Author Archive for The National Air and Space Museum

Page 2 of 16

Climate Change in the Solar System

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on March 7, 2012 in Planetary Science.
1 Comment Tags: , , , , , .

We are all familiar with the climate on Earth: the seasons, the range of surface temperatures that are just right for being a water world, the oxygen we breathe, the ozone layer that protects us from UV radiation. In short: habitable.

So what other bodies in the Solar System might be (or might have been) habitable, and why aren’t they today?

Mars probably comes to mind, and for good reason. Mars has the most similar climate to our own, with water ice caps at the poles, seasonal snow, and dust storms. This is because Mars has a similar axial tilt as the Earth, which creates similar seasonal temperature variations. However, the colder average temperatures and the thin atmosphere mean liquid water can only exist on the surface around midsummer and at the lowest elevations (where the atmospheric pressure is greatest). The thin atmosphere also means the surface is exposed to intense UV radiation. Mars may not be habitable today (for life on the surface), but climates change.

 

Mars

Hubble image of Mars engulfed in a global dust storm, with its polar caps peeking through. Image courtesy of NASA.

Several lines of evidence point to Mars being wet and warm early in its history. Water-carved channels, minerals formed by interaction with groundwater (like gypsum), river delta deposits, and what may be a shoreline all the way around the northern lowlands (which would have been a giant ocean) all point to lots of liquid water on the surface sometime in the distant past.

So why was Mars so much warmer and wetter than it is today, and why did it change? These are fundamental questions about climate change that have yet to be fully answered.

Early Mars likely had a thicker atmosphere, made of mostly CO2 like it is today, which would have warmed the surface through the greenhouse effect. One way to understand the climate early in Mars history is to study the oldest rocks and landforms. Another is to look at more recent climate changes, which are likely preserved in the polar ice caps.

Just as ice cores on Earth provide a record of annual changes in climate, the thick stacks of polar ice on Mars have internal layering that suggests they were built up one layer at a time, for millions if not billions of years. (Some of the research I do here at the Museum is directly related to the internal structure of these ice caps, which I mapped out using orbital radar data. I am currently working to understand smaller-scale features buried in the ice.)

So if one of our neighbors may have been habitable in the past, what about our nearest neighbor, Venus?

Venus is almost the same size as Earth, and only slightly closer to the Sun. However, its axis does not tilt relative to the Sun, so it has no seasons like Earth and Mars. We know less about ancient Venus than we do about Mars, because the surface of Venus is relatively young (~1 billion years old). However, we think the atmosphere is much older than the surface, made up of mostly CO2 (like Mars, and like early Earth). With 100 times the atmosphere of Earth, its runaway greenhouse effect long ago boiled all the water off the surface. Some of that water is bound to sulfur and makes up the sulfuric acid clouds that circle the planet, but much of it was broken down in the atmosphere and removed by the solar wind. Venus is dry and hot, despite its clouds reflecting 80% of the sunlight that arrives, since it very effectively traps the remaining 20%.

 

Venus

Clouds swirl around the south pole of Venus, imaged in UV by Venus Express. Image courtesy of the European Space Agency.

So was Venus ever more like Earth?

Being so similar to Earth, Venus likely formed from the same material. The key to their different climates today may be in part due to Earth having plate tectonics, which buries carbon-rich sedimentary rocks (taking CO2 out of the atmosphere). Venus instead keeps all of its CO2 in the atmosphere. The clues to climate change on Venus will probably be found in the composition of its atmosphere, with isotopic ratios of elements like carbon and hydrogen pointing the way to understanding when and why it became so hot and dry.

Only those three inner planets in our Solar System have atmospheres thick enough and persistent enough to have climates that change over time. However, one moon in our Solar System, more massive than the planet Mercury, has an atmosphere. In fact, Titan, a moon of Saturn, was once thought to be the largest moon in the Solar System precisely because its atmosphere is so thick (1.5 times the atmosphere of Earth).

 

Titan

Titan is the only moon in the Solar System with a thick atmosphere, imaged by Cassini. Image courtesy of NASA.

Titan is particularly interesting because its atmosphere is made up mostly of nitrogen, just like the Earth. The remainder is mostly methane, which breaks down easily in the atmosphere and has to be replenished every ~50 million years; this implies some unknown but ongoing process. Titan gets 100 times less sunlight than the Earth, so its surface is frigid, cold enough that water ice is as hard as rock. So while Titan is not currently habitable for life as we know it on Earth, it is the only other place in the Solar System with rain (made of methane and ethane). However, in another 5 billion year the Sun will become a red giant star, and Titan probably will be warm enough to have liquid water on its surface, making it habitable at last.

For the time being, understanding the methane cycle on Titan (perhaps analogous to the water cycle on Earth) will help us understand climate change on Titan, and may give us insight into the behavior of climate on early Earth.

Titan, Venus, and Mars all have something to teach us about the possibilities for climate change and habitability on Earth. While nothing as dramatic as the changes experienced by Mars or Venus is likely to happen anytime soon on Earth, we do know that smaller changes in climate have had big effects on life, and vice versa.

When photosynthesis appeared on Earth ~2.5 billion years ago, it put oxygen into the atmosphere for the first time. When the “snowball Earth” episode ended ~500 million years ago, the warmer and friendlier climate produced macroscopic life for the first time. When extensive volcanism occurred ~250 million years ago, ~95% of life on Earth was wiped out. When the aftermath of a large impact cooled the climate ~65 million years ago, the dinosaurs died off. In the last million years, according to ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica,  recurring periods of warming and cooling (correlated with increasing and decreasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere) have caused repeated ice ages and interglacial periods; during the most recent interglacial period (from ~10,000 years ago to today), humanity has thrived.

 

Earth

The one climate in our Solar System that is "just right" for life, imaged by Apollo 17. Image courtesy of NASA.

Currently we are blessed with a friendly climate. What will help us best understand it? What more might we want to know about changes in other climates? What is the role of humanity in the future climate of Earth?

Michelle Selvans is a planetary geophysicist in the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies at the National Air and Space Museum.

The Pilot as Hero in the Aviation Film Genre

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on March 1, 2012 in Aviation.
4 Comments

The relationship between film, history, and mass culture is especially intriguing when we examine the correspondences between the representation of pilot-heroes in film and public perceptions of aviation. These connections are applicable during the heyday of the aviation genre film—the interwar years and WWII. For many years, films in the aviation film genre have been overlooked by scholars because they were perceived to be formulaic and cliché-ridden. While this charge may be true, these films contain important elements that confront and resolve problems of the individual pilot versus the group, and of the individual and group versus the outside world. Moreover, the best of these films not only reflect but often define American notions of heroism, masculinity, responsibility, and nationalism.

