Nexus - 0302 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Ralph Lapp in Man and Space—The Next Decade: The US soft-landing program was called Surveyor and began in "_..the Soviets clamped tight secrecy over their rockets, never 1960. In 1962 a decision was made to trim the weight of Surveyor once releasing a photograph of a launching. Moreover, the by more than 300 pounds, with many experiments abandoned. Russian scientists were slow in making their data available to the The reason given was problems with the proposed Atlas Centaur scientific community."” second stage. Surveyor's scheduled 1963 launch date passed and it In addition, the US Pioneer 4 fly-by at 37,300 miles may not _ was not even close to being ready. The project costs were running have been close enough to the Moon to enable NASA engineers to _10 times the original estimates and "troubles" forced one delay determine the true nature of lunar gravity. At any rate, subsequent after another. A congressional inquiry was made, and the House Ranger missions indicated that the US was having many problems Committee on Science and Astronautics found fault with the man- in achieving successful moonshots. agement practices of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), NASA, The first Rangers carried seismometers in spherical containers and the prime contractor, Hughes Aircraft. In We Reach the designed to withstand the impact of landings. Unfortunately, Moon, John Noble Wilford gave an account of the Surveyor diffi- Ranger 3, launched on January 26, 1962, missed its target com- _ culties.‘ It seems JPL officials conceded that they initially under- pletely and went into a solar orbit. Ranger 4 hit the Moon on _ estimated the difficulty of the project. One official admitted that April 23, but did not send back any useful information. Ranger 5 the project was not given enough support in the earlier days and was launched on October 18 and missed the Moon by 450 miles; _ that they were overconfident in their ability to do things. however, it was tracked for over eight hours. Further launches It is probably more than coincidental that the Ranger 5 failure were put off until 1964 and the entire program was reorganised. on October 18, 1962 resulted in the abandonment of the seis- It is significant that all Ranger missions after number five were mometer package and a significant delay in future Ranger mis- designed only to take pictures because of the difficulty in achiev- _ sions due to the difficulty in a semi-hard landing. The Surveyor ing a semi-hard landing with the seismometer package. The seis- program was delayed for 28 months from its schedule, and mometer was encased in a 30-inch balsa-wood ball which was to Surveyor J did not soft-land on the Moon until June 2, 1966. be slowed sufficiently by retro-rockets to hit the surface at 150 Photo | shows Apollo /2 astronaut Alan Bean standing next to miles per hour and still survive. It was Surveyor 3 which landed on April 20, designed to be able to impact granite at 200 1967 inside a crater in Oceanus miles per hour and continue to operate. If Procellarum. The Apollo 12 lunar the Moon had only one-sixth of Earth's sur- ni A module is in the background on the face gravity, then perhaps the seismometer The question 1S why the real rim of the crater. . * packages would have survived. However, if neutral-point distance leaked The US effort to orbit the Moon lunar gravity were much more than expected, . using lunar probes began on August a successful landing without big enough out. Did some of the NASA B17, 1958 with Atlas Able J. It missed retro-rockets for braking would be impossi- people try to sabotage the § the Moon, as did the next two ble. Evidently, Ranger scientists anticipated cover-up? fj attempts. A decision was then made that the weak one-sixth gravity would keep Ps to build a larger spacecraft and to use the velocity of impact down to a low enough the Atlas Agena D as the carrier. It level. Since they eliminated the package appears that a larger rocket was nec- from further missions and delayed these mis- essary to carry a larger payload which sions for almost a year and a half, perhaps may have consisted of fuel used in they learned something new about the Moon's gravity. braking the proposed orbiter. This would be necessary to reduce After Russia's four years of silence, Luna 4 was launched on _ the velocity of the satellite so that it could achieve an orbit. April 2, 1963. It flew within 5,300 miles of the Moon. The pur- Again, it seems more than coincidental that the project to orbit the pose of this probe was never revealed except for a brief announce- Moon, which began in 1958, was postponed until 1964 when the ment that: Boeing Company began work on the Lunar Orbiter project. "...experiments and measurements which were conducted...are The Russians managed to place Luna 10 into orbit around the completed. Radio communication with the spacecraft will contin- | Moon on April 3, 1966 after having successfully soft-landed with ue for a few more days." Luna 9 on February 3, 1966. It appears that substantial retro-rock- It is probable that the need for detailed gravity data was behind _ et braking was required for orbit insertion as well as soft landing. the mission. Soft landings could not be successful without this At any rate, both were accomplished a short time apart. US Lunar information. Orbiter 1 successfully went into lunar orbit on August 14, 1966. The US launched Ranger 6 on January 30, 1964 and the electri- © Lunar Orbiter 5 was sent crashing into the Moon on January 31, cal system was allegedly burned out when the cameras were acci- 1968 after a successful mission. These missions photographed dentally turned on during the flight, hence no pictures were sent. over 99 per cent of the Moon and led to the discovery of lunar After supposedly redesigning the system to eliminate this danger, | mascons, or increases in the Moon's surface gravity in certain Ranger 7 was launched on July 28. It was successful, and sent areas. back thousands of pictures, Ranger 8 was launched on February The above analysis of lunar probes indicates that the US and 17, 1965, and Ranger 9 was launched on March 21, 1965. Both Russia probably had a clear picture of the nature of lunar gravity were successful, and some of the Ranger 9 pictures were broad- _as early as 1959. However, it is a certainty that both countries cast on television. learned how to work with lunar gravity and make soft landings by The Russians attempted a soft landing with Luna 5 on May 9, 1966. This date is important in light of information on lunar grav- 1964, but it crashed at full speed. Luna 6 was launched on June 8 _ ity to be presented next. but missed the Moon, while Luna 7 crashed because the retro- The reader has been kept in suspense concerning suggestions rockets supposedly fired too soon. Luna 8 was sent up on _ that Moon gravity might deviate from the predicted value of one- December 3 and also crashed. Luna 9 landed successfully on the sixth of Barth's. This was necessary to provide background infor- Moon on February 3, 1966. mation needed to make a proper evaluation. The analysis will areas. The above analysis of lunar probes indicates that the US and Russia probably had a clear picture of the nature of lunar gravity as early as 1959. However, it is a certainty that both countries learned how to work with lunar gravity and make soft landings by 1966. This date is important in light of information on lunar grav- ity to be presented next. The reader has been kept in suspense concerning suggestions that Moon gravity might deviate from the predicted value of one- sixth of Earth's. This was necessary to provide background infor- mation needed to make a proper evaluation. The analysis will 36 * NEXUS FEBRUARY-MARCH 1996