Volume 40, Number 4 Winter 2023

NASA HISTORY

NEWS&NOTES

WORKING TOGETHER 

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION 

AND DIPLOMACY IN AEROSPACE

 The laboratory module in the cargo bay of the 

Space Shuttle Columbia was photographed during 

the Spacelab Life Science-1 (SLS-1) mission. 

SLS-1 was the first Spacelab mission dedicated 

solely to life sciences. (Photo credit: NASA)

2 From the Chief Historian

4 Spacelab 1: A Model for 

International Cooperation

8 Humble Pathways from Terrestrial 

North to Lunar South

11 Fear of War, Hope for Peace

15 NASA Demonstrated Photovoltaic 

Systems in Developing Nations

18 X-31, the First International X-Plane

22 The Satellite Instructional 

Television Experiment

28 NASA’s Tracking 

Stations: A Tale 

of International 

Collaboration

30 The United States–

Japan Partnership

in Space

33 International Project 

Management Course: 

Partnering and 

Learning Together

34 News from Around NASA

36 In Memoriam

37 Upcoming Meetings

NASA HISTORY OFFICE

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

The Administration, under the 

foreign policy guidance of the 

President, may engage in a 

program of international cooperation in work done pursuant 

to the Act, and in the peaceful 

application of the results thereof, 

pursuant to agreements made 

by the President with the advice 

and consent of the Senate.

—Section 205 of the 

National Aeronautics 

and Space Act of 1958

T

he expectation of international collaboration is written into NASA’s 

founding charter. And even at the 

very darkest moments of the space race 

with the Soviet Union, President John 

F. Kennedy held out the olive branch 

of collaboration in space to America’s 

existential threat and Apollo’s seeming 

reason to exist. 

In March 1962, during the Charter 

Day Address at the University of 

California, President Kennedy spoke of 

his hope that the Soviets would accept 

his offer earlier that week of mutual 

collaboration in space. For Kennedy, 

the importance of mutual action 

went beyond merely the “scientific 

gains” from the venture. It was the 

“gains for world peace” that held the 

most promise. Cooperative efforts in 

space sciences and exploration would 

“emphasize the interests that must 

unite us, rather than those that divide 

us.” Space offered both parties “an area 

in which the stale and sterile dogmas 

of the Cold War could be literally left a 

quarter of a million miles behind,” and 

such a partnership could

[r]emind us on both sides that 

knowledge, not hate, is the 

passkey to the future—that 

knowledge transcends national 

antagonisms—that it speaks 

a universal language—that it 

is the possession, not of a single class, or of a single nation 

or a single ideology, but of 

all mankind.1

While President Kennedy’s goal of 

collaboration came to little beyond 

the exchange of weather satellite data, 

presidents afterward would continue 

to see the value of international collaboration in space. The ApolloSoyuz Test Project—the handshake 

in space—in July 1975 was the first 

major achievement. There would be 

many more. 

On 6 December 2023, NASA and 

the international community celebrated the 25-year anniversary of the 

first major step in constructing the 

International Space Station (ISS)—the 

mating of the U.S.-built Unity node 

with the Zarya module in low-Earth 

orbit. Over those 25 years, the ISS has 

been a true model for international collaboration. Partners across the world 

have contributed hardware, participated in missions to the facility, and 

conducted scientific experiments. 

But it is not just the more celebrated 

programs within the field of human 

spaceflight that mark NASA’s collaborations with the world. Scientific 

discovery has also seen its share of 

space diplomacy and cooperation. The 

James Webb Space Telescope provides 

From the 

Chief Historian

 President John F. Kennedy speaks of his hope that the United States and Soviet Union 

could work together in space on 23 March 1962, during the University of California, 

Berkeley’s 94th Charter Day Ceremony. (Photo credit: Robert Knudsen, White House 

Photographs; John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston)

2
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

a more recent example: the European 

Space Agency contributed the NearInfrared Spectrograph, Mid-Infrared 

Instrument Optics Assembly, and 

Ariane 5 launch vehicle, while the 

Canadian Space Agency provided 

the Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS) and 

the Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless 

Spectrograph (NIRISS). Additionally, 

the international community of scientists will use their observing time 

to unlock the secrets of the universe. 

Smaller projects like NASA’s Imaging 

X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE), a 

collaboration with the Italian Space 

Agency, also benefit from international partnerships. The absence of 

these partnerships would diminish the 

Agency’s ability to make astonishing 

scientific breakthroughs. 

Widely available scientific data is at the 

heart of NASA’s international collaboration. One notable example is NASA’s 

Applied Sciences Program, which, 

through projects and initiatives such as 

SERVIR and DEVELOP, utilizes the 

vantage point of space to bring critical 

data to bear on global and village-level 

issues such as climate change, capacity building, and responses to natural 

disasters. This level of international 

collaboration works to empower global 

communities, ensure food security, 

and strengthen local ecosystems. 

As historian John Krige has written, 

“there is an inherent contradiction in 

NASA’s twin missions to maintain 

leadership and to foster international 

collaboration.” As he points out, “By 

helping others acquire space capabilities NASA at once enhances the 

capacity, visibility and reach of the 

US space program, and contributes to 

the efforts of those who may eventually compete with it.”2

 This was the 

dichotomy President Kennedy faced in 

his conversations with Soviet Premier 

Nikita Khrushchev—a choice of either 

gaining international prestige for 

the United States or maximizing the 

benefits of scientific discovery for all. 

Over the decades since the close of the 

Apollo program, NASA has made great 

strides in favor of the latter. Successes 

resulting from collaborative missions, 

the free sharing of data, and innovations in space law frameworks have 

expanded our sense of shared destiny 

in exploration and science. 

Today, the Artemis Accords offer a new 

framework for international collaboration. This framework builds upon 

the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and 

underscores the willingness of the 

signatories to recognize “their mutual 

interest in the exploration and use of 

outer space for peaceful purposes” and 

an understanding that peaceful collaboration in space is for the “benefit of all 

humankind.”3 As we continue to probe 

the secrets of the universe and return to 

the Moon, we do so with a much better 

model than Apollo. This time, we go 

back upon a foundation of new international collaboration and partnership. 

The articles in this issue of News & Notes 

explore many important milestones in 

international collaboration and space 

diplomacy. From more well-known 

ventures like Spacelab and the Satellite 

Instructional Television Experiment 

(SITE) to lesser-known demonstration 

projects in the village of Tangaye in 

Burkina Faso, these essays highlight the 

rich history of cooperation at the core 

of NASA’s portfolio. Understanding 

how deeply international collaboration 

is embedded in the Agency’s DNA 

helps us consider how the international 

cooperation paradigm is a much more 

useful model for the future of space 

exploration than the anomalous model 

that was the Apollo paradigm. 

Brian C. Odom

Chief Historian

Endnotes

1 “ S p a c e A c t i v i t i e s : U S / U S S R 

Cooperation, 1961–1963,” https://www.

jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/

JFKNSF/308/JFKNSF-308-006

(accessed 12 December 2023).

2 John Krige et al., NASA in the World: 

Fifty Years of International Collaboration 

in Space (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 

2013), p. 20.

3 “Artemis Accords: Principles for 

Cooperation in the Civil Exploration 

and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, 

and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes,” 

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/

uploads/2022/11/Artemis-Accordssigned-13Oct2020.pdf (accessed 12 

December 2023).

From the Chief Historian (continued)

The absence of these 

partnerships would 

diminish the Agency’s 

ability to make astonishing 

scientific breakthroughs.

3
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

F

ORTY YEARS AGO, in 1983, 

Space Shuttle Columbia flew 

its first international spaceflight, 

STS-9. The mission included—for 

the first time—the European Space 

Agency’s (ESA’s) Spacelab pressurized 

module and featured more than 70 

experiments from American, Canadian, 

European, and Japanese scientists. 

Europeans were particularly proud of 

this “remarkable step” because “NASA, 

the most famous space agency on the 

globe,” included the laboratory on 

an early Shuttle mission. NASA was 

equally thrilled with the Spacelab and 

called the effort “history’s largest and 

most comprehensive multinational 

space project.” The Spacelab became a 

unifying force for all the participating 

nations, scientists, and astronauts. As 

explained by one of the mission’s payload specialists, Ulf Merbold, while the 

principal investigators for the on-board 

experiments might be British or French, 

“there is no French science, and no 

British science [on this flight]. Science 

in itself is international.” Scientists flying on the mission, and those who had 

experiments on board, were working 

cooperatively for the benefit of humanity. As then–Vice President George 

H. W. Bush explained, “The knowledge 

Spacelab will bring back from its many 

missions will belong to all mankind.”1

Training for the flight required international cooperation on an entirely new 

scale for the American space program. 

Today it is not unusual to hear about 

an astronaut training for spaceflight at 

many different locations and facilities 

across the globe. NASA’s astronauts 

have grown accustomed to training 

outside the United States for months 

at a time before flying on board the 

International Space Station, but that 

was not the experience for most of 

NASA’s flight crews in the Agency’s 

early spaceflight programs. Mission 

training mainly took place in Houston 

at the Manned Spacecraft Center (now 

Johnson Space Center) and in Florida 

at Kennedy Space Center. The Apollo 

era featured only one international 

flight, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project 

(ASTP), with astronauts training in the 

two participating nations: the USSR 

and the United States.

It also rarely makes news these days 

when someone who is not a professional astronaut or cosmonaut flies 

in space. In the past, flying in space 

was a professional occupation. This 

all changed with the development of 

the Space Shuttle and Spacelab, which 

birthed a new space traveler: the payload specialist. The individuals selected 

for these positions were not career 

astronauts. The payload specialists 

were experts on a specific payload or an 

experiment, and during the early years 

of the Space Shuttle Program, came 

from a wide variety of backgrounds: 

the Air Force, Congress, industry, and 

even the field of education. The principal investigators for this science-based 

mission selected the payload specialists 

who flew in space and operated their 

experiments. Spacelab 1 was unique 

in providing the first opportunity for 

a non-American, a European, to fly on 

board a NASA spacecraft.

In the summer of 1978, NASA chose 

scientist-astronauts Owen K. Garriott 

Spacelab 1

A Model for 

International 

Cooperation

» By Jennifer Ross-Nazzal, NASA Historian

 View of the Spacelab module in the payload bay of Space Shuttle Columbia 

during STS-9. (Photo credit: NASA)

4
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

and Robert A. R. Parker as mission specialists for the Spacelab 1 crew. Garriott, 

who had been selected as an astronaut 

in 1965, had flown on America’s first 

space station as a member of the 

Skylab 3 crew, a team that exceeded 

all expectations of flight planners and 

principal investigators. Parker had also 

applied to be a scientist-astronaut and 

was selected in 1967. His class jokingly 

called themselves the “XS-11” (pronounced “excess-eleven”), because they 

had been told there was no room for 

them in the corps and they would not 

fly in space—not immediately, anyway. 

Parker worked on Skylab as the program scientist, but once the program 

ended, he accepted a new title: chief 

of the Astronaut Office Science and 

Applications Directorate, where he 

spent the next few years working on 

Spacelab matters. It was perfect timing 

for the astronaut to turn his attention 

to this international program. Once 

Skylab ended in 1974, representatives of the European Space Research 

Organisation (ESRO) and members of 

ERNO, the Spacelab contractor, started 

traveling to Houston and Huntsville to 

give the two NASA Centers updates on 

the development of the Spacelab and 

to hold discussions on the module. In 

a 1974 press conference, ESRO’s Heinz 

Stoewer emphasized the “very intense 

cooperation” he witnessed “with our 

friends here in the United States in 

making this program come true.”2

Around the same time, as Spacelab 

was being built, the European Space 

Agency began considering who might 

fly on that first flight. Three days before 

Christmas in 1977, ESA released the 

names of their four payload specialist candidates: Wubbo Ockels, Ulf 

Merbold, Franco Malerba, and Claude 

Nicollier. Two Americans, Byron K. 

Lichtenberg and Michael L. Lampton, 

were selected in the summer of 1978 as 

potential payload specialists.3

The Spacelab 1 payload crew, which 

operated the module and the mission’s 

experiments in the payload bay of the 

orbiter, included two mission specialists, Garriott and Parker, and two payload specialists, one from the United 

States and another from ESA. The 

payload crew and their backups began 

training many years before the Space 

Shuttle Columbia launched into space 

on STS-9. (The original launch date of 

December 1980 kept slipping, so the 

crew ended up training for five years.)4

Training in Europe began in earnest 

in 1978, while training in the United 

States and Canada began in 1979.5

Merbold was eventually selected to fly 

on the mission, along with Lichtenberg. 

The entire payload crew spent so much 

of their time traveling to Europe that 

John W. Young, who was then chief of 

the Astronaut Office, called their flight 

assignment and European training, 

which involved travel to exotic locations 

like Rome, Italy, “a magnificent boondoggle. In my next life,” he declared, 

“I’ll be an MS [mission specialist] on 

S Lab [Spacelab].”6

Spacelab 1 (continued)

The knowledge Spacelab 

will bring back from its 

many missions will belong 

to all mankind.

—George H. W. Bush

 Spacelab 1 prime and backup science crewmembers (left to right): Mission Specialists 

Robert Parker and Owen Garriott, with Payload Specialist-1 Ulf Merbold, backup Payload 

Specialist-2 Michael Lampton, backup Payload Specialist-1 Wubbo Ockels, and Payload 

Specialist-2 Byron Lichtenberg. (Photo credit: NASA)

5
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

Lichtenberg recalled that the science 

crew—the prime and backup payload specialists and mission specialists—traveled the globe “like itinerant 

graduate students...to study at the laboratories of the principal investigators 

and their colleagues.” In these laboratories, universities, and at research centers across Europe, Canada, and Japan, 

they learned about the equipment and 

experiments, including how to repair 

the hardware if something broke or 

failed in flight. Lichtenberg felt like he 

was earning multiple advanced degrees 

in the fields of astronomy and solar 

physics, space plasma physics, atmospheric physics, Earth observations, 

life sciences, and materials science. The 

benefits of training were numerous, but 

perhaps the most important were the 

personal and professional relationships 

that were built with the investigators from across the world and with 

his crewmates.7

For the payload specialists, building relationships within the 

astronaut corps proved 

to be more complicated. 

