September-December 1980:letters

“Return to Apollo”

Sir, I read with interest the article "Return to Apollo” by Andrew Wilson and David J. Shayler,particularly the speculative “what-if” sections. 1 would like to comment on the hypothetical crews given for Skylab and the cancelled Apollos. The Skylab selections are hard to fault, based as they are on actuality, and the same applies to those for Apollos 17 and 18 as they had been the back-ups for 14 and 15.

However, I would question some of the authors’ selections for Apollos 19 and 20. These were:

Apollo 19 Lovell Swigert Lousma

Apollo 20 Haise Weitz Musgrave

Like the authors, I have no “inside” information and am relying only on published sources so, in making the following points, I point out that my conclusions are strictly personal opinion.

Firstly, Lovell indicated shortly after Apollo 13 that he would not fly in space again unless he and his crew were requested by NASA to repeat their specific mission. This assignment was given to Shepard and his crew (that is, the Fra Mauro landing site). Also, a crew including both Lovell and Swigert would break the precedent of the veteran-commander-and-two-rookies combination which had been followed since their own Apollo 13 flight, as well as the fact that a CMP would normally expect to command his next mission. A further consideration is that, having flown Schmitt on Apollo 18, it would seem likely for the LMP position to continue to be occupied by a scientist. Following the departure of Lovell, all of these other factors fall into place almost automatically. This allows Swigert, as well as Haise, to command his own crew and the "promotion” of Lousma to CMP on Swigert’s crew, opening the LMP spot for a scientist; Weitz is retained as CMP under Haise.

The authors state that Musgrave has been the “most prominent” of the group 6 astronauts and if this is so he could be moved up to Apollo 19, but we must remember the scientists’ specialties. Musgrave was back-up Skylab 2 science pilot probably because he is a doctor (of medicine) - as is Kerwin, his opposite number in the prime crew.

More appropriate for lunar missions would be Allen (physicist) and England (geologist and physicist), particularly as they served as Mission Scientist on Apollos 15 and 16 respectively.

Taking all this into account gives the following:

Apollo 19 Swigert Lousma Allen

Apollo 20 Haise Weitz England

The possibility also exists, of course, that if Musgrave does have some sort of priority as the authors suggest, then Lenoir could have followed him on Apollo 20 as he, too, was a backup Skylab science pilot. However, it’s worth noting that his specialty (electrical engineering) also parallels those of the SPTs of the corresponding prime crews which probably accounts for his selection.

———————

Double-Cosmos Launches

Sir, It has been suggested that the Double-Cosmos launches made by the Soviet Union, i.e. Cosmos 881/882; 997/998 and 1100/1101, are tests of a Soviet boost-glide, lifting body or even a shuttle vehicle. If we, as an assumption, accept that explanation it does not explain why two such craft have been launched by the same Proton launch vehicle. The reason for releasing two identical spacecraft from the launch vehicle upon orbital insertion is indeed obscure. Why try a simultaneous complex re-entry of two identical and complicated space vehicles when there should be sufficient data to be gained from one?

The fact that two vehicles indeed do re-enter simultaneously is more easily understood if the two craft are not identical! I would like to offer the explanation that one of the objects is a non-lifting object which is tracked by radar to obtain atmospheric density data from which the lifting-body characteristics of the other re-entry vehicle can be accurately deduced. The recoverable body could also be equipped with accelerometers and a "hardened” tape recorder to obtain data during the "black-out” period of re-entry when radar transponder contact may be intermittent.

—————-

An interplanetary link?

Sir, I suggest that the mysterious Cosmos 881-882 (15 December 1976), 997-998 (30 March 1978) and 1100-1101 (23 May 1979) have prepared the way for future manned interplanetary missions, including a Venus and Mars fly-by by a Soviet space station. For Earth return, two capsules with crew onboard would separate from the station just before encountering the Earth’s atmosphere. The short duration twin Cosmos missions were perhaps to test the separation mechanism between the two capsules and an imaginary station, then the return to Earth.

————-

Fate of Zond 4

Sir, the Satellite Situation Report (SSR) keeps note of all objects in orbit that have (of course) been detected by the NORAD network. Objects continue to be listed - with or without the maintenance of elements - as long as they are in orbit, geocentric, heliocentric or otherwise. One might make particular note of the fact with respect to interplanetary spacecraft; their elements are not maintained on a (published) daily, weekly or even monthly basis. If they decay onto a planetary surface they are removed from the “objects in orbit” list and a note is made that they (it) landed on said planet. There is also published, now irregularly, a decayed objects list. Zond 4 does not appear on it; however, parts B, C, D, of the Zond 4 launch event came down on March 7, 7, 5, 1968 respectively and are so listed in the last decayed objects list of 31 December, 1978, Vol. 18,No. 6, ten years after the event (they also appeared in prior decayed objects lists). Therefore, the remark, “current elements not maintained” means just that: the object is in orbit but, at least in the open press, the elements are not published. Furthermore, Object 1968-13A, Zond 4, is still actively listed as an orbiting object in the SSR of 31 August 1979, Vol. 19,No. 4. Are we to believe that both NORAD and NASA are lying to us? I think not!

————-

Progress Re-Entries

Sir, Michael Richardson raises a question concerning my calculation of the retro-fire and re-entry times of Progress 5. The re-entry date of Progress 5 should read 1979 April 4 as he rightly points out. Otherwise the remaining data concerning equator crossing, etc, stand as printed. They are based on the last set of orbital elements issued for the object by Goddard SFC, in the early hours of 4 April.

Mr. Richardson’s letter is the first place that I have seen a retro-fire time for Progress 6 other than my own calculation,again from Goddard’s elements. I am pleased to see that my figure of 1857 UT on 1979 July 20 is not too far removed from the true one of 1851 UT. In this case, the final set of Goddard’s elements was issued only two orbits before the event occurred. The time difference between the calculated and the actual times might result from a maneouvre to a low orbit for the last couple of revolutions around the Earth. If this is so, one or two of my other estimates may be out by a similar amount.