No Go: Project Mercury Missions and Spacecraft That Never ...



No Go:

Project Mercury Missions and Spacecraft That Never Left Earth

©2001 by Roger E. Moore

Created June 26, 2001

First revision July 13, 2001

Comments, updates, additions, and corrections are welcome. Please send them to: roger70129@

NASA ordered twenty production-model Mercury spacecraft, numbered 1-20, from McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. Of these, all were built and fifteen spacecraft (s/c) were used on flight missions, per the following breakdown.

• One (s/c 1) was used on a suborbital, unmanned beach-abort test of the escape system.

• Two (s/c 3 and 14) were used on suborbital, unmanned Little Joe I flights. One (s/c 14) was reused, making a total of three Little Joe I flights. One (s/c 3) was destroyed in flight.

• Four (s/c 2, 5, 7, and 11) were used on suborbital Redstone flights. One (s/c 2) was reused, making a total of five Redstone flights. Two (s/c 7 and 11) were manned; one (s/c 5) had a chimpanzee.

• Eight (s/c 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 18, and 20) were used on Atlas flights. One (s/c 8) was reused, making a total of nine Atlas flights, of which three were suborbital and six were orbital. (One, s/c 8, went on both suborbital and orbital flights, carrying a robotic astronaut.) Four (s/c 13, 16, 18, and 20) were manned; one (s/c 9) had a chimpanzee. One (s/c 4) was destroyed in flight. One (s/c 9, redesignated 9A) was later reused in ground tests under Project Orbit (see below).

Seven astronauts were involved in Project Mercury. As they are mentioned so often in the following text, their names are spelled out fully here, and last names are used elsewhere.

Lt. Cmdr. Alan B. Shepard, Jr. (USN)

Capt. Virgil I. Grissom (USAF)

Lt. Col. John H. Glenn, Jr. (USMC)

Lt. Malcolm Scott Carpenter (USN)

Lt. Cmdr. Walter M. Schirra, Jr. (USN)

Capt. Leroy Gordon Cooper, Jr. (USAF)

Capt. Donald K. Slayton (USAF)

Unflown Mercury Spacecraft

Five production-model Mercury spacecraft (s/c 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19) were never used on flight missions. Below are the details on their histories, as available, and current locations.

• Spacecraft 10: Accepted by NASA (at Cape?) on March 8, 1961, then withdrawn from flight program and reassigned on March 16, 1961 as ground-test vehicle for Project Orbit (orbital flight environmental tests), delivered to McDonnell altitude test facility in St. Louis on March 31, 1961, tests began April 2, 1961, and were completed June 1, 1962; vehicle later used as test bed at Manned Space Center (Houston). Original exterior with restored interior is presently on public display at the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center, Hutchinson, Kansas. (This museum also has MR-4 “Liberty Bell 7” and the smashed MA-1 spacecraft.)



• Spacecraft 12: Delivered to Cape in October 1961, built as backup for six-orbit MA-8 (Schirra, October 3, 1962, but one reference says it was the backup for MA-6: Glenn, February 20, 1962); immediately considered for “extended range” or one-day mission; later returned to McDonnell and reconfigured (as s/c 12A, then as 12B) for later orbital manned one-day mission but unassigned, mission cancelled; spacecraft stored at McDonnell and not redelivered to Cape. Apparently considered for animal flights or conversion into a recoverable, reusable space telescope in OAO program by Langley Research Center in January 1965. Was on public display at the Aviodome, Nationaal Lucht-en Ruimtevaart Museum (Luchthaven, Schipho-C, 1118 AA Schiphol, Netherlands) from c. 1971-1981, but was returned to the U.S. when loan term from Smithsonian Institution expired; present location and disposition of capsule are unknown.