Merbold recalled traveling to the Marshall 

Space Flight Center in 

Alabama and receiving 

a warm welcome. “But 

in Houston you could 

feel that not everyone 

was happy that Europe 

was involved. Some 

also resented the new 

concept of the payload 

specialist ‘astronaut 

scientist,’ who was not 

under their control like 

the pilots. We were 

perceived to be intruders in an area that was 

reserved for ‘real’ astronauts.” As an 

example, the European astronauts 

could not use the astronaut gym or 

take part in T-38 flight training. Over 

time, attitudes changed, and Garriott 

credited STS-9 Mission Commander 

John Young with the shift, and so did 

Merbold. As the crew was preparing 

to fly, the former moonwalker took 

Merbold on a T-38 ride, and when the 

payload specialist asked if he could 

fly the plane, Young willingly offered 

him the opportunity. After that flight, 

Merbold recalled that he “enjoyed John 

Young’s unqualified support.”8

Friendships blossomed on the six-man 

crew. Parker called Pilot Brewster H. 

Shaw and Commander Young “two 

of [his] best friends to this day.”9 For 

Merbold, the flight cemented a significant bond among the STS-9 astronauts. 

He had “no brothers, no sisters”; he was 

an only child, but the Columbia crew 

Spacelab 1 (continued)

 Pictured from the left are astronaut Owen K. Garriott, Vice 

President George Bush, and Ulf Merbold of West Germany 

inside Spacelab in the Operations and Checkout Building at 

Kennedy Space Center. This European-built orbital laboratory was formally dedicated on 5 February 1982. (Photo 

credit: NASA)

 Astronaut John W. Young (left), STS-9 crew commander, and Ulf Merbold, payload specialist, enjoy a meal in the middeck of the Earth-orbiting Space Shuttle Columbia. 

Merbold, a physicist from the Federal Republic of Germany, represented ESA on this 

10-day flight. (Photo credit: NASA)

6
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

became his family. “My brothers are 

those guys with whom I trained and 

flew,” he said.10 Young and Merbold 

had an especially close bond. Garriott 

saw that relationship up close on the 

Shuttle and later told an oral historian, 

“Young had no better friend on board 

our flight than Ulf Merbold.” The two 

remained close until Young’s death.11

Following landing, Flight Crew 

Operations Directorate Chief George 

W. S. Abbey told the crew that the science community was “very pleased.”12

The first international spaceflight since 

ASTP brought scientists, astronauts, 

and space agencies from across the 

globe together, laying the foundation for bringing Europe into human 

spaceflight operations and kicking 

off a different approach to training 

and performing science in space. As 

Spacelab 1 Mission Manager Henry 

G. Craft and Richard A. Marmann 

explained, the program “exemplified 

what can be accomplished when scientists and engineers from all over the 

world join forces, communicating and 

cooperating to further advance scientific intelligence.”13 Eventually, the 

international cooperation Craft and 

Marmann witnessed led to today’s 

highly successful International Space 

Station Program. 

Endnotes

1 Walter Froehlich, Spacelab: An 

International Short-Stay Orbiting 

Laboratory ( Wa s h i n g ton, D C : 

NASA, 1983), https://ntrs.nasa.

gov/api/citations/19840002105/

downloads/19840002105.pdf (accessed 

24 November 2023); “Spacelab’s 

Schedule Crowded,” St. Louis PostDispatch (28 November 1983).

2 “Mission Specialists for Spacelab 1 

Named at JSC,” JSC News Release 

78-34, 1 August 1978; Robert A. R. 

Parker, interview by author, 23 October 

2002, transcript, JSC Oral History 

Project; “Europeans To Fly Aboard 

Shuttle,” Roundup (29 March 1974): 1.

3 “Four European Candidates Chosen 

for First Spacelab Flight,” ESA Bulletin

no. 12 (February 1978): 62; “Two US 

Scientists Selected Spacelab Payload 

Specialists,” Roundup (9 June 1978): 4.

4 In the crew report, Parker counted his 

time monitoring the Spacelab, so he 

concluded that the mission specialists 

trained even longer, from 5 to 9 years.

5 “Spacelab Scientists Tour USA,” Space 

News Roundup (12 January 1979): 1.

6 Harry G. Craft, Jr., to George W. S. 

Abbey, “Spacelab 1 Payload Crew 

Experiment Training Requirements,” 

25 February 1982, Robert A. R. 

Parker Papers II, Box 28, JSC History 

Collection, University of Houston–

Clear Lake.

7 Byron Lichtenberg, “A New Breed of 

Space Traveller [sic],” New Scientist

(August 1984): 9.

8 ESA, “Ulf Merbold: STS-9 Payload 

Specialist,” 26 November 2013, https://

www.esa.int/About_Us/ESA_history/

Ulf_Merbold_STS-9_Payload_

Specialist(accessed 24 November 2023); 

ESA, “Ulf Merbold: Remembering John 

Young [1930–2018],” 22 August 2018, 

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/ESA_

history/Ulf_Merbold_remembering_

John_Young_1930-2018 (accessed 24 

November 2023).

9 Parker interview.

10 “Time and Space: ESA’s First Astronaut,” 

ESA Explores podcast, 25 November 

2020, https://esaexplores.podbean.

com/e/time-and-space-esas-firstastronaut-and-a-milestone-mission/

(accessed 24 November 2023).

11 Owen K. Garriott, interview by Kevin 

M. Rusnak, 6 November 2000, transcript, JSC Oral History Project; ESA, 

“Ulf Merbold: Remembering John 

Young.”

12 Garriott interview.

13 Henry G. Craft, Jr., and Richard 

A. Marmann, “Spacelab Program’s 

Scientific Benefits to Mankind,” Acta 

Astronautica 34 (1994): 304.

Spacelab 1 (continued)

 Four of the STS-9 crewmembers enjoy a rare moment of collective fun inside the 

Spacelab module aboard Columbia. From left to right are Byron K. Lichtenberg, Ulf 

Merbold, Robert A. R. Parker, and Owen K. Garriott. The “card table” here is the scientific airlock hatch, and the “cards” are the targets used in the Awareness of Position 

experiment. (Photo credit: NASA)

7
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

» By James Anderson, NASA Historian

F

ROM MANITOBA TO THE MOON,

Canada and the United States have 

worked together on space-related 

research since before either country had 

established a civilian space program. 

This collaboration is long-standing 

and multifaceted, offering examples of 

projects that have varied in size, complexity, duration, and visibility. Every 

project, naturally, has been subject to 

the particular domestic and international political contexts of their time. 

Two examples are considered here: a 

collaboration between Canada and the 

United States during the International 

Geophysical Year (1957–58) and a 

more recent collaboration involving the 

development of robotic rovers. Both 

efforts were rather low-profile, never 

commanding many of the space-related 

headlines during their development. 

In addition to reflecting the typical 

dynamics that influence space projects 

of any size, these humbler collaborations reveal the extent to which international partnerships remain an integral 

part of scientific exploration.

Some of the higher-profile examples 

of the Canada-U.S. partnership worth 

mentioning include Canada’s first satellite, the decades of use and continuing 

development of the robotic Canadarms, 

and the flights of Canadian astronauts. Lower-profile collaborations, 

meanwhile, offer their own unique 

insights. They highlight the fact that 

space-related science, like exploration, 

does not begin simply at launch or 

when data are returned. As processes 

that involve the coordination of teams 

and institutions, science and exploration—in spite of whatever grand 

images they may conjure—require 

rather ordinary tasks, planning, and 

persistence to succeed. Indeed, the ability to “pick up the pieces” from underfunded or stalled work and reconstitute 

core groups of teams, mature designs, 

and build meaningfully upon previous work is so common that it often 

receives little attention, yet the vast 

majority of spaceflight mission proposals from recent history proceeded in 

this manner.

In the mid-1950s, selecting a location for Canada’s participation in the 

International Geophysical Year (IGY) 

did not proceed from a blank slate, nor 

did it require extraordinary efforts. In 

Humble Pathways 

from Terrestrial North 

to Lunar South

 Canada’s Juno tandem rover and drill 

during a 2010 deployment with NASA to 

an analog site in Hawai‘i. (Photo credit: 

NASA)

 The Shuttle Remote Manipulator System, 

or Canadarm, was installed on all five 

orbiters and was a crucial component of 

the Shuttle  Program.  The  secondgeneration Canadarm2 helped build the 

International Space Station, and a third 

generation is under development for the 

Gateway. In this photo from STS-100, 

Canadarm2 is included in the payload 

bay prior to its installation on the Destiny 

Laboratory of the International Space 

Station. (Photo credit: NASA)

8
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

1954, the Canadian Army had already 

begun launching rockets from Fort 

Churchill in Manitoba, a remote outpost along the Hudson Bay in northern Manitoba. With preparation for 

the IGY beginning shortly after that, 

a group of Canadian and American 

scientists chose Fort Churchill as a 

convenient location to conduct their 

IGY-related launches.1 In 1956, with 

the approval of Canada’s Defence 

Research Board, the U.S. Army 

built the Churchill Rocket Research 

Range, which remained operational 

until 1985.2 This early space-related 

research, strictly speaking, was really 

upper atmosphere research that relied 

on sounding rockets to collect data 

about the ionosphere. That research 

built upon many decades of international coordination related to the 

earlier International Polar Years, and 

Canada’s geography made it a natural 

location for the research.

After the IGY launches, it was not 

clear that there would be sustained, 

scientific rocket 

launches from the 

Churchill range. 

The U.S. Air Force 

soon took over 

funding and management from the 

U.S. Army, reflecting the Air Force’s 

growing interest in 

further developing 

radio communications and guidance techniques 

for missiles over 

the polar regions. 

Some of the factors 

that were pulling 

U.S. support away 

from Churchill 

included Alaska’s (still a relatively 

recent state) lobbying for more U.S. 

military arctic research to be based 

there, as well as a shifting of attention and resources toward Vietnam. 

Concurrently, increased domestic 

support in Canada for continuing 

scientific research through the country’s National Research Council in the 

mid-1960s kept the site active, and a 

joint coordinating group between the 

United States and Canada oversaw the 

operations. Canada also developed a 

civilian sounding rocket program to 

complement its own satellite development.3

 Free of the pressure to compete 

directly at a scale comparable to the 

competition between the United States 

and the Soviet Union, one of the many 

enduring smaller-scale successes that 

emerged was the ongoing development 

of the Black Brant family of Canadian 

sounding rockets, which have become 

one of the most widely used types 

of sounding rockets. From the aftermath of the IGY and the Space Race, 

the Black Brant remains a humble 

cornerstone that sustains suborbital 

scientific exploration to this day.

More recently, the Moon has become 

much more of an international destination for robotic exploration, including 

attempted commercial missions, and 

planned human missions. As part of 

this overall effort, both Canada and the 

United States are developing robotic 

lunar rovers. At least two of those rovers—NASA’s Volatiles Investigating 

Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) and 

a Canadian rover that Canadensys 

Aerospace Corporation and its partners 

are developing—are slated for delivery 

to the Moon via NASA’s Commercial 

Lunar Payload Services initiative. Both 

rovers are distinct projects today, but 

their deeper development histories 

are intertwined.

Humble Pathways from Terrestrial North to Lunar South (continued)

 The Churchill Rocket Research Range operated from 1956 to 

1985 and is now a National Historic Site of Canada. It is located 

just east of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, on the shores of 

Hudson Bay. The range was the only facility in Canada for 

launching sounding rockets, and the first Black Brant was 

launched there in 1959. (Photo credit: Parks Canada Agency/

Agence Parcs Canada)

 A Black Brant IX sounding rocket 

launches from the Poker Flat Research 

Range in Alaska. The Canadian-designed 

family of sounding rockets remains one of 

the most widely used in suborbital 

research. (Photo credit: NASA)

9
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

When a team at NASA’s Kennedy Space 

Center began designing and testing an 

instrument package for prospecting 

lunar resources, it was the Canadian 

Space Agency (CSA) that brought the 

rover. Beginning in 2008, NASA’s 

Regolith and Environment Science and 

Oxygen and Lunar Volatiles Extraction 

(RESOLVE) mission team and the CSA 

collaborated on multiple field deployments over about four years. The CSA 

has developed more than 10 different 

rover prototypes for lunar, Martian, 

and terrestrial environments, with the 

consortium Space Resources Canada 

leading the rover equipment development on behalf of the CSA. In addition 

to hardware development in support 

of international collaboration in space, 

the technology development efforts 

have included software for autonomous operation and the opportunity 

to rehearse the coordination of scientific teams across the globe, since their 

field deployment simulations mimic 

the conditions that scientists and rover 

operators will experience with nearly 

real-time communication to rovers on 

the Moon. The instruments included 

in the RESOLVE package evolved 

and were later incorporated into the 

Resource Prospector mission, for which 

NASA developed a rover in house. After 

Resource Prospector’s cancellation, 

Ames Research Center led the effort to 

bring many of the team members and 

the instruments back together as the 

VIPER mission. The VIPER rover is 

currently being assembled at Johnson 

Space Center.

Science and exploration have been 

international and collaborative pursuits since long before the Space Age. 

From developing sounding rockets to 

testing resource mapping tools and 

techniques in analog environments, 

these lower-profile pursuits not only 

reflect that reality, but they quite literally lay much of the groundwork 

for the higher-profile missions of 

Artemis, as robots are already being 

sent to the lunar South Pole and beginning to explore in regions where the 

next astronauts to walk on the Moon 

will venture. 

Endnotes

1 Phillips, Robert F. The Churchill 

Research Range: A History of Its 

Acquisition and Management by the Air 

Force (Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force 

Office of Aerospace Research, Historical 

Division, 1964), pp. 1, 10.

