program. When the Space Shuttle program got under way, the center flight-certified all of the 

engines used to boost the Shuttle into low-Earth orbit. 

In 1974, the facility received independent NASA field center status, becoming the National 

Space Technology Laboratories. In May 1988, it was renamed the John C. Stennis Space Center 

in honor of U.S. Senator John C. Stennis, a staunch supporter of the space program. 

The center has evolved into a multidisciplinary facility used by NASA and 22 other resident 

agencies engaged in space and environmental programs and national defense. The U.S. Navy 

established various organizations at Stennis Space Center in 1976, and is the center’s largest 

resident agency. Navy organizations include the headquarters of the Commander, the Naval 

Meteorology and Oceanography Command, and its largest subordinate activity, the Naval 

Oceanographic Office. Other agencies at Stennis include the National Data Buoy Center (part of 

the National Weather Service), the National Marine Fisheries Service (a component of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]), the U.S. Geological Survey, and 

the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Chemistry Laboratory.72 

71 “Stennis Space Center (SSC),” http://history.nasa.gov/centerhistories/stennis.htm (accessed November 13, 2006).

72 “John C. Stennis Space Center,” NASA booklet, no date or publication number.

673
Mission

The primary mission of Stennis Space Center is to provide the capacity to test rocket propulsion 

engines, systems, and vehicles. Its major test program focuses on developing and flightcertifying the Space Shuttle’s main engine and testing large rocket propulsion systems for future 

space vehicles. In 1997, Stennis was designated NASA’s lead center for implementing 

commercial remote sensing activities.73 It is NASA’s Center of Excellence for rocket propulsion 

testing.74 Tables 5-68 through 5-72 provide data about Stennis. 

73 “Stennis Chronology,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/about/history/chronology/chronology.html (accessed 

November 15, 2006).

74 “Office of the Chief Technologist, NASA Centers of Excellence,” 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codea/codeaf/excellence.htm (accessed May 1, 2007).

674
CHAPTER 6: NASA PERSONNEL

Introduction

The decade from 1989 through 1998 began with a period of slight growth in the size of NASA’s 

workforce followed by a decrease in its size. The workforce grew after the Challenger accident 

when concern surfaced about inadequate staffing in core engineering disciplines and the need for 

an infusion of young engineers and scientists who were just graduating from universities. Fiscal 

year (FY) 1989 was the largest single hiring year since the 1960s, and the NASA workforce 

peaked in 1992.1

When William Clinton became President in 1993, he initiated steps to reduce the size of the 

entire federal government workforce. An Executive Order in February 1993 directed that the 

total federal workforce be reduced by 4 percent (100,000 employees) by the end of FY 1995.2 In 

September 1993, the National Performance Review, led by Vice President Albert Gore, 

recommended a reduction of 252,000 federal employees by 1999.3 Subsequently, Congress 

passed a Workforce Restructuring Act in March 1994 legislating an overall reduction of 272,900 

by 1999.4

 In response to this mandate, NASA began cutting its workforce during FY 1993. 

NASA’s workforce continued to shrink during the balance of the 1990s (see figure 6-1).5 

1 “Brief History of the NASA Workforce,” http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/workforce/data/page16.htm (accessed 

December 5, 2006).

2 “Reduction of 100,000 Federal Positions,” Executive Order 12839, February 10, 1993, 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12839.pdf (accessed April 24, 2007).

3 “Albert Gore, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less; Report of the 

National Performance Review, September 7, 1993, 

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/nprrpt/annrpt/redtpe93/23ba.html (accessed April 24, 2007). 4 U.S. Congress, Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, Public Law 103-226, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., March 30, 

1994.

5 “Brief History of the NASA Workforce,” http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/workforce/data/page16.htm (accessed 

December 5, 2006).

675
The Agency offered buyouts to its employees in the mid-1990s. Also known as a Voluntary 

Separation Incentive, this buyout authority allowed NASA to pay up to $25,000 as a bonus to 

employees who resigned or retired during set periods. The majority of NASA’s buyout losses 

occurred in 1994 and 1995, when two buyouts spurred more than 2,500 voluntary separations.6

Other buyouts later in the 1990s resulted in more than 2,000 additional separations. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Workforce

Total Civil Service Workforce Full-Time Permanent Non-Permanent

Figure 6-1. Total civil service, permanent, and non-permanent workforce (at end of fiscal year). 

During the 1990s, the composition of NASA’s workforce shifted toward a more professional 

makeup. The proportion of scientists and engineers and professional administrative personnel 

increased, while the proportion of staff in the other occupational codes decreased (see figure 6-

2). The educational level of the workforce also rose. A slightly greater proportion of NASA staff 

had advanced college degrees, and fewer had only a bachelor’s degree; still fewer had only a 

high school education, although the percentage still reached the 20 percent level at the end of the 

decade (see figure 6-3).

6 “Workforce Glossary,” http://nasapeople.jsc.nasa.gov/workforce/data/page17.htm (accessed December 5, 2006).

676
68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Percent Professional

Figure 6-2. Professional occupational groups for full-time permanent employees (occupational 

codes 200, 600, 700, and 900). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Percentage

Associate Bachelor's Master's

Doctorate Total Degreed High School

Figure 6-3. Educational level of full-time permanent employees.

677
In most years during the decade, salaries increased at a slight but steady pace (see figure 6-4). 

For white-collar employees, the rate of increase varied between 3.6 percent and 6.5 percent, with 

most years’ increases in the 4.5 percent range. Increases for blue-collar employees ranged from 

2.2 percent to 5.3 percent, and fell primarily at around 3.5 percent. Across the entire Agency, 

increases averaged around 5 percent.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Average Salary

Executive SES Senior Technical NASA Excepted

Total White Collar Total Blue Collar All NASA

Figure 6-4. Average salary trends of permanent employees by pay plan. 

NASA’s workforce became more diverse during the decade and the percentage of minorities in 

the NASA workforce grew from 15 percent in 1989 to 20.7 percent in 1998 (see figure 6-5). 

Although the number of minority employees grew by only 232, this small increase occurred 

while the NASA workforce as a whole was shrinking. However, minorities were still represented 

disproportionately in most employment categories. Minorities were overrepresented in grades 

678
GS-1 to GS-6, holding between 27 percent and 41 percent of positions—considerably more than 

their percentage of the total NASA population. At the GS-7 to GS-12 level, they were also 

overrepresented, holding 18 percent to 27 percent of these positions. At the GS-13 to GS-15 

level, minorities were underrepresented during the first part of the decade, holding only 9.4 

percent of these positions. By the end of the decade, however, the proportion of minorities in 

GS-13–15 positions had grown to 17 percent and was approaching their percentage of the total 

NASA population. In the Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Technical, and NASA 

Excepted positions, minorities were grossly underrepresented for most of the decade, holding 

only 4.2 percent of these positions in 1989. By 1998, they had moved into 13.7 percent of these 

senior positions, while overall they accounted for 20.7 percent of the NASA workforce. At the 

Wage System level, minorities were overrepresented, with their relative position worsening 

during the decade. In 1989, minorities held 20.5 percent of Wage System positions. By 1998, this 

had risen to 33.7 percent. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Percent

Figure 6-5. Minority full-time permanent employees as a percentage of NASA permanent 

employees.