The aviation films of Howard Hawks—The Dawn Patrol (1930), Ceiling Zero (1935), Only Angels Have Wings (1939), and Air Force (1943), seem to me to be the solidifying force in the definition of the aviation film genre and the genre’s significance in molding public perceptions of masculinity and  heroism, particularly during the 1930s and WWII. More than any other director of his era, Hawks was responsible for defining the aviation hero in popular film, and the generic elements in his aviation films helped to reinforce the popular image of the pilot-hero. The formula Hawks established for heroic behavior in his aviation genre films can be seen in other film genres like the Western and the combat film.

Dawn Patrol

A First National Pictures (Warner Brothers) still photo from "The Dawn Patrol" (1930), directed by Howard Hawks. "The Dawn Patrol" solidified the aviation film genre by focusing on a group of professional military pilots in WWI who face danger and death stoically.

Hawks’s The Dawn Patrol, made in 1930, set the standard for portraying pilots in a dramatic wartime situation. The Dawn Patrol blended the realism of William Wellman’s Wings (1927) and Howard Hughes’s Hell’s Angels (1930) with more fully developed generic elements. More than any other WWI air combat film, The Dawn Patrol redefined and reinterpreted the genre, by exploring the psychological pressures and stresses of wartime flying. These tensions are characterized by situations in which fighter pilots must come face to face with their impending death and the death of their comrades, and by the emotional difficulties faced by squadron commanders who must send young men to die.

The film chronicles the 59th Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps during 1915, when the RFC was suffering severe casualties at the hands of the German air force.  Squadron Commander Brand (Neil Hamilton) faces the difficult task of sending young and inexperienced fliers to fight the Germans because so many of his veteran pilots have been killed.  Flight Commander Courtney (Richard Barthelmess) accuses Brand of butchery, but finds himself in the same position when Brand is promoted and Courtney becomes squadron commander.  Nerves stretched to the breaking point by the pressures of command, Courtney finds that he must send the unseasoned younger brother of his best friend Scott (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.), into battle.  Scott’s brother is killed, and Courtney’s relationship with Scott is damaged irreparably.  Courtney himself takes on a suicidal mission that Scott had volunteered for and is killed.  At the end of the film, Scott finds that now he must assume the duties of command, re-initiating the deadly cycle.

Hells Angels

A dramatic but perhaps doctored United Artists still photo from Hell’s Angels (1930), directed by Howard Hughes. Originally shot as a silent, the film was remade as a talkie. Hughes went to great lengths to film the aerial combat footage, and he designed many of the dogfighting scenes himself.

The paradigm below outlines characteristics that are the most integral elements of the WW I air combat film genre as defined by The Dawn Patrol: 1. Characters:  the men of The Dawn Patrol are a closely-knit set of professionals who perform a difficult task and who adhere to their own carefully defined code of conduct.  2.  Values:  In The Dawn Patrol, the male characters unite into a fraternal organization with a code that stresses stoical adherence to professionalism, honor, and responsibility to oneself and the group. 3.  Actions:  Although very much part of a group, the men of The Dawn Patrol are involved in individualistic combat with chivalric overtones set against a backdrop of impending doom.  4.  Iconography:  Many of the iconographic elements of the air combat film originated in Wings.  The Dawn Patrol, however, contains visual elements that have become trademarks of the genre.  Pilots are costumed in leather coats and helmets, and outfitted with goggles, scarves, and winged insignia.  Aircraft are both authentic WWI-vintage aircraft and 1930s era aircraft made up to look like WWI airplanes (e.g. in The Dawn Patrol, Travel Air 2000/4000s and Standard J-1s). Flight maneuvers, filmed by aerial cinematographers, include spectacular crashes, complete with smoke and flames.  Sound effects are commonplace and consist of aircraft engines, machine guns, and often a dramatic musical score.

Also, because the characterizations are so heavily masculine (a reflection of the male-dominated world of aviation in the interwar years), women in these films tend to be either non-existent or not essential. Aviation is thought of as a man’s work; women need not apply.

Only Angels Have Wings poster

A Columbia Pictures poster from Only Angels Have Wings, directed by Howard Hawks in 1939. The film, which stars Cary Grant and Jean Arthur, deals with a group of unsung pilots who fly mail and dangerous cargo in the fictional town of “Baranca,” set in the Andes Mountains.

The cultural impact of the narrative patterns of the genre on the audience was to mythologize the aviator, romanticizing and dramatizing his persona somewhat out of proportion to actuality, and reinforcing the notion that the pilot-hero could resolve the most severe cultural conflicts concerning the fear of technology and the loss of democratic ideals and values in the twentieth century. Another reason The Dawn Patrol struck a chord with audiences may have to do with the time in which it was made—the first year of the Great Depression. Financial hardship was on everyone’s mind and themes of wartime courage and group solidarity could easily be adapted to times of economic despair. The Dawn Patrol could thus be seen as celebrating values of teamwork, of “sticking together,” of community and sharing, contrary to the values of acquisitive individualism inherent in modern industrial capitalism.

The conventions of the WWI air combat film genre, as represented by The Dawn Patrol, eventually evolved into those common in the aviation genre films of the 1930s, the WWII air combat film, and beyond.  Eventually, however, the genre began to stagnate.  The Western and the combat film genres underwent significant changes during the Cold War, and especially after the Vietnam War, often questioning—and sometimes abandoning—the traditional values they had championed earlier.  The air combat genre, for the most part, maintained its traditional attitudes and values.

Has the aviation genre film become irrelevant? Perhaps. The notion of heroism in the early twenty-first century is much more complex than at any time in American history. If Hollywood were perhaps willing to renegotiate the aviation genre film’s formula to conform to a postmodernist mode of discourse, might it not be revivable?  Hollywood appears unwilling or unable to deviate from the winning formula of the past, and there is no guarantee that drastic changes in the formula would be widely accepted and successful at the box office.

Nevertheless, the formula prevalent in the aviation genre film, which extols without irony, the manly virtues of pilot-heroes, is simply outdated in this post-heroic age. Piloting an airplane may be looked upon as a dangerous but not particularly heroic activity. This is perhaps because aviation has become so all-pervasive and familiar that no one thinks much about it. The exoticism of aviation, so prevalent during the interwar years and extending into the 1960s, is a thing of the past. If the mystery and romance of aviation exist at all, they do so in terms of nostalgia for a bygone era.

