NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

NACA SPECIAL ISSUE

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

FROM

THE CHIEF 

HISTORIAN

Do you noticesomething different? That’s right, our 

incredible graphics

folks from the Headquarters Communications 

Support Services Center (CSSC) have updated 

the design of News & Notes. It was about time 

to bring this newsletter up to current standards for readability, and we also asked them 

to reflect the National Advisory Committee 

for Aeronautics (NACA) centennial theme 

in the design. (Hence the black and yellow 

coloring used in the markings on so many 

classic NACA/NASA research craft.) I think 

they’ve done a great job. How about you? One 

aspect that I’m particularly pleased with is the 

History Program Office logo that they’ve also 

worked into the newsletter. By now, those of 

you who follow us on social media may recognize the logo as our new avatar. Again, the 

CSSC graphic designers developed the logo for 

us, and I like to think that it elegantly captures 

the aeronautics, space, technology, and science aspects of the NACA and NASA while 

subtly highlighting history as the launch pad 

for our future.

continued on next page

CELEBRATING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY

OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

THE SPIRIT OF THE 

NACA...BY AN OLD 

NACA GUY

By Jack Boyd

T he spirit at the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory in 

the days of the National Advisory 

Committee for Aeronautics 

(NACA) was one of freedom 

and innovation. No reasonable 

idea was discouraged. There was 

a freedom to learn. Continuous 

learning, even when done unconventionally, kept curiosity strong. 

And curiosity led to innovation.

I felt intimidated when I started 

in 1947, as an engineer right out 

of college, but everyone encouraged me. If you had an idea and 

it had relevance to anything at 

all, they’d let you pursue it as 

far as you wanted to take it. It 

was a very open-minded society in those days. We also had 

continued on page 3

IN THIS ISSUE:

1 From the Chief Historian 

1 Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of 

the National Advisory Committee for 

Aeronautics

1 The Spirit of the NACA...by an Old NACA Guy

3 The Wind Tunnel District of the NACA Ames 

Aeronautical Laboratory

6 Lewis Research Center and the Post-War 

NACA Inspections

13 NASA Langley—The Beginning of It All

19 In the Words of Those Who Were There: Oral 

Histories from the NACA Days

21 The NACA’s Influence on Stennis Space Center

23 News from Headquarters and the Centers

29 Other Aerospace History News

32 Review: The Enigma of an Aerofoil

33 Recent Publications and Online Resources

38 Upcoming Meetings

39 Obituary: Noel Hinners (1935–2014)
2

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

From the Chief Historian (continued)

Another great thing that I’m delighted to celebrate is the 

Headquarters Honor Award recognition of our team for 

their work managing the archive renovation here over 

the last year and a half. At the ceremony on 30 October, 

Chief Archivist Jane Odom accepted the Civil Service/

Contractor Team Award from Administrator Charlie 

Bolden and Deputy Administrator Robert Lightfoot on 

behalf of the team. The citation commends the team 

“[f]or outstanding dedication, strategic planning, and 

teamwork in managing the Headquarters Historical 

Reference Collection renovation project.” As those of 

you who have visited since we reopened this fall will 

agree, the results are stunning. What isn’t so obvious is 

the meticulous planning and backbreaking work that 

went into making the renovation a success. Inside this 

issue, you’ll find a picture of the whole group of honorees with the award plaque that now hangs in the archive. 

Congratulations, and thanks for a job extremely well 

done, to our renovation leader Jane, as well as Nadine, 

Colin, Steve, John, Yvette, and Liz!

As usual, we are dedicating our final issue of the calendar 

year to a theme—and this year that theme had to be the 

NACA centennial. The actual centennial of the day that 

the legislation creating the NACA became law is Tuesday, 

3 March 2015. As mentioned in our last newsletter, we’ll 

be cosponsoring a historical symposium on the contributions and legacy of the NACA at the National Air and 

Space Museum starting that day and running through 

4 March 2015. We received a tremendous response 

to the call for papers for this symposium. Frankly, I’m 

really excited about the many extraordinary topics that 

will be covered and by the historical brain trust that 

is participating in the symposium. You won’t want to 

miss this one, either. You can find out the latest on the 

symposium at http://www.nasa.gov/naca100years. In the 

meantime, though, I invite you to whet your appetite 

with the NACA-themed articles right here in News & 

Notes. As with the symposium, we were overwhelmed 

with great newsletter submissions on the NACA from 

our colleagues at the various NASA Centers. In fact, we 

weren’t able to fit all of the articles in News & Notes. 

Rather than making you wait until the spring newsletter, 

we’ve taken the articles that didn’t fit and turned them 

into Web articles that you will find posted at http://

www.nasa.gov/topics/history/index.html. So be sure to 

take a look there too. While you are there, you can 

also enjoy articles on some key NACA leaders (and 

[mostly former] Center namesakes) written this year 

by our interns. Joseph Ames, George Lewis, and Hugh 

Dryden had extraordinarily long and influential careers 

at, or involved with, the NACA. Those of us who follow in their footsteps would be well served, and perhaps 

inspired, to know a bit more about them. So, happy 

reading, and I hope to see you at the NACA centennial 

symposium in March.

Until then, Godspeed,

William P. Barry

Chief Historian

Top: Chief Archivist Jane Odom holds the Civil Service/Contractor Team 

Award plaque, which she accepted on behalf of the team from Administrator 

Charlie Bolden (r) and Deputy Administrator Robert Lightfoot. The citation 

commends the team “[f]or outstanding dedication, strategic planning, and 

teamwork in managing the Headquarters Historical Reference Collection renovation project.” Bottom: To Jane’s left is John Hargenrader, and to her right 

is Liz Suckow. On the back row, from left to right, are Nadine Andreassen, 

Yvette Smith, Steve Garber, and Colin Fries.
3

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (continued)

many free-flowing discussions with people outside 

the laboratory.

In the fifties, we at Ames began to think about space 

thanks to Harvey Allen. The air speeds at which we 

were working were Mach numbers of 0.2 to 2.0, twice 

the speed of sound. Allen told us to think beyond 

that. If we were really going to go into space, we’d be 

orbiting Earth, for example, at 17,000 miles an hour. 

He had an idea for the blunt-body shape to slow down 

a vehicle when it enters the atmosphere, and he had 

the freedom to explore that idea.

That reentry work got us thinking about other things. 

For example, if we went to Mars and Venus, where 

the atmospheric gases are different, the aerodynamics 

might be different, too. How would we enter one of 

those atmospheres? At the time, we at Ames were 

aerodynamicists; we knew nothing about planets. 

We invited to Ames a famous astronomer named 

Zdenek Kopal, who worked at an observatory in the 

Pyrenees Mountains in Spain. Kopal told us that 

carbon dioxide and nitrogen were probably prevalent 

gases on Mars and Venus. We had a facility here 

called a ballistic free-flight range. We thought we’d 

fill one of these ranges with a mixture of carbon 

dioxide and nitrogen and fly different shapes into 

them to see what the aerodynamics looked like. We 

just asked the chief at the range and he said, “Hey, 

that sounds like a great idea; go do it.” There were 

interesting differences in the flight through the gases, 

not only in the aerodynamics, but also in the heating. 

That started a path toward planetary entry vehicles, 

which other people pursued later.

Had we not started doing this work at the NACA 

before 1958, because we were curious, we would never 

have gotten to the Moon when we did. We had a 

jump-start on the technology we were going to need. 

Before 1958, NACA people at Langley, Lewis, and 

Ames were looking beyond, to the next step into space, 

curious about the technology that would lead to the 

lifting body. Not only were we curious, but we had the 

freedom to pursue that curiosity.

Simply starting somewhere and sharing what you learn 

encourages others to pick up the insight and expand 

on it. You never know where things can end up.

THE WIND TUNNEL DISTRICT OF 

THE NACA AMES AERONAUTICAL 

LABORATORY

By Glenn Bugos

The Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel complex at NASA Ames was a pearl in the history of the NACA. 

Opened in 1955, its three test sections, powered by a 

single set of compressors, could take a single aircraft 

model through each regime of flight, from Mach 0.2 

to Mach 2.5. In the Unitary, Ames engineers tested 

almost every American jet transport and supersonic 

military aircraft. Seen from an aircraft above, the 

Unitary Tunnels are visually linked, with the air 

returns and valves shaping a circuit among the three 

test sections. These connected tunnels at Ames also 

connected to a series of new tunnels built in the early 

1950s on a “unitary plan” around America—at other 

NACA Centers, at military bases, and at universities. 

Jack Parsons, Deputy Director at Ames and manager 

of its construction, planned the tunnels for complementary capabilities so that models and testing data 

from them could move easily among the far-flung 

researchers who needed them.

The idea of building a series of complementary tunnels 

did not originate with the Unitary Plan. Indeed, this 

idea of complementarity drove the grand architecture of Ames. In 1938, the NACA Main Committee 

entrusted to Smith DeFrance, who became Ames’s 

first Director, and Parsons, who served as his deputy during his entire tenure, with a blank sheet of 

paper and 101 acres of flat land on which to build the 
4

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

The Ames wind tunnel district taking shape, about 1948.

laboratory of their dreams (within the limits of the 

NACA’s sparse funding, of course). As World War II 

loomed, Ames would build the tunnels needed to 

serve aircraft makers on the West Coast and to give 

NACA engineers a place to do fundamental research 

to solve design problems that arose during the war. No 

single aircraft firm could build the specialized tunnels 

needed; the government built them for use by all.

The Ames Aeronautical Laboratory was one of only 

a few wind tunnel complexes built for that purpose 

from the beginning. The capabilities that made each 

tunnel unique were carefully planned, and, for efficiency’s sake, they were located close together. In 

contrast, most other aerodynamic complexes accreted 

buildings over time.

More than 50 wind tunnels have been built at Ames 

over its history, most of them in the 1940s and 1950s. 

Some were big enough to test full-scale aircraft. Some 

were tiny, for testing preliminary models less than 

an inch wide. Some moved air slowly, at the speed 

at which aircraft land and helicopters hover. Some 

moved air at hypersonic speeds, like those at which 

guided missiles flew. Some were new test sections to 

answer new questions with existing tunnels. Some 

were built to validate the design of larger and more 

complex wind tunnels. In later years, some were built 

to validate the computer codes now used to design 

all modern aircraft. It proved easier to build all these 

wind tunnels once Ames had built the infrastructure 

to support them.

In mapping the master plan for Ames, DeFrance and 

Parsons built the early Ames tunnels along a triangular set of roads, which also defined the shape of the 

infrastructure that included high-voltage wiring and 

transformers for massive bursts of electrical power. 

The design included intricate piping that carried 

compressed air, dry air, vacuum, steam for heat, or 

water for cooling between the buildings. It included 

a big, central machine shop—the second building 

undertaken at Ames—where craftsmen built iterations of aircraft models and invented new instruments 

to visualize minute variations in otherwise invisible 

air, visualizations then captured by the sophisticated 

camera of the central photography lab. It included 

sheds where the electrical branch kept their wires and 

the scale service branch kept the hydraulic lines that 

gathered data. It included the big rooms where the 
5

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

computers calculated, attacking that data with mathematical skill to turn it into the smooth curves of visceral interest to the young aeronautical engineers. (In 

those days, “computers” were mostly young women 

with prodigious mathematical skills who performed 

complex calculations with pen, paper, and slide rules.) 

The engineers who ran the tests tended to identify with 

an individual tunnel. But the technical experts—the 

energetic, geeky, craft-skilled experts of the sort for 

which Silicon Valley has become famous and who at 

Ames built models, wired them for data, and computed the results—moved among all the tunnels and 

cross-pollinated each tunnel with their best practices. 

The infrastructure was as much human as technical.

A dozen tunnels were the size of buildings and thus 

today are prominent enough to be considered under 

the historic preservation laws. The initial build-out of 

Ames included two identical 7- by 10-foot workhorses, 

the 40- by 80-foot full-scale tunnel, the 12-foot pressurized tunnel, the 1- by 3-foot supersonic tunnel, 

and the 14-foot transonic tunnel. It also included a 

6- by 6-foot supersonic tunnel that DeFrance and 

Parsons assumed would remain a dream until the Navy 

offered to fund its entire construction in 1945. In the 

mid-1950s, Ames continued to build new tunnels 

inside this district, including the Unitary Plan and 

the 3.5-foot hypersonic tunnels. In 1984, Ames made 

its last major addition to this wind tunnel district, 

attaching an 80- by 120-foot test section onto the 

40- by 80-foot tunnel.

This sense of the term “district,” used to describe this 

concentration of buildings, derives from historic 

preservation laws. For example, Shenandoah Plaza, 

the series of Spanish revival architecture buildings 

around the parade ground of Moffett Field built in 

the early 1930s to support the dirigible the U.S.S. 

Macon, is significant as a historic district. For the early 

collection of wind tunnels, however, early Ames folks 

simply called them their “Laboratory.” There were 

only two other distinct areas of Ames. The headquarters building stood sentinel at the center of a circular 

road, guarding access from the outside world to the 

tunnels, and the flight-test hangars stood closer to the 

runways of Moffett Field. Though physically distant, 

the hangars were intellectually close to the tunnels. 

The low-speed division ran both tunnels and hangars 

and expected tunnel data to be cross-checked with 

flight data. Beginning in the 1960s, though, Ames 

took on new tasks, in new disciplines, to support 

the broader missions of NASA and built facilities 

for space-life science, planetary science, spacecraft 

fabrication, simulation, and information technology. 

The Center expanded, and empty spots were filled in, 

though its heart remained the wind tunnel district.