679
An upward trend in the percentage of female employees also occurred. The percentage of 

females in the NASA workforce increased from 28.3 percent in 1989 to 31.6 percent in 1998 (see 

figure 6-6). Growth occurred in the professional positions and in the upper grades, although 

women were still underrepresented in these areas. The percentage of women in GS-13 to GS-15 

grew from 4.5 percent in 1989 to 13.8 percent in 1998. In 1989, women moved from holding 

largely clerical positions to holding a greater proportion of professional positions (12.6 percent 

of scientist and engineer jobs were held by women). This grew to 17 percent by 1998. The 

percentage of professional administrative jobs grew from 47.1 to 59.9. Women continued to be 

underrepresented in the senior executive positions, holding only 4 percent of these positions in 

1989 and reaching a high of 15.6 percent in 1998—still considerably less than their proportion in 

the total NASA population. Women continued to hold almost all clerical jobs; more than 95 

percent of these positions were held by women during this decade. 

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Percent

Figure 6-6. Female full-time permanent employees as a percentage of NASA permanent 

employees.

The NASA workforce remained a largely middle-aged workforce. The percentage of employees 

under the age of 29 decreased the most dramatically, and the average age of the workforce 

remained in the 40s (see figure 6-7).

680
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Percent of workforce

Under 25

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60+

Figure 6-7. Age profile of NASA full-time permanent employees.

Definition of Terms

Occupational Code Groups 

NASA organizes its jobs into the following principal job groups and occupational codes: 

• Scientists and Engineers (SEs) (Codes 200, 700, and 900): Professional scientific and 

engineering positions engaged in aerospace research, development, operations, and related 

activities. Also included are life science professionals, such as physicians, nurses, 

psychologists, and biologists. Nearly all NASA SEs are in the Aerospace Technologist (AST) 

(Code 700) job categories. 

This category is divided into three subcategories: 

681
− Support Engineering and Related Positions (Code 200): includes professional physical 

science, engineering, and mathematician positions in work situations not identified with 

aerospace technology. 

− Aerospace Technologist (Code 700): includes professional scientific and engineering 

positions requiring AST qualifications; includes professional positions engaged in 

aerospace research, development, operations, and related work, including the 

development and operation of specialized facilities and support equipment. 

− Life Science Support Positions (Code 900): includes life science professional positions 

not requiring AST qualifications; includes medical officers and other positions 

performing professional work in psychology, the biological sciences, and professions 

supporting the science of medicine, such as nursing and medical technology. 

• Professional Administrative (Prof’l Admin) (Code 600): Specialists in such functions as 

financial management, contracting, human resources, law, public affairs, and the like for 

which a college degree or equivalent specialized training and experience is required.

• Clerical (Code 500): Secretarial, clerical, and administrative technician positions, including 

specialized clerical and technical positions in administrative functions such as supply, 

purchasing, accounting, personnel, etc. 

• GS Technician or Technical Support (GS Tech) (Code 100): White-collar engineering and 

laboratory technicians and specialists in technical support functions such as drafting, 

682
photography, illustrating, quality assurance, etc. These technicians are paid according to the 

General Schedule (GS).

• Wage System (Wage): Skilled trade and mechanic positions paid at prevailing local hourly 

rates according to provisions of the Federal Wage System. (Formerly a major component of 

the civil service workforce, by this decade only a relatively few wage-grade employees 

remained at NASA.)

Professional staff includes all SE and Professional Administrative personnel. Support staff 

includes all Clerical, GS Technicians, and Wage System personnel.7

 

Pay Grade 

Civil Service positions are classified according to a variety of pay plans and grades based on the 

complexity, difficulty, and level of responsibility of the position. The most common pay plan is 

the General Schedule (GS), which includes 15 pay grades from GS-1 at the low end to GS-15 at 

the high end. Other common NASA pay plans include the Senior Executive Schedule (SES) and 

various Federal Wage System pay plans. 

Note on Workforce Data 

7 “NASA Workforce,” http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/workforce/data/page17.htm (accessed November 29, 2006).

The information for the tables in this chapter (tables 6-1 to 6-33) for FY 1989 through FY 1991 

comes from Civil Service Work Force: A Report to Management, which is published each year 

by NASA’s Management Systems Division in the Office of Human Resources and Education. 

NASA changed to a different method of publishing personnel data in FY 1992, when it began 

populating a data cube with workforce data. This allowed NASA to combine the data in a 

683
number of ways and obtain more extensive information about its workforce. In the following 

tables, data for these years come from this data cube. Graphs are all derived from the tabular 

data. 

684
CHAPTER 7: FINANCES AND PROCUREMENT

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of NASA’s budgetary and procurement activities, primarily in 

tabular form. The first part of the chapter addresses NASA’s finances and the second part 

focuses on procurement. Data in the finances section were obtained largely from NASA’s annual 

budget estimates. Data in the procurement section were drawn from NASA’s annual 

procurement reports. 

Finances

The tables in this chapter relating to NASA’s budget provide top-level budget data for fiscal 

years (FY) 1989–1998. More detailed budget data on NASA’s programs are provided in the 

chapters relating to each of the programs.1

 A description of NASA’s budget process can be found 

in chapter 1 of volume VII of the NASA Historical Data Book. 

Budget-related terms used in this chapter are defined below.2 

• An appropriation provides legal authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and to 

make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. During this decade, NASA’s 

appropriations were part of appropriation bills for the departments of Veterans Affairs and 

Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies. “Appropriation” is also the 

1 Judy Rumerman, chapters 2–4 in NASA Historical Data Book, 1989–1998, and chapters 2–4 in NASA Historical 

Data Book, 1989–1998, Volume VIII. 2 Office of Management and Budget, “Glossary,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/glossary.html

(accessed January 11, 2007). Also The Budget for Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Tables, p. 3, 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy97/pdf/hist.pdf (accessed January 11, 2007) and NASA Financial Management 

Manual, August 2001, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/fmm/9000/9020.pdf (accessed May 10, 2007).

685
term used to describe each budget category into which Congress places a specific level of 

funds. By law, NASA must receive congressional approval to reallocate funds among 

appropriation categories. 

• Budget authority is the authority provided by law to incur financial obligations that will 

result in outlays of up to a specific amount. The authorization may be limited to a particular 

number of fiscal years and is usually for a particular purpose. 

• Disbursements are outlays of public moneys and the rendering of accounts in accordance 

with the laws and regulations governing the distribution of public moneys. 

• The federal government’s fiscal year (FY) is its accounting period. It begins on October 1 

and ends on September 30. The FY designation is the calendar year in which the FY ends. 

For example, FY 1996 began on October 1, 1995, and ended on September 30, 1996. 

• Obligations are binding agreements resulting in outlays, immediately or in the future.

• Outlays are payments to liquidate obligations, largely measured on a cash basis. Total federal 

outlays are a net figure, consisting of gross payments minus offsetting receipts in a given 

fiscal year. They are the primary measure of government spending. Outlays equal the amount 

of checks issued or other payments, net of refunds and reimbursements. 

• A supplemental appropriation is an appropriation enacted after the regular annual 

appropriation act has been enacted. It provides additional budget authority for programs or 

activities (including new programs authorized after the date of the original appropriations 

act) when the need for funds is too urgent to be postponed. 

