Slashdot Mirror
NASA Discovers Space Spies From the 60's
Saeed al-Sahaf writes "In a room forgotten for more than thirty years at NASA's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, NASA recently found suits for space spies. Originally thought to be Gemini suits, the manufacturer determined that they were suits from a short-lived Cold War-era military program to put a manned reconnaissance station in space. Begun in 1964, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program was an Air Force initiative that would have sent Air Force astronauts to a space station in a Gemini capsule. After spending a few weeks in orbit, the crew would undock and return to Earth. An interesting blast from the past."
Because they don't want you to know what they really found.
Quoth TFA:
The spacesuit with identifying number 008 had the name "LAWYER" on the left sleeve. The suit was traced to Lt. Col. Richard E. Lawyer, a member of the first group recruited to be MOL astronauts in 1965. Records show that official ownership of this suit was transferred by NASA to the Smithsonian Institution in 1983. The suit itself has now been returned to the Smithsonian.
I thought the idea was to send lawyers in space WITHOUT environmental gear, sillies.
It's so quaint to see the evidence of paranoia and insecurity from back in the 1960s. Glad to be around in the 2000s.
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
Articles like this make me look forward to the 1960's..
They were really advanced.. and we're lame - we just have Internets.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Holy smokes, they can build spaceships, land men on the moon, but they can't take an inventory? What else do they have laying around?
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Does anyone (preferably knowledgable) care to comment on that concept picture in the article @ NASA ?
In particular, i'm wondering about the following:
What do people think those pulsese going down to the planet are in a weird curly line?
That thing above the hurricane that appears to be shooting something into it ? What's that ?
The guy standing on the right side of the picture in the MOL who appears to be "fishing" for the incoming spacecraft... with a what.. a big magnet on a tether ?
Uh, we found some stuff that was from a project that is public knowledge. The fact that the suits still exist is not news either; it is not like they throw those kinds of things out. I don't think they are biodegradable.
Also, how about adding some better links for contect? It took about 2 seconds to find this: http://www.deepcold.com/deepcold/dyna_main.html
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
I guess that movie with Clint Eastwood was true after all!
Being concerned because your enemies are aiming a few tens of thousand nukes at you is not paranoid.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The reason the suits looked like Gemini era suits was because the MOL program was based on Gemini technology.
A Titan IIIC booster with a 'Blue Gemini' atop would launch with the space station afixed, they would do their observation, then the Gemini would detach and land. Later missions could dock with the existing observation platform when feasible.
The launches would have taken place from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. This is needed to efficiently put spacecraft into polar orbit without overflying populated land during boost.
A launch site was created at Vandenburg to handle manned spacecraft launches, but the program was cancelled as the article says. What it doesn't say is that the same complex was refurbished in the 1980s as part of the effort to launch the Space Shuttle into polar orbit for military missions. That program was cancelled as well (following the Challenger destruction).
For people interested in MOL, go check out the X-20 Dynasoar. It was a related program that would have had a reusable spaceplane 15 years before the shuttle.
The most innovative aspect of the space suit was that it's made so your tuxedo doesn't wrinkle under it.
How cool is it that the suit # was 007.
So they had the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program, the Dyna-Soar program, and the USAF Space School. None of those survived the 1960s, although they were all good, workable ideas. The MOL incorporated the Gemini spacecraft, the best space flying machine to come out of NASA. (Mercury was the "man in a can" capsule, and Apollo was less maneuverable.)
As for the blue MH-7 suit, there's one of those on display at Wright-Patterson AFB.
Send one or to to the Smithsonian and put the rest on ebay. I bet if NASA unloaded all their old junk they could probably fund another R/C car mission to Mars.
This does raise the question again about what Space exploration is for. With George W stating that its about going to the Moon, then Mars and putting people on planets this is a lesson in how easy it is to put people into Orbit (but how much more expensive to get to the moon, Gemini v Apollo).
With elements like Hubble being decomissioned despite its achievements, and a lack of long range probes being planned the question has to be asked.
Is NASA a marketing campaign for US Military "dominance" of earth and space. Or about futhering Mankind. In the 60s the president gave a target of something that just seemed right (landing on the moon). In the 21st Century the best we aim to achieve is... what JFK wanted us to do in the 60s.
Imagine what MIT, Berkley, Cambridge, Moscow, Paris and a bunch of other top Universities could do in terms of pushing human achievement forwards if they had the budget that NASA gets.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
They were so dedicated, they stayed at their positions until they died of thirst.
