Space History for Dec 6: Flopnik!

[CalliArcale]

On December 6, 1925, a test firing of Goddard's revolutionary liquid-fueled rocket was a success. During the 24-second burn, the tiny vehicle generated positive net thrust for the first time, lifting itself slightly. It was still a long way from a flight, but it was a major milestone in Goddard's test program.<br /><br />Thirty-two years later, in 1957, the United States made its first satellite launch attempt. A test satellite was placed on the top of a three-stage Vanguard rocket (the first to have three live stages). Unfortunately, it was lost to a launch vehicle failure. The Vanguard never even cleared the tower, consumed in an explosion at T+2 seconds. Although such failures go with the territory in so early a program, the press had a field day with it, labeling the spacecraft "kaputnik" and "flopnik" in reference to the Soviet success with Sputnik. So for anyone distressed that the press overreacts to failures, you can rest assured that this is nothing new. A less ambitious launch would later place the tiny Explorer satellite into orbit as the first American spacecraft before the Vanguard satellite program reached success. But succeed it did; Vanguard 1 was ultimately placed into orbit the following March. It remains in orbit to this day, the oldest manmade object in space.<br /><br />On December 6, 1958, Pioneer 3 was launched on a mission to the Moon. It was a tiny spacecraft by modern standards, weighing in at 12.95 pounds. Nevertheless, its Juno II rocket was unable to get it all the way there; a premature MECO resulted in an apogee of only 70,000 miles. Pioneer 3 did successfully return data on the radiation environment around Earth and in particular discovered the fact that the Earth has at least two separate belts of radiation.<br /><br />On December 6, 1965, the FRANCE 1 spacecraft was launched from Vandenburg on a Scout X-4 rocket. Despite the American launch, however, it was a purely French spacecraft. It was a scientific spacecraft studying <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

<font color="yellow">Vanguard 1 was ultimately placed into orbit the following March. It remains in orbit to this day, the oldest manmade object in space.</font><br /><br />Very, very interesting.....How long was Sputnik in orbit for? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Let me look it up....<br /><br />Sputnik 1 was launched on an R-7 rocket on October 4, 1957. The orbit decayed on January 4, 1958. It only transmitted for a couple of days, if memory serves; the transmitter was battery powered, so once the batteries were drained, that was it. Vanguard 1 was much more sophisticated and ended up being more scientifically important. Most notably, Vanguard 1 demonstrated for the first time that the Earth isn't actually a sphere but is oblate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

By the way, you may enjoy this website:<br /><br />Vanguard 1 Satellite History<br /><br />Vanguard 1 also had one major technological feature which Sputnik lacked: solar cells. Vanguard 1 operated for seven years as a consequence, allowing scientists to carefully measure the Earth's shape and also measure the effects of the ionosphere's drag on the lightweight spacecraft. It weighs a mere three and a quarter pounds -- puny compared to the eighty-four-kilo Sputnik 1. Sputnik 1 was designed mainly to be seen and heard; Vanguard 1 was a technology demonstrator. So while Sputnik 1 undisputedly was the first manmade object orbiting the Earth, in many respects Vanguard 1 was more significant from a scientific and engineering perspective.<br /><br />In Sputnik 1's defense, it was a rapidly developed replacement for a far more ambitious spacecraft weighing over a metric ton which was experiencing delays. When it became clear the planned ISZ spacecraft would not be ready in 1957, the International Geophysical Year, Sputnik 1 was introduced to make sure something got orbited. The program was begun on February 15, and Sputnik 1 actually launched October 4. That's an astonishingly rapid development process, especially considering this was a first-of-its-kind vehicle.<br /><br />The ISZ spacecraft ultimately became Sputnik 3, launched May 15 of the following year. It carried sophisticated (for the time) physics experiments, but was plagued by a nonfunctional data recorder greatly limiting the amount of data that it could gather. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Thanks, I had lost that link!<br /><br />"It weighs a mere three and a quarter pounds -- puny compared to the eighty-four-kilo Sputnik 1."<br /><br />Mmmmm! Comparing things in different units! Bad girl!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I was comparing an American probe to a Soviet one -- it seemed strangely apropos. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Try getting that one past my freshman physics teacher.<br /><br />Big <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