Through FY 1994, NASA had four primary appropriation categories. Research and Development 

(R&D) funded most of NASA’s flight projects and basic research activities. The Space Flight, 

686
Control, and Data Communications (SFC&DC) appropriation funded Shuttle-related and most 

tracking and data-acquisition activities. The space station was funded out of both R&D and 

SFC&DC appropriations, depending on the specific activity. Research and Program Management 

(R&PM) financed civil servant salaries regardless of the project or office in which an individual 

worked, related expenses such as benefits and training, and employee travel. The Construction of 

Facilities (CofF) appropriation funded the design, construction, and modernization of facilities; 

purchase of land; and design of facilities planned for future authorization. 

In FY 1995, NASA established three new appropriation categories. The Science, Aeronautics 

and Technology (SAT) appropriation provided funding for NASA’s R&D activities, including 

acquiring knowledge about Earth, its space environment, and the universe, and investigating new 

aeronautics and advanced space transportation technologies to support the development and 

application of important technologies to ensure the country’s economic, scientific, and technical 

competitiveness.3

 The Human Space Flight (HSF) appropriation provided funding for NASA’s 

human spaceflight activities, such as on-orbit infrastructures (the space station and Spacelab), 

transportation capabilities (the Space Shuttle program, including operations, program support, 

and performance and safety upgrades), and the Russian Cooperation program, which included 

the flight activities associated with the cooperative research flights to the Russian Mir space 

station.4 The Mission Support (MS) appropriation provided funding for agencywide activities to 

support NASA’s civil service workforce, provide the space tracking and communications 

capabilities required by all missions, conduct safety and quality assurance activities, and carry 

3 “General Statement,” Science, Aeronautics and Technology Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates. 4 “General Statement,” Human Space Flight, Fiscal Year 1996 Estimates.

687
out activities to preserve NASA’s core infrastructure.5

 In many instances, activities funded from 

the former R&D appropriation moved directly to the SAT appropriation, activities funded by the 

SFC&DC appropriation moved to HSF, and activities funded by the CofF and R&PM 

appropriations moved to MS. Since there was so much reshuffling of program funds, it is 

difficult to compare former appropriations with new ones. Thus, in the following tables and 

graphs, post-FY 1995 appropriations are treated as new funding categories. 

In addition, a separate appropriation funded NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) for FY 

1990–FY 1998. NASA’s budget also included funding for an educational trust fund as a separate 

appropriation in FY 1989, and funding for National Aeronautical Facilities as a separate 

appropriation in FY 1995. 

NASA’s funding was a very small part of the total federal budget. As shown in table 7-1, the 

Agency’s outlays never rose above 1 percent of the total federal budget during this decade. 

Taking into account the rate of inflation, NASA’s funding grew during the first four years of the 

decade but then dropped each of the following years of the decade as the President and Congress 

worked to reduce the federal deficit. At the end of the decade, NASA’s budget was below the FY 

1989 level when inflation is factored in. Figure 7-1 shows the relative amounts allocated to each 

appropriation and the level of total funding in real-year dollars. Table 7-2 and figure 7-2 show 

how funding for each appropriation category changed from one year to the next. 

5 “General Statement,” Mission Support Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates.

688
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Appropriation (millions of $)

Nat'l Aero Fac.

Trust Fund

IG

MS

CofF

R&PM

HSF

SAT

SFC&DC

R&D

Figure 7-1. Total NASA appropriations: FY 1989–FY 1998. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Amount (in millions)

R&D

SFC&DC

SAT

HSF

R&PM

CofF

MS

IG

Trust Fund

Nat'l Aero Fac.

Figure 7-2. Individual NASA appropriations: FY 1989–FY 1998. 

In simple terms, the budget cycle consists of an initial request from NASA for funding submitted 

each year to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB submits this request to 

Congress as part of the President’s annual budget request. Congressional committees consider 

689
the request and prepare both an authorization bill and an appropriation bill. The authorization bill 

authorizes NASA to spend up to a certain amount for a specific purpose. An appropriation bill 

specifies exact amounts that the Treasury may legally pay out to meet NASA’s obligations. An 

authorization bill is not required, and in the decade from 1989 to 1998, only three authorization 

bills were passed by Congress and signed by the President. 

During this decade, the amount Congress appropriated was usually less than the amount of funds 

requested. Table 7-3 shows NASA’s initial funding request, authorized amounts (if any), 

appropriated amounts, and adjustments to the initial appropriation for each fiscal year and 

appropriation category. NASA’s funds may be used for only a particular number of years 

(usually one or two). If they are not used during this period, they become “lapsed” and are no 

longer available. During this decade, NASA was occasionally criticized for having excessive 

lapsed funds, indicating to some that the Agency exercised poor planning and inefficient use of 

its money.

Table 7-4 compares the amount appropriated with the amount requested for each fiscal year and 

appropriation category. Table 7-5 shows the total annual requests, authorizations, appropriations, 

obligations, and expenditures. Tables 7-6 through 7-12 show funding for each appropriation 

category broken down by NASA center. Table 7-13 shows funding for major NASA programs 

within each appropriation. 

690
0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Fiscal Year

Funding (in thousands of $)

1989 1990 1991 1992

ARC

GSFC

JSC

KSC

LaRC

LeRC

MSFC

SSC

HQ

Figure 7-3. Research and Program Management funding by NASA installation. 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1989 1990 1991 1992

Fiscal Year

Funding (in thousands)

ARC

GSFC

JPL

JSC

KSC

LaRC

LeRC

MSFC

SSC

HQ

Figure 7-4. Research and Development funding by NASA installation. 

691
0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1989 1990 1991 1992

Fiscal Year

Funding (in thousands of $)

ARC

GSFC

JPL

JSC

KSC

LaRC

LeRC

MSFC

SSC

HQ

Figure 7-5. Space Flight, Control, and Data Communications funding by NASA installation. 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1989 1990 1991 1992

Fiscal Year

Fudning (in thousands of $)

ARC

GSFC

JPL

JSC

KSC

LaRC

LeRC

MSFC

SSC

HQ

Figure 7-6. Construction of Facilities funding by NASA installation. 

692
0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Funding (in thousands of $)

ARC

DFRC

GSFC

JPL

JSC

KSC

LaRC

LeRC

MSFC

SSC

HQ

Figure 7-7. Human Spaceflight funding by NASA installation. 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Funding (in thousands of $)

ARC

DFRC

GSFC

JPL

JOS

KSC

LaRC

LeRC

MSFC

SSC

HQ

Figure 7-8. Science, Aeronautics, and Technology funding by NASA installation. 

693
0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Funding (in thousands of $)

ARC

DFRC

GSFC

JPL

JSC

KSC

LaRC

LeRC

MSFC

SSC

HQ

Figure 7-9. Mission Support funding by NASA installation. 

Procurement

From 1989 to 1998, more than 85 percent of NASA’s obligations were devoted to procurement 

actions. This percentage, however, decreased during the decade, falling from 90 percent in FY 

1990 to a low of 87.1 percent in FY 1998 (figure 7-10). The dollar value of NASA’s 

procurements also fell slightly toward the end of the decade as the Agency’s budget decreased, 

although it was higher at the end of decade than at the beginning (see figure 7-11). The lowest 

total value of awards was $10,876.4 million in FY 1990; the highest value was $13,478.2 million 

in FY 1992. The total number of procurement actions peaked in FY 1990 at 115,300 and fell to a 

low of 67,300 in FY 1998 (see figure 7-12). 