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

Friendship 7’s ‘Fourth Orbit’

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on February 16, 2012 in space.
4 Comments Tags: , , , .

The Friendship 7 space capsule was designed to orbit the earth and it did just that on February 20, 1962, with John Glenn, Jr. on board. It circled the globe three times before landing in the Atlantic Ocean. Three months later Friendship 7 began its second mission, or what was popularly referred to as its “fourth orbit:” a worldwide exhibition that was organized to promote and represent the United States and its space program in nearly 30 cities around the world.

 

Sri Lanka

"Friendship 7" arriving at the airport in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), July 1, 1962 (NASM Archives)

 

Five years earlier, popular reaction to the successful launch of Sputnik in 1957 had prompted government officials in the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to see spaceflight as a leading means for demonstrating power, technological capability, and national values to the world public. As a result, the U.S. space program, and its exhibition abroad, became important instruments in American foreign relations during the Cold War.

Over the course of its three-month-long world tour, Friendship 7 was seen by roughly four million people. Another 20 million people watched television programs about the capsule, which were broadcast from the exhibition sites. In early May 1962, on the first day the capsule was displayed at the Science Museum in London, thousands of people had to be turned away because the huge crowds overtaxed the facilities. In Madrid, the line to see the capsule was often up to a mile long and Spanish authorities had to be called to control a crowd of 40,000 people around the exhibit. Even though tropical thunderstorms drenched Nigeria and an earthquake shook Mexico during the capsule’s visit, the exhibit caused a much larger stir in every city it visited than officials at NASA and the State Department had imagined.

The capsule was flown around the world in a U.S. Air Force cargo plane that was emblazoned with the words “around the world with Friendship 7” and depicted the “fourth orbit” on a map of the four continents that the capsule visited over the summer. A member of NASA’s Cape Canaveral staff accompanied the craft to answer questions from curious audiences around the world.

At its stop in Egypt, the Friendship 7 capsule exhibit convinced skeptics that the flight had really happened. The Washington Post quoted one onlooker who remarked, “I thought this space flight business was a rumor but now [that] I can see the ship I believe it.” It was important for this exhibit visitor, as it was for many spectators around the world, to see the capsule with their own eyes. In the mid-twentieth century, space exploration had just left the realm of science fiction; the extraordinary idea that a man had orbited the earth was made more comprehensible when the craft that had carried Glenn could be seen and touched in person.

Although the Friendship 7 capsule drew record crowds from Paris and Accra, the capsule received its most overwhelming response in Asia. In the middle of July, when the capsule arrived in India, 50,000 Bombay residents waited for up to four hours to see the display at the Brabourne stadium. In the Philippines, priests, students, grandmothers, and boy scouts waded through six inches of rainwater leftover from a typhoon to see the spacecraft during its first day on display.

In Japan, the capsule was taken to Takashimaya, the leading department store in downtown Tokyo, where exhibits were usually mounted. Several hundred police and guides were called in to direct the crowd into a line that climbed nine flights of stairs, zigzagged across the roof of the building, and then descended back down nine flights of stairs to the first floor where the capsule was on display. In the first hour alone more than 12,000 people saw it, while over the course of its four-day visit more than 500,000 people came to the store to see Friendship 7 in person.

When Friendship 7 took its fourth orbit, it was for all practical purposes a defunct piece of machinery. After it landed in the Atlantic Ocean in 1962, the capsule had done what it was designed to do: to orbit the earth. Having outlived its technical utility, its display conveyed not only the fact that the first orbital flight had happened, but also that the American space program was open.

A year after his flight John Glenn wrote to McGeorge Bundy, President Kennedy’s National Security Advisor, that the Friendship 7’s ”fourth orbit” tour, “stressed the fact that [the American space program] was not just a propaganda effort before the world, but a well-thought-out scientific program that could eventually benefit all peoples of the world as the scientific exploration it is.” He went on to note that Russian exhibits highlighted personal appearances of cosmonauts while the United States emphasized scientific information via the capsule’s display. According to Glenn, America’s greatest advantage over the Soviet Union’s space program was “the almost complete freedom to share experiences and new information.” He suggested that the openness of the American program—as represented by the display of the spacecraft—stood in for the nation and its political ideology: when the Friendship 7 capsule was laid bare before the eyes of people from around the world it gave the impression that the U.S. space program was real, benign, apolitical, and designed for the collective benefit of all mankind.

 

Friendship 7

"Friendship 7's" final location, Milestones of Flight gallery, National Air and Space Museum

 

Teasel Muir-Harmony is a visiting researcher at the National Air and Space Museum and a PhD candidate at MIT.

 

 

Blimp!

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on February 5, 2012 in Aviation.
4 Comments Tags: , , , , .

The newest arrival in the National Air and Space Museum’s inventory of historic aircraft is the C-49 airship control car. Produced by Goodyear Tire and Rubber, it first took to the air as the pressure airship  Enterprise (NC-16A) on August 23, 1934. The craft operated in the Washington, D.C. and New York metropolitan areas until November 1941, when it was flown back to Wingfoot Lake, Akron, Ohio to serve as a training craft. Early in WW II it patrolled northern Ohio checking on compliance with blackout regulations.

 

good year

The Goodyear blimp Columbia N4A, utilizing the C-49 car launches from the Marine Corps Air Station , Tustin, Ca. circa 1978.

Acquired by the US Navy in 1942, the craft was shipped to Moffett Field, California. Re-designated L-5 it spent most of the war as a training craft but saw some patrol duty. Re-acquired by Goodyear on January 24, 1946, the control car was rebuilt to operate with the new GZ-20 class commercial blimps in 1969 and registered as N4A on May 12, 1970. It was back in the air once again as the airship Columbia IV in July 1975, and remained in service for over a decade, logging thousands of hours of passenger flights, night sign messaging, and corporate service.

Black Sunday

Black Sunday

The control car saw duty over the 1977, 1980, 1983, and 1985 Super Bowls; the 1981 and 1984 World Series; Rose Bowl games and parades; and the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. It starred in the Hollywood thriller Black Sunday (1977) and made appearances in several other films. C-49 spans much of the history of the pressure airship in America and represents the wide range of military and commercial roles played by blimps. The car was permanently retired in 1986 and made its final journey to the Smithsonian in November 2011.