Some of those tunnels have since been demolished, 

including one of the 7- by 10-foot workhorse tunnels and the guts of the 1- by 3-foot supersonic 

tunnel. The Ames “NACA Park” now stands at the 

geographic center of the district, where the 16-foot 

transonic tunnel stood until 2007. The hull of the 

6- by 6-foot supersonic tunnel is now home to the 

Ames Aerospace Encounter, where members of the 

next generation of space explorers learn about the 

tools they will use. Much work needs to be done 

to modernize this infrastructure. These demolitions 

were not easy, neither emotionally nor technically, as 

facilities engineers worked to disentangle the pipes 

Looking west along DeFrance Avenue in 1989. From top to bottom, the 3.5-

foot hypersonic tunnel, the Unitary Plan, the model shop, the 16-foot tunnel, the 

7- by 10-foot tunnel, the 12-foot tunnel, and the 1- by 3-foot tunnel.
6

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

and wiring between the buildings. Nor have these demolitions 

diminished the visual sense that 

all these tunnels are connected, 

physically and historically.

Of these tunnels, only the 

Unitary is currently a National 

Historic Landmark, designated 

as such in 1985. Ames is now 

making an effort to move 

more of the tunnels from the 

list of eligible facilities onto 

the actual historical registry. Keith Venter, the NASA 

Ames Historic Preservation 

Officer, leads this effort with 

support from the Architecture, 

Engineering, Construction, Operations and 

Management (AECOM) Technology Corporation 

and the Ames History Office. This is part of a 

comprehensive effort to update Ames historic 

preservation activities, which include the finalization of a new “Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plan and Programmatic Agreement.” 

All this activity will be published to the Web site at 

http://historicproperties.arc.nasa.gov.

The first step in this effort is to document the buildings 

determined to be eligible per the National Historic 

Preservation Act for review by the California State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). These buildings can then be placed on the National Register of 

Historic Places. The list includes the administration 

building (N200), the 40- by 80-foot full-scale wind 

tunnel (N211), and the 6- by 6-foot supersonic wind 

tunnel (N226). The NASA/Army Aerodynamics 7- by 

10-foot wind tunnel (N215) will also be reviewed for 

eligibility and nomination. The list also includes two 

NASA-era buildings eligible because of their significance in supporting the Space Shuttle program: the 

arc jet laboratory (N238) and the flight and guidance 

simulation laboratory (N243).

Then, Ames staff will evaluate 

whether the tunnels are significant 

as individual structures or whether 

they compose a historic district, 

what their period of significance 

might be, and what buildings 

contribute to the district. They 

will submit their analysis to the 

California SHPO. A 2008 report 

titled “Understanding NASA’s 

Historic District” challenges us to 

consider it. The buildings are now 

not closely contiguous, but they are 

linked by aesthetics and by historical association. Part of the effort 

will be a review of the infrastructure 

that supported the tunnels as well 

as the buildings that supported the 

technicians who made them so productive.

The wind tunnels of Ames reflect the significance of 

the NACA and the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory in 

the larger context of American history. The tunnels 

are engineering marvels, massive steel hulls and fan 

blades tied to the most intricate of instruments. And, 

through the work done there by NACA engineers, the 

tunnels were key drivers in America’s conquest of our 

atmosphere and space. 

LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER AND THE 

POST-WAR NACA INSPECTIONS

By Bob Arrighi with assistance from Glenn Bugos

Young space power researcher Bill Brown stood under the lights on a makeshift stage in the Engine 

Research Building and began to run through his talk 

on power-conversion research at Lewis Research 

Center. He was stopped almost immediately by Center 

Director Abe Silverstein. Silverstein pointed to a fullscale model of a SNAP-8 reactor and barked, “I do not 

want to see that on the stage. I don’t want it. Get it off 

there.” The shaken Brown was participating in a dress 

THE WIND TUNNELS 

OF AMES REFLECT 

THE SIGNIFICANCE 

OF THE NACA 

AND THE AMES 

AERONAUTICAL 

LABORATORY IN THE 

LARGER CONTEXT OF 

AMERICAN HISTORY.
7

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

rehearsal for Lewis’s upcoming 1966 inspection. The 

inspections, which were initiated under the NACA, 

allowed the Center to brief a handpicked legion of 

government officials, military leaders, and commercial manufacturers on its research activities and test 

facilities. The precisely organized and well-rehearsed 

inspections provided the NACA with an opportunity 

not only to showcase its capabilities, but also to solicit 

suggestions for further research and strengthen its case 

for continued federal funding. These were elaborate 

affairs. There was no tolerance for mistakes, either in 

the logistics or in the technical talks. Brown sighed 

with relief the following week, after his final practice 

run—sans the model—when Silverstein said, “Great 

job” and quickly went on to the next stop.1

The NACA management conceived these annual 

meetings, referred to as “industry conferences,” in the 

1920s as a conduit between their research laboratory 

at Langley Field and the nation’s aviation leaders.2 The 

NACA could demonstrate its research efforts and test 

facilities at the conferences while receiving valuable 

feedback from guests regarding the issues that needed 

addressing and what facilities were most effective.

The conference attendees, composed of elites in the 

field of American aviation, actively participated in 

the discussions. Therefore, NACA Chairman Joseph 

Ames demanded perfect coordination and presentations at the conferences to put the NACA in the 

best possible light. Director of Research George Lewis 

worked with the Langley Memorial Aeronautical 

Laboratory (LMAL) staff on the content and staging 

of the talks and the facility tours, while Secretary John 

Victory handled the logistics and socialization.3

 Ames 

personally reviewed the presentations during rehearsals 

and discussed the content, visuals, and oration directly 

with the speakers. Victory would assume this role 

following Ames’s resignation in 1936.4

Several dozen guests attended the first conference in 

May 1926. By 1936, attendance had grown to over 

600 and required the addition of a second day.5 The 

NACA Headquarters invited hundreds of guests from 

the military, industry, universities, and government. 

Some invitations were sent to specific individuals, 

whereas others requested that organizations dispatch 

a representative.6

It became customary for the NACA officials and 

attendees to meet in Washington, DC, the day before 

and take an overnight cruise across the Chesapeake 

Bay to Langley. After a lavish breakfast in Hampton, 

Virginia, the visitors caravanned to the laboratory for 

a morning tour of the facilities. This was followed by 

lunch and the requisite group photograph. The afternoon was spent being briefed on the NACA’s research 

and requesting ideas for future research. The group 

reboarded the steamship at the end of the day for the 

return journey. In those final hours, the leading lights 

of the nation’s aviation field held relaxed conversations 

over drinks and dinner regarding the NACA and current aeronautical concerns.7

This annual NACA spring ritual was suspended during 

World War II (WWII) as the organization turned its 

attention to improving military aircraft. The final 

conference in 1939 was referred to as an “inspection”—a military term—for the first time. It was at 

this point that the NACA created its Moffett Field 

and Cleveland facilities. In lieu of the overarching 

1 Bill Brown, interview by Bob Arrighi, 17 December 2003.

2 James Hansen, Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley 

Aeronautical Laboratory, 1917–1958 (Washington, DC: 

NASA SP-4305, 1987).

3 Alex Roland, Model Research (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP-4103, 1985).

4 Abe Silverstein, interview by Walter Bonney, 21 October 

1972 and 20 September 1973, Glenn History Collection, 

Oral History Collection, Cleveland, OH.

5 Hansen, Engineer in Charge.

6 Mary Lou Gosney, “Invitations for 1954 Inspection,” memorandum, 1 April 1954, Glenn History Collection.

7 Roland, Model Research.
8

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

industry conferences, military and manufacturing representatives made frequent visits to the three NACA 

laboratories for classified technical conferences on 

specific topics.8

As the war began winding down, the new Cleveland 

lab began inviting large groups of visitors for 

“inspections” of its facilities. These included briefings, 

exhibits, and tours of the facilities, but the visits 

were on a much smaller scale than the fabled prewar conferences at Langley. The Cleveland visitors 

included the National Aviation Writers, the Institute 

of Aeronautical Science, and groups of Army and 

Navy officers. Grandstands were erected beside the 

Altitude Wind Tunnel to facilitate group photographs of the visitors. During this period, the lab 

also used the “inspection” term for smaller visits by 

VIPs such as General Dwight Eisenhower.

Meanwhile, members of the aeronautical industry 

began voicing concerns during the war that the NACA 

was not responsive enough to their needs. They urged 

the NACA to share its research findings in a more 

timely and broad fashion. In response, George Lewis 

began appointing additional industry members to 

both the Executive Committee and the technical committees; and the power of the technical committees 

was elevated.9

 The NACA also instituted an Industry 

Consulting Committee in September 1945, which 

led to the addition of technical experts on airframes, 

engines, and aircraft operation to the Executive 

Committee. The dissemination of NACA reports 

was expedited, and the number of topical meetings 

increased. Perhaps the most palpable measure was the 

reinstitution of the NACA inspection conferences.10

The NACA and the field of aeronautics had changed 

dramatically in the mid-1940s. The former tripled in 

size, incorporated a broader spectrum of research, and 

replaced the ailing George Lewis with Hugh Dryden. 

The aviation industry also expanded and was transitioning into new technologies such as jet aircraft and 

missiles. So there were concerns in March 1946 when 

new NACA Chairman Jerome Hunsaker suggested 

that each of the three research laboratories begin holding annual inspections.11

The growth of the aviation industry required close 

attention to the number of invitees and the addition 

of more inspection days.12 The traditional exchange of 

information with the guests would be supplanted by 

even more polished presentations that would demonstrate the NACA’s capabilities, facilities, and effectiveness. Summaries of the talks with selected photographs 

were printed in 8- by 4-inch pamphlets and distributed 

to the guests. Langley Engineer-in-Charge Henry Reid 

suggested that photographs be taken of all the charts 

and exhibits for dissemination afterward and to serve as 

base material for budget requests.13

On 9 May 1946, the NACA opened its first inspection in seven years at Langley. Over the course of three 

days, guests heard about new technologies such as the 

helicopter, as well as traditional Langley research topics.14 Two months later, on 16 July 1946, the Ames 

Aeronautical Laboratory held its very first inspection. 

The single-day event focused on the new research work 

necessitated by supersonic flight. In addition, aeronautical legend William Durand formally activated Ames’s 

new 12-Foot Low Turbulence Pressure Wind Tunnel.15

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 T. L. K. Smull, “Report to the Industry Consulting 

Committee,” 23 May 1947, Glenn History Collection.

11 NACA Executive Committee Meeting Minutes, 21 March 

1946, Glenn History Collection.

12 Ibid.

13 Henry Reid to Edward Sharp, 15 October 1947, Glenn 

History Collection.

14 “Fifteenth Annual LMAL Inspection Huge Success,” Wing 

Tips (7 June 1946).

15 “Officials from AERL at Ames Inspection,” Wing Tips

(2 August 1946). AERL stands for “Aircraft Engine Research 

Laboratory.”
9

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

From 1947 to 1953, Langley and Ames held inspections biennially.

The Cleveland facility held its first inspection 8–10 

October 1947. The laboratory supplemented the 

Headquarters invitation list by requesting the presence 

of local manufacturers and officials. As a result, the 

inspection was expanded from two to three days. The 

VIPs and industry representatives attended on the first 

day, military officials on the second, and representatives from Cleveland-area industry and universities on 

the third.16 The rosters of those who were invited and 

those who attended were carefully tracked. Chief of 

Public Affairs Walter Bonney invited specific members 

of the press corps to attend one of the days.17

The nearly 800 guests were briefed on full-scale engine 

testing, ramjets, axial-flow compressors, turbojets, 

fuels, icing research, and materials at eight different 

tour stops. The lab’s altitude propulsion facilities—the 

Altitude Wind Tunnel, the Four Burner Area, and an 

altitude tank in the Engine Research Building—were 

highlighted.18 Unlike its sister laboratories, Cleveland 

held inspections annually through 1951, with the 

exception of 1950. The 1948 inspection is notable for the rededication of the facility as the Lewis 

Flight Propulsion Laboratory in honor of the recently 

deceased George Lewis. The event also featured the 

nearly complete 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel.

The presentations, physical logistics, and scheduling 

for the inspections required a tremendous amount 

of planning and coordination, but the technical talks 

were the most important. Early on in the preparations, 

Silverstein, who then served as Chief of Research, 

decided which topics and facilities to highlight. The 

division chiefs then selected individuals (and alternates) to develop and deliver the presentations. Even 

though many of the visitors possessed technical backgrounds, great efforts were made to convey complex 

subject matter in simple, easy-to-understand language. 

Speakers were encouraged to incorporate models, 

charts, photographs, and films into their presentations. 

There were several rounds of practice runs in the weeks 

leading up to the event, including the “semifinal” and 

“final” full dress rehearsals. The former was critiqued 

by Silverstein and the latter by John Victory.19

The physical preparations began weeks in advance. 

There was a general round of basic cleanup and 

repairs. The grounds were landscaped and buildings painted. Carpenters built stages and platforms; 

audio engineers installed public address systems and 

projectors; and mechanics fabricated exhibits and 

models. The publication branch created signs, slides, 

and pamphlets. Hundreds of comfortable chairs 

were borrowed and properly disseminated among 

the stops. The cafeteria scrambled to cater to hundreds of guests. An urgent call went out prior to the 

1957 inspection requesting that staff return all of the 

plates, cups, and utensils that had wandered off to 

their offices.20 The secretarial staff served as hostesses 

and servers at the luncheon and parties.

Unlike the early Langley inspections, it was impossible to sequester these large crowds on a single vessel. 

Instead, the NACA made arrangements with several 

major railway lines to transport guests to Cleveland 

from East Coast and Midwest cities, and the Cleveland 

Hopkins International Airport waived its landing fees 

for the dozens of transport aircraft bringing attendees 

in for the day.21 Lewis set up an information desk 

16 “NACA First Annual Inspection, Flight Propulsion Research 

Laboratory, Cleveland, Ohio,” 10 October 1947, Glenn 

History Collection.

17 “LMAL To Hold Inspection,” Wing Tips (16 May 1947).

