Monthly Archive for May, 2010

Musings on Charles A. Lindbergh on the 83rd Anniversary of the Transatlantic Flight

May 20-21, 2010, marked the 83rd anniversary of Charles A. Lindbergh’s historic solo, nonstop flight from New York to Paris. As a result of this feat, Lindbergh became an instant hero and celebrity. But how do we explain the overpowering public reaction to what some thought was a stunt? In his essay titled, “The Meaning of Lindbergh’s Flight,” published in 1960, historian John William Ward theorized that Lindbergh enabled Americans to look both forward to the technological future, which they feared and misunderstood, and backward to their pioneering past. A more cynical interpretation is that while Lindbergh’s flight was a truly courageous act, he became famous for being famous. Also, we know that his advisors crafted a tightly-managed persona and created a squeaky-clean, idealized public image of him. There is perhaps more than a grain of truth in each analysis.

Lindberch

Charles Lindbergh poses inside the door of the Spirit of St. Louis.

 

Whatever the reasons, Lindbergh eventually lost favor with the American public. In March 1932, in what was called “The Crime of the Century,” Lindbergh’s first-born son, Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., was kidnapped and murdered. The resulting trial and conviction and the publicity that surrounded them were sensational, controversial, and ugly. In December 1935, largely as a result of the aftermath of the kidnapping, Lindbergh and his wife Anne fled the country for England, saying that “the English have greater regard for law and order in their own land than the people of any other nation in the world.” In October 1938, during a trip to Germany, Lindbergh accepted from Hermann Goering the Service Cross of the German Eagle, a high honor. For this he was roundly criticized. On his return to the United States in April 1939, Lindbergh began making speeches in favor of American neutrality in the European war. In April 1941, he made his opposition to American intervention official when he joined the America First Committee and became its chief spokesman. As a result of his activities in behalf of America First, Lindbergh lost his commission in the U.S. Army Air Corps and became a considerable security risk in the eyes of the Roosevelt administration.

After America’s entry into the war, Lindbergh offered his services to the Army Air Corps but was refused. He was eventually hired by United Aircraft Corporation and served as a technical representative in the Pacific Theater and unofficially as a fighter pilot. After the war, his reputation was rehabilitated when President Eisenhower restored his military commission in 1954. During this time Lindbergh rejected his previous belief that aviation would lead to a better world, and he turned his attention to nature, conservation and the environment. He died in 1974.

The controversy that surrounded Lindbergh has not entirely disappeared. In 2004 American novelist Philip Roth published The Plot Against America, which theorizes counterfactually a situation in which Lindbergh, backed by radical Republicans, defeats Roosevelt in 1940, and is elected president. Lindbergh subsequently signs a non-aggression pact with Hitler and the U.S. embarks on its own program of institutionalized anti-Semitism. In 2005, German author Rudolf Schroeck published a book titled Das Doppelleben des Charles A. Lindbergh (The Double Life of Charles A. Lindbergh), which revealed that between 1957 and 1974 Lindbergh had affairs with three European women and fathered seven children among them. Reeve Lindbergh, Lindbergh’s youngest daughter, in her book Forward From Here: Leaving Middle Age—And Other Unexpected Adventures (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009) attempts to come to grips with a father “whose very presence alternately crowded and startled everyone” and with the fact of Lindbergh’s secret families, whose existence she has acknowledged and with whom she visited.

In 2007 David M. Friedman, published The Immortalists: Charles Lindbergh, Dr. Alexis Carrel, and their Daring Quest to Live Forever (New York: Ecco, 2007), a disturbing look at the eugenic underpinnings of Lindbergh’s perfusion pump experiments with Carrel. In a Spring 2009 article in Air Power History, titled “The Celebrity of Charles Lindbergh,” historian Stanley Shapiro charges that Lindbergh’s behavior in matters of the kidnapping of his son, marriage power relations, and the acceptance of the Nazi medal display a familiar pattern of “remote and affectless response to criticism and disagreement, a growing insistence upon the rectitude of his actions, together with a grim resoluteness and rigid perseverance.” And in a forthcoming book by historian Thomas Kessner titled The Flight of the Century: Charles Lindbergh and the Rise of  American Aviation, Pivotal Moments in American History Series (New York: Oxford UP, 2010), the author concedes Lindbergh’s importance to the emerging aviation industry in the U.S., but charges that while Lindbergh “moved serially through aviation, science, race, the environment” … he failed to confront the core issue: it was not that technology could facilitate evil, but rather that unless human society made commensurate progress in civility, humanity, and decency, all the advances of modern life in technology, medicine, and communication could offer no assurances of real progress.”