The arrival of this historic control car provides an excuse to offer some thoughts on the etymology of the word “blimp.” First, some basic definitions. All Zeppelins are dirigibles, but not all dirigibles are Zeppelins. A dirigible is any powered lighter-than-air craft capable of maneuvering. For the linguistically fastidious, a Zeppelin is a rigid airship manufactured by the Zeppelin Company, or by Goodyear-Zeppelin, the American firm that produced the two great U.S. naval airships,  ZRS-4, USS Akron (1931-1933), and ZRS-5, USS  Macon (1933-1935).

Rigid airships have internal frameworks of metal or wood that gives the craft its shape. The lifting gas, hydrogen or helium, is contained in large gas cells inside the framework. Non-rigid airships, or pressure airships, maintain their shape only because the pressure inside the envelope, or gas bag, is slightly higher than the external air pressure. Let the lifting gas out and the envelope is an empty bag lying on the ground.

Pressure airships are commonly known as blimps. The origin of that term has caused a good many arguments. One story relates to an English officer, Lt. A.D. Cunningham, RN,  who entered a hangar containing a pressure airship in 1915. He was unable to resist plunking his finger on the gas bag, which produced the sound “blimp.” By noon that day his mess mates were applying the word to their gas bags. Another accounts claims that Horace Short, the famous British aircraft builder, took one look at an early Sea Scout airship, with a B.E.2C airplane fuselage hanging beneath a gas bag, and immediately dubbed the thing a blimp, commenting, “What else would you call it?”

Whatever the origin of the name, blimps have been delighting us since the late 19th century. C-49, one of the longest-lived of all Goodyear airships, will proudly represent her kind for generations to come at the Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center.

 

C-49

Goodyear C-49 airship control car

 

Tom D. Crouch is a senior curator of the Aeronautics Division of the National Air and Space Museum.

What do you Make of the “Houston, we have a problem” Film Claiming that a Secret Yugoslavian Space Program was the Source of American Success in the Space Race?

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on January 27, 2012 in space.
7 Comments Tags: , , , .

They have got to be kidding! At least that’s what I thought, but apparently not. I received a call from Richard Solash, a reporter with Radio Free Europe about ten days ago to discuss a film being made by Slovene director Ziga Virc and writer Bostjan Virc that alleges that Tito’s Yugoslavia had a secret space program and secretly sold space knowledge to NASA, in the process making Tito rich and making if possible for the U.S. to achieve its Apollo program. Here is a Radio Free Europe news story about it. The filmmakers made a trailer offering the thrust of their argument and it quickly generated quite a lot of buzz in the Balkans. The trailer is here:

It is a fascinating, misleading, and in places highly contentious trailer for what is being billed as a “docudrama.” It claims that in 1960 the CIA discovered a secret Yugoslav space program, one that the United States exploited to win the space race with the Soviet Union, “buying” the whole shebang from Yugoslav strongman Tito in March 1961, not long before President Kennedy’s announcement of an American lunar landing program. The Yugoslavian space effort was based, according to this trailer, on the work of Hermann Noordung, a Slovenian-born artillery officer in the Austrian Army who wrote a book, The Problem of Space Travel, that was published in 1929 not long before his death. When I served as the NASA Chief Historian between 1990 and 2002 the history program had this work translated into English and published in the NASA History Series. It has recently been reprinted with additional prefatory material in an excellent new edition by the Centre of European Space Technologies (KSEVT) in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

JFK

President John F. Kennedy in his historic message to a joint session of the Congress, on May 25, 1961 declared, "...I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." This goal was achieved when astronaut Neil A. Armstrong became the first human to set foot upon the Moon at 10:56 p.m. EDT, July 20, 1969. Shown in the background are, (left) Vice President Lyndon Johnson, and (right) Speaker of the House Sam T. Rayburn.

Those commenting on the assertions made in this film have been highly critical. Viewers of the trailer have referred to it as a “mockumentary,” a “documentary,” and a “fantasy.” Of those three characterizations “documentary” is probably the term least closely related to what is being proposed for this film. William Barry, the current NASA Chief Historian, was kinder than most when he said that “I would be very curious to see if there is any real historical evidence that holds up…” Full disclosure, I was also quoted in the same news story as Bill Barry questioning the assertions made in the film trailer.

Buzz Aldrin

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, Lunar Module LM pilot, stands beside the Passive Seismic Experiments Package PSEP. The Laser Ranging Retroreflector LRRR, U.S. Flag, television camera and the Apollo Lunar Surface Closeup Camera ALSCC and LM are visible also. Image taken at Tranquility Base during the Apollo 11 Mission.

Since that time there have been many comments back and forth. The film’s principals, Bostjan Virc and Ziga Virc, contacted me by e-mail insisting that “most media misinterpreted our project without asking us anything. Some of them stated it as a real documentary and some of them claimed it’s a spoof or mockumentary. From the first beginning we present it as a docudrama…That means a movie, where the basis is a reality with added dramatisation and some fiction elements.”

As a “documdrama” I’m curious as to whether this proposed film will be something like “The King’s Speech” just recently released that is presumably a true story, but also has some notable fictional elements and at least one gross distortion of the historical record in the position of Winston Churchill on the abdication of Edward VIII from the British throne? Or will it look and feel like a documentary with an announcer narrating events but have fictional elements in it? The meaning of “docudrama” appears to serve as a license to make up whatever might be desired and to include it in the film. Where is the line between fact and fiction in this proposed work? I’ll look forward to seeing what the Vircs come up with.

flag

Geologist-Astronaut Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Lunar Module pilot, is photographed next to the American Flag during extravehicular activity (EVA) of NASA's final lunar landing mission in the Apollo series. The photo was taken at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. The highest part of the flag appears to point toward our planet earth in the distant background.

I will be fascinated to see how this unfolds. I have many questions about the trailer’s arguments. Many of the connections made seem ridiculous at best; disingenuous at worst. As Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The “post hoc ergo propter hoc” approach to arguments in the trailer are solipsistic and I await the proof to support them. I’m also interested in the filmmaker’s documentation about Hermann Noordung, additional papers he may have, etc. I truly question this story, but I want to hear what others have to say about it. Any thoughts?

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

Shedding Light on a Common Problem

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on January 18, 2012 in Astronomy.
2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

If you’ve been to any of the nighttime observing sessions at our Public Observatory, you might have wondered why we mostly view the planets and the Moon. After all, the Observatory houses a professional 16-inch telescope, and several other high-quality portable telescopes; shouldn’t they be able to show us great views of galaxies or nebulas?   They should, and they could, if they were located at what astronomers call a “dark site” — away from the city lights that often outshine the lovely stars of nighttime.