NASA awarded procurements to large and small businesses, nonprofit and educational 

institutions, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), other government agencies, and organizations 

outside the United States. The great majority of procurements (83 percent) were awarded to 

694
business firms. Although the dollar value of awards to large business firms was vastly greater 

than those awarded to small business firms, the number of awards to small business firms was 

much larger than the number awarded to large firms (see figures 7-13 and 7-14, and tables 7-15 

to 7-20). 

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Percentaage (%)

Figure 7-10. Percentage of NASA obligations devoted to procurement actions. 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Award value in millions of dollars

Figure 7-11. Total value of awards by fiscal year. 

695
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

No. of actions (thousands)

Figure 7-12. Total number of procurement actions by fiscal year: FY 1989–FY 1998.

Non-U.S. 

Contractor

1%

Other Govt. 

Agency

4%

JPL

9%

Educational

5%

Nonprofit

3%

Small Business

8% Large Business

70%

Figure 7-13. Percentage of procurement award value by type of contractor: FY 1989–FY 1998. 

696
Other Govt. 

Agency

4.0%

JPL

1.7%

Non-U.S. 

Contractor

Educational 0.4%

8.1%

Nonprofit

2.4%

Large 

Business

24.1%

Small 

Business

59.3%

Figure 7-14. Average percentage of procurement actions by type of contractor: FY 1989–FY 

1998. 

NASA used a variety of acquisition approaches and contract types for its procurements. The 

largest number and greatest percentage of these procurements were for competitive contracts, 

including fixed-price, incentive, cost-plus-award-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and a small number of 

other types of competitive contracts (tables 7-21 to 7-23). Cost-plus-award-fee contracts were a 

common type of contract used for large competitive contracts to support complex requirements. 

697
Every state in the United States and the District of Columbia received NASA contracts during 

the decade.6 On a state-by-state basis, California consistently received awards of the greatest 

value. Texas and Florida also led in award value (see table 7-24). Looking at NASA’s awards 

regionally, at the beginning of the decade, the Southeast and Far West had been awarded NASA 

contracts with the greatest value. By the end of the decade, the Southwest was receiving 

contracts with a greater value than the rest of the country. During the decade, the value of 

contract awards rose in the New England, Mideast, Great Lakes, and Rocky Mountain regions, as 

well as in Alaska and Hawaii (see figure 7-15). The value of contracts awarded to companies in 

the Southeast, Plains, and Far West regions fell during the decade (see table 7-25). 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Percent of Total

New England

Mideast

Southeast

Plains

Great Lakes

Southwest

Rocky Mountain

Far West

Alaska & Hawaii

Figure 7-15. Distribution of number of prime contract awards by region: FY 1989–FY 1998. 

6 NASA does not award contracts based on an organization’s location except in the case of special programs, such as 

the congressionally authorized Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUB Zone) program.

698
Through FY 1993, Marshall Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Center were awarded 

contracts with the greatest value, with Marshall at the top position. In FY 1994 and FY 1995, 

Goddard Space Flight Center’s contracts had a higher value than those awarded to Johnson. 

Johnson moved to the top position in FY 1996, with Goddard second and Marshall in third place 

(see table 7-26). Rockwell International remained NASA’s top contractor through FY 1994, a 

position it had held since FY 1973. Lockheed Space Operations and McDonnell Douglas kept 

the number two and three slots, occasionally reversing order. In FY 1994, the Boeing Company 

moved into the top slot, and kept that position for the rest of the decade. Several mergers and 

acquisitions of companies took place during the decade (the most notable being the merger of 

Lockheed and Martin Marietta), which affected the rankings of these companies. Rockwell also 

became part of Boeing North American (not to be confused with the Boeing Company; see table 

7-27). In all, NASA’s top 50 contractors received contracts valued between 81 percent and 85 

percent of the total value of all NASA contracts (see tables 7-28 to 7-37). Of the nonprofit and 

educational institutions that received NASA awards, Stanford University remained at the top 

position through FY 1997. It moved into second place in FY 1998 when it was replaced by Johns 

Hopkins University.7

 The Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), a 

nonprofit institution, remained in second place through FY 1995 and moved into third place for 

the remainder of the decade (see tables 7-38 to 7-47). Figure 7-16 shows a breakdown of the total 

value of NASA’s business and educational/nonprofit awards by fiscal year. 

7 The contract with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) for work conducted by the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory is excluded from this group of institutions.

699
0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal Year

Award Value (in thousands of dollars)

Business Firms Educational and Nonprofit Institutions

Figure 7-16. Total value of business and educational and nonprofit awards by fiscal year 

(in thousands of dollars). 

NASA’s Procurement Process8

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), supplemented by the NASA FAR Supplement 

(NFS), provides the regulatory framework for NASA’s procurement process. For the 1989–1998 

period, the majority of NASA’s contracts were competitive procurements.9 NASA’s competitive 

procurement process consists of several steps, including 

• preparing a procurement request (PR);

• developing an acquisition plan; 

• synopsizing the requirement; 

• issuing the solicitation;

• preparing and submitting proposals by contractors; 

8 This section describes the procurement process as it existed during the years 1989–1998. Reference sources have 

been taken primarily from that period, and the process may have changed significantly since then.

9 During this decade, competitive procurements ranged from 54 percent to 81 percent of total procurements. See 

table 7-22 for details.

700
• evaluating the bids or proposals; 

• selecting, negotiating, and awarding the contract; 

• administrating the contract; 

• closing out the contract. 

Procurement Request (PR)

The PR describes NASA’s requirements to procure goods or services to fulfill a mission need. 

Generally, NASA strives to describe requirements in terms of the outcomes and outputs (the 

results and functions) the contractor must deliver to satisfy minimum mission needs, rather than 

mandating detailed design specifications. Additionally, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 

of 1994 requires federal agencies to conduct market research to help define an agency’s 

requirements by determining whether sources of commercial items or services are available to 

satisfy them. Procurements over a certain dollar amount also require an in-house cost estimate 

that provides the government’s best estimate of the actual price of the procurement.

Before a solicitation is issued, the most appropriate acquisition strategy (e.g., simplified 

acquisition procedures, acquisition of commercial items, formal source evaluation procedures, 

etc.) and contract type (cost reimbursement, fixed price, etc.) are selected. The contracting 

officer is responsible for selecting the contract type. Additionally, each award must be 

considered in terms of whether it can be limited to small businesses. 