18 “NACA First Annual Inspection, Flight Propulsion Research 

Laboratory, Cleveland, Ohio.”

19 Wilson Hunter, “Tentative Rehearsal Schedule for the 1954 

Triennial Inspection,” memorandum, 20 May 1954, Glenn 

History Collection.

20 “Will You Please Send Them Home?” Wing Tips

(14 August 1957).

21 Wilson Hunter, “1954 NACA Inspection,” memorandum, 25 

May 1954, Glenn History Collection.
10

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

and lounge area at the airport for these guests.22 Most 

of the visitors, however, were put up at the elegant 

Cleveland Hotel downtown on Public Square and 

bused out to the lab in the morning.

Perhaps the most difficult task was scheduling the 

activities. Every minute of the day was scripted. The 

visitors arrived at the laboratory around 8:30 a.m. 

They registered in the lobby of the Administration 

Building, then proceeded down the hall to the auditorium. At 9:30 a.m., Jerome Hunsaker or Victory 

greeted the guests and provided an overview of the 

NACA’s history. This was followed by Hugh Dryden’s 

description of the NACA’s research methodology. The 

Lewis contingent, led by Director Ray Sharp and 

Silverstein, briefed the group regarding the tour stops 

and Lewis’s overall research efforts. Executive Engineer 

Carlton Kemper then highlighted the lab’s primary 

test facilities.23 The introduction concluded with a 

group photograph of the guests.24

At 10 a.m., the hundreds of visitors were then separated into color-coded groups of about 40 to begin 

the tour. At Lewis, there were customarily eight tour 

stops—each with 30-minute sessions featuring several 

speakers. The guides and support staff were pressured 

to maintain a tight schedule that included short 

breaks for coffee and cigarettes and lunch. The breaks 

were as stringently planned as the talks. For example, 

hostesses were instructed to provide 10 percent more 

coffee than was needed at each stop.25 The day concluded around 4 p.m. with a reception at the picnic 

grounds or hangar. The guests were then bused back 

downtown for dinner at the hotel.

Traditionally, Lewis held a private inspection for the 

staff on the Friday afternoon following the event. 

Afterward, a party was thrown at the picnic grounds 

to celebrate the event’s success.26 Employees were then 

invited to bring their families in on Sunday for an open 

house. The technical presentations were or were not 

held for them, depending on the security levels at the 

time. Either way, almost all of the laboratory buildings 

were open to the families. These open houses regularly 

drew 3,000 or 4,000 people on a single afternoon.27

The enthusiastic letters of appreciation from the guests 

and NACA management began rolling in almost 

immediately afterward. Meanwhile, the Lewis planners began assessing the event—including the evaluation of the speakers and a lighthearted review of how 

they utilized their pointers.28 The staff contributed 

suggestions regarding displays, talks, and planning.29

The inspection planning materials—including invitation lists, schedules, correspondence, transcripts of 

the talks, and photographs of the exhibits and charts—

were then collected and bound in a single volume that 

was permanently stored in the Lewis library.

In June 1949, Langley veteran Ira Abbott drafted 

guidelines for the new NACA inspections. His primary concern was that the content of the inspections 

was overly technical. “The visitors can be expected to 

carry away only a general impression. The inspections 

should be conducted so that this impression is not 

one of bewilderment, but rather one of confidence 

that the Committee knows its business and is making 

22 William Gough to Wilson Hunter, “1954 Triennial 

Inspection at the Lewis Laboratory,” 28 June 1954, Glenn 

History Collection.

23 “NACA First Annual Inspection, Flight Propulsion Research 

Laboratory, Cleveland, Ohio,” 10 October 1947, Glenn 

History Collection.

24 Ibid.

25 Wilson Hunter to William Dey, “Refreshments To Be Served 

During the 1954 Inspection,” 5 April 1954, Glenn History 

Collection.

26 “Lab To Observe Open House Sunday Sept. 25,” Wing Tips

(16 September 1949).

27 “Pre-Inspection Hustle-Bustle,” Wing Tips (25 June 1954).

28 Carlton Kemper, “1954 Inspection—NACA—Lewis Flight 

Propulsion Laboratory,” memorandum, 8 June 1954, Glenn 

History Collection.

29 John Hopkins to Wilson Hunter, 17 October 1957, Glenn 

History Collection.
11

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

substantial progress through the orderly but vigorous 

conduct of research in well-planned facilities,” he said. 

Abbott instructed presenters to briefly contextualize 

their topic and its history, note the current concerns, 

and describe the NACA’s steps toward remedying the 

issue. The scope of post-war NACA research was much 

broader than in earlier times. The visitors could not be 

expected to be versed in all topics. 

Abbott stressed the streamlining 

of information so that guests 

could grasp the general concepts 

in each field without becoming 

awash in details, technical language, or mathematical symbols. 

He encouraged the use of simple 

charts, models, and equipment.30

In March 1953, the NACA 

announced that its three laboratories would rotate the duties of 

hosting the inspections. These 

new Triennial Inspections would 

highlight the work of the host site 

but would also include a stop from 

each of the other two laboratories. 

(The new Muroc Flight Test Unit was not included.)31

Traditionally, Lewis held its inspections over three 

consecutive days in late September or early October; 

Langley over three alternating days in mid-May; and 

Ames during two days in mid-July. Lewis hosted 

events in 1954 and 1957 under this system. In addition, Lewis conducted a one-day inspection on 22 May 

1956 to showcase its new 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic 

Wind Tunnel.

Lewis’s most famous inspection was the 7–10 October 

1957 event held literally at the onset of the Space 

Age. Lewis had been working on propulsion and 

aerodynamic issues regarding missiles and rockets 

since the mid-1940s and was starting to pursue electric propulsion. By the mid-1950s, the efforts toward 

developing high-energy propellants, particularly liquid hydrogen, were producing real results. Although 

Lewis was also unveiling its new Rocket Engine Test 

Facility (RETF), the NACA was wary of overstepping its aeronautical mandate. On 

Thursday, 3 October, John Victory 

led a group from Headquarters 

through the final dress rehearsals. 

During at least two stops, Victory 

interjected when references to 

spaceflight were mentioned. The 

RETF stop even included a display of stars and satellites in its 

exhibit.32 Victory ordered the 

frustrated researchers to strike 

those lines from their talks. The 

next evening, the Soviet Union 

launched Sputnik. When the 

inspection began on Monday 

morning, the original talks were 

in place, and Lewis was praised by 

the nearly 1,600 attendees for its 

readiness for the space race.33

Over the next year, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) was created, with the 

NACA serving as its core. In January 1959, NASA 

announced that the new agency would continue the 

Triennial Inspections, beginning with an event at 

Langley in October 1959 featuring Project Mercury.34

The inspections, however, would slowly fade away as 

NASA evolved. Langley held another in May 1964, 

but there were no further inspections at Ames.

BY THE MID-1950S, 

THE EFFORTS 

TOWARD DEVELOPING 

HIGH-ENERGY 

PROPELLANTS, 

PARTICULARLY 

LIQUID HYDROGEN, 

WERE PRODUCING 

REAL RESULTS.

30 Ira Abbott, “Improvement of Laboratory Inspections,” memorandum, 14 June 1949, Glenn History Collection.

31 “Change Schedule for Inspections,” Wing Tips

(20 March 1953).

32 Robert Graham, interview by Sandra Johnson, 30 

September 2005.

33 Virginia Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory 

and American Propulsion Technology (Washington, DC: NASA 

SP-4306, 1991).

34 “Info from Headquarters,” Wing Tips (30 January 1959).
12

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

Lewis, which was preoccupied with several new 

development programs, did not host another inspection until October 1966. The event was part of a 

yearlong celebration of the Center’s 25th anniversary. 

The three-day inspection, Lewis’s first since 1957, 

drew 2,000 invited guests.35 The visitors witnessed 

the presentations at the major facilities; viewed the 

Gemini VII spacecraft, a Centaur rocket, and other 

displays in the hangar; and saw demonstrations 

of the new 500-foot-deep Zero Gravity Research 

Facility.36 For the first time, the guests were hosted 

in the Development Engineering Building’s auditorium instead of the Administration Building. In 

his opening comments, Deputy Director Eugene 

Manganiello remarked on the dramatic accomplishments made since the last inspection nine years earlier and noted the controversy over the references to 

space leading up to the 1957 inspection.37

Langley held another inspection in October 1968 as 

the Apollo program was gaining momentum. The circumstances were much different five years later, when 

NASA decided to revive the inspections at its three 

Field Centers, starting with Lewis. The Apollo program was completed, and NASA’s budget was plunging. Lewis was hit particularly hard. The termination 

of the nuclear propulsion and power programs and the 

lack of involvement in the Space Shuttle design led to 

the loss of hundreds of jobs at the Center in the early 

1970s. In response, Center management attempted to 

transition into new fields of research, such as terrestrial 

energy and energy-efficient engines. The September 

1973 inspection, named “Technology in the Service of 

Man,” was an effort to sell Lewis’s capabilities to a host 

of industry, government, and military groups. The 

nine stops featured cleaner, quieter aircraft engines; 

solar power research; and the Centaur rocket. Nearly 

900 invited guests attended the event over the three 

days. The staff and their families heard the talks the 

following weekend, and the public was invited the 

weekend after that. In total, approximately 22,000 

people attended the 1973 inspection talks.38

Although post-inspection comments were exceptionally positive, John P. Donnelly, Assistant Administrator 

for Public Affairs, questioned whether “[w]e got our 

money’s worth.” The positive impact of the inspection 

on the Center was undeniable, but Donnelly felt that 

“the people who count”—members of Congress—were 

not present in sufficient numbers.39 The nature of the 

inspections had changed dramatically since the end of 

the NACA, and the target audience shifted from the 

aerospace elites to Washington power brokers. Although 

a subsequent inspection was planned for Langley and a 

future event at Ames, the 1973 Lewis event appears to 

have been the Agency’s final inspection.

In 1977, Lewis began issuing annual research and 

technology reports that comprehensively described 

the Center’s accomplishments during the past year. 

Although a bit briefer, the descriptions were similar 

in nature to the talks given at the inspections and 

included a large quantity of images. These reports are 

disseminated widely throughout industry, universities, 

and government institutions, but they cannot replace 

the interaction with and among the aerospace leaders 

that took place while attending the inspections.

NACA Biennial Inspections

1946 Langley [5/9,13,15/1946] Ames [7/16/1946]

1947 Lewis [10/8–10/1947] Langley 

[5/20–28/1947]

35 “Thousands To View Lewis Work at Inspection, Family Day,” 

Lewis News (30 September 1966).

36 Lynn Manley, Lewis Research Center Press Release 66-54, 16 

September 1966.

37 Eugene Manganiello, “Lewis’ Role in Support of NASA 

Missions,” 4 October 1966, Glenn History Collection.

38 Walter Olson, “Technology Utilization and Public Affairs,” 

Lewis News (11 January 1974).

39 John Donnelly to Deputy Administrator, 20 December 1973, 

Glenn History Collection.
13

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

1948 Lewis [9/28–30/1948] Ames 

[7/12–13/1948]

1949 Lewis [9/20–22/1949] Langley 

[5/18–24/1949]

1950 Ames [7/10–12/1950]

1951 Lewis [10/9–11/1951] Langley 

[5/18–25/1951]

1952 Ames [7/14–15/1952]

1953 Langley [5/5–13/1953]

NACA Triennial Inspections

1954 Lewis [6/2–4/1954]

1955 Ames [6/27–28/1955]

1956 Langley [10/10–16/1956] Lewis 10×10 

[5/22/1956]

1957 Lewis [10/4–10/1957]

1958 Ames [7/14–6/1958]

1959 Langley [10/12–17/1959]

NASA Inspections

1964 Langley [5/18–19/1964]

1966 Lewis [10/4–7/1966]

1968 Langley [10/2–6/1968]

1973 Lewis [9/26–30/1973]

NASA LANGLEY—

THE BEGINNING OF IT ALL

At the beginning of World War I (WWI), the United States had a mere 23 military aircraft, 

Great Britain 400, Germany 1,000, and France 1,400. 

This dismal situation led prominent U.S. advocates of 

air power to aggressively push Congress for a remedy. 

After several failed attempts to create a government 

advisory board and a government-sponsored laboratory, a rider to the Naval Appropriations Act in 

1915 created the National Advisory Committee for 

Aeronautics but did not give it a mandate or funding 

to build a research laboratory. The Committee had a 

minuscule $5,000 budget and was obliged to contract 

out research work to academia and other government 

organizations. Nonetheless, during that first year of 

operation, Committee members and advocates proposed an $85,000 increase to the NACA budget for 

fiscal year 1917 in order to build a laboratory. This 

request was initially vetoed by President Wilson and 

was attacked by Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels 

for the NACA “getting outside their position as advisors merely....”40 However, deft political maneuvering 

by Smithsonian Secretary Charles Walcott and NACA 

Chairman General George Scriven ensured that the 

appropriation was finally approved as part of the 

1917 budget.

Extended studies and debates on where to build the 

NACA laboratory finally led to the selection of 15 

potential sites. One, in Hampton, Virginia, included 

several large tracts of land with patents dating back 

to 1634. The owners were anxious to bring new 

growth to the area.

The Army chose noted industrial architect Albert Kahn 

to design the new base, and his vision is still readily 

apparent today—both in the architecture of Langley 

Air Force Base and in the traffic design. His dredgeand-fill plan allowed the building of structures along 

the waterfront, with the critical airfield slightly farther 

inland. This decision was one that would plague both 

the military and the NACA/NASA, even now, with 

frequent flooding associated with major storms.

The NACA was allotted block 16 of the property 

and began construction of the first civilian aviation 

research laboratory in 1917, to be known as Langley 

Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory (LMAL). The 

laboratory was officially dedicated on 11 June 1920 

with the completion of its first two buildings, the 

Laboratory and Tunnel One.