 

Public Observatory

The Observatory at night. Photo credit: National Air and Space Museum, Eric Long

The problem is light pollution. The International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) defines light pollution as “any adverse effect of manmade light.” This includes but isn’t limited to our disappearing view of the Milky Way and the difficulties astronomers experience in making observations of celestial objects. Living things experience many effects as well: nocturnal animal populations are shrinking as they have difficulty finding food and hiding from predators, sea turtle hatchlings can have trouble finding their way to the ocean and die, and migrating birds can be disoriented by lights. Emerging research on the effects on humans indicates several problems associated with disruption of circadian rhythms and melatonin production, not to mention the safety-related dangers that come with poor visibility at night caused by glaring lights. But there are easy solutions: shielding lights to reduce glare, dimming lights to provide the right amount of light, and turning off lights when they’re not needed.

glare

Potential intruder hides in the glare from a “security light.” Photo credit: George Fleenor

When we decided to build the Observatory as a place for the public to gather and do astronomy together, we knew that light pollution would be an issue for us. But in order for it to be a convenient gathering place that people could get to easily, we knew we needed to build it in the city, where the people are. It was an easy decision when we considered what we were trying to do, and so far more than 2,000 visitors have enjoyed our nighttime observing sessions.

And yet we and our visitors long for darker skies and the ability to view fainter stars, galaxies, nebulas. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to look at the majestic arms of the Milky Way from Washington, DC? It won’t happen for us until we have more intelligent and efficient street lighting here in our nation’s capitol and in the surrounding area. One way to work toward this is to collect scientific data that can be shared with decision makers to demonstrate what our current situation is regarding light pollution, how it’s been changing, and its effects.

Since 2006, citizen scientists from around the world have been participating in a program called GLOBE at Night. It’s a worldwide attempt to measure light pollution and see how it varies from place to place and year to year. This year, there are four opportunities to participate: January 14-23 (right now!), February 12-21, March 13-22, and April 11-20. The dates are selected so that the Moon won’t be up in the sky when participants are making observations, because the Moon also brightens the sky and can outshine the stars, especially when it’s near a full moon.

Magnitude

The constellation Orion, as it appears under magnitude 2 (left) and magnitude 4 (right) skies. Photo credit: GLOBE at Night/NOAO

Want to join in? Here’s how it works: Go outside an hour or more after sunset and give your eyes a chance to adjust to the darkness. Find the constellation Orion by looking in the southern sky. GLOBE at Night provides magnitude charts that show what Orion looks like with different amounts of light pollution. Magnitude refers to how bright the stars are, and when you’re talking about light pollution, it describes the faintest stars that can be seen. Determine which magnitude chart looks most like what you see that night and report it online. The reports show up instantly on GLOBE at Night’s interactive map viewer, so you can compare what you see to what people in different places around the world see. On Saturday night, January 14, I reported magnitude 3 skies from the Public Observatory in Washington, DC, and I’d love to know what your skies are like!

 

Moon

The waxing gibbous Moon as we viewed it on December 3, 2011. Photo credit: National Air and Space Museum, Genevieve de Messieres

For now, we mostly stick to visually observing the planets from the Observatory’s perch at the National Air and Space Museum. These objects are bright enough and big enough to observe easily even under light polluted skies, and they aren’t especially sensitive to the unstable air in our area which blurs high-powered views. The Moon fascinates me every time I see it, even when I see it every day. I enjoy observing the planets and looking for subtle changes and details I never noticed before, and I think that many of our visitors wouldn’t disagree. And this past Saturday night, I delighted in a great view of the Orion Nebula, a star-forming region, through our telescopes. But I am hopeful for a future in which we can use our fantastic telescopes to see more of the farther, fainter wonders of our universe from the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Katie Nagy is an astronomy educator at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.

Sweet Moments in a Sopwith

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on January 13, 2012 in Aviation.
4 Comments

For those of us who study the very early history of the airplane, the sight and sound of a World War I rotary engine running is a thrill that leaves a lasting impression.  To fly in a rotary powered World War I airplane is a transformative experience.  A few weeks ago I was transformed.  I had the opportunity to fly in a Sopwith 1 ½ Strutter, a First World War British two-seater, powered by an original Gnome rotary engine.  I’m still giddy over having flown a rotary engine powered airplane, and everyone at the Museum is jealous, including our Director, General Dailey, one of the most experienced pilots I know.

 

Peter and Sopwith

Peter Jakab about to make his dream flight in a WWI Sopwith 1 ½ Strutter.

 

The rotary aircraft engine was an imaginative design that emerged just after the birth of flight, was the power plant for many of the most famous aircraft in the pioneer era through World War I, and was obsolete by 1920.   Most engines, be they in-line, V-arrangement, or radial (cylinders in star orientation around the crankcase) have a rotating crankshaft to which the pistons are connected that transform the combustion of fuel and air into mechanical output, which in turn spins the propeller.  With a rotary engine, the design concept was reversed.  The crankshaft was stationary, attached to the airframe, and the rest of the entire engine, propeller attached, spun.  The design had two principal advantages.  First, the spinning cylinders provided excellent cooling to the engine.  Second, the rotary configuration offered a good power output to weight ratio.  These early power plants produced relatively low horsepower, so weight was a critical factor in the overall performance of the engine.  The rotaries had major drawbacks, such as the shedding of cylinders from the spinning engine and a tendency to catch fire.  But in the early days of aviation these hazards were outweighed by the relatively good power output for the engine’s weight.  By the 1920s, equal and better performance was achieved with stationary cylinder engines and the rotary quickly disappeared from the scene.

 

Gnome Rotary Engine

Gnome 9N Rotary, 160 horsepower

The rotary engine was an interesting technological design, but it has acquired an interesting cultural status among those drawn to the early years of flight as well.  It had a unique sound because the engine typically ran at full power or was off, producing a seemingly alarming rhythm to the uninitiated.  Its castor oil lubricant, spewing effusively from the spinning cylinders, produced a distinctive odor.  There was the pronounced torque of the whirling engine and propeller combination affecting the stability of the airplane.  All these characteristics, unique to the short-lived rotary engine, made it famous, and are coveted to experience by any modern enthusiast of World War I aviation.  Today, there are few places where these near-century old engines come to life.  There are a handful of flying aircraft museums that occasionally fly airplanes with rotaries for the public, and there is a small number of private vintage aircraft owners who take to the air behind these amazing engines.  I was fortunate to grow up not far from one these special settings where rotary powered airplanes regularly flew—the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum near Poughkeepsie, New York.  Beginning as a teenager in the 1970s, I would frequent the Aerodrome often to watch the air shows and talk with the pilots.  It was where my love of early aviation took hold.  Over the years, no matter how many times I saw, heard, and yes, smelled, the rotary engines flying up at Old Rhinebeck, I was always captivated.  Since that time, one of the experiences at the very top of my curatorial bucket list has been to fly in a rotary engine powered World War I airplane.  This past December, after nearly three decades of curating the early history of the airplane at the National Air and Space Museum, I was fortunate and privileged to have crossed this off my list.