Contract types are grouped into two broad categories: fixed-price contracts and costreimbursement contracts. Specific contract types range from firm-fixed-price, in which the 

701
contractor has full responsibility for the performance costs and resulting profit (or loss), to costplus-fixed-fee, in which the contractor has minimal responsibility for the performance costs and 

the negotiated fee (profit) is fixed. Various types of incentive contracts in which the contractor’s 

responsibility for the performance costs and the profit or fee incentives offered are tailored to the 

uncertainties involved in contract performance fall in between.10

The FAR lists several factors that influence the selection and negotiation of contract type. They 

include 

• price competition, 

• price analysis, 

• cost analysis, 

• type and complexity of the requirement, 

• urgency of the requirement, 

• period of performance or length of production run, 

• contractor’s technical capability and financial responsibility, 

• adequacy of the contractor’s accounting system, 

• concurrent contracts, 

• extent and nature of proposed subcontracting, 

• acquisition history.11 

A fixed-price contract offers the least amount of risk to the government and the most risk to the 

10 Federal Acquisition Regulations, Section 16.102, “Selecting Contract Types—Policies,” 

http://www.arnet.gov/far/97-03/html/16.html#16.104 (accessed 7 May 2007). 11 Federal Acquisition Regulations, Section 16.104, “Factors in Selecting Contract Types,” 

http://www.arnet.gov/far/97-03/html/16.html#16.104 (accessed 7 May 2007).

702
contractor. Under such contracts the contractor is paid a fixed price for completing the required 

work within the allotted time. A cost-reimbursement contract results in the most risk to the 

government and the least risk to the contractor. Complex requirements, particularly those that are 

unique to the government, usually result in the government assuming greater risk. This is 

especially true for complex R&D contracts. In such cases, performance uncertainties and the 

likelihood that changes will be required make it difficult to estimate performance costs in

advance. As a requirement recurs or quantity production begins, the cost risk shifts to the 

contractor and a fixed-price contract is usually considered. 12

For complex requirements, often a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is prepared that defines all 

the work necessary to complete the project; provides a product-oriented, hierarchical division of 

deliverable items and associated services; and relates the elements of work to each other and to 

the end system or product.13 In addition, a Statement of Work (SOW) defines the work to be 

performed.

Procurement Plan

12 Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 16, “Types of Contracts,” 

A procurement plan is an administrative tool designed to help the contracting officer plan 

effectively to accomplish an assigned procurement by analyzing the requirements and 

determining the appropriate procurement method. It consists of a detailed outline of the method 

by which the contracting officer expects to accomplish the procurement. The contracting officer 

prepares the procurement plan with the advice and assistance of the appropriate technical 

division and other appropriate organizations for procurement actions as required by NASA’s 

http://www.arnet.gov/far/97-

03/html/16.html#16.104 (accessed 7 May 2007).

13 NASA Handbook 7120.5, Management of Major System Programs and Projects, 8 November 1993, p. 5-D-1.

703
procurement regulations. The plan is prepared before proposals are solicited for the initial phase 

or increment of the program or project.14

Solicitation of Proposals 

If the items to be procured can be defined in advance with a great degree of accuracy, formal 

advertising for competitive bids takes place, and the government releases an Invitation for Bid 

(IFB) to interested suppliers. Firm-fixed-price contracts are used when the method of contracting 

is sealed bidding; fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment clauses may be used 

when some flexibility is necessary and feasible.15

More often, the items, systems, or services cannot be completely defined, and a costreimbursement contract is awarded. This type of contract allows for government payment of 

reasonable allowable costs as defined in the FAR or in the contract provisions.16 In a costreimbursement contract, the contractor is required only to make its “best effort” to complete the 

work.17 Cost-plus-award-fee and cost-plus-fixed-fee are two common types of costreimbursement contracts.

For a cost-reimbursement contract, the government issues a Request for Proposal (RFP). The 

RFP contains a complete and specific description of the items or services to be procured, all 

14 NASA Far Supplement, Part 1807, “Acquisition Planning,” Subpart 1807.1, 

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/archive/NFS/89.20/N07.HTM (accessed 15 January 2007). 15 Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAC 97–06, Part 14 “Sealed Bidding,” 1 October 1998,

http://acquisition.gov/far/97-06/html/14.html (accessed 4 June 2007).

16 According to Section 31.201-3 of the FAR, “a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed 

that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.” 

http://www.arnet.gov/far/97-03/html/31.html (accessed 16 January 2007).

17 “Award Fee Contracting Guide,” 2 December 1997, 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/afguidee.html (accessed 13 May 1998).

704
applicable specifications, quantities, time and place of delivery, method of shipment, and other 

requirements. To reduce the government’s time and expense needed to prepare major RFPs and 

evaluate proposals, the solicitation is normally restricted to those contractors that NASA 

determines can adequately fulfill the mission needs, and have an interest in the procurement. 

During the decade from 1989 to 1998, the Commerce Business Daily (CBD), which published 

five or six daily editions weekly, was the prime public notification media by which U.S. 

government agencies identified proposed contract actions and contract awards. The CBD was 

available to everyone, and readers were allowed to submit proposals if they were interested. 

Additionally, the contracting officer could provide copies of the solicitation to interested 

contractors. Toward the end of the decade, federal government Web sites also came online to 

provide electronic postings of solicitations.18

Evaluation and Award 

The evaluation of bids is a straightforward process. As long as NASA is assured that the bidder 

can provide the items or services specified in the IFB, the lowest bidder receives the award.

The evaluation of competitive proposals submitted in response to RFPs is more complex than the 

evaluation of bids. In general, the proposal evaluation assesses the offeror’s ability to perform 

the prospective contract successfully. According to procedures set forth in the FAR, an agency 

must evaluate competitive proposals and assess their relative qualities based solely on the factors 

and subfactors specified in the solicitation. The weight given to each area must be included in the 

solicitation and strictly used to evaluate the proposals. Key areas of importance include factors 

such as cost or price, past performance, and technical competence, which are tailored to the 

18 Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAC 97-02, Subpart 5.101, “Methods of Disseminating Information.”

705
acquisition. Typically, NASA establishes three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, 

Cost/Price, and Past Performance. Evaluation factors may be further defined by subfactors.19 The 

estimated cost of the procurement influences, to some extent, the areas that are evaluated. The 

RFP spells out the relative weight given to each factor and to the subareas within each factor. 

The solicitation also states how the combined weight of all evaluation factors other than cost or 

price compare in importance to cost or price. In all cases, the objective of source selection is to 

select the proposal that represents the best value to the government.20

A Source Evaluation Board, through a formal process, evaluates contracts over a certain dollar 

level. Members of the organization that will administer the contract, and contract specialists 

within NASA’s Procurement Office evaluate smaller procurements.

Selection, Negotiation, and Award 

For cost-reimbursement contracts above a certain price level, once a firm is selected, additional 

details can still be negotiated before the contract is awarded. Any cost-related provision can be 

negotiated, including (but not limited to) the number of labor hours, travel expenses, overhead 

rates, and other direct costs. The question of fee, an amount in addition to the basic contract cost, 

must be settled. The fee can be a fixed amount specified in the contract, providing the contract 

requirements are met, or it can vary depending on regular evaluations of the contractor’s 

performance. The method of addressing inflation or escalating costs is another area that is 

negotiated. Following the completion of negotiations, the contract is awarded and work can 

begin. 

19 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1815, “NASA Evaluation Factors,” 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/1815.htm#15_3 (accessed 11 May 2007).

20 Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAC 97-02, Subpart 15.3, “Source Selection.” 