Perhaps most interesting in the recent reappraisal of Lindbergh is the rediscovery of Lindbergh’s relationship to his father politically and philosophically. In Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 (New York: Oxford UP, 2009) historian Kathyrn S. Olmsted reveals that plates to the elder Lindbergh’s book Why Your Country Is at War and What Happens to You After the War were destroyed by federal agents in 1918. In his run for governor of Minnesota that same year, the senior Lindbergh was vilified by his opponents for his supposedly unpatriotic political views, and he and his supporters were repeatedly terrorized. These facts shed important light on the younger Lindbergh’s influences and beliefs.

No one can deny Lindbergh’s lifelong and significant contributions to aviation. Nevertheless, the public discovered early on that the celebrated hero had feet of clay. In the interwar years, criticism of Lindbergh on numerous accounts, particularly his relationship with the press, was subdued until he began to speak out against the war. What must be the most shocking development of recent years is the discovery of Lindbergh’s secret families—a reality that is far from his carefully cultivated, almost asexual persona, and which forces us to reassess the man’s character. Moreover, one has to wonder if Lindbergh came on the scene in the 21st century, a period of extreme cynicism and celebrity bashing, with a feat that distinguished him as heroic and celebrated, would he receive the same unquestioned adulation as he did in 1927.

Dominick A. Pisano is a curator in the Aeronautics Division of the National Air and Space Museum

Sending a Nobel Prize to Orbit

Nobel Prize

Replica of John Mather's Nobel Prize for Physics

The notation in the Museum’s artifact database is simple: “On loan.”  But this artifact is a replica Nobel Prize.  And its loan involves two government agencies, a crushed storage building, and a flight to the International Space Station.

Let’s start at the beginning – literally.  As in the Big Bang.  In 2006, John Mather of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics jointly with George F. Smoot of the University of California at Berkeley “for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation.”  That is, using the COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) satellite, Mather and Smoot discovered “the basic form of the cosmic microwave background radiation as well as its small variations”—work that confirms the theory of the Big Bang.  The National Air and Space Museum displays a replica of the COBE satellite in the “Explore the Universe” exhibit in the National Mall Building.

COBE

Close up of front end of COBE showing entrances for FIRAS (left) and DIRBE (right.)

The Nobel Prize, a series of yearly international awards endowed by Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel, consists of a monetary prize, a diploma, and a gold medal.  But Laureates have the opportunity to have bronze replica medals minted for their private use.  Mather requested three.

And thus, the Museum received into its collection a Nobel Prize medal.  On October 3, 2007, during a reception and invited talk sponsored by NASA at the National Air and Space Museum, Mather presented Museum director General Jack Dailey with a bronze replica of the award’s medal.  Mather gave another copy to NASA.

In 2010, NASA astronaut Piers Sellers contacted Mather about flying a copy of his Nobel Prize aboard STS-132, a mission aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis, destined for the International Space Station in May.  Astronauts often collaborate to assemble the significant objects that fly aboard each space mission.  Mather was delighted.  But, he quickly discovered that the medals he had given to NASA had been encased in thick plastic for display.  Removing the coating risked damaging the medals.  Flying the coated medals risked off-gassing (that smell that almost all plastics emit), which could be harmful in a spacecraft’s sealed environment.  Only the Museum’s medal remained in its original state.  So Mather contacted the Museum.

The timing stunk.  Just the week prior was the historic early February snow storm that paralyzed Washington, DC for a full week.  The heavy snow damaged a critical storage and processing building at the Paul E. Garber facility in Suitland, Maryland.  Every object that came in or out of the Museum usually passed through that building.  The entire loan program was shut down, frozen, blocked.  The staff was working overtime in rescue mode.

Fortunately, the Mather Nobel Prize replica was at the National Mall Building.  And, notwithstanding the pressures they were facing, the Museum’s loan staff were willing to do all of the work (and paperwork) necessary to prepare an object for loan in only 24 hours, without cutting corners.  Within days, Museum staff had hand-delivered the replica Nobel Prize to NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC.

Surprisingly, tracking the transit of a Nobel Prize is not very different than tracking any other package.  Because time was short, NASA shipped Mather’s Nobel to the Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston, Texas via FedEx.  Entering the tracking number in the website, one could “watch” the Nobel make its way to the astronaut office.

Atlantis

Space shuttle Atlantis lifts off from Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida to begin the STS-132 mission to the International Space Station.

The completion of the complex loan delivery came with glad tidings and good humor.  When he received the package, Piers Sellers e-mailed the Museum, “Hello everyone.  I have received the Nobel Prize. (I always wanted to say that.) I will hand it over to NASA pronto.  Best, P.”

Margaret A. Weitekamp is a curator in the Division of Space History at the National Air and Space Museum

Reflections on Post-Cold War Issues for International Space Cooperation

In the 1990s the United States collaborative space policy entered an extended period of transition from the earlier era of Cold War, one in which NASA has been compelled to deal with international partners on a much more even footing than ever before.