• Spacecraft 15: Delivered to Cape on August 13, 1961, configured for third manned suborbital Mercury-Redstone flight (MR-5; see below); after MR-5 cancelled, used for tests on reaction control and environmental control systems under simulated altitude; returned to McDonnell on January 17, 1962 to be reconfigured (as s/c 15A) for an orbital manned one-day mission, assigned to MA-13, then MA-12, but both missions cancelled; assigned to MA-10 (Shepard, “Freedom 7-II”), redelivered to Cape on November 16, 1962, reassigned as backup to MA-9 (as s/c 15B) on January 14, 1963 and upgraded for one-day flight, inspected at McDonnell plant in St. Louis February 5-14, 1963 and extensively modified and upgraded for MA-10 mission, reinspected March 11, 1963 by McDonnell to confirm that additional batteries and water supply mounted next to retropack would not interfere with vehicle adapter during separation from Atlas on MA-10 mission, further modifications made June 8, 1963, mission cancelled on June 12, 1963 after MA-9 success (Cooper, May 15-16, 1963). Kept in storage at Cape, apparently considered for animal flights or conversion into a recoverable and reusable space telescope in OAO program by Langley Research Center in January 1965. Later delivered on long-term loan to NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, where it remains on public display as a Mecca object for hardcore space fans, amateur space historians, and real-space scale modelers. Of all unflown Mercury spacecraft, this one came closest to an actual flight—twice!—each time having a mission number, a spacecraft name (Glenn probably would have named the MR-5 flight “Friendship 7,” as per his MA-6 flight), nearly complete equipment for manned use, and an assigned pilot and launch vehicle.







• Spacecraft 17: Delivered to Cape on April 18, 1963 (last one made); built for orbital manned one-day mission, flight-rated but unassigned; used at Cape for parts support of MA-9 (Cooper, May 15-16, 1963). Kept in storage at Manned Space Center (Houston). Apparently considered for conversion into a recoverable, reusable space telescope in OAO program by Langley Research Center in January 1965. Later delivered to USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (on loan from the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution), where it remains on public display; parts are missing from the spacecraft, some used on MA-9 and some removed to show the interior of the displayed Mercury. See the detailed description of this spacecraft at the end of this article.





• Spacecraft 19: Delivered to Cape on March 20, 1962; built for orbital manned mission (as backup for MA-8), but unassigned; mission canceled after MA-8 (Schirra, October 3, 1962). Kept in storage at Manned Space Center (Houston). Apparently considered for animal flights or conversion into a recoverable, reusable space telescope in OAO program by Langley Research Center in January 1965. Later delivered to Swiss Museum of Transport and Communication (Verkehrshaus der Schweiz), Lucerne, Switzerland, where it remains on public display.

(part of an animated GIF file)

Unflown Mercury Spacecraft: Bibliography

Alexander, George. “MA-9 Experiments Vital to Rendezvous,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 21, 1963); pages 55-59. Changes to MA-9 spacecraft for one-day mission described, including changes in astronaut gear, biosensors, and duties.

Ames Communications Branch (NASA). Ames Research Center News Homepage (updated January 8, 2001) (accessed June 17, 2001). Webpage contains museum photo of spacecraft 15B, “Freedom 7-II.”

Baker, David. Spaceflight and Rocketry: A Chronology. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996; pages 123, 152.

Finlayson, Ross. Current Locations of Manned Spacecraft (updated September 26, 2000) (accessed May 2, 2001). Good reference that reinforces Gerard’s website (see immediately below).

Gerard, James H. A Field Guide to American Spacecraft, “Mercury Spacecraft” (updated November 17, 1999) (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #10” (updated November 17, 1999) (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #15B” (updated November 17, 1999) (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #17” (updated November 17, 1999) (accessed June 17, 2001). An excellent overall reference for finding where all of our spacecraft are these days.

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology (NASA SP–4001). Washington, D.C.: NASA Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 1963 (paperback); pages 114, 126, 131, 143, 145-146, 151, 161-162, 169, 171, 177, 180, 182-183, 185, 193-196, 207, 212-214. This is an invaluable reference for anyone with a fixation on Project Mercury. This book is available online at: .