2 The Army soon transferred its control 

to the U.S. Air Force, and in 1964, 

the National Research Council of 

Canada assumed control of the facility. According to Parks Canada, this 

was the only facility in the country 

for launching sounding rockets. See 

“Churchill Rocket Research Range 

National Historic Site of Canada,” Parks 

Canada Directory of Federal Heritage 

Designations, https://www.pc.gc.ca/

apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=115

(accessed 27 November 2023).

3 C. J. Taylor, “Exploring Northern 

Skies: The Churchill Research Range,” 

Manitoba History no. 44 (autumn/

winter 2002–03), https://www.

mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/44/

exploringnorthernskies.shtml (accessed 

27 November 2023).

Following the 2010 Juno deployment, the 

subsequent iteration of the lunar rover, 

called Artemis Jr., is seen at Kennedy 

Space Center with NASA’s RESOLVE 

instrument suite integrated, prior to 

another deployment to Hawai‘i in 2012. 

(Photo credit: NASA)

Humble Pathways from Terrestrial North to Lunar South (continued)

Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen test-drives one of Canada’s rovers in 2013. Hansen is 

one of the four crewmembers for the Artemis II mission, which will send humans around 

the Moon for the first time since Apollo. Working remotely with rovers in analog test sites is 

a key part of science and mission planning. (Photo credit: Canadian Space Agency)

10
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

ORAL HISTORY

Fear of War, 

Hope for Peace

Creating the United Nations 

Committee on the Peaceful 

Uses of Outer Space

» By Sandra Johnson, NASA Oral History Lead

E

ILENE M. GALLOWAY began 

her career with the Library 

o f C o n g r e s s L e g i s l a t i v e 

Reference Service (later known as 

the Congressional Research Service) 

in 1941. As an editor for public 

affairs abstracts, which she described 

as a “Reader’s Digest of all the issues 

that were before the Congress,” she 

was in a position to assign herself the 

articles on international relations and 

national defense. Galloway continued, 

“...[T]hat was the area that I was mostly 

interested in. I gradually accumulated 

experience in the different types of legislation.” Later promoted to the role 

of national defense analyst, she worked 

on the budget, manpower, and organization for the Department of Defense 

and the Atomic Energy Commission.

In April 1957, Galloway wrote a report 

for the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services titled “Guided Missiles in 

Foreign Countries”1 that served as 

a survey of the missile and rocket 

programs in other countries, their status, 

and how far they had progressed in 

advanced weaponry. In the fall of that 

same year, the world 

looked toward the 

sky with trepidation. 

On 4 October 1957, 

t he Soviet Union 

successfully launched Sputnik, 

intensifying Cold War tensions and 

setting into motion a rush to understand 

the implications of the orbiting satellite 

and organize an appropriate response. 

Galloway’s recent publication on 

guided missiles and experience in 

government organization made her the 

perfect choice for the task at hand. In 

her NASA oral history interviews, she 

described what happened next and how 

her efforts helped lead to international 

cooperation and the creation of the 

permanent United Nations Committee 

on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.2

“It was an extreme shock, on Capitol 

Hill, especially. It was almost as if a 

bomb had fallen there because we 

were so surprised that the Soviet 

Union was first.... So, it came to us 

as a problem in national defense, 

especially when a second Sputnik...

was orbited on November 3, 1957. It 

showed that they had the capability 

of launching intercontinental ballistic 

missiles. There was fear throughout 

the world for that reason because the 

satellite was going around and every 

ninety minutes it circled the Earth. 

Everyone was really frightened. So 

because it appeared as a problem 

in national defense, the first people 

who looked after it in the Senate 

were members of the Senate Armed 

Services Committee.

Senator Richard Russell [Chairman 

of the Senate Armed Services 

Committee], for whom I had been 

working on other subjects as a military 

analyst, telephoned me and asked 

me to write a report on the impact on 

the United States of the Soviet Union 

being first to orbit the Sputnik. Then he 

told Lyndon Johnson that I could help 

him with hearings, and at that time 

Lyndon Johnson was chairman of the 

 Legislative Reference Service analyst Eilene M. Galloway. 

(Photo credit: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs 

Division, photograph by Harris & Ewing)

11
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

Senate Preparedness Investigating 

Subcommittee. So we set about 

immediately setting up the questions 

and getting the witnesses for those 

hearings for Senator Johnson.

That was really our problem, how 

were we going to organize the government so that the United States 

would become preeminent in outer 

space. That meant that we had to 

organize the executive branch and 

we had to organize the Congress, 

because this was a subject that cut 

across a great many different committee jurisdictions. 

Senator Johnson asked me to figure 

out how to organize the Congress, so 

I was working on all aspects of organization...against the background 

of national defense. First, we had to 

select witnesses, and then we had 

to select the questions that we were 

going to ask the witnesses before we 

could set up the hearings. Everything 

had to be done in a hurry. If you were 

working for Lyndon Johnson, everything had to be done in a hurry. He 

never asked the head of my organization, Legislative Reference Service...

whether I was available to do this. He 

simply...took me over to his committee to work on this subject, and 

we were working on it from morning 

to night.

We had all the scientists and engineers and all the people from industry 

and people from the government and 

people from academic life to testify 

as to how well we were prepared to 

deal with a missile satellite situation. 

This was an investigating committee. 

A curious thing came about. Instead 

of it being a problem that was solely 

national defense where we were really 

afraid for our security, it became 

a problem of maintaining peace. It 

became a problem where the scientists and the engineers...told us of all 

the benefits that we could derive from 

using outer space. They told us about 

communications, increasing the 

benefits of meteorology, navigation, 

remote sensing, all the information to 

solve problems on the Earth.

So it was not only then fear of war, 

but hope for peace. At that time...

the scientific community that had 

been working on the International 

Geophysical Year (studying the whole 

Earth including outer space), the 

nation states, and the United Nations 

were three forces that combined to 

make it possible for us to emphasize 

peace rather than war. We would be 

prepared for national defense, but we 

were also going to use outer space 

for peaceful purposes.

...The next step was to have legislative committees. There was no 

committee in the Congress that 

was prepared to undertake this, so 

they set up two special committees, 

the House Select Committee on 

Astronautics and Space Exploration 

and the Senate Special Committee 

on Space and Astronautics, to create NASA. These were legislative 

A curious thing came 

about. Instead of it being 

a problem that was solely 

national defense where 

we were really afraid for 

our security, it became a 

problem of maintaining 

peace. It became a problem where the scientists 

and the engineers...told 

us of all the benefits that 

we could derive from using 

outer space.

Fear of War, Hope for Peace (continued)

 President Dwight D. Eisenhower (center left) stands with Senate Majority Leader Lyndon 

B. Johnson (center) and other guests, during a bipartisan luncheon at the White House 

on 31 March 1955. (Photo credit: U.S. News & World Report/Thomas J. O’Halloran)

12
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

committees that began in the spring 

of 1958.

Congressman [John W.] McCormack, 

who was Majority Leader of the House, 

became chairman of that committee. 

Lyndon Johnson, of course, was 

chairman of the Senate committee. 

The hearings began in the House, and 

Congressman McCormack asked 

me to write a paper on the issues 

before Congress in connection with 

outer space.

So I wrote that report, and he opened 

his hearings with the [President Dwight 

D.] Eisenhower proposal and my 

report on the issues before Congress 

because we had to decide on creating 

NASA.3 Everybody had agreed that 

we should have a civilian agency.... 

We had to set up a civilian agency 

and then decide what the relationship 

would be between the civilian and the 

military.... I set up four options: we 

could either give space to the Joint 

Committee on Atomic Energy, we 

could set up a new Joint Committee 

on Outer Space, we could assign legislation to the...standing committees, 

or we could have separate committees in the House and Senate. 

...So, by the end of July we had finished all the hearings and we created 

NASA by the end of July of 1958.... 

Then in November...President 

Eisenhower called Lyndon Johnson 

and asked him to go to the United 

Nations and forward our foreign policy to set up an ad hoc Committee 

on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 

because one of the main points of 

U.S. foreign policy was to maintain 

peace and try not to have any war 

in outer space.... The whole world 

wanted peace in outer space. They 

Fear of War, Hope for Peace (continued)

 Eilene Galloway seated in her 

Washington, DC, home on 7 August 

2000 and surrounded by a selection 

of her publications and written contributions to international space law. 

(Photo credit: Sandra Johnson)

Eilene Galloway 

(1906–2009)

Born in 1906, less than three years 

after the Wright brothers’ first 

flight, Eilene Galloway lived to 

103, continuing to work in her field 

of expertise long after she retired 

from the Congressional Research 

Service. Throughout her life, she 

remained passionate about preventing the weaponization of outer 

space and represented the United 

States in many of the annual meetings for the committee that she 

helped create: the United Nations 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses 

of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS).4

She continued to help draft treaties overseeing the uses of outer 

space as the U.S. delegate for 

the International Astronautical 

Federation to UNCOPUOS, 

including the Outer Space Treaty 

(1967),5 which she referred to as 

“the Magna Carta treaty, and...the 

very basis of space law,” a field in 

which she was globally recognized 

as a leading expert. 

Galloway was instrumental in creating the International Institute of 

Space Law and presented the first 

of her numerous papers for the 

institute titled “The Community 

of Law and Science” at the request 

of Senator Lyndon B. Johnson at 

the First Colloquium on the Law 

of Outer Space at The Hague in 

1958.6 According to Galloway: 

“There were a number of Senators 

who wanted to go, but Lyndon 

Johnson [who was then majority 

leader] said that he needed their 

votes in the Senate. I didn’t vote 

in the Senate, so he said, ‘Eilene is 

expendable; we will send her.’” The 

institute continues to honor her 

contributions to space law annually with the Eilene M. Galloway 

Symposium on Critical Issues of 

Space Law.

ONLINE RESOURCES

Bibliography of Galloway’s 

personal collection and  noncongressional published papers, 

as well as a list of her numerous 

awards, honors, and memberships, held at the Center for Air 

and Space Law at the University 

of Mississippi

Her collection donated to the 

National Air and Space Museum

Oral Histories: Learn about 

Galloway’s work on the creation 

of NASA 65 years ago (and why 

the acronym stands for 

“National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration”—not 

“Agency”), the National 

Aeronautics and Space Act of 

1958, and the NASA Space 

Council.  

13
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

didn’t want a war in the air or directed 

to the Earth.

Lyndon Johnson...took me and 

[Senate staffer] Glen Wilson and 

some other people to the ranch to 

work on the speech that he was going 

to give in the United Nations.7 That 

was a real experience. There was a 

telephone strung every few feet all 

through the house and all around the 

swimming pool and all through the 

ranch, apparently.

Then a group of us met in Austin, and 

we went over the first draft. Two or 

three people read the draft, and I 

was appalled by this draft so I didn’t 

say anything, I just stared at Senator 

Johnson. He said, “Eilene, you get 

out from under the table and tell me 

what you think of this.” I said, “Well, 

I think it won’t do because if you’re 

giving a speech at the United Nations 

it has to be of very high quality, very 

high on foreign affairs, and we have 

to have a message, we have to say 

something in it.” When I said that, I 

thought I’d probably made an enemy 

of everybody else here, but he said, 

“All right, we’ll go back and do it over.”

So back to the ranch we went, 

and we did it over. Then President 

Eisenhower sent the plane to Texas 

and flew Lady Bird and Lyndon 

Johnson, the staff, and some other 

people, to LaGuardia. We were met 

by Henry Cabot Lodge, who was our 

Ambassador to the United Nations. 

Lyndon Johnson gave this speech 

that said that outer space is free and 

it must remain that way and we must 

maintain peace. At that time, he was 

talking about the United Nations voting for an ad hoc Committee on the 

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.8

The Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia 

and Poland would not [vote] with us. 

We got nineteen other countries [to 

agree], and the resolution passed 

by twenty votes. Those three countries would not accept membership 

because we were going to have 

majority voting.9 Well, naturally, the 

Soviet Union didn’t want to be outvoted by Mongolia, Uruguay, the 

Philippines for example. 

We worked on that for a year and 

finally came up with [the idea of] 

consensus voting. With consensus...

you can abstain or not vote. So as 

soon as we decided to do everything 

by consensus, the Soviet Union 

joined, and we set up a permanent 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of 

Outer Space.

” 

Endnotes

1 Eilene Marie Slack Galloway, Guided 

Missiles in Foreign Countries, prepared for the Committee on Armed 

Services, United States Senate, 85th 

Cong., 1st sess., (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office [GPO], 

1957).

2 “Committee on the Peaceful Uses of 

Outer Space,” https://www.unoosa.org/

oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html

(accessed 27 November 2023).

3 Eilene Galloway, “The Problems of 

Congress in Formulating Outer-space 

Legislation” (Washington, DC: GPO, 

March 1958).

4 “Committee on the Peaceful Uses of 

Outer Space.”

5 “Treaty on Principles Governing the 

Activities of States in the Exploration 

and Use of Outer Space, including the 

Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 

United Nations Office for Outer Space 

Affairs, https://www.unoosa.org/

oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/

outerspacetreaty.html (accessed 13 

December 2023).

6 “The Community of Law and Science,” 

1st Colloquium on the Law of Outer 

Space, the Hague, the Netherlands, 

1958, pp. 59–62.

7 As his political career f lourished, 

Johnson spent much of his time in 

Washington, DC, but returned to Texas 

as often as he could. In 1951, he bought 

a 1,500-acre ranch, 15 miles west 

of Johnson City, near Stonewall, TX, 

from his widowed aunt. The ranch and 

its comfortable house were his home 

until his death 22 years later. https://

www.nps.gov/nr/travel/presidents/

lyndon_b_johnson_nhp.html (accessed 

13 December 2023).

8 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Special Message to 

the Senate on Transmitting the Treaty on 

Outer Space,” https://www.presidency.

ucsb.edu/documents/special-messagethe-senate-transmitting-the-treatyouter-space (accessed 27 November 

2023).