40 Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels to President Woodrow 

Wilson, 30 November 1915.
14

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

Albert Kahn plan for the Office Area of Langley Field. The NACA was permitted the use of Block 16. (Copyright material used by permission of Albert Kahn Associates, 

Inc., Detroit, Michigan, and the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

Block 16 sometime prior to 1934. The laboratory is at the top of the image, Tunnel One to the far left, and Variable Density Tunnel adjacent to it. (NASA photo) 
15

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

At the end of WWI, the NACA struggled with forging 

the role it would take in aeronautics. The first wind 

tunnel was already outdated by the time it was built 

but served to spur young scientists into conceiving 

a series of innovative tunnels that would leapfrog 

capabilities anywhere else in the world. The first revolutionary concept placed the conventional wooden 

wind tunnel inside a closed pressure vessel to more 

accurately simulate full-scale conditions. The pressure 

vessel was built at the Newport News Shipbuilding 

and Drydock Company and shipped to Langley by 

barge. The Variable Density Tunnel (VDT) became 

operational in 1923, and its results positioned Langley 

as a recognized leader in aerodynamics.

With its successes, the NACA was able to secure additional land from the Army and expand its research 

capability. The Propeller Research Tunnel (PRT) 

became operational in 1927 and was key to testing 

full-scale aircraft propellers along with their engines 

and fuselage shapes. The most significant result from 

testing in the PRT was the streamlined engine cowling, 

which reduced drag. In recognition of this important 

contribution, the NACA received the coveted Collier 

Trophy in 1929.

With the success of the PRT, Congress was favorable 

to the construction of the Full-Scale Tunnel (FST), so 

named due to its capability to test full-scale aircraft 

under powered conditions. Constructed during the 

Depression, it became operational in 1931 and, at 

that time, was the world’s largest wind tunnel. This 

tunnel became a major test facility for WWII–vintage 

military aircraft. Following that war, the tunnel was 

used for the testing of emerging concepts such as 

delta wings, free-flying models, and vertical takeoff 

and landing aircraft. With the formation of the Space 

Task Group at Langley and the beginning of Project 

Mercury, the FST entered the Space Age. Although it 

was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1985 

for its remarkable contributions, the oldest operating 

tunnel at Langley was demolished in 2010.

Another tunnel built during this time period as a 

Works Progress Administration (WPA) project was 

the 8-Foot High-Speed Tunnel. Built of reinforced 

concrete rather than welded steel, the tunnel was initially capable of Mach 0.75, but it was later modified 

to permit transonic testing. It was here that Richard 

Whitcomb conceived of aircraft modifications later 

tested in the 8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel, modifications that allowed aircraft to break the speed of 

sound and earned Whitcomb a Collier Trophy. (The 

8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel was built at the 

location of the former PRT.)

Other research facilities built by this time in the 

East Area were the Two-Dimensional Low-Turbulence 

Tunnel, the Two-Dimensional Low-Turbulence Pressure 

Tunnel, the Atmospheric Wind Tunnel (Tunnel One), 

the Rectangular High-Speed Tunnel (VDT), the 

19-Foot Pressure Tunnel, the 15-Foot Free-Spinning 

Tunnel, the 12-Foot Low-Speed Tunnel, hangars for 

flight research aircraft, and two Tow Tanks.

The NACA became concerned about the increase in 

aeronautical research in Europe as Hitler began his 

rise in power. They operated an office in Paris with 

the intention of conducting aeronautical espionage. 

Of particular concern were reports that Germany 

had nearly 2,000 well-trained personnel compared 

to 350 at LMAL. From this disparity came the recommendation to disperse our country’s capabilities 

to several locations and to expand the capabilities at 

Langley. Several years later, key Langley personnel 

moved to Moffett Field to start the second center, 

named for Joseph Ames. Then, in 1942, additional 

personnel moved to Lewis Field in Ohio to start the 

Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory, now known as 

Glenn Research Center.

Available space within the confines of the Army base 

at Langley had virtually disappeared by the time 

WWII started. The NACA began looking to the 

western side of the base and additional private land 

beyond that. Land was acquired in 1939 through the 

War Department, and by 1940, the Structures and 
16

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

Pre-1935 view of what is now referred to as the East Area—the land permitted by the Army for NACA use. (NASA photo)

Materials Research Facility was completed, making it 

the first building to be constructed in the West Area. 

It was quickly followed by the 16-Foot High-Speed 

Tunnel and the Stability Tunnel in 1941, the Impact 

Basin and the Model Supersonic Tunnel in 1942, 

and two 7- by 10-Foot Tunnels put into operation in 

1942 and 1945.

Previously criticized for an overemphasis on aerodynamics, the new facilities in the West Area included 

structures, materials, and propulsion in addition 

to wind tunnels. Research was often directed to 

broad structural issues rather than a specific aircraft. 

Significant contributions to aircraft during WWII 

included drag cleanup, revisions to pilot’s flight 

manuals based on testing of over 100 military prototypes, improved laminar-flow airfoils and boundary 

layer flow, aircraft ditching characteristics, and the 

value of innovative aircraft shapes such as swept wings. 

Catastrophic aircraft failures were thoroughly and 

quickly researched and modifications designed for 

immediate retrofit of military aircraft.

The demands of WWII had the largest impact on the 

personnel and facilities at Langley until the launch of 

the Russian Sputnik in 1957 and the start of the space 

race. The NACA had been dabbling in hypersonic 

flight already, but the urgency in responding to Sputnik 

had an immediate effect on the agency. In 1958, the 

NACA was dissolved and replaced by the National 
17

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

View of the West Area buildings in 1942. (NASA photo)

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The 

“new” Langley Research Center changed emphases to 

the space program, and the Space Task Group (STG) 

was formed. After a brief stay in the West Area, the 

35 STG members moved to the East Area, where they 

had offices in the first NACA Administration building. 

After extensive reviews, seven astronauts were chosen 

and shared an office on the second floor of the building that had been Tunnel One and the Atmospheric 

Wind Tunnel. The astronauts were joined by over 300 

other new personnel.

The space program during Project Mercury consumed 

about 64 percent of the total Langley workload, and 

the Apollo program would grow to even more. Work 

spanned most of the facilities across the Center and 

included tests of capsule models, design of reentry vehicles and heat-shield structures, development of control 

requirements and parachute recovery systems, studies of water landing behavior, all aspects of astronaut 

training, development of the couch used during launch 

and reentry, and the list goes on and on. Even though 

STG was moved to Houston, local enthusiasm for the 

program remained high, and Hampton renamed a 

road and six bridges for individual astronauts.

In 1961, while NASA was still working through the challenges involved in orbiting Earth, President Kennedy 

announced his ambitious goal to land a man on the 

Moon. This seemingly impossible task caught the team 
18

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

Comparison of West Area between 1949 and 1981 showing the expansion of the Center. (NASA image)

by surprise and led to a controversy within Langley. 

John Houbolt became one of the central figures of the 

Apollo program when his lunar-orbit rendezvous (LOR) 

concept was accepted against almost overwhelming 

criticism. Two facilities instrumental to this program 

were later designated National Historic Landmarks. The 

success of the chosen LOR strategy ultimately depended 

on whether the astronauts could learn to safely land the 

Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) on the Moon’s surface 

and return to orbit to dock with the mother ship. A 

large facility named the Lunar Lander Research Facility 

was designed and built to give astronauts and engineers 

a training platform to help them understand landing 

processes and provide critical hands-on training for the 

pilots. By the end of the Apollo program, 24 astronauts 

had trained for lunar missions at the facility. The other 

landmark is the Rendezvous Docking Simulator, housed 

in the ceiling of the hangar. There, astronauts trained in 
19

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

Lunar Landing Research Facility with simulated Moon surface used for astronaut training. (NASA photo)

docking procedures that they had to master in order to 

return to Earth.

In the summer of 1969, when Neil Armstrong landed 

on the Moon, few outside of the Hampton, Virginia, 

area thought about the research and development 

efforts of NASA Langley, which totaled over 300 

discrete projects. But without that work, historian 

James Hansen wrote, “an American lunar landing 

that summer day may not have been possible.”41

In 1985, the National Park Service conducted a Man 

in Space–themed study that led to the designation of 

five unique facilities at Langley as National Historic 

Landmarks. In another effort, the entire Center, plus 

the original NACA buildings on Langley Air Force 

Base, was listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register in 

2011 and the National Register of Historic Places in 

2012. This designation, plus Langley’s Programmatic 

Agreement with the Virginia Historic Preservation 

Office and Advisory Council of Historic Preservation, 

has been the motivation behind thoroughly documenting the Center’s history and salvaging artifacts for reuse 

in new construction or displays.

Langley has adopted an aggressive revitalization plan to 

consolidate its campus to a core area and includes the 

demolition of facilities that have outlived their usefulness. Advances in technology have played a major role 

in testing procedures and are a major consideration in 

the new face of NASA Langley. As we start another 

century of research, the challenges faced by those first 

pioneer researchers will be harder and harder to understand. In today’s world, it is hard to imagine life without 

computers, airplanes, and space exploration.

IN THE WORDS OF THOSE WHO WERE 

THERE: ORAL HISTORIES FROM THE 

NACA DAYS

By Rebecca Wright

Before NASA, there was the NACA, or National 

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, established in 

1915. Its original focus as designated by the federal 

government was for the advisory panel of 12 people 

“to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, with a view to their practical solutions.”42

During the next 43 years, with a more broadened purpose, the work of NACA members impacted aircraft 

developed for wars, commercial travel, and journeys 

beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

However, on 1 October 1958, with the birth of the 

nation’s space agency, the NACA began a quiet evolution 

at the four facilities where it had thrived. At the Langley, 

Ames, and Lewis (later Glenn) Research Centers, as 

well as at the High Speed Flight Station (later Dryden 

Flight Research Center and now Armstrong), NACA 

members transitioned easily to the new organization, 

NASA. They took their experience, their knowledge, 

their passion, and the traditions gained from working as 

41 James R. Hansen, Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley 

Research Center from Sputnik to Apollo (repr., London: 

Forgotten Books, 2013), pp. 390–391.

42 Naval Appropriations Act, 1916 (Public Law 271, 63rd 

Cong., 3rd sess., passed 3 March 1915 [38 Stat. 930]).
20

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

the NACA and used them to forge future achievements 

in American aviation and spaceflight.

This past summer, NASA Chief Historian Bill Barry 

challenged the Johnson Space Center (JSC) History 

Office to gather as much oral history as possible from 

surviving NACA employees in preparation for the centennial of the organization’s creation. The team from 

Houston has been facilitating oral history projects since 

1997, when JSC’s ongoing project first began.

To assist their effort, history offices at Langley, Glenn, 

and Ames provided lists of possible candidates for 

interviews and, if needed, space at the Centers to conduct interview sessions. Within three months, information from 34 NACA alumni had been collected. 

The questions focused on the day-to-day activities 

during their NACA years, seeking details about the 

tools, methods, and projects with which they were 

involved. If applicable, they were asked to share their 

thoughts about the impact of the transition to NASA 

on their jobs and careers.

The roles of the participants ranged from former highlevel decision-makers and engineers to mathematicians, photographers, technicians, and a nurse. As in 

all oral histories, the participants provided unique 

insights, but some similar themes emerged from the 

conversations as well.

The most prevalent centered on the belief that in order 

to succeed in their jobs, they had been given “freedom to fail.” By being allowed to test rigorously and 

research thoroughly, the engineers learned valuable 

lessons to apply in future tasks. They explained how 

they shared this acquired knowledge along with specifics from the results of their work in reports and 

technical memorandums, but only after following a 

“brutal and time-consuming” process.

As Hank Cole said, “NACA just did not put out 

false information—everything had to be checked and 

rechecked.” These reports were reviewed by the head 

of the editorial division only after being reviewed by 

committees that included “the author, and then you 

had an expert senior scientist on the field, as the chairman, and then they liked to get somebody in between, 

and then a junior, somebody just starting. The junior 

member would usually want to change the grammar, 

and then, of course, the others would question your 

mathematics and all that, and so forth. Editorial committees were a major, major thing.”

Many of these NACA documents served as standards 

for the aviation industry because the NACA was at 

the forefront of aviation research. For the employees, 

the extensive process proved to be a valuable method 

of information exchange and validation among those 

with experience and those being trained to become the 

next generation of experts.

No boundaries existed between NACA employees 

when meeting a common goal, they said. By working 

freely across divisions, they embraced a “cradle-tograve” methodology that allowed research engineers to 

be responsible for the design of the model, as well as its 

construction and installation, and finally to write the 

report about the results. On some occasions, a backof-the-envelope design would be taken directly to a 

machine shop for development. Thanks to this unique 

learning experience, those walking an idea through 

its life cycle understood the complete process, as well 

as the contributions of the other disciplines. Plus, all 

involved had an opportunity to build relationships 

with and gain a respect for others at the center.

During its time, the NACA attracted and recruited 

brilliant researchers from all over the country. Those 

interviewed for the oral history project talked about 

the leadership of these men and the value of working side by side with these mentors as their own 

careers were maturing. As part of the NACA culture, 

employees (new and long-term) learned from each 

other through hearty peer discussions and informal 

conversations, sometimes in lunchrooms, where the 

final solution became a product of the group. The 

NACA environment earned the reputation that any aviation issues tackled—minor or major—would achieve 
21

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

technical merits immensely important to aviation safety 

and efficiency.

In 1958, NACA centers became NASA facilities and 

employees across the Agency added another mission—

to take Americans to a new frontier beyond Earth’s orbit. 

When asked about the transition, Christopher C. Kraft, 

legendary aerospace engineer and former Director of 

Johnson Space Center, answered:

The N-A-S-A was still the N-A-C-A; they 

had just had additional duties called space. 