 

Peter in Sopwith

The WWI pilots just back from a successful mission.

A supporter and great friend to the Museum, who has a personal collection of more than two dozen flying World War I airplanes, invited me to his home and private airfield to treat me to a flying experience of a lifetime.  He knew of my longtime desire to fly in one of these airplanes that I have so passionately studied, and we talked about doing it for a couple of years.  In December, the circumstances were right, the weather was good, and the opportunity finally arrived.  Most of the aircraft in his collection are reproduction airframes, but nearly all have original World War I engines.  Lucky for me, one of these airplanes is a two-seater—a Sopwith 1 ½ Strutter.  On a crisp and clear Sunday morning, we pulled up to the airfield.  There, sitting out on the grass strip, with no evidence of the 21st century in sight, just like it was 1916, was the airplane ready to be propped.  After donning the traditional leather flying helmet and goggles we climbed into the Sopwith, and then the moment came.  The Gnome rotary roared to life.  After a brief taxi to get into take-off position, the engine was brought to full power and in just a short distance we were airborne.  My host circled around the field a few times and then he signaled it was my turn at the controls.  I couldn’t believe it.  Here I was actually flying a World War I rotary engine powered biplane.  The sound, the feel of the controls, the open cockpit—all the things I had read about and studied were now part of my personal experience.  After a few more minutes of pure flying joy, we landed.  Out of the airplane we discussed our “mission” as pilots always do, with smiles on our faces.  It was a truly remarkable experience for me.  The next time I lecture at the Museum about World War I flying, more so than ever before, I will feel confident that I know what I am talking about.  I’ve done it.

Peter Jakab is associate director and curator of early flight at the National Air and Space Museum.

Hollywood’s Representation of Naval Aviation: Frank W. “Spig” Wead and John Ford’s “The Wings of Eagles” (1957)

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on January 5, 2012 in Aviation, History and Stories.
3 Comments Tags: , .

Introduction

During the recently completed centennial of naval aviation (2011), there were many and varied tributes to the factual history of naval aviation. Nevertheless, we cannot forget that public perception of the armed forces is also a strong historical consideration. In Sailing on the Silver Screen: Hollywood and the U.S. Navy, Lawrence Suid has observed that “for most of the past ninety years the American film industry and the U.S. Navy have worked together to their mutual benefit. Hollywood used the Navy to obtain—at little or no cost—personnel, equipment, and locations for movies filled with adventure, romance, and drama. In turn, the Navy obtained—at little or no cost—a positive public image that boosted both its recruiting efforts and its relations with Congress.” This is especially true if we consider how the careers of two pioneers of Hollywood and the U.S. Navy—director John Ford and screenwriter Frank W. “Spig” Wead became intertwined during the Golden Era of filmmaking and how Ford paid tribute to his friend and colleague in The Wings of Eagles (1957).

 

Frank Wead

Frank W. “Spig”’ Wead was a pioneer naval aviator who became a notable Hollywood screenwriter. His many credits include films about the U.S Navy or naval aviation.

Wead’s Early Naval Career

Wead was born on October 24, 1885, in Peoria, Illinois. He entered the U.S. Naval Academy in 1912 at the age of sixteen and graduated in 1916. He spent time during WWI doing mine work in the North Sea, after which he qualified as a naval aviator. In 1923 he led the Navy team that competed in the Schneider Trophy Race at Cowes, Isle of Wight. Two of his teammates—Lt. David Rittenhouse and Lt. Rutledge Irvine—placed first and second in the race. Wead continued as a naval aviator, setting naval aircraft records for speed, endurance, and distance and eventually working for the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics.

 

Wead’s Hollywood Career

In 1927, an unexpected turn of events changed Wead’s life forever. After he took a fall in his house in Coronado, California, he was seriously injured, having fractured the fifth cervical vertebra in his neck and doing irreparable damage to his spinal cord. After surgery and more than two painful years of recuperation, he progressed to being able to sit up, and, with the aid of steel braces, to walk. Wead decided that he needed another activity to recuperate fully, so he tried his hand at writing. In time he collaborated on a script for The Flying Fleet (1929), the first Hollywood film about contemporary military flying, with Byron Morgan, a former naval aviator who had become a screenwriter for MGM (Metro Goldwyn Mayer). The Flying Fleet was also the first in a long list of films credited to Wead that were about the U.S. Navy or naval aviation. Wead also wrote screenplays about civil aviation, including one for Air Mail (1932), a film directed by John Ford, and Ceiling Zero (1936), a film directed by Howard Hawks that was based on a play Wead had written that appeared off-Broadway in 1935. He again worked with Ford on They Were Expendable (1945), based on the true story of Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron 3, commanded by Medal of Honor winner John D. Bulkeley during the evacuation of the Philippines early in WWII. This film is considered one of the best war films ever made..

 

Wead’s World War II Service

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Wead had gotten permission to reenter the Navy through the good graces of an old friend, Admiral John Towers. His first assignment was as an assistant to Captain Ralph Davison, chief of the Plans Division of the Bureau of Aeronautics. Later, Wead trained air combat intelligence officers at Quonset Point, Rhode Island. From October 1943 to June 1944, he was a planning officer on the staff of the Commander Air Pacific in Hawaii. In this capacity, he helped develop plans for Makin, Tarawa, Eniwetok, and Kwajelein. All these operations led up to the battle for the Marianas Islands.

Wead was also credited with developing the idea of escort carriers (the so-called “Jeep Carriers”), which were employed to provide logistical support for the main carrier forces. During the Marianas air assaults, he was invited onboard the U.S.S. Yorktown by Admiral J. J. Clark as an observer. He was involved in actual combat during the Marianas battle when Japanese aircraft attacked the ship. Despite his disabilities, Wead showed courage and was an inspiration to the crew. After the Marianas, Wead decided to retire from the Navy and return to screenwriting. For his service during WWII, Wead was awarded the Legion of Merit. He died on November 15, 1947 at the age of 52

The Wings of Eagles (1957)

The idea for The Wings of Eagles came about as a way of honoring Wead, but John Ford, the film’s intended director was somewhat reluctant to undertake the project. He and Wead had been close friends. According to Ford’s biographer, Joseph McBride, Ford is reported to have said “I didn’t want to do the picture, because Spig was a great pal of mine. But I didn’t want anyone else to do it.”