706
Contract Management and Administration

Contract administration consists of all activities that take place from the time the contract is 

awarded until it is closed out. NASA has a large number of procedures in place to ensure that its 

contracts are managed efficiently and legally. For procurement of an item, the delivery of that 

item may be the only major requirement. However, for administering the procurement of 

complicated systems or services, the government provides considerable oversight, and the 

contractor is responsible for providing regular information to the government regarding the cost 

and progress of the work. The government reviews and evaluates this information, and may find 

that revisions to the contract or changes in project plans are necessary because of what these 

progress reports reveal. NASA employs a number of individuals who are responsible for contract 

administration.

Definition of Terms

Competitive procurements are those in which offers are solicited from more than one responsible 

offeror that is capable of satisfying the government’s requirements wholly or partially, and the 

award or awards are made based on price, design, or technical competition.

Other-than-competitive procurements are those in which an offer is solicited and received from 

only one responsible offeror that is capable of satisfying the government’s requirements wholly 

or partially. (This category includes contracts resulting from unsolicited proposals.) These are 

also called “sole source acquisitions.”21

21 Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAC 97-02, Subpart 16.003.

707
Contracting action is an action that results in a contract, including contract modifications for 

additional supplies or services, but not including contract modifications that are within the scope 

and under the terms of the contract, such as contract modifications issued pursuant to the 

Changes clause, or funding and other administrative changes.22 Full and open competition, when 

used with respect to a contract action, means that all responsible sources are permitted to 

compete. A contracting action includes the following types of agreements: 

• letter contracts or other preliminary notices of negotiated awards;

• definitive contracts, including purchase orders;

• orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts, basic ordering agreements, and against 

indefinite delivery type contracts;

• intragovernmental orders;

• grants;

• cooperative and Space Act agreements;

• supplemental agreements, change orders, administrative changes, and terminations to 

existing procurements.

A prime contract is a contract into which NASA enters directly.

A small business concern, for purposes of government procurement, means an independently 

owned and operated concern, including its affiliates, that is not dominant in the field of operation 

in which it is bidding, and is qualified as a small business under the criteria and size standards in 

Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations and in the FAR, Part 19, Subpart 19.1. Such a 

concern is “not dominant in its field of operation” when it does not exercise a controlling or 

22 Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAC 97-02, Subpart 5.001.

708
major influence on a national basis in a kind of business activity in which a number of business 

concerns are primarily engaged. For service industries, the size standard generally is based on 

average annual receipts over a three-year period, depending on the service to be procured. 

Generally, in the case of agricultural or manufactured products, the size standards are determined 

by the number of employees. The applicable size standard is prescribed in each NASA 

solicitation.23

23 Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAC 97-02, Subpart 19.1.

709
The NASA History Series

Reference Works, NASA SP-4000:

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology. NASA SP-4001, 1963.

Grimwood, James M., and Barton C. Hacker, with Peter J. Vorzimmer. Project Gemini 

Technology and Operations: A Chronology. NASA SP-4002, 1969. 

Link, Mae Mills. Space Medicine in Project Mercury. NASA SP-4003, 1965. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1963: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4004, 1964. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1964: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4005, 1965. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4006, 1966. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4007, 1967. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4008, 1968. 

Ertel, Ivan D., and Mary Louise Morse. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, 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. NASA SP-4009, 1973. 

Brooks, Courtney G., and Ivan D. Ertel. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume III, 

October 1, 1964–January 20, 1966. NASA SP-4009, 1973. 

Ertel, Ivan D., and Roland W. Newkirk, with Courtney G. Brooks. The Apollo Spacecraft: A 

Chronology, Volume IV, January 21, 1966–July 13, 1974. NASA SP-4009, 1978. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1968: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4010, 1969. 

Newkirk, Roland W., and Ivan D. Ertel, with Courtney G. Brooks. Skylab: A Chronology. 

NASA SP-4011, 1977. 

Van Nimmen, Jane, and Leonard C. Bruno, with Robert L. Rosholt. NASA Historical Data 

Book, Volume I: NASA Resources, 1958–1968. NASA SP-4012, 1976; rep. ed. 1988. 

Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume II: Programs and Projects, 

1958–1968. NASA SP-4012, 1988. 

Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume III: Programs and Projects, 

1969–1978. NASA SP-4012, 1988. 

Gawdiak, Ihor, with Helen Fedor. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume IV: NASA Resources, 

1969–1978. NASA SP-4012, 1994. 

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume V: NASA Launch Systems, Space 

Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Science, 1979–1988. NASA SP-4012, 1999. 

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VI: NASA Space Applications, 

710
Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology, Tracking and Data Acquisition/Support 

Operations, Commercial Programs, and Resources, 1979–1988. NASA SP-4012, 1999. 

Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VII: NASA Launch Systems, Space 

Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Science, 1989–1998. NASA SP-2009-4012, 

2009. 

No SP-4013. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1969: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4014, 1970. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1970: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4015, 1972. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1971: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4016, 1972. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1972: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4017, 1974. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1973: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4018, 1975. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1974: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4019, 1977. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1975: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4020, 1979. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1976: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4021, 1984. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1977: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4022, 1986. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1978: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA 

SP-4023, 1986. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1979–1984: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. 

NASA SP-4024, 1988. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1985: Chronology of Science, Technology, 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. NASA SP-4026, 1995. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1986–1990: A Chronology. NASA SP-4027, 1997. 

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1991–1995: A Chronology. NASA SP-2000-4028, 2000. 

Orloff, Richard W. Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference. NASA SP-2000-4029, 

2000. 

Lewis, Marieke, and Ryan Swanson. Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology, 1996–

2000. NASA SP-2009-4030, 2009. 

Ivey, William Noel, and Ryan Swanson. Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology, 

2001–2005. NASA SP-2010-4031, 2010. 

711
Management Histories, NASA SP-4100:

Rosholt, Robert L. An Administrative History of NASA, 1958–1963. NASA SP-4101, 1966. 

Levine, Arnold S. Managing NASA in the Apollo Era. NASA SP-4102, 1982. 

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, 1992. 

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., ed. Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Forty Years of Human 

Spaceflight Symposium. NASA SP-2002-4107, 2002. 

Mallick, Donald L., with Peter W. Merlin. The Smell of Kerosene: A Test Pilot’s Odyssey. 

NASA SP-4108, 2003. 

Iliff, Kenneth W., and Curtis L. Peebles. From Runway to Orbit: Reflections of a NASA 

Engineer. NASA SP-2004-4109, 2004. 

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People, Volume I. NASA SP-2005-4110, 2005. 

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: Creating a Rocket Industry, Volume II. NASA SP-2006-

4110, 2006. 

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: Hot Days of the Cold War, Volume III. NASA SP-2009-

4110, 2009. 

Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: The Moon Race, Volume IV. NASA SP-2011-4110, 

2011. 

Laufer, Alexander, Todd Post, and Edward Hoffman. Shared Voyage: Learning and 

Unlearning from Remarkable Projects. NASA SP-2005-4111, 2005. 

Dawson, Virginia P., and Mark D. Bowles. Realizing the Dream of Flight: 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 Pioneer. NASA SP2008-4113, 2008. 

Project Histories, NASA SP-4200:

Swenson, Loyd S., Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander. This New Ocean: A 

History of Project Mercury. NASA SP-4201, 1966; rep. ed. 1999. 

Green, Constance McLaughlin, and Milton Lomask. Vanguard: A History. NASA SP-4202, 

1970; rep. ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971. 