9 All United Nations (UN) Member 

States are represented in the General 

Assembly. Each Member State has one 

vote. Decisions on such key issues as 

international peace and security, the 

admission of new members and the 

UN budget are decided by a two-thirds 

majority. Other matters are decided 

by simple majority. Many decisions 

are reached by consensus without a 

formal vote. See “General Assembly,” 

https://www.un.org/en/model-unitednations/general-assembly (accessed 27 

November 2023).

I thought I’d probably 

made an enemy of 

everybody else here, but 

he said, “All right, we’ll go 

back and do it over.” 

Fear of War, Hope for Peace (continued)

14
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

NASA’s Demonstration of 

Photovoltaic Systems in 

Developing Nations

» By Robert Arrighi, NASA Historian

AS THE APOLLO PROGRAM ended 

in the early 1970s, a national 

energy crisis and a growing 

environmental movement emerged. In 

response, NASA began emphasizing 

the application of a wide range of aerospace technologies to improving life 

on Earth. These benefits ranged from 

pollution reduction to the design of 

medical devices and alternative sources 

of energy. A major component of the 

renewable-energy effort was reducing its 

cost and demonstrating its practicality.

The Sun’s ability to generate heat was 

recognized in ancient times, but it was 

not until 1839 that the photovoltaic 

effect—the process of generating an 

electric current or voltage by exposing 

a material to direct sunlight—was 

discovered. The first solar cell, created 

in 1883, only converted one percent of 

the solar energy to electricity. Although 

efficiency increased incrementally over 

the years, solar cells remained too inefficient to compete with fossil-fuel–based 

electricity. In 1954, Bell Laboratories 

produced a major advance with the 

development of a solar cell capable of 

operating small electrical equipment. 

Still, the cost remained prohibitive for 

general applications.

The Navy’s launch of the Vanguard 1 

rocket in March 1958 provided the 

first significant demonstration of the 

potential of photovoltaic systems. 

Vanguard’s solar-powered communications system operated in orbit for seven 

years, while the traditional batteries on 

board lasted only weeks. Solar arrays 

soon became an essential component 

of nearly all satellite designs where their 

price was marginal compared to the 

overall mission cost. 

In 1961, Joseph Mandelkorn and several 

colleagues who designed the Vanguard 

system joined NASA’s Lewis Research 

Center (today Glenn Research Center) 

to form a Photovoltaic Branch. Their 

efforts in the 1960s steadily improved 

solar-cell efficiency for space applications, but the technology remained 

too expensive for everyday applications 

on Earth.

A major breakthrough took place in 

the early 1970s with the determination 

that imperfect silicon wafers discarded 

by semiconductor manufacturers could 

be repurposed to construct solar cells. 

 A solar panel is installed in the village of 

Tangaye in present-day Burkina Faso. 

(Photo credit: NASA)

 Lewis staff oversees the shipment of 

photovoltaic equipment to the African 

village of Tangaye in September 1978. 

Robert Didelot (far left), William Bifano 

(second from left), and Patricia O’Donnell 

(second from right), are pictured with two 

unidentified men. (Photo credit: NASA)

15
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

The use of solar energy for remote communications, instrumentation, and navigation began to spread across the globe. 

With the establishment of the 

Department of Energy (DOE) in early 

1975 came the creation of a National 

Photovoltaic Energy Conversion 

Program. The program sought to 

increase the performance of affordable 

solar-power systems and spur a viable 

photovoltaic industry. The extensive 

effort included contributions from 

NASA, which saw it as an opportunity to not only benefit people on 

Earth, but also improve the Agency’s 

technological capabilities for future 

aerospace endeavors.

Marshall Space Flight Center worked 

on solar heating and cooling systems for 

residential and commercial buildings, 

while the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

sponsored a program to analyze the 

performance of commercially available solar cells. Lewis managed the 

Photovoltaic Tests and Applications 

Project. This project sought to identify 

near-term solar-energy applications and 

users, design and manage demonstration projects, and develop standards 

and procedures.

In 1977, the Center’s 10-person 

Terrestrial Photovoltaic Projects 

Branch managed the installation of 

automatic solar-powered weather stations and remote sensing equipment 

in various inaccessible locations across 

the country. These systems could operate for years without maintenance. In 

1978, the Center supplied the Papago 

Reservation in Arizona with a photovoltaic system to operate a communal 

water pump and appliances and provide interior light for the 16-home 

village. It was the first validation of a 

large stand-alone solar-powered system. 

Because of the nation’s extensive existing power infrastructure, engineers 

had difficulty finding domestic locations where these stand-alone power 

systems would be beneficial. It became 

apparent that this technology would be 

most useful to developing nations. 

NASA and DOE partnered with the 

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to identify potential sites 

NASA’s Demonstration of Photovoltaic Systems in Developing Nations (continued)

The extensive effort 

included contributions 

from NASA, which saw it 

as an opportunity to not 

only benefit people on 

Earth, but also improve 

the Agency’s technological 

capabilities for future 

aerospace endeavors.

 Patricia O’Donnell points out the solar 

cell demonstration site in Tangaye in 

what was then (1978) the Upper Volta. 

(Photo credit: NASA)

 A solar panel is installed in the village of Tangaye in present-day Burkina Faso. (Photo 

credit: NASA)

16
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

to install solar-power systems in Africa 

and South America. Lewis managed 

the technical aspects, while USAID 

studied the social and economic effects. 

Private companies were contracted to 

install the hardware. The projects were 

not designed to electrify the entire area, 

but to provide targeted applications to 

improve everyday life and demonstrate 

the potential of solar-based power systems for both local governments and 

the U.S. manufacturing base.

Most of these projects were not as 

large as the Arizona endeavor but 

instead provided power for small medical clinics, vaccine refrigeration units, 

and well pumps. Patricia O’Donnell, 

project manager for the Gabon project, explained, “Our goal was to not 

interrupt their lifestyle, just make it a 

better quality.”

The U.S. agencies employed anthropologists and other experts in the 

local society to facilitate the preliminary negotiations to determine the 

specific needs. NASA personnel also 

worked with local officials to determine power loads and site locations. 

Communication often added a layer of 

complexity to the projects. Even with 

interpreters, there could be different 

languages, dialects, and norms at different locations within a country. 

The first large demonstration project 

was in village of Tangaye in what is 

today the West African nation of 

Burkina Faso. NASA staff spent six 

weeks in Tangaye to oversee the installation of the arrays, batteries, control 

equipment, and instrumentation for 

a water pump and grinding mill. The 

country’s prime minister and other 

African dignitaries were on hand for 

the dedication in late March. 

In early 1980, NASA and DOE entered 

into an agreement with Gabon to provide solar electricity to four remote villages. NASA’s manager for the project, 

O’Donnell, worked with government 

officials to get approvals and work out 

the logistics. She did not think it would 

be much trouble to fulfill the Gabonese 

request for solar-powered water wells 

until she realized it would require not 

only the solar pump, but digging the 

actual wells. She later recalled, “I guess 

it never entered my mind that there 

would be a country without a single 

water well.” The project, which began 

operation in 1982, included 17 power 

systems in four rural villages that 

provided medical stations, classroom 

lighting, streetlights, and the new wells.

Instruments were installed on all the 

systems to provide daily analysis of 

their performance. Although minor 

operational problems were not uncommon, the systems generally performed 

well. Lewis engineers continued to 

provide technical support after the 

demonstration phase was completed 

and the systems were turned over to 

local entities.

By the early 1980s, NASA had 

increased its efforts in traditional aerospace fields and begun phasing out its 

Earth-based technology programs to 

concentrate its energy work on projects 

with aerospace applications, such as the 

space station power system. Lewis’s terrestrial photovoltaic group disbanded 

in early 1983, and the final project in 

Tunisia concluded in 1984. 

Between 1978 and 1984, Lewis 

designed, fabricated, and installed 57 

photovoltaic systems in 27 countries. 

Although there is no clear line between 

these projects and the larger standalone solar power systems employed 

today, the demonstrations contributed 

to the step-by-step progression toward 

today’s solar industry. 

 A collection of solar arrays installed 

in Hamman Biadah, Tunisia. (Photo 

credit: NASA)

NASA’s Demonstration of Photovoltaic Systems in Developing Nations (continued)

17
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

» By Christian Gelzer, NASA Historian

An airplane flies because the movement of air around its wings creates enough lift to raise it into 

the air. If, at any point in flight, a wing 

cannot make enough lift to keep flying, 

the plane stalls—literally stops flying 

and starts falling, hopefully with style. 

Some of the dangerous unpredictability 

of a stall has been designed out of newer 

aircraft, but even these can stall, and 

a spin can develop before the pilot is 

able to prevent it. (Some airplanes carry 

“helpful” placards warning that they are 

not to be spun.) The danger of a stall is 

greatest during slow flight and nose-up 

flight (including maneuvering at high 

angles of attack, also called AOA or 

“alpha”) because both happen at takeoff 

and landing on every flight. One way to 

delay a stall is to have the massive thrust 

of a military fighter, yet even they stall 

at some point.

In the 1970s, Wolfgang Herbst, an 

aerodynamicist with the West German 

firm Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm, 

GmbH (MBB), began arguing that 

maintaining control of an aircraft 

at 70 degrees AOA or higher, in the 

“post-stall” region (beyond aerodynamic control), would give a fighter an 

enormous advantage. At that time, the 

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 was a modern U.S. carrier-based, twin-engine 

fighter-attack aircraft, and it stalled at 

35 degrees AOA. (The F-22, the current premier U.S. fighter, can maintain 

control at more than 60 degrees AOA, 

well after stalling.) Herbst proposed 

using the fighter’s engine exhaust to 

compensate for the loss of aerodynamic 

control. Vectoring thrust dates at least 

to 1912, when a British dirigible used 

swiveling propellers to maneuver. At 

least one airplane flown in World 

War II tilted its engines up slightly to 

redirect thrust on takeoff; a rocket flew 

with vectored thrust in 1948; and the 

British flew the P.1127, precursor to the 

Harrier “jump jet,” in 1960.1 Of course, 

every time an aircraft changes propeller 

pitch or opens thrust diverters to decelerate on landing, it is vectoring engine 

thrust (and post-stall, no less). Herbst 

wanted to vector the exhaust coming 

out the engine’s back end, not another 

point along the way.

Germany became interested in “poststall” flight, or controlled flight well 

after the wing has lost lift aerodynamic 

control, because researchers expected 

that air combat with the Soviet Union/

Eastern Bloc would be at close quarters. 

The Rockwell-MBB X-31 was equipped with 

three vectoring paddles that provided 

control and lift at low speeds and high 

angles of attack. (Photo credit: U.S. Marine 

Corps/Major Cody Allee)

X-31: The First International X-Plane

18
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

In contrast, the United States planned 

for combat with missiles launched 

from beyond visual range of the opponent and saw thrust vectoring often as 

the Navy did, in terms of carrier operations.2

 Herbst used flight simulation to 

demonstrate his idea, but critics pointed 

out that as this region of flight had no 

precedent, the simulator was untrustworthy: he needed an airplane. But airplanes are expensive, research airplanes 

especially so, and the German Ministry 

of Defense would not foot this bill 

alone. Communication between parties in the United States and Germany 

determined mutual interest in this 

field, resulting in the X-31 in 1986. The 

first international X-plane was a beneficiary of the congressional passage 

of the Nunn-Quayle amendment to 

that year’s Defense Authorization Act, 

which made international cooperation 

like this possible.

The United States (through the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

or DARPA) funded 80 percent of the 

project and designated the Navy as its 

supervising authority (the Navy had 

begun exploring 2D thrust vectoring 

in the 1970s). The Germans brought 

to the table 20 percent of the budget 

and their experience, an apparent 

gross imbalance. Said a DARPA X-31 

manager about this: “[W]e did things 

we knew how to do. The Germans 

did things that had never been done 

before.”3 The commercial partners 

(MBB and Rockwell International) 

cooperatively designed two identical 

single-seat fighter concepts (which 

MBB built) that used a “cranked 

wing” (double-delta), canards, and a 

single GE F404 turbofan with afterburner. Around the exhaust nozzle 

were three carbon fiber paddles that 

could be deflected into the plume to 

direct the flow three-dimensionally for 

post-stall maneuvering.

NASA, too, was interested in this 

region of flight. Lewis Research Center 

(now Glenn Research Center) and 

Langley Research Center explored 

3D (multi-axis) thrust vectoring using 

models of U.S. fighters, and then the 

Agency began a multi-Center project 

to investigate post-stall flight using 

vectored thrust on a full-scale aircraft: 

an F/A-18. The F/A-18 High Alpha 

Research Vehicle (HARV) first flew 

in 1987 from Dryden Flight Research 

Center (now Armstrong), where it was 

based for the testing. Center engineers 

and mechanics eventually added vectoring paddles to the airplane, three 

per nozzle, and the thrust-vectoring 

control system phase that extended the 

high-alpha research ran through 1996.4

The Navy had responsibility for the 

X-31’s initial flight evaluation, which 

took an entire year to accomplish 

because of the Navy’s safety controls 

and procedures. MBB, Rockwell, and 

DARPA could not endure this pace 

because, in addition to the need for 

envelope expansion work with each 

subsequent research phase, each schedule slip threatened funding. These two 

factors led DARPA to move the project 

from the Naval Air Station Patuxent 

River test site to NASA Dryden at 

Edwards Air Force Base, and in 1992 

both aircraft arrived at the Center. 

 The F/A-18 HARV is tied down for a thrust-vectoring demonstration using the afterburner 

to illustrate the engine’s redirected exhaust. (Photo credit: NASA)

[W]e did things we knew 

how to do. The Germans 

did things that had never 

been done before.

—DARPA X-31 Manager

X-31: The First International X-Plane (continued)

19
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

NASA, MBB, and guest pilots flew 

both X-31s through different phases 

of research.5 Not only did the aircraft 

meet its design objectives, but there 

was an opportunity to see how it performed in mock combat with U.S. 

fighters. Before it was initially flown 

against the Center’s F/A-18s, NASA 

researchers thought a 3:1 kill ratio 

likely. It was 30:1. Against Air Force, 

Navy, and Marine fighters and pilots, 

the ratio was almost the same, the 

exception being the F-16, and its pilots 

admitted having to modify tactics to 

win what they did.