I think you mean, they were so desiccated from staying at their positions until they died of thirst.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Back in the 40s and 50s, there was a lot of talk about doing things like surveillance (you can see a lot) and communications (a lot of people can see you) from orbit. One common assumption (which turned out to be correct) was that these things would be extremely important in the near future. Another assumption (which turned out to be totally wrong) was that this would be done by sending people to go live in orbit. Once there, they'd use photography, electronics, and other technology that wouldn't be much more advanced that what people were familiar with. You can see this in Arthur C. Clarke's original proposals for communications satellites and in fiction from Clarke, Heinlen, and others.
What really happened, of course, is that rocket technology progressed relatively slowly, while electronics progressed very rapidly. So long before it was practical to a space station in orbit, it was practical to put a simple electronic gadget in orbit that would do all those chores pretty cheaply. Kind of sad, really -- if building better rockets had been more of an economic and military necessity, we'd probably be the space-going civilization that eveybody back in the 50s assumed we would be.
Then again, the need to build smaller and more reliable electronics did a lot to jump-start the computer revolution -- so we mustn't complain too much!
No, most likely they did. From the article:
Other historical treasures found in the room include old film canisters, one flown shuttle main landing tire, electrical equipment, and various miscellaneous boxes.
Huh. Historical treasures, that just happened to be in a room which nobody said they had a key to. Huh.
Records show that official ownership of this suit was transferred by NASA to the Smithsonian Institution in 1983. The suit itself has now been returned to the Smithsonian.
Anyone else starting to realize that the stuff (which spans decades, completely different programs, and sections of NASA) didn't just get up and walk (either from the Smithsonian, or more likely, from other areas at NASA, never getting to the Museum) to a locked closet nobody said they had keys for?
Sounds to me like someone at NASA was building up their own private collection, and used a room they thought they had the only key to, not realizing there was a master key system in use.
Please help metamoderate.
The USSR actually DID have a series of manned military space stations that orbited during the 1970s. It was known as the Almaz project (more info here). In addition to reconnisance equipment on board, they also carried anti-satelitte weaponry.
The USSR also had some other scary space plans for military space stations. I mean, it even LOOKS sinister, painted black and all...
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
It is an unfortunate reality that unless the US and other countries of similar mindset must be able to militarize space when needed.
Now the reason I like GW's listed goal is that we have been parked in orbit for 40+ years and haven't budged except once to the moon. Sure we send probes out there but probes are not going to advanced space exploration in any meaningful array other than to say "hey, neat rocks here".
Establishing a presence on the moon will do much more than parking ourselves in a tincan in orbit. First off it implies more permanence. Also the moon provides many unique benefits to maintaining a presence in space that an orbital cannot.
Done right, and with luck it might be, private enterprise can use it as a stepping stone to further exploration and yes, exploitation of space.
We are getting no where concentrating on unmanned probes and orbital tin cans. We have three choices. Abandon space. Stick with orbit which doesn't fire the imagination much, or finally stake a spot off this rock. The moon is far enough and "exotic" enough to fire the imagination and marketing. That "baby step" will get us moving in the right direction.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I love the headline, inaccurate as it is.
NASA Discovers Space Spies From the 60's
No, NASA discovers SPACE SUITS from the 60's. It's not like there were a bunch of astronauts tucked away in a closet somewhere waiting for the "go" signal.
The Soviets eventually came to the same conclusion, only after blowing the big rubles on Almaz and military Salyuts.
Incidentally, the first successful US launch after Challenger was an SDI experiment that used guidance systems from existing guided missiles. Although it was about as rushed as the Polyus battle station you reference, it didn't require major gymnastics to achieve orbit, and provided Reagan with a negotiation advantage over Gorbachev... although I don't think he fully realized the size of it. For a change, the Russians were in the position of attempting to field a system we could all too easily counter, given that the Delta 180 SDI test articles were mostly off the shelf, and could be cheaply integrated and lofted by the trainload, had the need arisen.
Luke, help me take this mask off
So, you're telling me that no one had the right, today, to do what needs to be done because of something in their past? That their great-grandparents' behavior should have precluded American involvement in WW2?
I hear that alleged logic all the time. I simply do not understand it. We are not responsible for the actions of our ancestors.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Khrushchev didn't bang his shoe while yelling, "We will bury you!" Those were two separate incidents. Since you're so keen for others to educate themselves, maybe you could read up on what really happened.
Certainly Krushchev was an aggressive leader. But today the U.S.'s stated aim is to not only maintain military supremacy, but to build up so much military strength that no other nation can even consider trying to compete. If you don't live in America, that sounds a lot like a plan to rule the world, too.
I should buy some cement.