Apollo 17

Will the next flag on the Moon be a national flag or one representative of humankind as a whole? This image from Apollo 17 shows the U.S. flag on the Moon, an important symbolic moment for the United States in the Cold War race to the Moon with the Soviet Union. Those times have passed and cooperative efforts are the norm for the future.

This was true for several reasons. U.S. preeminence in space technology was rapidly declining, especially in launcher technology as other nations built their own internal capabilities. This was especially true of the European Space Agency’s superb Ariane launcher. This made it increasingly possible for other nations to “go it alone,” as a vernacular expression states.

U.S. commitment to sustained “preeminence” in space activities also waned and significantly less public monies went into NASA missions. The Clinton administration’s “National Space Policy” of September 29, 1996, for example, abandoned the language of preeminence that had been used since the origins of the space race in the 1950s. In addition, NASA’s budget declined in terms of real dollars every year from 1993 to 2000.

Of international cooperative projects that remained, NASA increasingly acceded to the demands of collaborators to develop critical systems and technologies. This overturned a longstanding policy of not allowing partners onto the critical technological path, something that had been flirted with but not accepted in the Space Shuttle development project.

This was in large measure a pragmatic decision on the part of American officials. Because of the increasing size and complexity of projects, according to former NASA international relations chief Kenneth Pedersen in 1992, more recent projects have produced “numerous critical paths whose upkeep costs alone will defeat U.S. efforts to control and supply them.”

Pedersen added, “It seems unrealistic today to believe that other nations possessing advanced technical capabilities and harboring their own economic competitiveness objectives will be amenable to funding and developing only ancillary systems.”

In addition to these important developments, the rise of competitive economic activities in space has mitigated the prospects for future collaborations. The brutal competition for launch business, the cutthroat nature of space applications, and the rich possibilities for space-based economic activities have created a climate in which international ventures may once again become the exception.

Historian John Krige astutely commented in 1998 that “collaboration has worked most smoothly when the science or technology concerned is not of direct strategic (used here to mean commercial or military) importance. As soon as a government feels that its national interests are directly involved in a field of R&D, it would prefer to go it alone.” He also noted that the success of cooperative projects may take as their central characteristic that they have “no practical application in at least the short to medium term.”

I would add that the sole exception to this perspective might be when nations decide that for prestige or diplomatic purposes it is appropriate to cooperate in space. A superb example of this is the effort beginning in 1992 to bring the Russians into the space station program already underway by a consortium of nations as a means of building stronger ties to Russia in the early post-Cold War era.

One of the key conclusions that we might reach about the course of international cooperation between the United States and its international collaborators in space is that it has been an enormously difficult process. I am reminded of the quote attributed to Wernher von Braun, “we can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.” Even so, cooperative space endeavors have been richly rewarding and overwhelmingly useful, from all manner of scientific, technical, social, and political perspectives.

International Space Station Components

The International Space Station is the most significant international cooperative program in the history of spaceflight. This image shows the components of the station and which nation constructed them.

Kenneth Pedersen observed in 1983, “international space cooperation is not a charitable enterprise; countries cooperate because they judge it in their interest to do so.” For continued cooperative efforts in space to proceed into the twenty-first century it is imperative that those desiring them define appropriate projects and ensure that national leaders judge them as being of interest and worthy of pursuing them in a cooperative manner.

Roger D. Launius is a senior curator in the Space History Division of the National Air and Space Museum.

Amelia Earhart: Viva la Vega

It was 78 years ago, on May 20, 1932, that Amelia Earhart set out in her Lockheed 5B Vega to become the first woman to fly nonstop and alone over the Atlantic Ocean.  Departing from  Harbour Grace, Newfoundland and landing in Londonderry, Northern Ireland about 15 hours later, she also became only the second person to solo the Atlantic, the first being Charles Lindbergh in 1927. It was also her second trip across the Atlantic.  Earhart first came to the public’s attention four years earlier, in June 1928, when she made headlines for doing nothing more than riding as a passenger–but she was the first female to do so.  And although it didn’t matter to the public that she never touched the controls of the aircraft during the transatlantic flight from Newfoundland to Wales, it mattered to Earhart.  After all, she had insisted on and been promised a chance to fly the Fokker F.VII Friendship aircraft.  Instead, pilot Bill Stultz flew the entire time, giving Earhart the controls only on the short final hop from Wales to Southampton, England (Lou Gordon was along as co-pilot and mechanic as well).

Amelia Earhart

Amelia Earhart, dressed in flying suit, standing on steps on left side of nose of her Lockheed 5B Vega amidst a crowd of people at Culmore, North Ireland after her historic solo flight across the Atlantic from Harbour Grace, Newfoundland, c. May 21, 1932.