Considered the most dramatic, if not 

ultimate, demonstration of thrust vectoring’s potential, the X-31 was able to 

perform the Herbst Maneuver, reversing course mid-flight by pitching up 

steeply and, when nearly vertical, pivoting 180 degrees on its exhaust nozzle 

while nosing down and back the way it 

had come. This maneuver enables the 

pilot to engage an opponent in close 

combat when the opponent is in the 

midst of a much bigger turn and thus 

unable to defend against the threat. The 

maneuver has been compared to what a 

competitive swimmer does when making a rapid turn at the end of a lap with 

an almost zero-degree turn radius.6

Wrapping up nearly a decade of research, 

in January 1995 Karl Lang took the 

first X-31 up for the project’s last flight. 

Unaware that a pitot tube heater was 

unconnected, he flew through some 

low clouds, and the probe iced up. This 

led to inaccurate airspeed data in the 

cockpit, control room, and, most significantly, the flight computer (it had 

a digital fly-by-wire control system). 

Responding to the data it had, the 

flight computer suddenly pitched the 

X-31 up steeply and would not respond 

to Lang’s nose-down commands.7 Like 

other pilots in the program, he’d seen 

the drop-test results at Langley showing how nasty the X-31 could be after 

loss of controlled flight at high AOA, 

and he ejected.8 Despite the crash, in 

less than five months NASA and its 

partners had determined the cause of 

the accident, addressed it, and found 

a way to ship the second X-31 to that 

year’s Paris Airshow, where the Herbst 

Maneuver wowed even those to whom 

it had been explained.

International cooperation on a military project to this extent was new to 

the United States and Germany, and 

both parties expected that issues would 

crop up. MBB and Rockwell worked 

in two units of measure (one was metric the other standard), two cultures 

(MBB’s approach to digital control 

laws unsettled Rockwell engineers 

until they became familiar with them), 

and very different time zones. But after 

initial difficulties, the friction eased. 

Given the distance and time between 

Germany and California, for example, the project developed a two-shift 

system, and problems unsolved at one 

end were often transferred to the other 

partner for their next shift to tackle, 

and vice versa.

 This perspective highlights the X-31’s thrust-vectoring paddles and high AOA at which it 

could maneuver. (Photo credit: NASA)

X-31: The First International X-Plane (continued)

Watch the X-31 perform a post-stall 

Herbst Maneuver.

20
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

Since the X-31 and other projects 

(among them NASA’s F-18 HARV and 

F-15 Advanced Controls Technology 

for Integrated Vehicles, or ACTIVE), 

thrust vectoring has appeared on U.S., 

European, Russian, and Chinese military aircraft. But interested parties 

have drawn different conclusions about 

thrust vectoring. Everything must 

“buy” its way onto an airplane, which 

is one reason thrust vectoring does not 

appear on every fighter: its suitability depends on the aircraft’s purpose. 

More recent work in this field focuses 

on nonmechanical thrust vectoring—

manipulating the exhaust flow with 

fluid dynamics.9 To date, despite the 

project’s success, the X-31 remains the 

only international X-plane. 

Endnotes

1 See Erich Wilson, An Introduction 

to Thrust-Vectored Aircraft Nozzles

(London: Lambert Academic Press, 

2013).

2 Albion H. Bowers, Joseph W. Pahle, 

R. Joseph Wilson, Bradley C. Flick, and 

Richard L. Hood, An Overview of the 

NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle

(Edwards, CA: NASA TM 4772, 1996), 

p. 3.

3 Col. Michael Francis in Lane Wallace, 

Nose Up: High Angle of Attack and Thrust 

Vectoring Research at NASA Dryden, 

1979–2001 (Edwards, CA: NASA 

SP-2009-4534, 2006), p. 35.

4 The paddles—made of Inconel-X, a 

very dense metal amalgam—and the 

six hydraulic systems used to operate 

the paddles added almost a ton to the 

very back of the airplane, significantly 

affected its center of gravity, and led 

some to say the airplane now had “a ton 

of thrust” (Wallace, Nose Up, p. 45).

5 A Center photographer flying in the 

back seat in one of the Center’s F/A-18s 

recalls chasing the X-31 day after day 

and the F/A-18 stalling no matter what 

the pilot did, and they never could keep 

up with the X-31 (Gelzer conversation 

with James “Jim” Ross, Armstrong chief 

photographer).

6 Wallace, Nose Up, p. 37.

7 Wallace, Nose Up, p. 50. See also Joseph 

R. Chambers, “High-Angle-of-Attack 

Technology: Progress and Challenges,” 

in High-Angle-of-Attack Projects and 

Technology Conference, NASA CP-3149, 

vol. 1, May 1992; and Chambers, 

“High-Angle-of-Attack Technology: 

Lessons Learned,” AIAA-86-1774, June 

1986.

8 Engineers noted that by pushing a button, Lang could have reverted to the 

standard flight control program that 

would have returned him control, but 

this observation came after the crash. 

No one in the control room mentioned 

the inoperative pitot heat until Lang 

mentioned turning it on after entering 

the clouds, by which time it was too late.

9 Jose C. Páscoa, Antonio Dumas, 

Michele Trancossi, Paul Stewart, and 

Dean Vucinic, “A Review of Thrust 

Vectoring in Support of a V/STOL, 

Non-Moving Mechanical Propulsion 

System,” Central European Journal of 

Engineering 3, no. 3 (2023): 374–388.

 An illustration of the Herbst Maneuver. (Image credit: NASA)

STAY UP 

TO DATE

WITH NASA HISTORY’S EVENTS 

AND PUBLICATIONS

BY SENDING A BLANK E-MAIL TO 

history-join@lists.hq.nasa.gov

X-31: The First International X-Plane (continued)

21
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

The “Greatest 

Communications 

Experiment in History” or a 

Case Study in Geopolitics 

During the Cold War?1

The Satellite Instructional Television 

Experiment

» By Stephen Garber, NASA Historian

E

ARLIER THIS YEAR, India 

became one of the latest nations 

to sign the Artemis Accords.2 The 

roots of NASA–Indian Space Research 

Organisation (ISRO) cooperation 

extend back to the early 1960s, however, and notably included the Satellite 

Instructional Television Experiment 

(SITE) during 1975–76. Through SITE, 

India became the world’s first nation to 

broadcast television to an audience of 

millions of viewers. Largely successful, 

SITE indeed was a significant technical 

and diplomatic achievement during the 

Cold War, if not the greatest communications experiment until that time.

Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, considered the 

father of India’s space program, is a 

notable figure in this story, although he 

did not live to see it come to pass. He 

was a charismatic, prominent physicist 

who was influential in Indian and international scientific circles. Specifically, 

Sarabhai was the scientific chairman 

of the United Nations Committee 

on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 

(UNCOPUOS) in the late 1960s and 

was a major force behind SITE until 

his death in 1971.3

While a visiting professor at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

in March 1961, Sarabhai expressed 

interest in cooperating with NASA; 

later that year, NASA loaned the Indian 

Physical Research Lab some telemetry 

receiving equipment for a gamma-ray 

satellite.4 More generally, in the early 

1960s, NASA and Indian space officials 

had ongoing discussions about cooperation on scientific sounding rockets 

and siting satellite tracking stations 

in India.5 These discussions yielded 

an October 1962 Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) on sounding 

rockets between NASA and the Indian 

Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), 

where Indian space efforts were then 

housed. In 1963, Indian personnel 

launched a NASA-provided sounding 

rocket from a new facility in Thumba 

on India’s southwestern coast.6

The following year, NASA officials 

began exploring the idea of using a 

forthcoming Applications Technology 

Satellite (ATS) for a direct satellite 

TV broadcasting experiment, which 

interested Indian officials.7 Presidential 

Science Advisor Dr. Jerome Wiesner 

traveled to India early in 1965 to discuss collaboration in nuclear energy, 

space, and general science. Also 

that year, Sarabhai met with NASA 

Administrator James Webb, Deputy 

Administrator Hugh Dryden, and 

NASA international affairs head 

Arnold Frutkin. They converged on 

efforts that would have a “meaningful impact on Indian technology and 

industrial growth, not spectaculars 

that would drain resources to no useful 

social effect,” nor technology that was 

not home-grown.8

Webb then proposed a satellite broadcasting initiative using a geosynchronous satellite over India to the 

Department of State official. In March 

1967, Sarabhai submitted a formal proposal to NASA for what later became 

SITE. Earlier, State officials had been 

embarrassed when Indian officials had 

They converged on 

efforts that would have 

a “meaningful impact on 

Indian technology and 

industrial growth, not 

spectaculars that would 

drain resources to no 

useful social effect,” nor 

technology that was not 

home-grown.

22
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

rejected a proposal to place Voice of 

America transmitters there, so Frutkin 

deliberately asked Sarabhai to initiate 

this request. Sarabhai’s proposal was 

then accepted.9

In September 1969, officials from ISRO 

signed an MOU establishing the SITE 

program. At the signing ceremony, 

Sarabhai noted that India had more 

than half a million villages, most of 

them isolated, and acknowledged the 

project’s mutuality.10 He looked forward to using this satellite communications project to address the “education 

needs of India’s rural population rather 

than the entertainment wants of the 

urban masses.”11

The SITE project involved NASA loaning India the use of the ATS-6 satellite 

for one year, from 1 August 1975 to 

31 July 1976, to broadcast educational 

TV programming to six clusters of 

approximately 400 villages each for 

approximately 4 hours daily. In turn, 

India was responsible for providing the 

ground equipment, including 10-foot 

antennas, front-end converters, and TV 

sets,12 as well as the preparation and 

transmission of original programming.

More broadly, as general principles 

for international cooperation in space, 

Frutkin emphasized that there would 

be no exchange of funds between 

nations, and SITE was no exception. 

“So we came up with [a fundamental 

guideline that precluded any] exchange 

of cash; each side in a cooperative 

project would do what it could do at 

its own expense; the project would 

be considered only on the basis of 

mutual interest.”13

In addition to NASA, the Indian organizations participating in SITE were 

ISRO (which by 1975, was part of the 

Department of State), the Ministry 

of Information and Broadcasting 

(known as Doordarshan), Indian state 

governments, and the Ministries of 

Agriculture, Education, Health, and 

Family Welfare. SITE’s stated goals 

included gaining experience with a 

satellite-based educational television 

system in rural areas, demonstrating 

the potential value of satellite technology for mass communication in 

developing countries, and stimulating 

Indian national development.14

While some basic statistics about the 

Indian population at the time of SITE 

may seem surprising to Westerners half 

a century later, they underscore the 

point that India was indeed a developing country. When the SITE project 

was being planned in the late 1960s 

and early 1970s, India had a population of approximately 600 million 

(U.S. officials noted that it was world’s 

largest democracy) with 70 percent 

of the population living in villages, 

70 percent illiterate, and 60 percent living in poverty. Moreover, TV 

existed only in Delhi in India, with no 

national distribution network. Frutkin 

and Leonard Jaffe, NASA’s director 

of satellite communications, assessed 

that it would be too expensive to set up 

The “Greatest Communications Experiment in History” or a Case Study in Geopolitics During the Cold War? (continued)

 Map of India showing the regions chosen for the SITE project. (Image source: “Satellite 

Instruction Television Experiment,” Space Research, Technology, and Applications 2, no. 

3 [February 1976], copy in file 14642, NASA Headquarters Archives)

23
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

regular TV infrastructure. Setting up 

TVs in communal locations meant that 

many villagers could watch simultaneously, and a satellite-based approach 

actually would be a more cost-effective 

method than building up a conventional, ground-based TV infrastructure of local transmitters.15

Indian officials selected six poorer 

states, A ndhra Pradesh, Bihar, 

Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, 

and Rajasthan, to host a total of 2,332 

SITE villages. With an average village 

population of 1,200, this meant that 

about 2.8 million people had access 

daily to SITE programs, and there 

were over 300,000 average daily viewers. Indian officials initially fanned 

out across these provinces and visited 

approximately 6,000 villages to find 

ones that met program criteria, such 

as capability to be electrified relatively 

quickly, distance from a maintenance 

center, population, and existing infrastructure (educational, agricultural, 

health). It was neither a random selection nor a process of elimination.16

The public placement of TVs meant 

that programming was available to 

everyone, regardless of caste, although 

a disproportionately high percentage of 

low-income farmers composed the new 

viewership. Programming was tailored 

to rural people “who 

have rarely seen moving pictures,” but the 

audience included 

viewers from “all socioeconomic strata.”17

To fill 4 hours of 

original programming da i ly (over 

1,200 hours for the 

year), Doordarshan 

built three TV production studios in 

Delhi, Cuttack, and 

Hyderabad.18 These 

s t u d i o s c r e a t e d 

90 minutes of daily 

educational shows 

for children aged 5 through 8 and 9 

through 12 years old. (The programming was divided into these two target 

audiences). At village schools, students 

watched these shows, which focused on 

“enrichment” of school lessons; “numeracy, language and techniracy” skills; 

“community living skills”; “habits of 

hygienic and healthy living”; “aesthetic 

sensitivity”; and awareness of “modernization of life and society around them.” 

For two and a half hours at night, the 

programming targeted adult villagers 

with shows about family planning, 

hygiene, health, weather forecasts, 

and agriculture. During school vacations, SITE programming included 

teacher training programs. The project also included some entertainment 

programs.19 While some latter-day 

observers might well find some of this 

language paternalistic and culturally 

insensitive, these quotations come from 

Indian documentation. 

SITE utilized the ATS-6 spacecraft, 

which launched about a year before 

the SITE program officially began. 