What can I say? I have a strange sense of humor. I'm glad it amused. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

I haven't been to Washington in some time but when I was there in 1984 I saw the damaged Vanguard probe from the 1957 launch attempt at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. It was a very unusual display, a statue of a worried Uncle Sam holding the damaged probe in the palm of his hand.<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

Since I am writing my monthly as we "speak", some amusement is greatly appreciated!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

I've always wondered if the US intentionally wanted the Soviets to be the first to orbit a satellite. Even before Sputnik it was known that the Redstone rocket Von Braun was working on could put a payload into LEO. In fact Von Braun and his team were specifically ordered not to "accidentally" put anything into orbit while testing the Redstone.<br /><br />Why would the US wan the Soviets to be first in orbit? In 1957 there were no space treaties. it was still unclear whether or not an orbital fly-over would be considered an intrusion into sovereign air space or not. If the US were to put a satellite into orbit first the Soviet bloc could have screamed bloody murder about their air space being violated and could have hindered satellite development for years until the legalities were sorted out. By letting the Soviets be the first and not disputing the right to an orbital fly-over the US set a precedent that the Soviets had to honor. Even thought the USSR was way ahead in booster development the US engineers probably realized in the long run they could build more and more sophisticated satellites than the Soviets could.<br /><br />What do you think? Plausible? Likely? Break out the tin foil cap? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

Not completely implausible, but rivalry among programs seems more likely...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Von Braun could have launched a satellite in 1956 but it would have been launched on a MILITARY booster. Ike felt that a CIVILIAN satellite doing a science mission and launched with a peaceful CIVILIAN booster would be more likely to be accepted as a precedent than one connected with the military. Once the Sputnik was launched on the R7 ICBM the Russians had established the precedent of using a military derived launch vehicle as well as an overflight precedent. This meant that Von Braun could be unleashed to launch Explorer.<br /><br />

 

[najab]

They initially expected the orbit to last 2000+ years, but due to increased drag due to variation in solar output it will probably only last 200-300 years.

 

[CalliArcale]

"Only 200-300 years". Still not bad. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[n_kitson]

*jumping on cause*<br /><br />which is why we should NOT ALLOW WEAPONS in space! imagine if we cluttered GTO with little bits of blown up military satellites? no more space program for the next few centuries, if not millenia!<br /><br />*gets off cause*

 

[dobbins]

"However, in launching a satellite, there was more at stake for the US than just science. There were such goals of high national importance as establishing the legality of overflight in accordance with Eisenhower's Open Skies or Freedom of Space doctrine and being first in space.(33)<br /><br />On 28 July 1955, the US announced its intention to launch a satellite during the IGY. The US program would follow National Security Council (NSC) recommendations (laid out in NSC Directive 5520, dated 26 May 1955) and was not to interfere with existing military missile development programs. The NSC recommendations created a de facto separation of the US space effort into military and civilian sectors.(34) The Soviets also announced the intention to launch a satellite and claimed that they would better any attempt made by the US. No one took them seriously at the time.(35)<br /><br />The Stewart Committee (formed by the assistant secretary of defense to review proposals and pick a US satellite program for launch related to IGY) reviewed Project Vanguard, a Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) proposal based on the Viking upper atmospheric research rocket. The scientific (nonmilitary) nature of the rocket pleased the committee as did the NRL's scheme for tracking the satellite, a radio network called Minitrack. In August 1955, the Stewart Committee chose Vanguard for the IGY based almost completely on its separation from the military. Thus, the committee seemed to ignore the national goal of being first in space. Von Braun's promise to launch his group's satellite, Orbiter in 90 days did not sway the committee.(36) The government sanctioned the IGY program in the hope of legalizing satellite overflight with a civilian scientific satellite with no military or political implications.(37)"<br /><br />http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-18/au18003c.htm<br />