Why was it so important to her to fly the Atlantic herself?  To prove she could do it.  She wanted the respect of other pilots, especially the other female pilots of the era.  Despite her fame, Earhart knew she wasn’t fully accepted as an accomplished pilot.  Since the 1928 flight, she had some modest success setting speed records and placed a respectable third in the 1929 Women’s Air Derby, the first cross-country race for women pilots.  She was the first woman to fly an autogyro in 1931 and she set an altitude record in it too, but her otherwise wildly popular cross country tour was marred by two accidents.

Earhart , who began flying in 1921 and earned a license in 1923, wanted a career in aviation and she was ably assisted in this goal by George Palmer Putnam, a master promoter and publisher who had arranged the publicity surrounding the flights of Charles Lindbergh and polar explorer Richard Byrd. Together she and Putnam formulated plans for her career:  “I make a flight, then I lecture on it.”  She wrote about the 1928 flight in her book, 20 hours and 40 minutes, and then traveled all over the country lecturing in support of aviation and careers for women.  She wrote about her flights in magazine articles, helped found the women’s flying organization the Ninety-Nines, and did public relations for early airline companies.  But she knew her career needed a shot in the arm from an ambitious and high profile flight–and she wanted to fly the Atlantic alone.

Other women pilots were nipping at her celebrity heels.  In 1928, Louise Thaden was the first woman to simultaneously hold the women’s altitude, endurance, and speed records in light planes and in 1929 she won the Women’s Air Derby.  Young record-setter Elinor Smith was named one of the three best pilots in the U.S. in 1930 and in 1931, Ruth Nichols held the women’s world speed, altitude, and distance records.  Nichols also wanted to solo the Atlantic but her first attempt ended with a crash at her planned takeoff location in Newfoundland in the summer of 1931.  Both Earhart and Nichols continued to prepare for transatlantic flights though it was not an acknowledged race between the two friends.

But by May 1932, Nichols was not ready.  Earhart and her Lockheed Vega, thoroughly prepared and tested by veteran pilot Bernt Balchen, were.  Finally, when the weather cleared enough for her to fly to Newfoundland, the timing was perfect for her and George Putnam: May 20, five years to the day after Lindbergh’s epic flight.

Lockheed Vega

Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Model 5B Vega on display in the Barron Hilton Pioneers of Flight gallery at the National Air and Space Museum.

Earhart departed Harbour Grace in the evening but soon ran into poor weather. During her 2,026-mile nonstop flight she fought fatigue and nausea, a leaky fuel tank, and a cracked manifold weld that spewed flames out of the side of the engine cowling.  Ice formed on the Vega’s wings, causing an unstoppable 3,000-foot descent to just above the waves.  When she sighted land she came down into a farmer’s field and asked, “Where am I?”  It was Culmore, near Londonderry in Northern Ireland.   Although it wasn’t Paris, it was the first solo transatlantic flight by a woman.  Amelia Earhart had reached her immediate goals of completing a challenging flight, receiving the respect of her fellow aviators and carving out a career in aviation.   She would not rest on those laurels.

Dorothy Cochrane is a curator in the Aeronautics Department of the National Air and Space Museum

Stewardesses, a radical idea

This month marks 80 years of female flight attendants. It’s hard to imagine a time without them, but until 1930, airlines employed male stewards. That changed when Ellen Church, a nurse from Iowa, approached Steve Simpson at Boeing Air Transport (later United Airlines) with the radical idea of putting women nurses on airliners.  Church had wanted to be a pilot, but realized that she had no chance for that in the climate of the day. She convinced Simpson that the presence of female employees might help relieve the public’s fear of flying. Church developed the job description and training program for the first class of eight stewardesses, called the “original eight.”

Original Eight

United Air Lines' "Original Eight" female flight attendants.

Upon completion of the class, Church worked the Oakland to Chicago route.  She served only eighteen months when an automobile accident grounded her. After her recovery she returned to nursing, and her stint as a stewardess was over.  However, her idea transformed the airline industry.  Did you know that the first stewardesses were required to have nursing experience? Qualifications for flight attendants have changed a lot over the years.  At one time airlines required stewardesses to have an appearance  “just below Hollywood standards.” Today, some would argue that the glamor is gone.  What do you think?

Stewardess

1960's flight attendant in a uniform designed by Emilio Pucci. The plastic bubble helmet, to protect hairdos on windy tarmacs, was an integral part of the Pucci-designed uniforms.

Try out this fun online checklist and see if you could have qualified to be a flight attendant in the early 1950s.

To explore more about the history of commercial aviation, check out our online version of the exhibition America by Air.