That Ford would become involved in a film honoring Wead and the U.S. Navy should come as no surprise. Ford himself became a naval officer quite late in his life. In 1934 he had enlisted in the U.S. Navy Reserve and was commissioned as a Lt. Commander. In 1939 Ford began to organize the Naval Volunteer Photographic Unit, which eventually became known as the Naval Photographic Organization, to document naval combat activities. In September 1941 Ford was appointed chief of the Field Photographic Branch, which was part of the Office of Strategic Services, headed by William J. Donovan. In that capacity Ford was at the Battle of Midway, which he filmed and whose footage he turned into an Academy Award-winning documentary of the same name in 1942.

Two unsuccessful attempts were made to produce a film about Wead. Finally, Kenneth MacKenna, a story director at MGM, and John Dale Price, Wead’s old friend, now a retired admiral, who eventually became technical advisor for the film, collaborated on a script. After nearly eight months of work, MacKenna submitted the script to the Pentagon for approval, and the Navy’s Office of Information agreed to cooperate, despite some opposition on the grounds that the script contained historical errors.

While the film, which starred John Wayne as Wead, and Maureen O’Hara as his wife “Min,” portrays naval aviation history in a favorable light, it cannot be considered entirely historically accurate, confirming the Navy’s reservations. In addition to historical inaccuracies, some of the Navy’s objections were based on the portrayal of alcohol abuse in the film. Evidently, the drinking scenes that had to do with Maureen O’Hara’s character had to be cut because Wead’s children protested. Nevertheless, the film provides more than subtle hints that alcohol played a significant part in Wead’s life and in the life of his wife, and that it may have been responsible for their inability to reconcile the demands of military life with the demands of family.

 

co-stars of The Wings of Eagles

The co-stars of "The Wings of Eagles," John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara are pictured. The film, a tribute to the naval aviation and Hollywood screenwriting career of Frank “Spig” Wead, was directed by John Ford in 1957.

Evidently it was not practical for Ford to portray Wead’s contributions as a screenwriter to positive depictions of naval aviation in prewar films like Dive Bomber (released in August 1941 before the attack on Pearl Harbor). Instead, he relied heavily on a part-fiction, part-fact portrayal of Wead’s military contributions during the interwar years and in WWII. In fact, Wead’s achievements in WWII are much more factually presented in the film than those that take place during the interwar years. Ford’s message is strong: Wead was not only a staunch defender of naval aviation, but a doer, in spite of his debilitating handicap. Moreover, it is important to realize that The Wings of Eagles is significant also for what it says about American values as seen through the lives and ordeals of military men. The Wings of Eagles, like some of Ford’s other films, displays familiar Fordian themes: the sense of community among American naval men: in this case, naval aviators; naval service as a reflection of national identity; an intermingling of historical fact with historical fancy.

 

Dive Bomber

Errol Flynn (center), the star of "Dive Bomber," a 1941 film written by Frank W. “Spig Wead, poses in a pressure suit with members of the cast and film crew.

Nevertheless, the film may be interpreted on other levels. Dan Ford, Ford’s grandson, contends that the film is a veiled autobiography of his grandfather. Both Wead and Ford were restless and disposed to lives of action. Because they were both disabled, they were attracted to vicarious adventures. Both were involved in moviemaking as a substitute for military careers. Both served in WWII but as observers rather than as combatants. Both neglected their families to focus exclusively on their careers. Both preferred masculine companionship to that of women.

As a result, The Wings of Eagles may be seen as two films. One contains the mythologizing biography of “Spig” Wead and extols naval aviation and American values of patriotism, courage and perseverance. The other, a more personal one, critiques the institution—the U.S. Navy— that would create an atmosphere which is potentially dangerous to family life.

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

 

Leaving the Moon, Watching at Home

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on December 30, 2011 in History and space.
0 Comments

 

Apollo 17

The Apollo 17 ascent stage lifts off from the Moon, marking the last time humans left the Moon on December 14, 1972.

After pressing some buttons to start up the ascent engine of their lunar module Challenger, astronauts Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt left the Moon on December 14, 1972. That’s 39 years ago – before many of us were even born. While these men looked out the tiny triangular windows of the lunar module to see the lunar surface getting farther away, viewers around the world watched that same spacecraft leave the Moon, live and in color on their television sets. Departing the Moon for the last time was (not surprisingly, perhaps) far less interesting to most people than Apollo 11’s first landing over three years prior. Some evidence even suggests that NASA had to pay television networks to cover Apollo 17’s mission at all. Despite all their hard work and technological developments, the final liftoff of humans from the Moon came and went with just a brief notice on the nightly news.

That story, however, overlooks the difficulties engineers had in developing the ability to show the lunar module rocketing back into space. Television cameras of the late 1960s and early 1970s were notoriously bulky, usually requiring huge rolling bases or portable stands. For space use, any piece of equipment needed to be light-weight and easily portable. NASA awarded contracts to build television cameras for Apollo alternately to RCA and Westinghouse, and both companies managed to build units for different missions that met NASA standards for weight, materials, and functionality. For the final three Apollo missions, RCA provided small, portable, color television cameras that could show the astronauts stepping off the lunar module and onto the Moon, and then be moved to a stand or the lunar rover for mobile exploration.

The cameras were very successful, capturing images of numerous EVAs that included sample collection, a driver’s eye-view from the mobile rover, and the pitfalls of trying to just stay standing in a space suit in 1/6 gravity. For the lunar liftoff though, engineers had numerous calculations to make prior to the mission to allow for filming. Attached to a pan and tilt unit, the television camera could be controlled directly from Earth via a large high-gain antenna on the rover. Since signals to and from Earth are delayed by a few seconds due to the 240,000 mile distance, mission engineers suggested pre-programming the lunar module liftoffs for Apollo missions 15, 16, and 17. Based on mathematical calculations, the rover would be driven and left some distance from lunar module, and the camera would automatically tilt up to show the ascent when commanded by the operator on Earth.

That was the plan at least.

On Apollo 15, the tilt mechanism malfunctioned and the camera never moved upwards, allowing the lunar module to slip out of sight. And while the attempt on Apollo 16 gave a longer view of the lunar module rising up, the astronauts actually parked the rover too close to it, which threw off the calculations and timing of the tilt upwards so it left view just a few moments into the flight.