A whole new relationship then developed 

between the NASA government and the 

aerospace industry. Now, we were responsible for the hardware like the Air Force 

and the Navy were responsible for their 

hardware. [However], the NASA engineer 

was a very different animal than the people in the services—we knew technically 

as much about what they were doing as 

they did, and in some instances, more. 

Some instances, less, but our background, 

having been in the aerospace industry 

ourselves, was pretty good.

We had to develop a working relationship 

with the industry. That was a new relationship that had to develop as we wrote the 

RFPs [requests for proposals], evaluate[d] 

the RFPs, and then contracted for it and 

then built it. Building it and testing it and 

proving its systems, evaluations—that was 

a whole new set of engineering circumstances that we at NACA did not have. 

We had to learn how to do that. But it was 

beneficial to both sides, both the contractors and ourselves, and the truth of the 

matter is I think we probably saved lives. 

[And] that created a new set of engineers, 

which are called flight controllers.

Embedded in the transcripts, readers will find the 

pride the members of this illustrious organization 

continue to have knowing that the NACA legacy survives. They know that the NACA’s research techniques, 

improbable theories, and versatile methodologies 

introduced decades ago continue to serve as a foundation for many of the successes in modern aviation and 

aerospace technology.

The transcripts from these interviews have been posted 

online together with those gathered in two previous 

oral history projects, reflecting a significant contribution to the historical record for generations to come. 

To access the collection, visit http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/

history/oral_histories/naca.htm.

THE NACA’S INFLUENCE ON STENNIS 

SPACE CENTER

By Daphne Alford

NASA’s John C. Stennis Space Center was not even a dream when the National Advisory 

Committee for Aeronautics was established in 1915. 

As NACA’s centennial draws near, however, the 

nation’s largest rocket engine test center is a clear heir 

to the early group.

The NACA was created by Congress to “supervise and 

direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, 

with a view to their practical solutions.” For the next 

43 years, the NACA’s group of aeronautical engineers 

would engage in groundbreaking and fundamental 

work that still enables flight technologies of the 21st 

century. The NACA ceased to exist with the creation 

of NASA in 1958. However, Stennis Space Center not 

only is continuing in the spirit of the organization but 

builds on its legacy.

Since its creation in 1961, Stennis Space Center has 

evolved not only in size, but in expertise. Created to 

test the Apollo-era engines and rocket stages that carried humans to the Moon more than 40 years ago, the 
22

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

NASA engineers conduct a test of Project Morpheus’s HD4B-LT engine 

at the E-3 Test Stand at Stennis Space Center on 20–21 February 2014. 

(NASA photo)

large test stands at the site were retooled to test all of 

the main engines that powered Space Shuttle missions. 

They also have been adapted to test commercial and 

next-generation rocket engines and core stages, as well 

as engines and rocket stages for NASA’s Space Launch 

System, which will carry humans deeper into space 

than ever before.

Meanwhile, the site’s E Test Complex was built 

in the later 1980s and early 1990s with versatility 

and adaptability in mind. The three-stand complex 

includes seven separate test cells capable of supplying 

ultra-high-pressure gases and cryogenic fluids, using 

a variety of rocket propellants. The complex supports 

or has supported test projects with several commercial 

spaceflight companies, including Aerojet Rocketdyne’s 

AJ26 engines for Orbital Sciences Corporation, which 

is partnered with NASA to provide cargo resupply 

missions to the International Space Station. The E 

complex also supports innovative efforts, such as 

testing for NASA’s Project Morpheus to develop a 

prototype planetary lander that could evolve to carry 

cargo and technologies safely to space destinations 

such as asteroids or Mars.

In addition to those efforts, the Stennis federal city 

houses a variety of federal, state, academic, and 

private organizations, including Lockheed Martin 

and Rolls-Royce North American, which engage in a 

range of aeronautical research and test efforts.

A century ago, the NACA laid a foundation of innovation and excellence that enabled future advances in 

aviation and spaceflight. In the same way, Stennis Space 

Center supports and enables aeronautical and astronautical missions not only of today, but of days to come.
23

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

NEWS FROM HEADQUARTERS AND THE CENTERS

NASA HEADQUARTERS

WASHINGTON, DC

History Program Office

By Bill Barry

With the NACA centennial fast upon us, the preparations in the History Program Office have been 

in high gear all fall. In addition to coordinating the 

centennial symposium (3–4 March 2015 

at the National Air and Space Museum), 

we’ve been pushing the production of several centennial-related publications as well 

as Web content and social media. Work on 

all of this NACA centennial material has 

revealed (at least to me) the awkward truth 

that not only is the legacy of the NACA 

underappreciated, but our historical understanding of the NACA is pretty weak. This 

is not a result of a lack of data or records. 

There are many rich primary sources; it is 

just that they are relatively underexplored. 

As a result, good secondary sources and 

analysis are hard to come by. Given how 

the NACA was transformed into NASA, it 

is easy to see how the deep aeronautics research and 

engineering heritage was overlooked in the excitement 

of new missions and the growth in personnel and 

budgets. Nonetheless, one of the publications we are 

putting out for the centennial is an annotated bibliography on the NACA (produced for us by the Federal 

Research Division of the Library of Congress), and it 

is less than 40 pages long. The takeaway here is that 

there is a rich vein of largely unexplored aerospace 

history ripe for mining by historians now and yet to 

come. I hope that one of the results of our focus on 

the NACA centennial will be an increase in historical work on this important yet relatively underexplored subject.

In addition to the centennial and the continuing work 

of pushing a variety of publications out the door, 

we’ve made significant progress in 2014 toward some 

difficult, but not-so-obvious, long-term objectives. 

One of those is to get back into the practice of holding history program reviews on a regular basis. With 

all of the negative pressure on government travel from 

budget issues and sequestration (at least last year), we 

haven’t had a face-to-face meeting of NASA history 

and archival staff since November 2011 (when we 

met at Glenn Research Center). The Headquarters 

Office of Communications leadership has agreed to 

support a history program review in 2015, and we are 

working on those plans now. Another less-visible issue, 

but one that I’ve been concerned about for some time, 

is the lack of an archival/history program at Goddard 

Space Flight Center. Senior leadership at Goddard is 

very supportive, but the trick has been finding a way 

through the bureaucratic hoops to kick-start the program. We are now moving ahead with plans to establish an archival/reference collection program with the 

expert help of our own Chief Archivist Jane Odom. I 

see this as a key first step to an eventual full-fledged 

history program at Goddard. Internally, we are also 

working here at Headquarters to retool some of our 

own processes. This overhaul includes implementing 

a new software management tool for our publications, 

IN ADDITION TO THE CENTENNIAL AND 

THE CONTINUING WORK OF PUSHING 

A VARIETY OF PUBLICATIONS OUT 

THE DOOR, WE’VE MADE SIGNIFICANT 

PROGRESS IN 2014 TOWARD SOME 

DIFFICULT, BUT NOT-SO-OBVIOUS, 

LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES. 
24

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

one that should bring us into the 21st century for 

project management. As always, bureaucratic change 

is a challenge, but our focus on these priorities for the 

last couple of years is finally beginning to show fruit.

On the personnel front, there are also great things 

happening. As noted elsewhere in this edition, our 

team of civil servants and contractors won NASA 

Headquarters Honor Award recognition this fall. The 

archive renovation project here was a huge challenge, 

but excellent planning and some amazing teamwork 

have paid off in a great result. It was great to see the 

team get some well-deserved recognition. Some of you 

may have noticed that former intern Andres Almeida 

is back working for us part-time. We had a special 

project for him to work on related to coordinating 

volunteer efforts and making all of our publications 

available in PDF format. (At the moment, all NASA 

History publications are available online, but many 

of the earliest items were put online in HTML format only.) As usual, Andres has done a great job of 

dealing with some challenging problems with good 

humor and grace. We’ve also had the pleasure this fall 

of working with interns Amy Wallace and Nolan Lott. 

They have been indefatigable in a wide variety of tasks, 

but they have really done an amazing job of expanding 

and improving our social media impact. They have 

expanded our Flickr site (which now hosts the former 

GReat Images in NASA [GRIN] collection—now 

called NASA on the Commons—and much more), 

and they are getting our toe in the Instagram waters 

(as part of the larger NASA Instagram account). You 

can view our Flickr collection at https://www.flickr.com/

photos/nasacommons. One initiative that I’ve been particularly pleased with is our “Document of the Week” 

on our Facebook account. We are now highlighting 

some of the interesting treasures in our archival collections with a brief writeup on the significance of a 

document, along with a picture of it, once each week. 

This has been particularly helpful in drawing attention 

to the NACA as we head toward the centennial in 

March. It also doesn’t seem to have hurt our growth 

in readership. Our Facebook like count has gone from 

about 18,000 in January 2014 to over 2 million at the 

start of November. As I said, we have some amazing 

interns—well matched to an incredible staff.

Historical Reference Collection

By Jane H. Odom

The Headquarters Historical Reference Collection (HRC) reopened to NASA staff and the public 

on 10 September after nearly a year’s closure. The 

previous day, History Program Office staff held a 

grand reopening ceremony attended by nearly 100 

people from Headquarters, the National Air and 

Space Museum, and other local institutions. Since 

then, we have experienced a slow trickle of researchers 

who have come in person from institutions such as the 

National Air and Space Museum, the University of 

Pennsylvania, the Free University of Berlin, and York 

University in Toronto.

Jane Odom, Headquarters; Anne Mills, Glenn Research Center; and April Gage, 

Ames Research Center, enjoy networking and getting caught up between 

sessions at the Joint Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archivists, 

Council of State Archivists, and National Association of Government Archivists 

and Records Administrators, held in Washington, DC, in late August.

Our nearly 2,000-cubic-foot collection of archive 

materials and books has been returned safely and in 

good condition from an off-site warehouse. Best of all, 

our full complement of archive reference services has 

resumed, along with numerous processing and digitization projects. One project included a review of a 
25

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

half-dozen boxes of Federal Records Center materials 

on Shuttle-Mir and the International Space Station. 

After a historical appraisal, dozens of documents were 

copied and added to existing subject files in the HRC.

Also, we processed 2 cubic feet of Space Shuttle Decision

sources from author Tom Heppenheimer integrated 

them into a previously processed collection of his. The 

new portion consists of correspondence and reports 

from 1965 to 1983.

Additionally, nearly 400 PDFs were recently entered 

into the existing digital press conference collection. 

The collection includes a few human spaceflight and 

early Space Shuttle press conference transcripts; however, the bulk of the collection focuses on the Apollo 

program. We have added them to our internal database for use in answering reference questions and plan 

also to add them to our external reference collection 

site at https://mira.hq.nasa.gov/history/.

AMES RESEARCH CENTER (ARC)

Moffett Field, California

By Glenn Bugos

Continuing celebrations of the 75th anniversary of the founding of Ames showed the vibrancy in the 

long legacy and culture of Ames. The Ames Exchange, 

our employee organization, hosted an Ames family 

picnic on 7 August on the parade ground of Moffett 

Field. In addition to Ames staff and their families, 

many retirees came to reunite with the people they 

had worked with over the years. A memory wall 

of historical photographs invited everyone to jot 

a note on where they had been at that point in 

Ames history. Adjacent to the picnic, many of the 

900 interns who worked at Ames over the summer 

stood by posters describing their research work and 

fielded questions, some no doubt from those scientists and engineers who had pioneered the field 

years before. The day was a beautiful display of past, 

present, and future.

Top: Harvey Allen at Ames. At the Ames family picnic, the TechEdSat CubeSat 

team from San Jose State University, pictured with their mentor Marc Murbach 

(with graying hair), posed with a cutout of Ames celebrity Harvey Allen, the 

intellectual progenitor of all reentry technology. Bottom: Kay Twitchell (r) and 

Carolina Rudisel (l), queens of the Ames 75th anniversary celebrations, pose, 

like so many of the Ames family that day, with head cutouts of Ames luminaries. 

(NASA Ames photo)

The Collings Foundation visits Moffett Field and keeps history alive by offering 

rides in aircraft like the B-17, the B-21, and the P-51. (NASA Ames photo)
26

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

As part of its 75th anniversary celebration, Ames installed exhibits in storefronts, 

eateries, and public buildings in downtown Mountain View and Sunnyvale to 

bring the excitement of space exploration to the Center’s closest neighbors. 

This one shows the evolution of the Chemistry and Mineralogy instrument on 

the Mars Science Laboratory. (NASA Ames photo)

At the Ames family picnic, attendees sign a commemorative banner and, on 

a wall of historical photos, write comments on where they were at important 

points in the Center’s past. (NASA Ames photo)

The Directors Colloquia series during the summer 

of our 75th anniversary took a historical tone, notably with talks by Lew Braxton, reviewing his rise 

through the ranks at Ames, and by newly selected 

Ames Associate Fellow Raj Venkatapathy, reviewing 

the history of reentry technology. In addition, Jack 

Boyd met with a local history group, the Mountain 

View Historical Society, to tell them how our Center 

has grown up along with their town. Also, Jack and 

Glenn Bugos sat and signed copies of the Ames history 

book, which provided a great chance to jot thank-you 

notes to many people for their role in making the 

recent history of NASA Ames so exciting.

ARMSTRONG FLIGHT RESEARCH 

CENTER (AFRC)

Edwards Air Force Base, California

By Christian Gelzer

The Mate–De-mate Device (MDD) at AFRC was the first such structure built to load and unload 

the Space Shuttle from the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, 

predating a second MDD at Kennedy Space Center 

(KSC) by 18 months to accommodate the arrival of 

Enterprise and the atmospheric flight-testing done at 

the Center. The first orbiter had to be trucked from 

Rockwell’s site in Palmdale to the Center because 

there was no lifting structure at Plant 42, but once the 

orbiter was at AFRC, the MDD came into play every 

time Enterprise was loaded onto the 747.