“There is still a newness about air travel, and, though statistics demonstrate its safety, the psychological effect of having a girl on board is enormous.”

-  Comment about the addition of stewardesses from an airline magazine, 1935

Tim Grove is Chief of Education at the National Air and Space Museum’s Mall building.

I’m Ready for my Close-up Mr. De Mille

In view of Dom Pisano’s blog on the IMAX films, I thought I might offer some comment on what it is like to see yourself five stories tall on the BIG screen.  I have appeared in two IMAX films. The first, On the Wing (1986) was directed by Bayley Silleck and Francis Thompson. Rick Young, an old friend, built and flew the 1902 Wright glider featured in that film. Another friend, Ken Kellett built and flew the replica 1903 Wright Flyer that flies (almost) in the film. In the scenes with the 1902 glider, I am dressed as a member of the US Lifesaving Service, one of the fellows who assisted the Wright brothers. In the scenes with the 1903 powered airplane, I am one of the Lifesavers on either wingtip during take-off. My son Nathan, then thirteen, was released from school so that he could play the role of Tom Tate, a young Outer Banker who befriended the Wrights.  When the film was released, Nate got a letter from Grady Tate, elderly son of the real Tom Tate, congratulating him on his performance.  I still think that was pretty neat.  I hasten to add that Nate and I were by no means the real stars of  On The Wing. Beyond question, that was a full-scale, flying, replica of Quetzacoatlus Northropi, built and flown via radio control by Paul Macready and his crew at AeroVironment. If memory serves, the big mechanical pteranodon flew just long enough for them to get one good shot of it in the air.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMVRquMjNk8]

I actually had a speaking part in The Magic of Flight (1986), my second and last turn before the IMAX camera. Directed by Greg  MacGillivray, this film was produced for the National Museum of Naval Aviation. When MacGillvray first asked me to fly to his studio in Laguna Beach to describe what the Wright brothers had accomplished and how, I said thanks, but no thanks. The idea of me as a “talking head” with a face forty feet tall was not all that appealing. My boss at the time, Don Engen, a retired admiral and great friend of the folks in Pensacola, thought otherwise. If that’s what the Navy wanted, he was there to see that they got it. So, off I flew to Orange County. In the end it was not so bad. At our annual Air & Scare celebration at the Udvar-Hazy Center a few years ago, I was innocently standing in front of some display cases explaining things to our visitors, all clad in Halloween costumes. I noticed a four year old kid standing in front of me, staring up at my face. His mother walked up and apologized, explaining that they had a home video copy of The Magic of Flight, which her son had watched over and over.  “Go ahead,” his mother said, “show him.” The kid immediately began to explain the three axes of flight – pitch, role and yaw, just as I had done it in the film. Hey, as Andy Warhol opined, everybody deserves their fifteen minutes of fame.

Tom D. Crouch is the senior curator in the aeronautics division of the National Air and Space Museum.

A Crash Made Famous on TV

May 10 may ring a bell for fans of the 1970s television show The Six Million Dollar Man.  On that day in 1967, a NASA research aircraft, the wingless M2-F2 lifting body, crashed in the California desert. A film clip of the crash opened the popular weekly show about the gravely injured fictional pilot, Steve Austin, played by Lee Majors.  Thanks to bionic implants, he survived as a cyborg with superhuman strength, speed, and vision, to crusade against injustice.

View TV series intro on YouTube.

The M2-F2 research craft looked more like a boat than an aircraft. NASA was experimenting with wingless flight for a more controlled, more heat-resistant reentry from space. A lifting body derives lift from the shape of the fuselage, rounded on the bottom and flatter on top. Instead of wings, it has vertical stabilizer fins to control its attitude.

The aluminum M2-F2 had an XLR-11 rocket engine. It was carried aloft under the wing of a B-52 bomber to 13,716 m (45,000 ft) altitude. The engine then ignited to carry the craft to 18,288-21,336 m (60,000-70,000 ft) for a gliding descent to a landing. These flights demonstrated that a pilot could fly a wingless vehicle back from space to land like an airplane.

M2-F2

M2-F2 After the Crash in 1967

There was only one serious accident in 12 years of lifting body flights. On its 16th test flight both the M2-F2 and pilot Bruce Peterson were nearly destroyed as the craft flew out of control and then plowed into the ground at 250 miles per hour, tumbling over and over before coming to rest. Peterson had several surgeries but no bionic implants to repair his facial injuries, fractured skull, and loss of one eye. This accident inspired a novel, made-for-television movies, and the weekly prime-time television program.