Hacker, Barton C., and James M. Grimwood. On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of 

Project Gemini. NASA SP-4203, 1977; rep. ed. 2002. 

Benson, Charles D., and William Barnaby Faherty. Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch 

Facilities and Operations. NASA SP-4204, 1978. 

Brooks, Courtney G., James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. Chariots for Apollo: A 

712
History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. NASA SP-4205, 1979.

Bilstein, Roger E. Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch 

Vehicles. NASA SP-4206, 1980 and 1996. 

No SP-4207. 

Compton, W. David, and Charles D. Benson. Living and Working in Space: A History of 

Skylab. NASA SP-4208, 1983. 

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. The Partnership: A History of the ApolloSoyuz Test Project. NASA SP-4209, 1978. 

Hall, R. Cargill. Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger. NASA SP-4210, 1977. 

Newell, Homer E. Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science. NASA SP-4211, 

1980. 

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. On Mars: Exploration of 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 Apollo Lunar 

Exploration Missions. NASA SP-4214, 1989. 

Naugle, John E. First Among Equals: The Selection of NASA Space Science Experiments. 

NASA SP-4215, 1991. 

Wallace, Lane E. Airborne Trailblazer: Two Decades with NASA Langley’s 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 SP4218, 1996. 

Mack, Pamela E., ed. From Engineering Science to Big Science: The NACA and NASA 

Collier Trophy Research Project Winners. NASA SP-4219, 1998. 

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. NASA 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 Pioneering Digital Fly-ByWire Project. NASA SP-4224, 2000. 

Morgan, Clay. Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia Share History’s Highest Stage. 

NASA SP-2001-4225, 2001. 

Leary, William M. “We Freeze to Please”: A History of NASA’s Icing Research 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, 2001. 

713
No SP-4228 or SP-4229. 

Dawson, Virginia P., and Mark D. Bowles. Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper 

Stage Rocket, 1958–2002. NASA SP-2004-4230, 2004. 

Meltzer, Michael. Mission to Jupiter: A History of the Galileo Project. NASA SP-2007-

4231, 2007. 

Heppenheimer, T. A. Facing the Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersonics. NASA SP-2007-

4232, 2007. 

Tsiao, Sunny. “Read You Loud and Clear!” The Story of NASA’s Spaceflight Tracking and 

Data Network. NASA SP-2007-4233, 2007. 

Meltzer, Michael. When Biospheres Collide: A History of NASA’s Planetary Protection 

Programs. NASA SP-2011-4234, 2011. 

Center Histories, NASA SP-4300:

Rosenthal, Alfred. Venture into Space: Early Years of Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA 

SP-4301, 1985. 

Hartman, Edwin P. Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940–1965. 

NASA SP-4302, 1970. 

Hallion, Richard P. On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden, 1946–1981. NASA SP4303, 1984. 

Muenger, Elizabeth A. Searching the Horizon: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940–

1976. NASA SP-4304, 1985. 

Hansen, James R. Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical 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 Center from Sputnik to 

Apollo. NASA SP-4308, 1995. 

Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: An Illustrated History of the Dryden Flight Research 

Center. NASA SP-4309, 1996. 

Herring, Mack R. Way Station to Space: A History of the John C. Stennis Space Center. 

NASA SP-4310, 1997. 

Wallace, Harold D., Jr. Wallops Station and the Creation of an American Space Program. 

NASA SP-4311, 1997. 

Wallace, Lane E. Dreams, Hopes, Realities. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center: The First 

Forty Years. NASA SP-4312, 1999. 

Dunar, Andrew J., and Stephen P. Waring. Power to Explore: A History of Marshall Space 

Flight Center, 1960–1990. NASA SP-4313, 1999. 

Bugos, Glenn E. Atmosphere of Freedom: Sixty Years at the NASA Ames Research Center. 

NASA SP-2000-4314, 2000. 

714
No SP-4315. 

Schultz, James. Crafting Flight: Aircraft Pioneers and the Contributions of the Men and 

Women of NASA Langley Research Center. NASA SP-2003-4316, 2003. 

Bowles, Mark D. Science in Flux: NASA’s Nuclear Program at Plum Brook Station, 1955–

2005. NASA SP-2006-4317, 2006. 

Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: An Illustrated History of the Dryden Flight Research 

Center. NASA SP-2007-4318, 2007. Revised version of NASA SP-4309. 

Arrighi, Robert S. Revolutionary Atmosphere: The Story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and the 

Space Power Chambers. NASA SP-2010-4319, 2010. 

General Histories, NASA SP-4400:

Corliss, William R. NASA Sounding Rockets, 1958–1968: A Historical Summary. NASA SP4401, 1971. 

Wells, Helen T., Susan H. Whiteley, and Carrie Karegeannes. Origins of 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. NASA 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 NASA, 1915–1990. 

NASA SP-4406, 1989. 

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Linda J. Lear, Jannelle Warren Findley, Ray A. 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-4407, 1996. 

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Roger D. Launius, David H. Onkst, and Stephen J. Garber. 

Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, 

Volume III: Using Space. NASA SP-4407, 1998. 

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Ray A. Williamson, Roger D. Launius, Russell 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, Stephen J. Garber, and 

Regan Anne Newport. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. 

Civil Space Program, Volume V: Exploring the Cosmos. NASA SP-2001-4407, 2001. 

Logsdon, John M., ed., with Stephen J. Garber, Roger D. Launius, and Ray A. Williamson. 

Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the 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 Unknown: Selected Documents 

715
in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume VII: Human Spaceflight: Projects 

Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. NASA SP-2008-4407, 2008. 

Siddiqi, Asif A., Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945–1974. 

NASA SP-2000-4408, 2000. 

Hansen, James R., ed. The Wind and Beyond: Journey into the History of Aerodynamics in 

America, Volume 1: The Ascent of the Airplane. NASA SP-2003-4409, 2003. 

Hansen, James R., ed. The Wind and Beyond: Journey into the History of Aerodynamics in 

America, Volume 2: Reinventing the Airplane. NASA SP-2007-4409, 2007. 

Hogan, Thor. Mars Wars: The Rise and Fall of the Space Exploration Initiative. NASA SP2007-4410, 2007. 

Vakoch, Douglas A., ed. Psychology of Space Exploration: Contemporary Research in 

Historical Perspective. NASA SP-2011-4411, 2011. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, NASA SP-4500:

Launius, Roger D., and Aaron K. Gillette, comps. Toward a History of the Space Shuttle: An 

Annotated Bibliography. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 1, 1992. 

Launius, Roger D., and J. D. Hunley, comps. An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo 

Program. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 2, 1994. 

Launius, Roger D. Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 

3, 1994. 

Hansen, James R. Enchanted Rendezvous: John C. Houbolt and the Genesis of the LunarOrbit Rendezvous Concept. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 4, 1995. 

Gorn, Michael H. Hugh L. Dryden’s Career in Aviation and Space. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 5, 1996. 

Powers, Sheryll Goecke. Women in Flight Research at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center 

from 1946 to 1995. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 6, 1997. 

Portree, David S. F., and Robert C. Trevino. Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronology. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 7, 1997. 

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Legislative Origins of the National Aeronautics and Space Act 

of 1958: Proceedings of an Oral History Workshop. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 8, 

1998. 