Thankfully, for NASA, those watching at home, and anyone reviewing film footage today, the third attempt was the charm. Cernan and Schmitt parked the rover at just the right distance, all of the mechanisms worked flawlessly, and viewers can still see today how that awkwardly-shaped ascent stage keeps going up until it becomes just a bright speck the sky on its way back to the command module.

How we saw and continue to see the Apollo program is due not only to the engineers at RCA for creating this unique ability, but also the NASA camera operator in Houston, Ed Fendell, for getting the timing just right, and NASA itself for recording and preserving these moments for our collective memory of our last departure from the Moon.

How big of a part do you think NASA’s television coverage of Apollo 17 plays in how we think about that time period? Do you think the same is true of the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2011?

 

Apollo 17

A view of the Apollo 17 landing site as seen from the lunar module ascent stage as it left the surface. On the left, you can see the descent stage, the small gold-colored circle, and numerous tracks leading away from it, marking the paths astronauts took on their extra-vehicular activities.

Jennifer Levasseur is a museum specialist in the Space History Division of the National Air and Space Museum, and is responsible curator for the Museum’s collection of space cameras and early human spaceflight astronaut equipment.

The Rutan Voyager

Published by The National Air and Space Museum on December 23, 2011 in Aviation, Behind The Scenes, Highlights from the Collection, On View at the Museum and Stories.
2 Comments

Twenty-five years ago, the staff of the National Air and Space Museum held its collective breath for nine days as a seemingly fragile, flying fuel tank made its way across oceans and continents in an attempt to become the first aircraft to fly around the world non-stop and unrefueled. The odd-looking bird had departed Edwards Air Force Base, California, on the morning of December 14, 1986, and the rest of the world was following as continuous sightings and updates flowed to the media, the Museum, and to the flight’s headquarters in Mojave, California. Everyone wondered if you really could fly around the world on one tank of gas?

 

Voyager

"Voyager" departing the coast of California on Dec. 14, 1986, soon to leave behind Burt Rutan in the Duchess chase plane.

As it turned out, you needed 17 tanks of fuel all in one vehicle from start to finish.  Voyager, the ultimate homebuilt, was the brainchild of unconventional designer Burt Rutan and two record-setting pilots, his brother Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager.  Six years from initial conception on a napkin, as the story goes, to completion of the flight two days before Christmas in 1986, this trio successfully proved that lots of hard work and a little bit of luck could still make dreams come true.  Of course they didn’t do it alone.  A dedicated team of volunteers supported every aspect of the endeavor, but it was Dick Rutan and Yeager who beat the bushes for donations from the general public and corporate sponsors (they never did get a big-time sponsor) and built and tested the aircraft themselves. In the end, their dramatic quest created a public following that rivaled the flight-tracking of Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.

All of a sudden Museum curators were being asked who else had flown around the world, how and when were the flights accomplished, and was this really the last aviation milestone?  We knew the answers to the first two questions: in 1924, Army Air Corps crews flew two Douglas World Cruisers biplanes on the first round the world flight, a six-month marathon around oceans and through the arctic snow and tropical jungles — one of the airplanes, the Chicago, is in the Museum’s Barron Hilton Pioneers of Flight Gallery.  Then in 1957, three USAF B-52B bomber crews made the first non-stop flights around the world aided by aerial refueling.  No one seriously considered it possible to accomplish the flight without some sort of refueling, until Burt Rutan did.

The sheer audacity of assuming it could be done had to wait for dramatic changes in aircraft construction material and an out-of-the-box thinker. Weight, the ever-present penalty for aircraft, was the ultimate problem to be conquered.  How could you squeeze in enough fuel to fly nearly 25,000 miles and yet keep the aircraft light enough to even take off? Carbon fiber was the answer, making the aircraft half the weight of conventional aluminum construction, but as strong as steel.  Burt Rutan’s design certainly turned heads with its forward canard and graceful wings connecting two out-rigger booms, all of which contained 7011.5 pounds of fuel.  Every effort was made to keep the aircraft light, and thankfully Yeager weighed only 95 pounds. The two pilots were crammed into a phone booth-sized barebones cockpit and they would be there for nine days.  That alone earns gasps when people first see the aircraft but add the fact that, unbeknownst to the public, the pilots had not been getting along very well and you have a truly incredible feat.

 

Dick and Jeanna

Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager in Voyager’s cramped cockpit

The Rutans and Yeager made it clear they expected success and they wanted to see the aircraft hanging at the Smithsonian.  The Museum adopted a wait and see attitude; given the long delays in the program and the dangers and pitfalls of the proposed flight, would this ever really happen?

Ultimately, determination and perseverance prevailed as Voyager and its crew endured the loss of its winglets on and just after  takeoff, a typhoon, thunderstorms that flipped the craft to a 90-degree bank, fuel starvation in one engine, and severe physiological and psychological stress.

The Museum followed the nine-day trip in the Air Transportation gallery but there were still questions — was it really one of the last great records of aviation?  By the time Rutan and Yeager landed back at Edwards AFB at 8:05am PST on December 23, 1986, it was clear that history had been made.  Not only were they the first to fly non-stop non-refueled around the world, they also set eight absolute or world class records.  Winning aviation’s prestigious Collier Trophy settled the discussion. While the press lavished praise couched in holiday cheer, the Museum began planning for a new addition to its collection.

In the summer of 1987, Voyager was dismantled for its trip by trailer from California to the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility in Suitland, Maryland.  While Voyager received accolades at the Experimental Aircraft Association Convention in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, structural engineer and curator Howard Wolko calculated how to get this huge aircraft into the building.  After a midnight wide-load ride from the Garber Facility to the west terrace of the Museum in Washington, DC, our team of specialists moved the center section onto dollies.

Then the carefully laid plans came to a halt. Just inside the west doors a replica aircraft carrier deck which held our Grumman Hellcat protruded a little too far, and it was clear that Voyager would not pass.  In the wee hours of the morning, a solution was found: elevate and tilt the center section with a hydraulic lift, inching it over and past the offending carrier deck.  After barely sliding by the Air Transportation gallery, the center section was rolled into the South Lobby at dawn.  Thankfully the assembly of the wings, empennage, and engines was routine and our able but tired staff suspended Voyager using scissor lifts and winches in time for our 10:00 a.m. opening.  The near catastrophic loss of the winglets on takeoff proved fortunate for us by reducing the wingspan by two feet and allowing the aircraft to fit snugly into the South Lobby. On the first anniversary of the flight, Burt and Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager reached their final goal of seeing Voyager suspended in the south lobby of the National Air and Space Museum.

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