M2-F3 Lifting Body

M2-F3 Lifting Body, Hanging in Space Hall at the National Air and Space Museum

The M2-F2 was rebuilt as the M2-F3 with a large third vertical stabilizer between the fins. It flew 27 successful test flights in 1970-1972, many of them the same profile as planned for the space shuttle.  This lifting body research helped to demonstrate that landing without power was safe and thus landing engines were not needed on the shuttle.  The M2-F3 (the resurrected M2-F2) hangs in Space Hall in the National Air and Space Museum.

Valerie Neal is in her 20th year as the Shuttle-era human spaceflight curator in the National Air and Space Museum’s Space History Division.

Is Resistance Futile?

In Star Trek: The Next Generation the intrepid crew of the United Starship Enterprise repeatedly face the Borg, cyborgs intent on assimilating the biological creatures of the universe into their collective consciousness. Their meme, “resistance is futile,” serves as a convenient tagline for this ongoing plot device in the fictional series, but it also may foreshadow a more realistic future for humanity as we reach into space. When considering the far future and the potential for humans to colonize other bodies in the solar system and beyond, perhaps humanity will adapt to the space environment through modifications of the human body like those found on the Borg.

This idea was first broached by scientists Manfred E. Clynes and Nathan S. Kline in a 1960 NASA study. They remarked: “Altering man’s bodily functions to meet the requirements of extraterrestrial environments would be more logical than providing an earthly environment for him in space.”  They proposed a variety of modifications that would allow humans to withstand radiation, the absence of atmospheric oxygen, and other hazards of space. They coined the term “cyborg” to describe this adaptation.

Sojourner and Astronaut on Mars

The classic image of humans and robots working together is depicted in this NASA artwork. Sojourner, the Mars Pathfinder rover named after former slave and famous abolitionist Sojourner Truth, is visited many years after its mission by a descendant of its namesake, in this artist’s rendering. Like the human, Sojourner the rover paved the way for those that followed. This image was produced for NASA by Pat Rawling.

Since that time, NASA has refrained from serious consideration of the ideas offered by Clynes and Kline, although a few studies in the 1960s investigated these possibilities. But what of the future, especially the distant future? To date, human presence in space has consisted of what might be characterized as extended camping trips, often a week or more but rarely exceeding a half year in length.  Yet space advocates continue to propose far lengthier stays, from planetary outposts to solar system colonization.

If colonization of the solar system, and the rest of the galaxy, is truly desirable, will it be done by Homo sapiens?  In undertaking this cosmic venture, humans might change, especially if very long periods of time are involved.  Humans born and raised on extraterrestrial locations would change naturally in response to different conditions.  Given advances in biotechnology, others might reengineer themselves.  The current debate over the superiority of humans versus robots in space could disappear in the presence of such alterations.

A provocative possibility appears in the rapid rise of biotechnology, suggesting that humans may become cyborgs through the application of sophisticated machinery in ways at least initially unrelated to space exploration. In many ways we are already there, with millions of people enjoying a better quality of life, or in some cases life itself, through the incorporation of pacemakers, joint and limb replacements, cochlear hearing implants, artificial organs, and a potential list of even more sophisticated enhancements. Future possibilities are astonishing.

How might we remake the human body to more effectively meet the rigors of space exploration? Skeptics may scoff at this possibility as nothing more than bioscience fiction, but space exploration was itself fiction in the truest sense of the word less than 75 years ago. Advances in biotechnology could take place with similar speed.

Robonaut

NASA’s Robonaut (foreground) is a step forward in terms of human/machine interaction. Here it performs a mock weld while Ames Research Center's K10 robot assists two EVA crew inspecting a previously welded seam.

The result, given sufficient time, may be the emergence of a new age of space exploration. Technological developments now beginning to take place might permit a true merger—humans equipped with robotic parts or machines possessing sentient qualities. In that sense, humans and robots would explore space together—really together.

The implications of such developments for the future of space exploration are fascinating.  They are made more interesting when one considers the degree to which humans might change during the millions of years available to colonize the galaxy. Who knows what derivations of the human form could emerge? Such developments would alter the traditional debate over space exploration in ways that provide a new paradigm quite different than the one casting humans with all of their biological limitations into the extraterrestrial realm. Such developments might make space travel more attainable, though in unconventional ways.

So, is there a Borg in our future? Possibly; even probably. In fact, we may already be there with all of the biotechnological enhancements now routinely offered to human beings. This possibility, moving as it does away from the necessity of maintaining organic life under Earth-like conditions throughout the cosmos, offers a fascinating option for space travel. If we did not require Earth-like conditions to survive, our ability to colonize strikingly diverse non-Earth-like worlds would expand. Many spheres, including those within the local solar system not currently suitable for human occupation, might prove acceptable. Is it possible that once cyborgs emerge—and undertake space travel—they will shoulder the burden of carrying the essence of humanity to other worlds? Resistance may be futile, if the Borg really are us. But they need not be feared.