Considered the first satellite used for 

educational purposes, ATS-6 was also 

used to conduct other early telemedicine and educational experiments in 

Alaska and elsewhere. Its broadcasting 

strength enabled small, relatively inexpensive and large-scale ground equipment to be deployed successfully in 

India for SITE. As one author pointed 

out, this video broadcasting technology is similar to that commonly used 

today for videoconferencing.20

After the SITE program ended in 

1976, evaluators assessed it somewhat 

positively. Specifically, they judged 

the reliability of program delivery to 

be good, and viewership was also considered good, although it tailed off at 

some venues over the year. In terms of 

whether the viewers learned, evaluators gave SITE tentatively good marks. 

As to whether there were significant 

changes in “appropriate behaviors,” the 

data were inconclusive. Again, some 

of these criteria are shaded by paternalistic language. Assessments of some 

initial hypotheses about how SITE 

The “Greatest Communications Experiment in History” or a Case Study in Geopolitics during the Cold War? (continued)

The public placement 

of TVs meant that 

programming was 

available to everyone, 

regardless of caste....

 An ISRO technician stands next to a working model of the 

specially designed SITE TV set. (NASA image reproduced in 

Raman Srinivasan, “No Free Launch: Designing the Indian 

National Satellite,” chapter 16 in Beyond the Ionosphere: Fifty 

Years of Satellite Communications, ed. Andrew J. Butrica 

[Washington, DC: NASA SP-4217, 1997], p. 221)

24
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

would affect students turned out to be 

more surprising and more of a mixed 

bag. Students’ language development 

did improve, and students were curious enough to seek additional information. On the other hand, students’ 

school achievement, interaction with 

teachers, and attendance did not 

significantly improve.21

At another level, SITE did succeed by 

demonstrating that a satellite-based 

educational television system was 

feasible in a developing country such 

as India, and it did 

stimulate Indian 

national development in space. 

Indian provincial 

and local government participation 

was key to this success. Provincial and 

local governments 

often supplied existing infrastructure 

and electricity to 

almost 2,000 buildings that previously 

lacked it; hence, 

electrification was 

itself a major ancillary benefit.22

SITE also laid the 

figurative (and in 

some ways, the literal) groundwork for 

future Indian space 

activities, some of 

which also benefited 

the United States. 

The Indian National 

Satellite (INSAT) 

program started in 

the 1980s. In 1984, 

Rakesh Sharma became the first Indian 

in space, flying on the Soviet Salyut 7 

mission.23 In 1997, Kalpana Chawla 

was the first woman of Indian descent 

to fly on the Space Shuttle.24

Citing Sarabhai, Frutkin waxed enthusiastically about SITE before it began. 

SITE was “one of those widely-sought 

but rarely-grasped opportunities to use 

modern technology in a developing 

country so as to leapfrog historical 

development stages.... Dr. Vikram 

Sarabhai, the guiding spirit in India 

for the experiment, has stated that the 

use of satellites for direct broadcasting 

will make it possible to bring televised 

instruction to illiterate millions of 

India’s 550,000 villages in only ten 

years as against thirty years required 

for the construction and extension of 

a conventional microwave TV distribution system—given the same annual 

rate of investment.”25 The head of 

Doordarshan also sung SITE’s praises 

by contending that it was unique in 

that it had something for everybody, 

“Indians and foreigners, high status 

and low, rich and poor, specialist 

and non-specialist.”26

To appreciate SITE’s significance to the 

United States, however, it is paramount 

to consider the overall geopolitical context in the late 1960s and the 1970s. 

While the United States and Soviet 

Union competed for influence in the 

“third world” during the Cold War, 

leaders of decolonized countries such 

as India sought a third, nonaligned 

path. China’s role complicated things 

in Asia as well. China had defeated 

India in a 1962 border war, leading 

to increased Indian military spending. 

For U.S. foreign policy-makers, SITE 

offered the example of India as a counterpoint to communist China for a 

developing country, “part of a broader 

strategy to channel Indian resources 

down the path of civilian technologies. 

And, by withdrawing the satellite from 

service after a year, NASA successful[ly] encouraged the Indian government to buy additional models from 

US business.”27

While the United States was angling 

to win over nonaligned countries such 

as India, many in the U.S. foreign 

policy establishment were not fully 

The “Greatest Communications Experiment in History” or a Case Study in Geopolitics during the Cold War? (continued)

 Illustration of NASA’s ATS-6 satellite that the Satellite 

Instructional Television Experiment used. (Image credit: NASA)

25
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

comfortable committing to a strategic 

alliance with India. As early as the 

Kennedy administration, Pakistan was 

the United States’ preferred ally on 

the subcontinent. Yet Indian Prime 

Minister Jawaharlal Nehru met with 

President John F. Kennedy in 1962, 

and the two leaders issued a joint 

statement on cooperation, including 

in space. The geopolitical tides continued to shift during the 1970s. After 

the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war and the 

1974 Indian peaceful nuclear explosion, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi 

sought cooperation with the Soviet 

Union, which launched three Indian 

satellites.28

Given all these geopolitical twists and 

turns, SITE was a notable achievement 

both for NASA and India. Putting 

aside Arthur C. Clarke’s hyperbolic 

rhetoric, SITE was indeed a significant 

milestone in the history of satellite telecommunications. Even more important, however, was SITE’s geopolitical 

significance, as well as the precedent it 

set for further U.S.-India space cooperation and the development of indigenous Indian space capability.

In the decades since, India has made 

considerable progress in various aspects 

of exploring space, to the point where 

some analysts consider it a “great space 

power.”29 Bringing the story up to date, 

last month NASA Administrator Bill 

Nelson traveled to India to discuss 

space cooperation.30 

Endnotes

1 The quotation is from Arthur C. Clarke, 

who was an enthusiastic consultant to 

SITE and received a special TV set for 

his home in Sri Lanka. In addition to 

being famous for his science fiction 

writing, Clarke is credited with developing the idea for satellite telecommunications. He also was quoted as saying 

that the “TV satellite is mightier than 

the ICBM [Intercontinental Ballistic 

Missile].” For these quotations, see Yash 

Pal, “A Visitor to the Village,” Bulletin of 

the Atomic Scientists 33, no. 1 (January 

1977) and Next Ten Years in Space, 

1959–1969, Staff Report of the Select 

Committee on Astronautics and Space 

Exploration, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., 

p. 32, cited in Ashok Maharaj, “Satellite 

Broadcasting in Rural India: The SITE 

Project,” chap. 12 in NASA in the World: 

Fifty Years of International Collaboration 

in Space (New York: Palgrave, 2013), 

pp. 235, 239. Regarding Clarke’s role 

in SITE, see Raman Srinivasan, “No 

Free Launch: Designing the Indian 

National Satellite,” chap. 16 in Beyond 

the Ionosphere: Fifty Years of Satellite 

Communications, ed. Andrew J. Butrica 

(Washington, DC: NASA SP-4217, 

1997), p. 221.

2 India became the 27th country to sign 

the Accords on 27 June 2023. See 

“NASA Welcomes India as 27th Artemis 

Accords Signatory,” https://www.nasa.

gov/news-release/nasa-welcomes-indiaas-27th-artemis-accords-signatory/

(accessed 29 November 2023).

3 Clifford Block, Dennis Foote, and John 

Mayo, “A Case Study of India’s Satellite 

Instructional Television Project [sic] 

(SITE),” January 1977, p. 25, copy in file 

14642, NASA Headquarters Archives; 

Ashok Maharaj, “An Overview of 

NASA-India Relations,” chap. 11 in 

NASA in the World, pp. 213–215. 

Dr. Homi Bhabha was an important, 

earlier figure in India’s space program. 

Bhabha was an aristocratic scientist 

in post–World War II India who was 

considered the father of India’s nuclear 

energy program and pushed to build 

an Indian satellite before his death in 

1966. Bhabha was a decade older than 

Sarabhai, and the two were colleagues 

and friends. See Srinivasan, “No Free 

Launch,” p. 222.

4 Ashok Maharaj, “An Overview of 

NASA-India Relations,” chap. 11 in 

NASA in the World, p. 217.

5 Maharaj, “An Overview of NASAIndia Relations,” pp. 216–217. For 

more information on the international 

aspects of NASA’s tracking stations, 

Maharaj cites Sunny Tsiao, “Read You 

Loud and Clear”: The Story of NASA’s 

Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network

(Washington, DC: NASA SP-2007-

4232, 2008).

6 Maharaj, “An Overview of NASA-India 

Relations,” pp. 218–219.

7 Arnold W. Frutkin, “The India-US 

Satellite Broadcasting Experiment” 

(undated white paper prepared before 

SITE officially began), p. 5, copy in file 

14641, NASA Headquarters Archives.

8 Maharaj, “Satellite Broadcasting in 

Rural India: The SITE Project,” pp. 

237–238 (quotation is from p. 238).

9 Webb proposed this to State Department 

official U. Alexis Johnson in May 

1966. See Ashok Maharaj, “Satellite 

Broadcasting in Rural India: The SITE 

Project,” p. 238; Frutkin, “The India-US 

Satellite Broadcasting Experiment,” pp. 

5–8; and Srinivasan, “No Free Launch,” 

p. 220.

10 Maharaj, “An Overview of NASA-India 

Relations,” p. 222; “Remarks by NASA 

Administrator Dr. Thomas C. Paine and 

Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, Chairman, Indian 

Space Research Organization and the 

Department of Atomic Energy at the 

Signing of the India/U.S. Instructional 

Television (ITV) Satellite Experiment 

Project Agreement,” 18 September 1969, 

copy in file 14642, NASA Headquarters 

Archives.

11 Brian Shoesmith, “Footprints to the 

Future, Shadows of the Past: Toward a 

History of Communications Satellites in 

Asia,” chap. 17 in Beyond the Ionosphere, 

ed. Butrica, p. 230.

12 Maharaj, “Satellite Broadcasting in 

Rural India: The SITE Project,” p. 243.

13 Arnold W. Frutkin, oral history by 

Rebecca Wright, Washington, DC, 11 

January 2002, https://historycollection.

The “Greatest Communications Experiment in History” or a Case Study in Geopolitics During the Cold War? (continued)

26
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/

history/oral_histories/NASA_HQ/

Administrators/FrutkinAW/

FrutkinAW_1-11-02.htm (accessed 29 

November 2023).

14 Block et al., “A Case Study,” p. 1, and 

see https://www.isro.gov.in/genesis.

html (accessed 11 December 2023) for 

a synopsis history of ISRO and where it 

stood organizationally at this time.

15 UN-UNESCO Panel Meeting on SITE 

Experiences, 31 October–5 November 

1977, report (Space Applications Centre, 

Indian Space Research Organisation), 

p. 5, copy in file 14641, NASA 

Headquarters Archives; Maharaj, 

“Satellite Broadcasting in Rural India: 

The SITE Project,” pp. 237, 239; 

Srinivasan, “No Free Launch,” p. 220.

16 Block et al., “A Case Study,” pp. 1, 

3; P. V. Krishnamoorthy, Director 

General, Doordarshan, “A Satellite 

in the Service of the Underprivileged 

The Indian Experience with SITE,” 

(undated), pp. 2, 13, copy in file 14641, 

NASA Headquarters Archives; V. K. 

Nair, Satellite Instruction Television 

Experiment, rev. ed. (Bangalore: ISRO, 

July 1974), p. 14, copy in file 14642, 

NASA Headquarters Archives.

17 Block et al., “A Case Study,” pp. 22, 31; 

E. V. Chitnis and J. E. Miller, “Social 

Implications of Satellite Instructional 

Tele v ision E xperiment— Use of 

Advanced Communication System 

for National Development,” copy of 

paper from Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (IEEE) meeting 

in Philadelphia, June 1976, p. 2, copy 

in file 14641, NASA Headquarters 

Archives; Krishnamoorthy, “A Satellite 

in the Service,” p. 13.

18 Krishnamoorthy, “A Satellite in the 

Service,” p. 1.

19 Satellite Instruction Television Experiment: Technical Evaluation of the Ground 

Segment (Bangalore: ISRO, October 

1977), p. 7, copy in file 14642, NASA 

Headquarters Archives; Nair, Satellite 

Instruction Television Experiment, pp. 

7–9; Block et al., “A Case Study,” pp. 

4, 29.

20 Bert Cowlan and Dennis Foote, “A Case 

Study of the ATS-6 Health, Education 

and Telecommunications Project,” 

Agency for International Development, 

Bureau for Technical Assistance, Office 

of Education and Human Resources, 

August 1975, copy in file 14641, NASA 

Headquarters Archives. Shortly before 

SITE initiation, this satellite also 

helped relay signals for the historic 

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) 

docking in orbit. See Craig Gralley, 

Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute: 

An Untold History of Spacemen & Spies

(Charleston, SC: History Press, 2023), 

pp. 54–55 regarding the ASTP docking 

and p. 51 regarding videoconferencing 

technology.

21 Block et al., “A Case Study,” pp. 30, 33.

(continued on page 32) »

The “Greatest Communications Experiment in History” or a Case Study in Geopolitics During the Cold War? (continued)

For over 30 years, NASA’s Discovery 

Program has funded relatively 

small, focused, and innovative missions to 

bodies in our solar system that continue 

to yield ground-breaking scientific data 

and drive new technology innovations. In

NASA’s Discovery Program, the newest 

release in NASA’s History Series, Susan M. 

Niebur draws on interviews with program 

managers, engineers, and scientists 

from Discovery’s early missions to take 

an in-depth look at the management 

techniques they used to design creative 

and cost-effective spacecraft.

NOW AVAILABLE IN PRINT

E-book coming soon to 

https://www.nasa.gov/history

NEW from the 

NASA HISTORY OFFICE

27
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

NASA’s Tracking 

Stations

A Tale of International 

Collaboration

» By Christine Stevens, Archivist

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED

how NASA engineers are able 

to track and communicate with 

spacecraft? How Mission Control can 

have conversations with astronauts 

in space? NASA’s tracking networks 

make it all possible. NASA has utilized 

several tracking networks throughout 

its history, the first of which was the 

Minitrack System, built by the U.S. 