Rumerman, Judy A., comp. U.S. Human Spaceflight: A Record of Achievement, 1961–1998. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 9, 1998. 

Portree, David S. F. NASA’s Origins and the Dawn of the Space Age. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 10, 1998. 

Logsdon, John M. Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Cooperation in the Space

Station. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 11, 1998. 

Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey in Aeronautical Research: A Career at NASA Langley Research 

Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 12, 1998. 

Braslow, Albert L. A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on 

Flight Research. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 13, 1999. 

716
Logsdon, John M., moderator. Managing the Moon Program: Lessons Learned from Apollo. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 14, 1999. 

Perminov, V. G. The Difficult Road to Mars: A Brief History of Mars Exploration in the 

Soviet Union. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 15, 1999. 

Tucker, Tom. Touchdown: The Development of Propulsion Controlled Aircraft at NASA 

Dryden. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 16, 1999. 

Maisel, Martin, Demo J. Giulanetti, and Daniel C. Dugan. The History of the XV-15 Tilt 

Rotor Research Aircraft: From Concept to Flight. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 17, 

2000. NASA SP-2000-4517. 

Jenkins, Dennis R. Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History of the X-15 Research 

Airplane. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 18, 2000. NASA SP-2000-4518. 

Chambers, Joseph R. Partners in Freedom: Contributions of the Langley Research Center to 

U.S. Military Aircraft of the 1990s. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 19, 2000. NASA SP2000-4519. 

Waltman, Gene L. Black Magic and Gremlins: Analog Flight Simulations at NASA’s Flight 

Research Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 20, 2000. NASA SP-2000-4520. 

Portree, David S. F. Humans to Mars: Fifty Years of Mission Planning, 1950–2000. 

Monographs 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. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 22, 2001. NASA SP-2001-4522. 

Tucker, Tom. The Eclipse Project. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 23, 2001. NASA 

SP-2001-4523. 

Siddiqi, Asif A. Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes, 

1958–2000. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 24, 2002. NASA SP-2002-4524. 

Merlin, Peter W. Mach 3+: NASA/USAF YF-12 Flight Research, 1969–1979. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 25, 2001. NASA SP-2001-4525. 

Anderson, Seth B. Memoirs of an Aeronautical Engineer: Flight Tests at Ames Research 

Center: 1940–1970. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 26, 2002. NASA SP-2002-4526. 

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Bibliography Commemorating the OneHundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight on December 17, 1903. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 27, 2002. NASA SP-2002-4527. 

No monograph 28. 

Chambers, Joseph R. Concept to Reality: Contributions of the NASA Langley Research 

Center to U.S. Civil Aircraft of the 1990s. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 29, 2003. 

NASA SP-2003-4529. 

Peebles, Curtis, ed. The Spoken Word: Recollections of Dryden History, The Early Years. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 30, 2003. NASA SP-2003-4530. 

Jenkins, Dennis R., Tony Landis, and Jay Miller. American X-Vehicles: An Inventory—X-1 to 

X-50. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 31, 2003. NASA SP-2003-4531. 

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Chronology Commemorating the OneHundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight on December 17, 1903. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 32, 2003. NASA SP-2003-4532. 

717
Bowles, Mark D., and Robert S. Arrighi. NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook 

Research Reactor. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 33, 2004. NASA SP-2004-4533. 

Wallace, Lane, and Christian Gelzer. Nose Up: High Angle-of-Attack and Thrust Vectoring 

Research at NASA Dryden, 1979–2001. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 34, 2009. NASA 

SP-2009-4534. 

Matranga, Gene J., C. Wayne Ottinger, Calvin R. Jarvis, and D. Christian Gelzer. 

Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly: The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. Monographs in 

Aerospace History, No. 35, 2006. NASA SP-2004-4535. 

McCurdy, Howard E. Low-Cost Innovation in Spaceflight: The History of the Near Earth 

Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) Mission. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 36, 2005. NASA 

SP-2005-4536. 

Seamans, Robert C., Jr. Project Apollo: The Tough Decisions. Monographs in Aerospace 

History, No. 37, 2005. NASA SP-2005-4537. 

Lambright, W. Henry. NASA and the Environment: The Case of Ozone Depletion. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 38, 2005. NASA SP-2005-4538. 

Chambers, Joseph R. Innovation in Flight: Research of the NASA Langley Research Center 

on Revolutionary Advanced Concepts for Aeronautics. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 

39, 2005. NASA SP-2005-4539. 

Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey into Space Research: Continuation of a Career at NASA 

Langley Research Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 40, 2005. NASA SP-2005-

4540. 

Rumerman, Judy A., Chris Gamble, and Gabriel Okolski, comps. U.S. Human Spaceflight: A 

Record of Achievement, 1961–2006. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 41, 2007. NASA 

SP-2007-4541. 

Peebles, Curtis. The Spoken Word: Recollections of Dryden History Beyond the Sky.

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 42, 2011. NASA SP-2011-4542. 

Dick, Steven J., Stephen J. Garber, and Jane H. Odom. Research in NASA History. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 43, 2009. NASA SP-2009-4543. 

Merlin, Peter W. Ikhana: Unmanned Aircraft System Western States Fire Missions. 

Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 44, 2009. NASA SP-2009-4544. 

Fisher, Steven C., and Shamim A. Rahman. Remembering the Giants: Apollo Rocket 

Propulsion Development. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 45, 2009. NASA SP-2009-

4545. 

Gelzer, Christian. Fairing Well: From Shoebox to Bat Truck and Beyond, Aerodynamic 

Truck Research at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, 

No. 46, 2011. NASA SP-2011-4546. 

Electronic Media, NASA SP-4600:

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. 

718
The Mission Transcript Collection: U.S. Human Spaceflight Missions from Mercury 

Redstone 3 to Apollo 17. NASA SP-2000-4602, 2001. 

Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia Share History’s Highest Stage. NASA SP-2001-

4603, 2002. 

U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission Presents Born of Dreams—Inspired by Freedom. 

NASA SP-2004-4604, 2004. 

Of Ashes and Atoms: A Documentary on the NASA Plum Brook Reactor Facility. NASA SP2005-4605, 2005. 

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, 2005. 

Altitude Wind Tunnel at NASA Glenn Research Center: An Interactive History CD-ROM. 

NASA SP-2008-4608, 2008. 

A Tunnel Through Time: The History of NASA’s Altitude Wind Tunnel. NASA SP-2010-

4609, 2010. 

Conference Proceedings, NASA SP-4700:

Dick, Steven J., and Keith Cowing, eds. Risk and Exploration: Earth, Sea and the Stars. 

NASA SP-2005-4701, 2005. 

Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. NASA 

SP-2006-4702, 2006. 

Dick, Steven J., ed. Remembering the Space Age: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary 

Conference. NASA SP-2008-4703, 2008. 

Dick, Steven J., ed. NASA’s First 50 Years: Historical Perspectives. NASA SP-2010-4704, 

2010. 

Societal Impact, NASA SP-4800:

Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Societal Impact of Spaceflight. NASA SP-2007-4801, 

2007. 

Dick, Steven J., and Mark L. Lupisella. Cosmos and Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic 

Context. NASA SP-2009-4802, 2009. 

719