Roger D. Launius is senior curator in the Space History Division of the National Air and Space Museum. Howard E. McCurdy is professor of public affairs at the American University,Washington, D.C. They pubished Robots in Space: Technology, Evolution, and Interplanetary Travel (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), from which the ideas here are taken.

Following the Hindenburg

Hindenburg Poster

Hindenburg poster by Jupp Wiertz

The superlatives tend to pile up pretty quickly when it comes to the rigid airship Hindenburg, the pride of the Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei line. It was the longest aircraft of any type at 245 meters (803 feet). Its 16 gas cells held up to 200,000 cubic meters (7,062,900 cubic feet) of hydrogen gas. Four 1050 hp Daimler-Benz DB 602 diesel motors sped the mighty airship along at speeds up to 135km/h (85 mph) with a maximum range of 14,000km (8,700 miles). Up to 70 passengers traveled in unrivaled luxury, served by a crew of from 40 to 72; gourmet meals (although the final meal served on board was a bit sketchy); comfortable (though small) cabins with running water; and a smoking lounge, where one could enjoy a Hindenburg Cocktail or two. And, of course, the famous Blüthner aluminum piano, covered in pigskin, for the passengers’ pleasure. Think of that, the next time you’re stuffed into a tiny airline seat and stuck on a runway for a couple of hours.

Hindenburg Baggage Label

American Airlines-Hindenburg baggage label

It’s a shame, though, that the Hindenburg is remembered today primarily for its tragic final flight.  On May 6, 1937, it arrived at its American terminus, the Lakehurst Naval Air Station, at the end of the first flight of the 1937 season. Vented hydrogen ignited (although there are many other theories), and the mighty airship crashed and burned. There were 36 passengers and 61 crew on board; 13 passengers and 22 crew died, as did one member of the ground crew. But it wasn’t history’s worst airship disaster; the US Navy’s USS Akron lost 73 of its crew of 76 when it crashed off the New Jersey coast on April 4, 1933. What we remember, though, are the horrifying photographs of the Hindenburg engulfed in flames, and the breathless narration of the disaster by Herb Morrison, a reporter for the Chicago radio station WLS. But there are happier stories concerning the Hindenburg.

Hindenburg Ticket

Garland Fulton’s ticket for the October 9, 1936 “Millionaires’ Flight”

On October 9, 1936, the Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei and the Standard Oil Company invited a party of influential businessmen, politicians, and military men aboard the Hindenburg for a ten-hour flight over the fall foliage of New England. Dubbed “The Millionaires’ Flight,” its passengers included heavy hitters like Juan Trippe of Pan American and the ace Eddie Rickenbacker, who headed Eastern Airlines at the time. Also among the passengers was Commander Garland Fulton, U.S. Navy, chief of the Lighter than Air Section of the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics. That’s his ticket for the flight, shown above, preserved among his papers, which are held by the Museum’s Archives Division. As the VIPs enjoyed a superb luncheon, far below on the ground in the wilds of Connecticut, a little girl was about to have the experience of a lifetime. The little girl, who grew up to become an author and opera translator and a dear friend, was Anne “Cookie” Chotzinoff Grossman. Here’s her account, as published in Robert Hedin’s The Zeppelin Reader:

In September or October of 1936, I was six years old, at school in Ridgefield, Connecticut, in those days a small, exceedingly rural town. I was a shy little girl, always trailing behind my 10-year-old brother Blair. One day we were outside during the lunch recess, when a shadow crossed the schoolyard. We all looked up; something huge was floating by. Blair said excitedly, “Hey, that’s the Hindenburg! Let’s follow it!” I hadn’t the faintest idea what he was talking about or what a Hindenburg was, but whenever Blair said “follow”, I followed; so I ran behind him and his friends, trying hard to keep up. We ran across fields and brooks and over stone walls, trying to keep the airship in sight. Blair finally admitted defeat – the Hindenburg was faster than we were – and we made our way back to the school, very late and very dirty, to face angry teachers. I don’t remember what Blair’s punishment was, but I was made to stand at the blackboard and write “I will not follow the Hindenburg” 100 times.

That’s the way I prefer to remember the airship Hindenburg: sailing through a crisp autumn day over New England, with a gang of school kids in hot pursuit…

Hindenburg Model

Model of the Hindenburg on display in the National Mall Building.

There are Hindenburg artifacts to see at the Museum. For instance, the  stupendous model of the airship (shown above), used in the 1975 Universal film The Hindenburg starring George C. Scott and Anne Bancroft, which hovers over the entrance to the store in the National Mall Building.