Navy. The Minitrack System was transferred to NASA in 1958 and served as 

a building block for the Space Tracking 

and Data Acquisition Network 

(STADAN). Other follow-on networks 

included the Manned Space Flight 

Network (MSFN), the Spaceflight 

Tracking and Data Network (STDN), 

the Deep Space Network (DSN), and 

others. All tracking networks were and 

continue to be managed by various 

offices at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight 

Center (GSFC).

Every tracking network requires tracking stations to operate. In the early 

years of the space program, NASA 

relied on tracking stations located in 

the United States. However, depending 

on where a spacecraft is, it might not 

be able to contact a U.S. station—but 

it could make contact with a station in 

another part of the world. As the program expanded, it became clear that a 

global network of tracking stations was 

necessary to track and communicate 

with spacecraft as they circled Earth.

The first international tracking station 

was built in Woomera, Australia, in 

1957 and was used to track the orbits 

of early satellites, such as Explorer 1 

and Echo 1. Throughout the 1960s and 

1970s, NASA’s tracking station network 

expanded rapidly, reaching across continents and fostering partnerships with 

countries eager to participate in the 

exploration of space. In 1961, stations 

were established in Canberra, Australia, 

and Madrid, Spain, providing critical support for the Project Mercury 

and Gemini missions. The list kept 

growing, with stations being built in 

Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Madagascar, 

England, South Africa, the Bahamas, 

and more.

Before tracking stations could become 

operational, they needed to be staffed. 

NASA employees and contractors 

moved across the globe in support of 

the effort. To help employees acclimate to their new homes, the Bendix 

Corporation created informational 

booklets on the tracking stations where 

their employees would be sent. Each 

booklet included information about 

places to live, local customs, weather, 

entertainment, and what working at 

the station would be like. Titled after 

the location of the station, The Madrid 

Story, The Guaymas Story, and The 

Bermuda Story informational booklets 

gave employees a glimpse of what life 

would be like at their new job.

As the program expanded, 

it became clear that a 

global network of tracking 

stations was necessary to 

track and communicate 

with spacecraft as they 

circled Earth.

 Dr. John Clark and his wife June (partially visible) lead the way as a group 

walks past a tracking station antenna in Quito, Ecuador. This photo is part of 

the Goddard Space Flight Center Archives collection. (Photo credit: NASA)

28
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

The establishment of tracking stations 

around the globe was not merely a 

logistical necessity; it represented a 

conscious effort to foster international 

relationships. These stations served 

as hubs for collaboration, bringing 

together scientists and engineers from 

diverse backgrounds to work toward 

common goals. The sharing of expertise and resources among these partners proved to be invaluable.

In the Goddard Archives, there is a collection from Dr. John Clark, Goddard’s 

Center Director from 1965 to 1976, 

that contains photographs and letters 

from Dr. Clark and his wife during 

their visits to the Quito Tracking 

Station in Ecuador and Santiago 

Tracking Station in Chile. While in 

Quito, Dr. Clark met with a variety of 

people, including the Station Director, 

the U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador, 

two employees from the Polytechnic 

Institute of Quito, local contractors, 

and a cultural affairs specialist from 

the United States Information Service 

(USIS). These visits provide evidence 

that NASA was invested in fostering 

cultural exchange while making scientific and technological advancements 

in the realm of space exploration.

NASA’s tracking stations have played a 

vital role in the success of the Agency’s 

space missions since its beginning. 

These stations have tracked the orbits 

of spacecraft, received telemetry data, 

and provided two-way communication with astronauts even when they 

were out of range for U.S. tracking 

stations. This network of tracking 

stations located strategically around 

the world continues to be essential for 

the Agency’s missions in Earth’s orbit, 

across the solar system, and into interstellar space. 

NASA’s Tracking Stations (continued)

Learn more about the 

history of NASA’s 

Spaceflight Tracking and Data 

Network with the 2008 NASA 

History Series publication

“Read You Loud and Clear!"

 Covers for three Bendix Corporation informational booklets from the Goddard Archival Collection are shown. These booklets briefed 

NASA employees and contractors about the tracking stations where they could be stationed. (Photo credit: NASA/Goddard Archives)

 Dr. John Clark’s collection at the 

Goddard Space Flight Center Archives 

include NASA identification cards for 

Clark and his wife June for a trip to the 

Santiago, Chile, tracking station. (Photo 

credit: NASA/Goddard Archives)

29
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

The United States–Japan 

Partnership in Space

» By Joshua Schmidt, Former Presidential Management Fellow at NASA Headquarters

A History of Cooperation

F

OLLOWING DECADES of cooperation in space, Japan joined the 

United States and six other countries as one of the initial signatories to 

the Artemis Accords on 13 October 

2020. Japan’s further commitment to 

cooperation with NASA, the Canadian 

Space Agency (CSA), and the European 

Space Agency (ESA) on the Gateway 

project quickly followed, with the most 

recent update to the agreement signed 

in November 2022. Through this 

partnership with the Japan Aerospace 

Exploration Agency (JAXA), the United 

States gains an important ally with many 

notable achievements in the peaceful use of space to advance scientific 

understanding. JAXA was established 

on 1 October 2003 and brings together 

a wealth of knowledge from three 

previously separate organizations: the 

National Space Development Agency 

of Japan (NASDA), the Institute of 

Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), 

and the National Aerospace Laboratory 

of Japan (NAL).

Recent accomplishments and collaboration aside, this U.S.-Japan partnership follows decades of cooperation in 

space on various projects. From large 

endeavors such as the construction 

and maintenance of the International 

Space Station (ISS) to smaller projects 

on weather and observational satellites, 

and even licensing agreements for 

launch vehicle technology, both countries have gleaned a wealth of experience from their interactions.

First Forays

Japan, a technologically advanced 

nation with close ties to the United 

States, was a natural choice when 

considering partners for the construction of the ISS, along with CSA 

and ESA. However, unlike the other 

program participants, up until 1992, 

the Japanese government had yet to 

conduct any piloted space ventures 

and had not participated in the Space 

Shuttle Program. 

NASDA first contacted NASA about 

an opportunity for 

research utilizing 

Spacelab and the 

Shuttle Program 

in January 1984 

after issuing a call 

for experiment s 

throughout Japan in 

1979. In July 1984, 

34 experiments were 

selected, and a final 

agreement between 

the United States 

a nd Ja p a n w a s 

signed on 31 March 

1985 establishing 

the Spacelab J mission. Under this 

agreement, NASDA 

was responsible for developing the 

payload for the Spacelab module and 

providing one mission specialist to fly 

with the experiments, and the United 

States was responsible for providing 

reimbursable launch services and mission management.

The original Spacelab J mission was 

slated for February 1988 aboard 

Space Shuttle Challenger as STS81G. However, following the 1986 

Challenger accident and the subsequent 

hiatus in the Space Shuttle Program, 

the mission was postponed. Though it 

meant the mission would be delayed for 

several years, the Japanese government 

made the decision to keep to the deal 

brokered with the United States. Japan 

even turned down an offer from the 

Soviet Union to utilize the new Mir 

space station.1 Interestingly, the first 

Japanese citizen in space, a reporter 

 Japanese astronaut Takao Doi performs an EVA during the 

STS-87 mission in December 1997. (Photo credit: NASA)

30
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

named Toyohiro Akiyama, would 

fly aboard the Soviet Union’s Soyuz 

TM-11 in 1990 as a commercially 

funded research cosmonaut.2

Spacelab J finally launched on 12 

September 1992 as STS-47 aboard 

Space Shuttle Endeavor, and Mamouri 

Mohri became the first Japanese astronaut to fly with the United States into 

space. The seven-day mission included 

43 experiments, such as 20 life science 

experiments that focused on human 

health in space. The schedule was even 

extended during the mission to allow 

one additional day of experiments 

to be conducted before the Shuttle’s 

return.

ISS Collaboration

While Japan eagerly awaited participation in the Shuttle Program, it continued to analyze and develop the plans 

necessary for its contribution to the ISS. 

In March 1986, the first proposal for 

the Japanese Experiment Module, or 

Kibo (Hope), was presented. In March 

1989, an Intergovernmental Agreement 

was signed between the United States 

and Japan, outlining involvement in 

the effort to complete the Space Station.

Following the Spacelab J mission, 

Japan continued to send astronauts 

into space in order to gain the essential 

skills required to ensure the successful 

development and assembly of the Kibo 

module upon its delivery. In November 

1997, Dr. Takao Doi flew aboard Space 

Shuttle Columbia during STS-87 as 

a mission specialist and became the 

first Japanese astronaut to complete 

a spacewalk. During the 15-day mission, Winston Scott (mission specialist) 

and Doi completed two extravehicular activities (EVAs) with the goal 

of testing assembly techniques and 

practices to be used in the upcoming 

ISS construction. 

This experience proved invaluable 

when it came time for Doi to temporarily attach the first Japanese module 

(Logistics Module) to the ISS in March 

2008 after it was flown on STS-123. The 

second module (Pressurized Module) 

flew during STS-124 and was successfully attached by Akihiko Hoshide 

utilizing the Station’s robotic arm. The 

final component, the Exposed Facility 

Module, was brought on STS-127 in 

July 2009 and would later be attached 

by Koichi Wakata during an EVA.

To support Kibo and the ISS, Japan 

developed and operated the H-II 

Transfer Vehicle (HTV), an expendable 

cargo spacecraft also called Kounotori 

(White Stork). From 2009 to 2020, the 

HTV successfully resupplied the ISS 

nine times. The HTV became especially 

important once the Space Shuttles were 

retired, and the HTV was the only 

vehicle with International Standard 

Payload Racks (ISPR) installed to aid 

in the efficient movement of new equipment to the ISS.3

Upon its completion, Kibo became 

the largest module on the ISS, and 

this space has allowed astronauts to 

complete experiments in life science, 

medicine, Earth and planetary science, 

astronomy, and materials and physical science in microgravity. Japan has 

also confirmed its commitment to 

continued ISS participation alongside 

the United States, Canada, and ESA 

until 2030.

Into the Future

Utilizing the lessons learned from 

participation in Spacelab and the ISS, 

The United States–Japan Partnership in Space (continued)

JAXA’s Kibo laboratory module (composed of a pressurized module and exposed facility, 

a logistics module, a remote manipulator system, and an inter-orbit communication system 

unit) is pictured in 2018. (Photo credit: NASA)

31
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

in addition to the strong partnerships 

created from these and other efforts, 

Japan is in a position to be a significant 

contributor to the Artemis missions 

and the Gateway space station.

As a part of the Gateway program agreement, JAXA will provide Gateway’s 

life-support system and thermal controls. Japan will also provide crucial 

components for many other modules, 

including camera and batteries for the 

International Habitation (I-Hab) module and batteries for both the European 

System Refueling Infrastructure and 

Telecommunication (ESPIRIT) module and the Habitation and Logistics 

Outpost (HALO) module.

Additionally, Japan plans to use its 

experience resupplying the ISS with 

the HTV to develop the next generation of autonomous transfer vehicles for potential use in the Gateway 

Program.4 In the vein of a continued 

partnership in human space exploration, the United States and Japan have 

also affirmed aspirations to include 

Japanese astronauts not only on missions to Gateway, but also on missions 

to the lunar surface. In short, Japan and 

the United States have a growing bond 

in space exploration that continues to 

strengthen with every joint venture. As 

summed up in a statement from Vice 

President Kamala Harris:

Japan’s contributions will 

advance scientific knowledge 

and protect our brave astronauts exploring the depths of 

outer space. And this brings us 

one step closer to one day having a Japanese astronaut walk 

on the moon. Today we celebrate U.S.-Japan cooperation 

in space, which has never been 

stronger.5 

Endnotes

1 Brian Harvey, Henk H. F. Smid, and 

Theo Pirard, Emerging Space Powers: The 

New Space Programs of Asia, the Middle 

East, and South America (London: 

Praxis, 2009).

2 Ibid. Toyohiro Akiyama became the 

first journalist to give live reports from 

space, and this venture became the first 

commercially sponsored and funded 

spaceflight of an individual when the 

Tokyo Broadcasting Service paid for the 

experience.

3 Pete Harding,”HTV-3 Arrives to 

Make Large Delivery of Supplies and 

Research Cargo to ISS,” NSF, 27 July 

2012, https://www.nasaspaceflight.

com/2012/07/japans-htv-3-largedelivery-supplies-and-research-cargoto-iss/ (accessed 1 December 2023).

4 JAX A, “HTV-X,” https://humansin-space.jaxa.jp/en/htv-x/mission/

(accessed 17 November 2023).

5 “Statement by Vice President Kamala 

Harris on U.S.-Japan Space Cooperation,” 

17 November 2022, the White House, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/statements-releases/2022/11/17/

statement-by-vice-president-kamalaharris-on-u-s-japan-space-cooperation/

(accessed 17 November 2023).

22 Block et al., “A Case Study,” pp. 21–22; 

Maharaj, “Satellite Broadcasting in 

Rural India,” p. 235.

23 See, for example, Gurbir Singh, “ISRO 

Prepares for Human Spaceflight,” 23 

October 2023, https://thespacereview.

com/article/4673/1/ (accessed 29 

November 2023).

24 Chawla flew on the STS-87 mission 

then. She later flew on the STS-107 mission, which ended tragically when the 

Columbia orbiter broke apart on atmospheric reentry on 1 February 2003.

25 Frutkin, “The India-US Satellite 

Broadcasting Experiment,” p. 2.

26 Krishnamoorthy, “A Satellite in the 

Service,” p. 12.

27 Quotation is from John K rige, 

“Introduction and Historical Overview: 

NASA’s International Relations in 

Space,” chap. 1 in Krige et al., NASA in 

the World, p. 15. See also Maharaj, “An 

Overview of NASA-India Relations,” 

pp. 211–213, 218. U.S.-based Ford 

Aerospace built four satellites for the 

previously mentioned INSAT program. 

See Maharaj, “Satellite Broadcasting 

in Rural India: The SITE Project,” pp. 

240–241, 246.

28 Maharaj, “An Overview of NASA-India 

Relations,” pp. 211–213, 218, 221, 230.