In contrast to the later MDD built at Kennedy, 

Armstrong’s MDD was designed to be transportable: 

“all components of the facility, including the structural framing, platforms, machinery, electrical systems, 

mechanical (plumbing), etc., [were to] be designed 

and detailed for erection and disassembly into units 

for transport on either trucks or C-5 cargo planes to 
27

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

Columbia sits in the Mate–De-mate Device at the Dryden Flight Research 

Center (now Armstrong) being serviced following its first orbital mission. 

Attached by umbilical hoses to the Shuttle’s aft are the purge and cooling 

units. The Shuttle Carrier Aircraft sits on the taxiway waiting to be pulled in 

and under the orbiter once it is lifted for attachment. Arrayed in a long line 

at the bottom of the photo are 11 immense concrete blocks of specific 

weight, used in combination each year to load-test the MDD and validate 

its lifting capacity.

relocation and routine reassembly at a different site.”1

For many years, it retained that capability even though 

it was never disassembled. The one time a Shuttle 

landed “out” (on Northrup Strip at White Sands, New 

Mexico), NASA opted to send in large cranes to do the 

heavy lifting. Eventually, the disassembly feature was 

welded over.

Unlike the MDD at Kennedy, where the orbiters typically spent little time, Armstrong’s MDD usually had 

orbiters hanging in it for a week or more while the 

crew (120 or so from KSC) worked around the clock 

preparing it for its final lift onto the Shuttle Carrier 

Aircraft’s back, followed by its cross-country flight. 

Attaching the tail-cone fairing was one of the final 

tasks, and although it would appear simple, the work 

could go from a 6-hour job into a daylong battle. The 

orbiters were custom vehicles, after all.

With the Space Shuttle Program complete, there is 

no further use for such a unique structure, so the 

MDD is being disassembled—finally—albeit with 

cutting torches. Once part of the tallest structure at 

Armstrong, with a grand view of everything around, 

the MDD’s high-quality steel will eventually be part 

of new buildings and bridges.

GLENN RESEARCH CENTER (GRC)

Cleveland, Ohio

By Anne Mills

Glenn Research Center will celebrate its 75th anniversary in January 2016, and in preparation, 

we are working to enhance access to our collections. 

This quarter, nearly 100 oral history audio tapes were 

digitized and transcribed. These include many retiree 

interviews undertaken as part of recent book projects. 

Additionally, and also in preparation for the 2015 

NACA Centennial, many of the Annual Inspection 

Volumes have been scanned and made searchable. 

These are invaluable resources, as they serve as miniature time capsules, concisely explaining research at the 

Center in a consolidated format for each year.

Ten pieces of original artwork from our archival collection were on display at the 2014 Cleveland Ingenuity 

Festival. The pieces, by retired technical illustrator 

Les Bossinas, are conceptual portrayals of living and 

working in space. The IngenuityFest celebrates the 

intersection of technology and art. The festival has 

been celebrated annually in Cleveland since 2005 as 

a weekendlong festival of performances, demonstrations, special art installations, and talks.

1 Joan Deming and Patricia Slovinac, archaeological consultants, and Karen J. Weitze, Weitze Research, “Survey and 

Evaluation of NASA-Owned Historic Facilities and Properties 

in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program: Hugh L. 

Dryden Flight Research Center,” November 2007.
28

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY (JPL)

Pasadena, California

By Erik Conway

Kate McManus (left) and Julie Cooper (right) with the Ranger 7 50th 

anniversary exhibit.

Summer Intern

During her nine-week internship with the JPL Archives, Kate McManus created an inventory 

of JPL photo resources. The 19,000-item spreadsheet identifies what has been digitized, where the t files are stored, and which images exist only as hard 

copies that can’t be easily accessed by researchers. She 

also performed a test-scanning project to help the 

Archives plan future digitization projects and create 

new digital finding aids. She inventoried 7 cubic 

feet of documents, photographs, and ephemera and 

fully processed one small collection. She also used 

her knowledge of the photo collection and Russian 

language skills to assist with several research requests. 

Kate returned to St. Catherine University in St. Paul, 

Minnesota, to complete the final year of her master’s 

degree in library science with a focus in archives.

Ranger 7 50th Anniversary Exhibit

Julie Cooper and intern Kate McManus created an

exhibit for the Ranger 7 50th anniversary week. The 

centerpiece of the exhibit was a 1/6-scale Ranger Block 

III model, along with archival documents and a 

large-format slide show that included photographs 

and information that told the story of the Ranger 

missions and how spacecraft models were used 

in the 1960s. When the model was discovered in 

storage, the omnidirectional antenna on top of 

the model was missing, so the Archives provided 

drawings and photographs to JPL, where the staff 

created a replacement antenna on a 3D printer. The 

exhibit will soon be added to the Archives exhibit 

Web page at http://beacon.jpl.nasa.gov/exhibits.

Members of the Ranger 7 television experiment team stand near a scale 

model of the Ranger spacecraft and lunar globe, which were used to visualize 

he spacecraft and its orientation as it reached the Moon. From left: Ewen 

Whitaker (research associate at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the 

University of Arizona, Tucson), Dr. Gerard Kuiper (director of the Lunar and 

Planetary Laboratory), and Ray Heacock (Lunar and Planetary Instruments 

section chief at JPL).
29

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

OTHER AEROSPACE HISTORY NEWS

NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM 

(NASM)

By Michael Neufeld

Hubble’s Legacy: Reflections by Those Who Dreamed It, 

Built It, and Observed the Universe with It (Smithsonian 

Institution Scholarly Press, 2014), edited by Roger 

Launius (NASM Associate Director; also Space 

History) and David DeVorkin (Space History), was 

just published. The book is based upon papers given 

at a conference in November 2009 at the National 

Air and Space Museum, celebrating the return and 

display of the Hubble Space Telescope’s (HST’s) 

Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement 

(COSTAR) and Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 

(WFPC2) instruments, “the instruments that saved 

Hubble.” The conference covered three phases of the 

HST’s history and legacy and consisted of talks given 

by those directly involved in each of the phases: 1) the 

conceiving and selling of the idea of a large, orbiting, 

optical telescope to astronomers, NASA, and the U.S. 

Congress, followed by its creation as the HST and its 

definition as a serviceable mission; 2) its launch, the 

discovery of the flawed mirror, the engineering of the 

mirror fix, subsequent servicing missions, decisions 

on upgrades, and the controversy over a “final” servicing mission; and 3) the HST’s public image after 

launch—how the mirror fix changed its public image, 

how the HST then changed the way we visualize the 

universe, and how the public saved the final HST servicing mission. The conference was made possible by 

support from Ball Aerospace, and the proceedings, to 

be published in hard copy later this year, are available 

now as a free e-book at http://opensi.si.edu/index.php/

smithsonian/catalog/book/57.

The 11-foot-long Starship Enterprise studio model 

that was used in filming the original Star Trek television series (NBC, 1966–69) has been taken off display 

in NASM’s Mall museum. Artifact curator Margaret 

Weitekamp (Space History) supervised its removal for 

conservation in preparation for its new display location in the renovated Boeing Milestones of Flight Hall, 

which will open in July 2016. Displayed beginning in 

September 1974 in the Arts and Industries Building’s 

“Life in the Universe” exhibit, this significant cultural 

icon has been exhibited in various locations in the 

museum since that building’s opening in July 1976, 

although it has also been off display occasionally. 

Since March 2000, it had been in a custom-built display case on the lower level of the museum’s store. The 

Enterprise model will not be on public view while it 

is being evaluated and treated. It was moved to the 

Emil Buehler Conservation Laboratory at the Steven 

F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia. The final 

plan for the model’s treatment will depend upon what 

is found during the physical examination of the artifact. Check the Boeing Milestones of Flight Hall Web 

site (http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/milestones-offlight/online/) and follow the museum on social media 

for updates on the treatment of the Enterprise model 

and the other artifacts in the Boeing Milestones of 

Flight Hall.

Five NASM historians presented papers at the 12th 

Annual Conference of the International Association 

for the History of Transport, Traffic and Mobility 

(T2M) held at Drexel University in Philadelphia, 

18–21 September. For the conference theme, “Spinoffs 

of Mobility: Technology, Risk, and Innovation,” Roger 

Launius and Valerie Neal (Space History), joined 

by Matt Hersch, presented a session on space travel. 

Dom Pisano, Roger Connor, and Bob van der Linden 

(all Aeronautics Division) presented a session titled 

“Risk and the Unintended Consequences of Aviation 

Technology.” Their topics ranged from railroads and 

the Space Shuttle to 9/11, aerial bootlegging, and 

air crimes. Titles and abstracts can be found at http://

www.t2m.org/conferences/2014-philadelphia.

As curator of Robert Goddard’s Smithsonian artifacts, Michael Neufeld (Space History) participated 
30

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

in an event honoring him in Roswell, New Mexico, 

17–18 October 2014, titled “Goddard, Dreams, 

Hopes and Reality: Aiming for the Stars” (http://

robertgoddard.org/). Among other things, he spoke 

on the topic of “Robert Goddard and Wernher 

von Braun.”

AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY 

(AAS) HISTORY COMMITTEE

By Michael Ciancone, Chair

The recipients of the 2013 Emme Award for 

Astronautical Literature are Chris Impey and Holly 

Henry for Dreams of Other Worlds: The Amazing Story 

of Unmanned Space Exploration (Princeton University 

Press). Members of the Emme Review Panel included 

Dr. Rick Sturdevant, Dr. De Witt Kilgore, Dr. Asif 

Siddiqi, and Michael Ciancone.

De Gruyter Oldenbourg is publishing the Englishlanguage translation of Hermann Oberth’s seminal work, Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen [The 

Rocket into Planetary Space] (Oldenbourg, 1925). In 

anticipation of the publication of the translation, 

De Gruyter Oldenbourg also reissued the original 

German-language edition. Dr. Trevor Sorensen 

led the translation and editorial effort for the AAS 

History Committee, supported by a team of specialists that included Dr. Joachim Kehr (German 

Aerospace Center/German Space Operations Center, 

retired), Dr. Rick Sturdevant (Air Force Space 

Command), Dr. Peter Englert (University of Hawaii 

at Manoa), Michael Ciancone (NASA), Lars Oliefka 

(European Space Agency), and Joni Wilson (copy 

editor extraordinaire).

As a result of the persistence and diligence of series 

editor Dr. Rick Sturdevant, and with the efforts of 

volume editors Christophe Rothmund and Kerrie 

Dougherty, as well as copy editor Joni Wilson, Univelt 

has published the 2009 and 2010 proceedings in the 

International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) History 

Series. Subsequent volumes in the series are at various 

stages in the publishing pipeline.

SOCIETY FOR HISTORY IN THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT (SHFG)

Call for Papers—Federal History Journal

Federal History, the journal of the Society for 

History in the Federal Government, seeks articles 

for its January 2016 issue. Federal History features 

scholarship on the history of the federal government, including military history, 1776–present. We 

welcome manuscripts from SHFG members and 

others working in the federal government, as well 

as independent scholars and historians working in 

public history and academia. Visit http://shfg.org/shfg/

publications/federal-history-journal/ for the current 

issue, past issues, and details on submissions, which 

should be sent to editor-shfg-journal@shfg.org.

NASA FELLOWSHIP RECIPIENTS

In conjunction with the Society for the History of 

Technology (SHOT), the History of Science Society 

(HSS), and the American Historical Association 

(AHA), NASA History funds fellowships for doctoral 

candidates and those who hold a doctorate, the goal of 

which is to assist scholars at all stages of their careers 

by supporting a range of research and writing projects 

to promote a better understanding of how public and 

private aerospace has reshaped the world from the 

beginnings of human flight to the present.

The History of Science Society Fellowship in the 

History of Space Science funds a nine-month research 

project, related to any aspect of the history of space 

science, from the earliest human interest in space to 

the present. Jordan Bimm, a doctoral candidate at 

Canada’s York University, is the 2014–15 HSS-NASA 

Fellow. The award will provide $21,000 in funding for 
31

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

the research phase of Bimm’s dissertation, “Making 

Astronauts: Subject Formation and Early American 

Space Medicine, 1949–1961.” Bimm is the first 

scholar at a Canadian institution to receive the award.

The AHA Fellowship in Aerospace History is offered 

annually to support a significant scholarly research 

project in aerospace history 

and provides the Fellow with 

an opportunity to engage in 

advanced research in all aspects 

of the history of aerospace, from 

the earliest human interest in 

flight to the present, including 

cultural and intellectual history, 

economic history, the history of 

law and public policy, and the history of science, engineering, and 

management. Brian M. Jirout is 

this year’s recipient. His research 

project is entitled “One Space Age 

Development for the World: The 

American Landsat Civil Remote 

Sensing Program in Use, 1964–

2014.” Jirout is researching the 

political and international history 

of NASA’s Landsat Earth observation satellite program during and after the Cold War. 

His study traces the evolution of the program from 

an experimental project into a commercial venture, 

which became suspended in political debate between 

the national security establishment and the scientific 

community. He situates Landsat internationally as an 

instrument of foreign relations that fostered the use of 

remote sensing technology abroad through data packages, expertise, and ground stations. Jirout suggests 

that the Landsat program is a useful case study for 

understanding science and technology policy change 

since the 1960s.