The Bucker Bu-133C Jungmeister

The Bucker Bu-133C Jungmeister at the Udvar-Hazy Center

We even have an actual Hindenburg passenger on display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center – the Museum’s Bücker Bü-133C Jungmeister was shipped to the United States in August 1936 on the Hindenburg by its owner, the Romanian aerobatic pilot Alexandru Papană for the Cleveland Air Races.

Hindenburg cup and saucer

Photograph by Dane Penland

Also at the Udvar-Hazy Center, in the Lighter than Air exhibit case, is a fragment of one of Hindenburg’s aluminum girders, a ladder, a fragment of the airship’s doped fabric, and, shown above, a cup and a saucer, possibly used on the Millionaires’ Flight, survivors of the Hindenburg’s final flight, but smudged by the smoke and flames that signaled the end of passenger airship travel.

Film of the Hindenburg in flight, and the destruction of the airship at Lakehurst, May 6, 1937. National Air and Space Museum Archives Division film VB 01246.

Allan Janus is a museum specialist in the Museum’s Archives Division.

IMAX—Not the First, but Close!

When the National Air and Space Museum opened its doors in July 1976, it featured in its theater a film produced specifically for the Museum called To Fly in a large format called IMAX. The Canadian-designed IMAX (Image MAXimum) format was created by Graeme Ferguson, Roman Kroitor, Robert Kerr, and William C. Shaw. IMAX was able to record and project images in a much larger format and much higher resolution than conventional film systems. Theater goers were astonished by the panoramic images in To Fly, one of whose effects on the audience was a vertiginous loss of balance. To Fly was immensely popular, and continues to be shown today in both of the Museum’s IMAX theaters. The film was considered significant enough to be selected in 1995 for preservation and placed on the Library of Congress’s National Film Registry, which pays tribute to culturally important films. Until 2004, To Fly held the record as the highest-grossing documentary film.

To Fly!

Artwork for the IMAX movie, To Fly! Credit: MacGillivray Freeman Films

Many people (including me) thought To Fly was the first IMAX film to be shown in the United States. However, subsequent research has turned up some interesting facts about IMAX’s origins and history.  IMAX is probably the most significant and most successful in a long line of large format films that began with Twentieth Century Fox’s Fox Grandeur, the first 70 mm motion picture format, introduced in 1929. (The Big Trail in 1930, directed by Raoul Walsh and starring John Wayne in his first major role, was the first film made in Fox Grandeur.) Another wide-screen process, Cinerama, which used multiple projectors to achieve its effects, appeared in 1952. (The first feature film, This Is Cinerama, thrilled audiences with its wild point-of-view roller coaster ride). The 1950s also saw such large formats as Twentieth Century Fox’s Cinemascope (The Robe was the first Cinemascope production in 1953), Paramount’s Vista Vision (White Christmas in 1954 was the first in that process) both of which widened the standard 35 mm image, and Todd-AO, a 70 mm process (Oklahoma in 1955 and Around the World in Eight Days in 1956 were the first in that process).

The history of IMAX goes back to 1967, when two films shown at Montreal Expo—Roman Kroitor’s In the Labyrinth and Graeme Ferguson’s Man and the Polar Regions—attempted to use multiple screen, multiple projection techniques, but ran into numerous technical problems. Undaunted, Kroiter and Ferguson founded a company, originally called “Multiscreen” (later changed to IMAX when multiple screen projection became impractical). The process they developed used a single projector, a single camera, and a single large format screen. The first IMAX film was titled Tiger Child, and was shown at Expo ’70 in Osaka, Japan. In 1971, the first IMAX theater system was set up in Toronto at Ontario Place. At Expo ’74 in Spokane, Washington, a very large IMAX format screen (300 ft. x 213 ft,) was installed in the U.S. Pavilion. Although this screen was temporary, a permanent IMAX screen replaced it in what is now the Riverfront Park IMAX Theater. In 1973, an IMAX Dome opened at the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center in San Diego, California. IMAX theaters now exist in all parts of the world.

Despite the fact that the National Air and Space Museum’s IMAX theater was not the first in the U.S., its significance in introducing a vast audience to the IMAX film format cannot be denied. Over the years, the National Air and Space Museum has shown such aerospace-related IMAX films as Blue Planet (1990), Destiny in Space (1994), Cosmic Voyage (1996), Mission to Mir (1997), and Space Station (2002). Hubble 3D, one of the current attractions at the Lockheed Martin IMAX Theater, is characteristic of how far the IMAX process has come in its development. At one time thought to be impractical for major motion pictures, IMAX has now become commonplace. Although as of this writing, no feature film has been shot entirely in IMAX (some, like Michael Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, made in 2009, have some scenes shot in IMAX) many have been or are being digitally remastered to be shown in IMAX theaters in IMAX and IMAX 3D.

Dominick A. Pisano is a curator in the Aeronautics Division of the National Air and Space Museum