29 Daniel Duchaine, “Enter India, the 

Fifth Great Space Power,” 4 December 

2023, https://www.thespacereview.

com/article/4702/1 (accessed 14 

December 2023).

30 A bb e y A . D on a ld s on, “N A S A 

Administrator to Travel to India, 

UAE; Discuss Space Cooperation,” 

NASA Media Advisory M23-140, 24 

November 2023, https://www.nasa.

gov/news-release/nasa-administratorto-travel-to-india-uae-discuss-spacecooperation/ (accessed 14 December 

2023).

The “Greatest Communications Experiment in History” or a Case Study in Geopolitics During the Cold War? (continued from page 27)

The United States–Japan Partnership in Space (continued)

32
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

International Project 

Management Course

Partnering and 

Learning Together

» By Tiffany L. Smith, Chief Knowledge Officer and 

Director, NASA’s APPEL Knowledge Services

E

FFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL project management requires technical knowledge, organizational 

and cultural awareness, and a range 

of interpersonal and leadership skills. 

In addition, approaches that support 

team effectiveness within one culture 

may detract in another. How might 

you negotiate with an organization that 

handles risk using an entirely different 

paradigm? How would you support 

communication among a team with 

members who speak seven different 

primary languages at home?

NA S A’s I nter nat iona l Projec t 

Management (IPM) course is designed 

to help engineers and project management professionals answer these 

and many other questions.1

 Hosted 

by the Office of the Chief Engineer’s 

Academy of Program/Project and 

Engineering Leadership (APPEL) in 

collaboration with NASA’s Chief 

Program Management Officer, the 

IPM course has been delivered for 

over 20 years. Early iterations of the 

course returned positive results. Then, 

in 2010, NASA helped to establish 

the International Project/Programme 

Management Committee of the 

International Astronautical Federation, 

which focuses on learning and development for space programs and projects.2

NASA asked the committee to review 

materials and provide 

feedback to improve the IPM course. 

Today, NASA continues to gather input 

from committee members and other 

international partners and invites representatives from their organizations 

to share expertise as guest speakers and 

participants in the biannual workshop.3

Many participants have joined the 

course with extensive prior experience 

in international projects, although 

participants do not need to have a 

complete understanding of all aspects 

of international collaboration. Course 

participants gain familiarity with the 

processes and practices of international 

partners, learn how other aerospace 

organizations formulate and implement their projects, and practice 

collaborating and negotiating across 

cultural and geographic boundaries.4

Through these activities, course participants develop the competence needed 

to achieve mission success in the international environment.

The next IPM offering is planned 

for February 2024. A typical agenda 

includes sessions on cultural awareness, 

lessons learned, international ethics, and 

export control, as well as case studies 

and featured topics. APPEL welcomes 

expert guest speakers and participation 

from historians and those at NASA with 

personal experience in international 

aeronautics and space projects. 

Endnotes

1 A PPE L , “Internat iona l Projec t 

Management (APPEL-IPM),” https://

appel.nasa.gov/course-catalog/appelipm/ (accessed 1 December 2023).

2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s t r o n a u t i c a l 

Federation, “International Project/

Programme Management Committee 

(IPMC) (2018-2021),” https://www.

iafastro.org/about/iaf-committees/

administrative-committees/

international-project-programmemanagement-committee-ipmc.html

(accessed 1 December 2023).

3 APPEL, “The International Project 

Management Program as a Leading 

Practice,” https://appel.nasa.

gov/2016/09/20/the-internationalproject-management-program-as-aleading-practice/ (accessed 1 December 

2023).

4 APPEL, “Understanding International 

Project Management,” https://appel.

nasa.gov/2012/11/01/understandinginternational-project-management/

(accessed 1 December 2023).

 Participants in NASA’s February 2023 International 

Project Management course pose for a group photo at 

the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida. 

(Photo credit: NASA/Daniel Connell)

Learn more about the International 

Project Management course and 

find out how to register.

33
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

Learn more about 

Dr. Thomas Sever’s 

archaeological research.

CALL FOR PAPERS: NASA and Archaeology from Space

A Symposium in Honor of Dr. Thomas L. Sever 

18–19 September 2024 • Washington, DC

The organizers invite proposals for 

papers to be presented at a two-day 

symposium to be held in person 18–19 

September 2024 in Washington, DC. 

We welcome diverse voices and perspectives to examine the history of NASA 

and archaeology from space.

The purpose of this symposium is to 

honor the pioneering work of former 

NASA archaeologist Dr. Thomas L. 

Sever in the field of archaeology and 

remote sensing over his many decades 

of service and numerous contributions. 

The symposium also seeks to provide 

insight and contextualization of past 

archaeology projects at NASA, highlight the current state of the field in 

terms of research and capabilities, and 

point to new opportunities in government and commercial sectors.

Potential topics include, but are not 

limited to, past archaeological projects, 

technology/capability developments, 

geopolitical considerations, assessments of the current state of remote 

sensing/archaeology, future trajectories, 

potential breakthroughs, and interdisciplinary approaches.

Presentations might also consider the 

impact of environmental, geopolitical, 

social, and cultural issues on archaeology/remote sensing projects over the 

decades and today.

The symposium will be a combination 

of panel discussions, keynote talks, and 

presentations on current NASA and 

industry capabilities. The intention is to 

publish an anthology of selected papers.

Submission Procedures

If you are interested in presenting, 

please send your presentation’s title, an 

abstract of no more than 300 words, 

and a short biography or curriculum 

vitae, including affiliation, by 15 April 

2024 to Brian C. Odom or Kelsey 

Herndon. Questions about the symposium are also welcome. 

News from Around NASA

Laura Pratt is a second-year 

master’s student in library and 

information sciences at the 

University of Maryland. After her 

first internship at Goddard Space 

Flight Center in spring of 2023, 

Laura returned for a fall 2023 

internship. During this internship 

Laura has worked to continue processing the records of Dr. Claire 

Parkinson, who served as a 

NASA climatologist for 40 years. 

Processing the collection included 

physical preservation, donor relations work, and digital file management. Laura has also worked 

to evaluate records for accessioning into the collection and 

created a preliminary processing 

plan for the Angelita Castro-Kelly 

Collection. Following the close of 

her NASA internship, Laura will 

be joining the National Archives 

and Records Administration in 

College Park as a civil servant 

archives technician.

INTERN SPOTLIGHT

34
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

CALL FOR PAPERS

Contributions of the DC-8 

to Earth System Science at 

NASA: A Workshop

13–14 August 2024 • Washington, DC

Jointly organized by the NASA History 

Office and the Earth Science Division, 

this workshop seeks to document the 

important contributions of airborne 

campaigns implemented on NASA’s 

DC-8 Airborne Science Laboratory. 

The workshop will be a combination of 

keynote talks, panel discussions, and 

roundtables. The intention is to publish an anthology of selected papers of 

key presentations.

NASA’s DC-8 aircraft recently completed nearly four decades of service 

to NASA with its retirement in early 

2024 following the completion of the 

Airborne and Satellite Investigation 

of Air Quality campaign. The DC-8, 

which NASA acquired in 1985, was 

a workhorse aircraft for the Airborne 

Science Program of NASA’s Earth 

Science Division (ESD), serving as the 

primary platform—or one of several 

platforms—of many airborne campaigns. Its contributions are legendary, 

from flying as part of the first polar 

stratospheric ozone campaigns in the 

late 1980s through campaigns focused 

on ice sheets, sea ice, terrestrial ecology, 

greenhouse gases, and air quality that 

continued throughout its lifetime.

Besides the process knowledge that 

the DC-8 provided, it served as an 

important proving ground for new 

instrumentation and techniques that 

helped pave the way for their eventual 

use in ESD’s spaceflight program; as 

a source of calibration/validation data 

for ESD’s satellite instruments; and as 

a flying laboratory for students, postdocs, and early-career professionals to 

design, build, and test instruments and 

acquire and analyze data. It also was 

the primary platform for NASA’s now15-year-old Student Airborne Research 

Program (SARP), which has provided 

hands-on opportunities for well over 

400 young scientists and has an outstanding “STEM retention rate” for its 

past participants.

In this workshop, the ESD and related 

investigator communities are invited to 

share examples of the scientific, programmatic, and human achievement of 

the DC-8 over its nearly four decades 

of service to NASA. Besides descriptions of the science accomplished, 

workshop planners invite discussion of 

“lessons learned” about the operation 

of a large airborne research laboratory 

that can be used as NASA moves 

ahead with furnishing and outfitting 

the DC-8’s successor, a B-777 that 

NASA acquired in 2023 in response to 

a strong recommendation from a 2021 

report by the National Academies of 

Science, Engineering, and Medicine 

that said ESD needed to have such a 

platform following the retirement of 

the DC-8 (Airborne Platforms to 

Advance NASA Earth System Science 

Priorities: Assessing the Future Need 

for a Large Aircraft).

Workshop planners are seeking proposals for papers from ESD and related 

investigator communities—including 

academia, interagency and international partners, and private-sector/

nonprofit entities—that detail scientific and programmatic results, lessons 

learned, and personal examples of how 

the DC-8 advanced science, informed 

decisions, and provided training 

opportunities for several generations 

of NASA.

If you wish to present a paper, please 

send an abstract of no more than 250 

words and a short biography or curriculum vitae, including affiliation, by 31 

March 2024 to Dr. Brian C. Odom. 

Questions about the symposium are 

also welcome. 

 NASA’s DC-8 Airborne Laboratory flies over the snow-capped Sierra Nevada mountain 

range in February 1998. (Photo credit: NASA/Jim Ross)

More about the DC-8 program.

35
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

In Memoriam

Frank F. Borman II

Astronaut Colonel Frank Borman, 

commander of the Gemini VII and 

Apollo 8 missions, passed away on 

7 November 2023 at the age of 95. 

Read Administrator Bill Nelson’s 

statement regarding his passing.

Learn more about his career at NASA.

Thomas K. Mattingly II

Mary L. Cleave

Rear Admiral Thomas K. Mattingly II, 

prime crew astronaut for Apollo 13, 

Apollo 16, STS-4, and STS-51C, 

passed away on 31 October 2023 at the 

age of 87. 

Watch a video memorializing his 

contributions to NASA’s human 

spaceflight program and learn more 

about his career.

Dr. Mary Cleave, scientist, engineer, and veteran of two Space Shuttle flights 

(STS-61B and STS-30), passed away on 27 November 2023 at the age of 76. In 

March 2000, she served as Deputy Associate Administrator for advanced planning 

in the Office of Earth Science at NASA Headquarters. Then, in 2005, Cleave 

became the first woman to head NASA’s Science Mission Directorate until her 

retirement in February 2007. 

Read NASA's article celebrating her contributions to the Agency.

Stephen G. Jurczyk

Steve Jurczyk, whose career at NASA 

spanned more than 30 years, passed 

away on 23 November 2023 at the 

age of 61. Among other leadership 

roles, he served as the Director of 

Langley Research Center (2014–15), 

the Agency’s Associate Administrator 

(2018 –21), and NASA’s Acting 

Administrator in 2021.

Read his NASA biography.

36
NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES Volume 40, Number 4 • Winter 2023

Upcoming Meetings

4–7 JANUARY 2024

American Historical Association 

Annual Meeting

San Francisco, California

https://www.historians.org/

annual-meeting

8–12 JANUARY 2024

American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics (AIAA) SciTech Forum

Orlando, Florida

https://www.aiaa.org/eventslearning/event/2024/01/08/

default-calendar/2024-aiaa-scienceand-technology-forum-andexposition-(aiaa-scitech-forum)

18–19 JANUARY 2024

Discovery@30, New 

Frontiers@20 Symposium

Washington, DC

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/

call-for-papers-for-discovery30-

new-frontiers20-symposium

2–3 FEBRUARY 2024

Policy History Studies: The 

State and Future of the Field

Tempe, Arizona

https://jph.asu.edu/conferences 

20–22 MARCH 2024

American Astronautical Society’s 

Annual Robert H. Goddard 

Memorial Symposium

College Park, Maryland

https://astronautical.org/

events/goddard/

26–28 MARCH 2024

International Astronautical 

Federation Spring Meetings 2024

Paris, France

https://www.iafastro.org/

events/iaf-spring-meetings/iafspring-meetings-2024.html

3–7 APRIL 2024

American Society for Environmental 

History Annual Meeting

Denver, Colorado

https://www.aseh.org/events

11–14 APRIL 2024

2024 Conference on American History

New Orleans, Louisiana

https://www.oah.org/

conferences/oah24/

12–15 APRIL 2023

National Council on Public History 

Annual Meeting—“Historical Urgency”

Salt Lake City, Utah

https://ncph.org/

conference/2024-annual-meeting/

30–31 MAY 2024 

Society for History in the Federal 

Government Annual Meeting

Washington, DC

https://shfg.wildapricot.

org/page-18391

20–21 JUNE 2024

Environmental Justice 

in Space Workshop

Virtual meeting 

https://bit.ly/ejis-workshop 

DISCOVERY 

PROGRAMI30

YEARS

NEW FRONTIERS 

PROGRAMI20

YEARS

SYMPOSIUM

18–19 JANUARY 2024

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, WASHINGTON, DC

37
NASA’s Discovery Program

By Susan M. Niebur with 

David M. Brown (ed.)

COMING SOON

A Wartime Necessity

Edited by Alex M Spencer

EXPLORE

New Titles 

in the NASA 

History Series

NACA to NASA to Now 

by Roger D. Launius

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters

300 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20546

www.nasa.gov

Flickr

nasacommons

Facebook

@NASAHistoryOffice

X

@NASAhistory

FOLLOW

NASA History 

on Social Media

NASA HISTORY NEWS&NOTES

Newsletter Editor and Graphic Designer

Michele Ostovar

Copyeditor

Lisa Jirousek

DOWNLOAD

more editions of NEWS&NOTES

at www.nasa.gov/history

View of the International Space Station Payload 

Operations Center at NASA’s Marshall Space 

Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, in 2001. 

(Photo credit: NASA)