The NASA Fellowship in the History of Space 

Technology, offered by SHOT, funds a Fellow for an 

academic year. The Fellowship may support advanced 

research related to all aspects of space history, leading 

to publications on the history of space technology 

broadly considered, including cultural and intellectual history, institutional history, economic history, 

the history of law and public policy, and the history 

of engineering and management. The recipient of this 

year’s Fellowship is Elizabeth A. Kessler, whose project is entitled “Time Capsules: Postcards for Aliens 

or Prescriptions for Cosmic 

Citizenship.” In her proposed 

project, Dr. Kessler takes an 

innovative approach to the ways 

in which science and technology—in this case, rockets, space 

probes, and satellites—have been 

deployed to shape a kind of “cosmic citizenship.” She explores 

the creation, contents, and composition of three particular time 

capsules produced in the past 75 

years (1939, 1977, and 2012), 

each of which she conceptualizes as artifacts moving not only 

through time but also through 

cosmic space. The principal conceit of her project is to use these 

time capsules to critically examine expectations about science 

and technology and their embodiment in material 

culture at particular moments of time. In doing this, 

she seeks to uncover how these time capsules were 

meant “to reconcile science and technology with 

the demands of cosmic citizenship.” The seemingly 

disparate subjects of her study highlight one of the 

strengths of Dr. Kessler’s project: it juxtaposes historical episodes that scholars have not typically studied 

in tandem. Her project promises to be a superb and 

valuable addition to the literature on material culture, the history of spaceflight, and conceptions of 

“cosmic citizenship.”

THE AHA FELLOWSHIP 

IN AEROSPACE 

HISTORY IS 

OFFERED ANNUALLY 

TO SUPPORT A 

SIGNIFICANT 

SCHOLARLY 

RESEARCH PROJECT 

IN AEROSPACE 

HISTORY. 
32

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

REVIEW: THE ENIGMA OF AN AEROFOIL

By Robert A. Ormiston, Emeritus Scientist, U.S. Army Aviation 

Development Directorate, Aeroflightdynamics Directorate (Research, 

Development, and Engineering Command) at Moffett Field, California

One of the enduring fascinations of flight is the 

mystery of how an airplane wing generates lift to 

overcome the force of gravity. David Bloor’s The 

Enigma of the Aerofoil: Rival Theories in Aerodynamics, 

1909–1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 

2011) tells the story of the emergence, in the earliest 

days of aviation, of two rival scientific theories about 

the aerodynamic lift of an airfoil 

moving through a fluid. The “discontinuity theory” was championed by British researchers led by 

the British Advisory Committee 

for Aeronautics (ACA), formed 

in 1909 and chaired by Lord 

Rayleigh. The ACA was the model 

for the American NACA in 1915. 

The “circulation theory” was 

developed by German researchers 

more or less under the leadership 

of Ludwig Prandtl. The mathematical models embodied in the 

two theories were radically different, but the German circulation 

theory compared far better with 

contemporary experimental measurements than the British discontinuity theory. Nevertheless, the 

British continued their efforts to 

advance the discontinuity theory 

and, for nearly 20 years, rejected 

the German approach as insufficiently rigorous from a 

mathematical perspective. Ultimately, the circulation 

theory prevailed while the discontinuity theory was all 

but forgotten.

The book is aimed at unraveling why the rivalry arose, 

what sustained it, and how it was resolved. The author 

has done a remarkable job of uncovering key factors 

that explain the two different approaches and why 

the British resisted the circulation theory. This is an 

impressive scholarly work that includes extensive 

notes and bibliography.

In a nutshell, the author attributes the rivalry to the 

differences in the culture, socialization, and institutions of the two groups. In particular, the British 

researchers, steeped in the tradition of mathematical 

physics (Cambridge academics), could not accept 

an abstract circulation model 

that ignored real-fluid viscosity, 

despite the fact that it greatly 

complicated the problem. And 

in fact, viscosity would not be 

introduced until the advent of 

supercomputers. The Germans, 

coming from the tradition of 

technical mechanics, recognized 

circulatory flow as a reasonable abstraction that enabled 

an approximate, but eminently 

acceptable, inviscid potential flow 

model, which would be useful in 

actually designing aircraft.

In this very readable book, the 

author expertly guides the reader 

through the complex subtleties 

(and even some underlying mathematics) of basic fluid mechanics. 

In addition, the author examines 

the seminal contemporary work 

to illustrate and explain how the pioneers teased out 

the secrets of airfoil lift, not unlike a good detective 

story. The author brings historical figures to life in a 

way that enables a better appreciation of their individual approaches and the magnitude of the overall scientific achievement. For me—a practicing aerospace 

researcher rather than a historian of science—the book 

IN THIS VERY 

READABLE BOOK,

THE AUTHOR 

EXPERTLY GUIDES 

THE READER 

THROUGH THE 

COMPLEX SUBTLETIES 

(AND EVEN SOME 

UNDERLYING 

MATHEMATICS) 

OF BASIC FLUID 

MECHANICS. 
33

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

revealed fascinating details of the works of Rayleigh, 

Frederick Lanchester, Martin Wilhelm Kutta, Nikolai 

Joukowsky, George Hartley Bryan, Prandtl, and 

Albert Betz, among others, as well as key British 

experimenters, and also revealed how the fundamental 

theories underpinning modern aerodynamics were 

discovered and experimentally verified. In the process, it deepened my understanding and appreciation 

of airfoil aerodynamics, even after a lifetime spent 

exploring aerodynamics.

Bloor’s work illustrates once again that scientific discovery is typically a messy and contentious process, 

with researchers fighting to unravel nature’s mysteries. 

Modern students of aerodynamics, struggling to grasp 

the ever elusive logic of circulation theory, might 

be comforted by reading The Enigma of the Aerofoil

because it will help them to realize that some of the 

leading pioneers of fluid mechanics struggled as well. 

Evidence of such struggles is so often absent in textbooks written after the arguments are (mostly) settled.

In sum, The Enigma of the Aerofoil is an outstanding 

and important contribution to the history and science of aeronautics.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS AND ONLINE RESOURCES

UPCOMING NASA PUBLICATIONS

The NACA: An Annotated Bibliography, compiled 

by Alice R. Buchalter and Patrick M. Miller of the 

Federal Research Division, Library of Congress 

(Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 55, NASA 

SP-2014-4555). A limited number of hard copies 

will be printed, and the monograph will be available 

as a free download in early 2015.

The NACA and NASA at the Century Mark, by Roger 

Launius (NASA SP-2015-4416). In the tradition of 

Orders of Magnitude and Testing Aircraft, Exploring 

Space, former NASA Chief Historian Roger Launius 

provides a short, popular history of the NACA and 

NASA to mark the centennial of the establishment of 

the NACA. The book will be available in early 2015.

Emblems of Exploration: Logos of the NACA and NASA, 

by Joseph R. Chambers and Mark A. Chambers 

(Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 56, NASA 

SP-2015-4556). Joe Chambers (NASA Langley, 

retired) and his son Mark have dug into the history of 

NACA and NASA emblems and logos and found some 

fascinating stories behind the insignia that we all think 

we know. This heavily illustrated monograph will be 

available in early 2015.

COMMERCIALLY PUBLISHED WORKS

Compiled by Chris Gamble

Curiosity: An Inside Look at the Mars Rover Mission 

and the People Who Made It Happen, by Rod Pyle 

(Prometheus Books, July 2014). The author provides a behind-the-scenes look into the mission of 

the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity—the robotic 

rover that is now providing researchers with unprecedented information about the Red Planet. Drawing 

on his contacts at NASA and the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory, the author provides stunning insights 

into how an enthusiastic and diverse team uses a revolutionary onboard laboratory of chemistry, geology, 

and physics instruments to unravel the profound 

secrets of Mars.
34

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

DK Eyewitness Books: Space Exploration, by Carole Stott 

(DK CHILDREN, August 2014). An informative 

guide to the mysteries beyond Earth and its atmosphere, DK Eyewitness Books: Space Exploration takes 

young readers on a journey through the solar system 

and highlights advancements in space technology. 

Discover how satellites help us forecast the weather, 

how the Large Space Simulator is used to test spacecraft, what happens at liftoff and blastoff, and how 

the landing craft probes and explores planets. Learn 

about a day in the life of an astronaut, including how 

a special sleeping bag helps the astronaut to sleep in 

weightless conditions, how astronauts repair an orbiting spacecraft from the outside, and how an astronaut’s 

body is affected upon reentering Earth’s atmosphere 

in this updated edition of a best-selling title from the 

Eyewitness series.

Fifty Years of European Cooperation in Space: Building 

on Its Past, ESA Shapes the Future, by John Krige 

(Beauchesne Editeur, June 2014). This book details 

50 years of European collaboration in space, from 

the origins of the program in 1964 to its rich complexity today. The book charts the early moves by 

scientific statesmen and governments to establish 

not one, but two organizations: the European Space 

Research Organisation (ESRO) for science and later 

applications and the European Launcher Development 

Organisation (ELDO) for launchers. Krige explores 

how tight financial constraints on ESRO, the tribulations of ELDO’s launcher, and a major tilt toward 

close technological cooperation with NASA in the 

early 1970s led to the formation of a single organization in 1975, the European Space Agency (ESA).

Final Frontier: The Pioneering Science and Technology 

of Exploring the Universe, by Brian Clegg (St. Martin’s 

Press, August 2014). Star Trek was right—there is only 

one final frontier, and that is space. This book describes 

the massive challenges that face explorers, both human 

and robotic, in uncovering the current and future technologies that could take us out into the galaxy on a 

voyage of discovery where no one has gone before...but 

one day someone will. In a time of recession, escapism 

is always popular—and what greater escape from the 

everyday can there be than the chance of leaving Earth 

and exploring the universe? With a rich popular cultural heritage found in science fiction movies, books, 

and TV shows, this is a subject that entertains and 

informs in equal measure.

Flying the Beam: Navigating the Early US Airmail 

Airways, 1917–1941, by Henry R. Lehrer (Purdue 

University Press, July 2014). With air travel a regular 

part of daily life in North America, most tend to take 

the infrastructure that makes it possible for granted. 

However, the systems, regulations, and technologies 

of civil aviation are in fact the product of decades 

of experimentation and political negotiation, much 

of it connected to the development of airmail as the 

first commercially sustainable use of airplanes. From 

the lighted airways of the 1920s through the radio 

navigation system in place by the time of World War 

II (WWII), this book explores the conceptualization 

and ultimate construction of the nation’s first airways 

systems. The book traces the development of the aeronautical navigation of the United States airmail airways from 1917 to 1941. Chronologically organized, 

the book draws on period documents, pilot memoirs, 

and archival material to trace the development of the 

system. The author shows how visual cross-country 

navigation, possible only in good weather, was developed into all-weather “blind flying.” The daytime 

techniques of “following railroads and rivers” were supplemented by a series of lighted beacons (later replaced 

by radio towers) crisscrossing the country to allow the 

nighttime transit of long-distance routes, such as the 

one between New York and San Francisco. Although 

today’s airway system extends far beyond the continental United States and is based on digital technologies, 

the way pilots navigate from place to place basically 

uses the same infrastructure and procedures that were 

pioneered almost a century earlier.

From Lysander to Lightning: Teddy Petter, Aircraft 

Designer, by Glyn Davies (The History Press, June 

2014). Lysander, Canberra, Lightning, and Folland 

Gnat are massive names in the world of aviation, but 
35

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

less well known is their designer, William Edward 

Willoughby “Teddy” Petter. Only three aspects bound 

together these top-class aircraft: each was radical, all 

were successful in Britain and overseas, and were all 

born of the genius of Teddy Petter. This book tells 

the story of Petter’s life and family, from his ability to 

inspire loyalty in his teams, to his eccentricities, to his 

retirement to a religious commune in France. Here 

Davies not only explores Petter’s life but also expands 

on the nature of his remarkable aircraft and why they 

were so legendary.

Here Be Dragons: The Rise of SpaceX and the Journey to 

Mars, by Stewart Money (Apogee Prime, August 2014). 

From its earliest trials and near-disaster on the remote 

Pacific atoll of Kwajalein to four successful missions to 

the International Space Station, Here Be Dragons vividly details the first era of SpaceX. The story is also one 

of a unique public-private partnership with NASA that 

holds the promise of a new era of space exploration.

How To Find the Apollo Landing Sites: Everything 

You Need To Know, by James Chen and Adam Chen 

(Springer, June 2014). This book is for anyone who 

wants to be able to connect the history of lunar 

exploration to the Moon visible above. It addresses 

what Apollo equipment and experiments were left 

behind and what the Apollo landings sites look like 

now. Each Apollo mission is examined in detail, with 

photos that progressively zoom in to guide the reader 

in locating the Apollo landing sites. Guided by official 

NASA photographs from the Lunar Reconnaissance 

Orbiter and the original Apollo missions, the reader 

can view the Moon with a new appreciation of the 

accomplishment of landing astronauts on its surface. 

Countless people have gazed at the Moon in the night 

sky knowing the successes of the Apollo program in 

landing humans on the Moon. Using the information 

in this guide, casual and serious observers can point 

out where the Apollo landings occurred and learn why 

those sites were chosen.

Howard’s Whirlybirds: Howard Hughes’s Amazing 

Pioneering Helicopter Exploits, by Donald J. Porter 

(Fonthill Media, September 2014). Covering the 

period from World War II until the mid-1980s, this 

story is rich with tales of technological breakthroughs 

and test-flying bravado made possible by a small crew 

of engineers and daring pilots. Written by a technical 

expert and industry insider, the book is a fascinating 

and alternative view on the phenomenal pioneer, complete with previously unpublished photographs and 

material that will fascinate the aviation and military 

historian, as well as the casual reader and cinema buff.

Hubble’s Legacy: Reflections by Those Who Dreamed It, 

Built It, and Observed the Universe with It, edited by 

Roger D. Launius and David DeVorkin (e-book and 

print edition, Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 

August 2014). As mentioned in the “Other News” section of this newsletter, the development and operation 

of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) have resulted 

in many rich legacies, most particularly in science and 

technology—but in culture as well. It is also the first 

telescope in space that has been utilized as effectively 

as if it were situated on a mountaintop here on Earth, 

accessible for repair and improvement when needed. 

This book, which includes contributions from historians of science, key scientists and administrators, and 

one of the principal astronauts who led many of the 

telescope’s servicing missions, captures the history of 

this iconic instrument.

Into the Unknown Together: The DOD, NASA, and Early 

Spaceflight, by Mark Erickson and Air University Press 

(reprint of original 2005 edition, Military Bookshop, 

August 2014). Colonel Erickson examines the use 

of space exploration as a tool to secure international 

prestige and national pride as part of the Cold War 

struggle with the Soviet Union during the Eisenhower, 

Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. He looks at the 

creation of NASA, the evolving NASA–Department of 

Defense (DOD) relationship, and the larger context 

in which this relationship was forged. He focuses on 

the human-spaceflight projects—Projects Mercury, 

Gemini, and Apollo; Dyna-Soar; and the Manned 

Orbiting Laboratory—by examining the geopolitical, 

domestic political, and bureaucratic environments in 
36

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

which decisions concerning these projects were made. 

By blending in the individuals involved, the obstacles that were overcome, and the achievements of 

the United States space program, Erickson reveals 

a special transformation that took place during this 

chapter of American history. This work was originally published in 2006.

The Iranian Space Endeavor—Ambitions and Reality, by 

Parviz Tarikhi (Springer-Praxis, September 2014). For 

those who see the trend of progress and movement of 

the Iranian space endeavor from the outside, it can be 

difficult to understand what goes on behind the scenes. 

However, for one who observes these events firsthand, 

they take on a very different meaning. In this book, the 

author brings new and different profiles of Iran’s space 

endeavor to light. Iran claims to be the ninth leading 

country in the world capable of manufacturing satellites and launching them, plans to land an astronaut on 

the Moon within a decade, and says its own president 

plans to be the first Iranian astronaut to travel into 

space. The author reveals in this book that not all of 

these claims are quite as they seem. In addition to technical explanations, the book includes historical, legal, 

social, and cultural aspects of Iran’s space program.

Mars Up Close: Inside the Curiosity Mission, by Marc 

Kaufman (National Geographic, August 2014). 

National Geographic and science journalist Marc 

Kaufman combines inside stories, fascinating facts, 

and eye-popping pictures (some never before seen) of 

the Red Planet and NASA’s groundbreaking Curiosity 

mission. For pop science, space, and technology lovers, 

Mars Up Close takes you inside the Curiosity mission, 

showcasing the people, science, and stories central to 

this unprecedented exploration of Mars.

The Meaning and Value of Spaceflight: Public Perceptions, 

by William Sims Bainbridge (Springer, September 

2014). This book presents a comprehensive study of 

American public perceptions about the meaning of 

space exploration by analyzing vast troves of questionnaire data collected by many researchers and polling 

firms over a span of six decades. It does not simply 

report the percentages about who held various opinions but employs sophisticated statistical techniques 

to answer profound questions and achieve fresh discoveries. Since the end of the space race between the 

United States and the Soviet Union, social scientists 

have almost completely ignored space exploration as a 

topic for serious analysis, and this book seeks to rectify 

that lack of study.

Michoud Assembly Facility (Images of America), by 

Cindy Donze Manto (Arcadia Publishing, September 

2014). Prior to WWII, the site of the future Michoud 

Assembly Facility was used to grow sugar, hunt muskrat, and build railroad and telephone lines. In 1941, 

the world’s largest industrial site was built there, covering 43 acres of unobstructed, low-humidity, air-cooled 

space under one roof to construct C-46 cargo planes. 

The Korean War required the assembly of Sherman and 

Patton tanks there, while the space race compelled the 

design and assembly of the colossal Saturn I, IB, and 

V rocket boosters for the Apollo program. The 1970s 

saw the fabrication of the enormous external tank for 

the Space Shuttle program. Today, Michoud Assembly 

Facility continues to support America’s space program 

by building major components for the Orion MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle.

Neil Armstrong: A Life of Flight, by Jay Barbree (Thomas 

Dunne Books, July 2014). Working from 50 years 

of conversations he had with Neil Armstrong—from 

notes, interviews, NASA spaceflight transcripts, and 

remembrances of those Armstrong trusted—the author 

writes about Neil’s three passions: flight, family, and 

friends. This inside story of Neil Armstrong’s life 

includes his combat missions in the Korean War; his 

piloting of a rocket plane called the X-15 to the edge of 

space; his successful flying of the first emergency return 

from Earth orbit, during which he saved his Gemini 

8 spacecraft; and his landing on the Moon’s Sea of 

Tranquility in the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.

The Origins of Satellite Communications, 1945–1965, 

by David J. Whalen (reprint of the 2002 edition, 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, July 2014). 
37

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

Conventional assumptions hold that government 

research and development efforts produced the satellite 

communications industry. David J. Whalen has looked 

deeply into the history of the industry and presents 

remarkable new information to tell a much different 

story. He finds that most of the satellite technology 

was privately developed by AT&T and Hughes Aircraft 

Company and that the market for satellite communications existed before the government stepped in. 

In this detailed history of satellite communications’ 

earliest years, Whalen explains that NASA, the White 

House, and Congress intervened in satellite communications development to show the world that the nation 

was in the space race and that the billions of dollars 

the U.S. government planned to spend would result in 

practical applications.

The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human 

Evolution, by Frank White (3rd edition, Library of 

Flight series, American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics, September 2014). More than 30 years 

ago, Frank White coined the term “overview effect” to 

describe the cognitive shift in awareness that results 

from the experience of viewing Earth from orbit or 

the Moon. He found that, with great consistency, this 

experience profoundly affects space travelers’ worldviews—their perceptions of themselves and our planet, 

and our understanding of the future. White found that 

astronauts know from direct experience what the rest 

of us know only intellectually: we live on a planet that 

is like a natural spaceship moving through the universe. 

In this new edition of The Overview Effect, the author 

expands on his original concept. Using interviews with, 

and writings by, numerous astronauts and cosmonauts, 

he describes space exploration and settlement as necessary next steps in the evolution of human civilization 

and consciousness.

Religions and Extraterrestrial Life—How Will We Deal 

With It? by David A. Weintraub (Springer, August 

2014). Knowing the answer to the question of whether 

humanity has company in the universe will trigger one 

of the greatest intellectual revolutions in history, not 

the least of which will be a challenge for at least some 

terrestrial religions. Which religions will handle the 

discovery of extraterrestrial life with ease and which 

will struggle to assimilate this new knowledge about 

our place in the universe? Some religions as currently 

practiced appear to be viable only on Earth. Other 

religions could be practiced on distant worlds but nevertheless identify both Earth as a place and humankind 

as a species of singular spiritual religious importance, 

while some religions could be practiced equally well 

anywhere in the universe by any sentient beings. The 

author guides readers on an invigorating tour of the 

world’s most widely practiced religions. It reveals what, 

if anything, each religion has to say about the possibility that extraterrestrial life exists and how, or if, a 

particular religion would work on other planets in 

distant parts of the universe.

Soviet Space Dogs, by Olesya Turkina, edited by Damon 

Murray and Stephen Sorrell (FUEL Publishing, 

September 2014). This book is dedicated to the dogs 

who were crucial to the success of the early Soviet 

space program. All of them formerly homeless on the 

Moscow streets, they fitted the necessary profile: small, 

robust, placid, and able to withstand the punishing 

preparations for spaceflight. They were also photogenic. On 3 November 1957, Laika was the first Earthborn creature into outer space, giving her instant 

global fame. Her death a few hours after launching 

was used to transform her into a symbol of patriotic 

sacrifice. Subsequent canine space travelers Belka 

and Strelka were the first to return alive and were 

immediately featured in children’s books and cartoons. 

Images of the “Space Dogs” proliferated, reproduced 

on everyday goods across the Soviet Union: cigarette 

packets, sweet tins, badges, stamps, and postcards. 

This book uses these ephemeral items to illustrate the 

poignant tale of how the unassuming Soviet Space 

Dogs became legends.

Soyuz Owners’ Workshop Manual: 1967 Onwards (All 

Models)—An Insight into Russia’s Flagship Spacecraft, 

from Moon Missions to the International Space Station, 

by David Baker (Haynes Publishing, September 2014). 

This book tells the story of Soyuz from its origin as 
38

NASA HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE — News & Notes

successor to the Vostok-era capsules, which carried the 

first cosmonauts into space, to the Zond spacecraft, 

which aimed to send humans to the Moon and back, 

and the robotic Progress cargo-tanker vehicles, which 

replenish the International Space Station. Soyuz has 

proven to be the most versatile spacecraft ever built, 

serving many roles across five decades.

Tracking Apollo to the Moon, by Hamish Lindsay (softcover reprint of the original 2001 edition, Springer, 

September 2014). One of the wonderful aspects of the 

nation’s human spaceflight programs was the opportunity for people around the globe to participate in one 

of humanity’s greatest adventures. As NASA scientists 

laid out the groundwork for achieving a human spaceflight program, it was obvious that they would require 

extensive operations around the world. One of the 

most challenging features of this plan was to build 

a worldwide network of tracking stations to provide 

communications with the orbiting spacecraft. Australia 

is located roughly 180 degrees longitude from the 

launch site, Cape Canaveral, and so occupied not only 

a unique position but a very critical one. Determining 

the position of the spacecraft as it traveled above the 

Australian continent was critical to determining the 

craft’s orbit. Parameters for properly managing the 

entire operation, such as the time of retrofire (paramount to recovery of the crew) and the information 

required for signal acquisition at each of the tracking 

sites around the world, are but two examples.

The History Program Office gives sincere thanks to volunteer Chris Gamble, who compiles this section for us 

every quarter. Please note that the descriptions have been 

derived by Chris from promotional material and do not 

represent an endorsement by NASA.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

The 19th Annual Space Exploration Educators 

Conference will take place on 5–7 February 2015 at 

Space Center Houston in Houston, Texas. Visit http://

spacecenter.org/education-programs/teacher-programs/

teachers-seec/ for more details.

The 53rd Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium 

will be held 10–12 March 2015 in Greenbelt, 

Maryland. Visit http://www.astronautical.org/goddard

for more details.

The 45th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference will 

be held 16–20 March 2015 in The Woodlands, Texas. 

Visit http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/ for 

more details.

The 31st National Space Symposium will be held 13–16 

April 2015 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Visit http://

www.nationalspacesymposium.org/ for more details.

The annual meeting of the National Council on 

Public History will be held 15–18 April 2015

in Nashville, Tennessee. Visit http://ncph.org/cms/

conferences/2015-annual-meeting/ for more details.

The annual meeting for the Organization of American 

Historians will be held 16–19 April 2015 in St. Louis, 

Missouri. Visit http://www.oah.org/meetings-events/ for 

more details.

The annual meeting for the Society for History in the 

Federal Government will be held 24–25 April 2015 in 

Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Visit http://shfg.org/shfg/

events/annual-meeting/ for more details.

The 34th International Space Development Conference 

(ISDC 2014) will be held 20–24 May 2015 in Toronto, 

Canada. Visit http://isdc.nss.org/2015 for more details.
39

Volume 31, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2014

OBITUARY: NOEL HINNERS (1935–2014)

Dr. Noel William Hinners began his career by assisting in the selection of landing sites on the Moon for 

the Apollo program from 1963 to 1972 while working 

at Bellcomm, Inc. At NASA, he served as the Deputy 

Director of Lunar Programs (1972–74), Associate 

Administrator for Space Science (1974–79), Director 

of Goddard Space Flight Center (1982–87), and 

Associate Deputy Administrator and Chief Scientist 

(1987–89). Dr. Hinners left NASA permanently in 

1989 and went to Martin Marietta (later Lockheed 

Martin Space Systems), from which he eventually 

retired in 2002 as the vice president of flight systems with responsibilities including managing the 

company’s involvement in NASA’s Mars Surveyor 

Program, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and Stardust 

and Genesis Discovery missions. During a hiatus 

from NASA from 1979 to 1982, he served as the 

director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air 

and Space Museum (1979–82) and was a member of 

the National Research Council Space Studies Board 

(1981–82).

Dr. Hinners was born on 25 December 1935. He 

received his bachelor’s degree in social science and 

agricultural research from Rutgers University (1958), 

a master’s in geology from the California Institute 

of Technology (1960), and a Ph.D. in geochemistry 

from Princeton University (1963). He passed away on 

5 September 2014.

William Barry bill.barry@nasa.gov

Chief Historian 202-358-0383

Nadine Andreassen nadine.j.andreassen@nasa.gov

Program Support Specialist 202-358-0087

Colin Fries cfries@mail.hq.nasa.gov

Archivist 202-358-0388

Stephen Garber stephen.j.garber@nasa.gov

Historian 202-358-0385

John Hargenrader jhargenr@mail.hq.nasa.gov

Archivist 202-358-0387

Jane Odom jane.h.odom@nasa.gov

Chief Archivist 202-358-0386

Yvette Smith yvette.smith-1@nasa.gov

Editor 202-358-5196

Elizabeth Suckow elizabeth.suckow-1@nasa.gov

Archivist 202-358-0375

Amy Wallace amy.l.wallace@nasa.gov 

Intern 202-358-4495

Nolan Lott nolan.j.lott@nasa.gov

Intern 202-358-0893

NASA HEADQUARTERS HISTORY PROGRAM OFFICE 

STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION:
f

CREATED AND PRODUCED BY:

Giny Cheong, Newsletter Editor 

Lisa Jirousek, Editor

Lindsay Dirienzo, Graphic Designer

Tun Hla, Printing Specialist

Trenita Williams, Mail Coordinator

Carl Paul, Distribution

JOIN THE 

NASA HISTORY 

PROGRAM 

OFFICE 

ONLINE ON 

OUR SOCIAL 

NETWORKS! 

Get short, timely messages and stay updated on a wide 

variety of topics by following @NASAhistory on Twitter.

Learn the history of NASA’s exploration of the universe 

and its many discoveries about our home planet by 

liking the Facebook page at 

https://www.facebook.com/NASAHistoryOffice.

Find our collection of great images from NASA 

history at NASA on the Commons on Flickr: 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Headquarters

300 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20546

www.nasa.gov