Knudson, Sven. Ninfinger Productions: Scale Models. “Ninfinger Productions: Mercury Photos” (no date) (accessed June 16, 2001). Twenty-nine superb color photographs of the MA-10 Mercury s/c 15B, “Freedom 7-II,” at the Ames Research Center in California.

“MA-9 to Use Standard Couch,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (February 4, 1963); page 34. MA-10 might have received a “new style” net couch for astronaut, described in “New Couch Developed for MA-9,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 21, 1963), page 55.

Mackowski, Michael J. Space in Miniature #5: Mercury. Gilbert, Ariz.: Space in Miniature, 1999; pages 27, 37, 51-52. See updates and corrections posted at website, immediately below.

Mackowski, Mike. Space in Miniature – Reference Books for Space Model Builders. “Capsule Differences” (updated October 11, 2000) (accessed June 16, 2001); “Mission Notes” (updated October 1, 2000) (accessed June 16, 2001); “Capsule Configuration Table” (updated October 10, 1999) (accessed June 16, 2001). This website and the Space in Miniature book on Mercury have outstanding information and are highly recommended.

“Mercury Capsule Conversion Seen Feasible for Recoverable Telescope,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 11, 1965); page 23. A startling proposal that includes a detailed diagram showing how a 76-cm telescope could be installed in an unmanned Mercury spacecraft.

“NASA Ends MR Flight,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (August 28, 1961); page 31. Mentions the fate of MR-5 (s/c 15) and MR-6 (s/c 16).

Swenson, Loyd S. Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander. This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury (SP-4201).Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Division, 1966; pages 465, 486-487, 492, 501, 503, 580 (fn 97), 602 (fn 51), 603 (fn 61). Another invaluable document on Project Mercury. This one is online at: (table of contents).

Swiss Museum of Transport and Communication (Verkehrshaus der Schweiz). “The Swiss Museum of Transport and Communication | Cosmorama” (no date) (accessed June 12, 2001). Mercury s/c 19 appears as part of an animated GIF in the upper left of this webpage; wait a few seconds for it to appear, then vanish and reappear later.

USAF Museum. United States Air Force Museum. “McDonnell Mercury Spacecraft” (no date) (accessed June 16, 2001). Large color photograph with links to two others, showing one side of s/c 17 and its control panel.

Van Westerop, Wim. Personal e-mail communication from curator of the Aviodome, Schipol, 7/12/2001, in reply to earlier e-mail asking the whereabouts of the Mercury spacecraft once displayed at the Aviodome.

Wilson, Keith T. “Mercury Atlas 10: A Mission Not Flown,” Quest (Winter 1993); pages 22-25. Superb article on the MA-10 mission and spacecraft (s/c 15B, “Freedom 7-II”), with many references worth pursuing.

==========

Unflown Mercury Missions

Project Mercury was constantly changing and evolving, and many potential spaceflights were cancelled or repeatedly revised. It would be very difficult to name all never-flown, drawing-board Mercury missions that were discussed, many of which had no assigned spacecraft or launch dates. In addition, all of the actual manned missions were changed in important ways before they flew. For example, Shepard’s MR-3 mission was scheduled to fly weeks before Gagarin’s Vostok I flight, but the MR-BD Booster Development mission was substituted instead to ensure the safety of the Redstone—unintentionally allowing Gagarin to be the first man in space. Some interesting or significant unflown missions and launch configurations are given here. The format used is a short version of that used in Mike Mackowski’s book, Space in Miniature #5: Mercury, in the table on page 27.

Mercury Balloon Flight Tests

Date: Between July 1959 and January 1961

SC: Unknown

Launcher: Balloon (type unknown)

Astronaut: None initially; later manned flights were planned for up to 24 hours aloft, with sea recovery

Comments: In January 1959, a series of balloon flights were planned for qualification of the complete Mercury spacecraft. Two balloon flights were planned for in a March 1959 schedule, to qualify Mercury spacecraft at altitudes up to 80,000 feet. These flights were scrapped on May 22, 1959, in favor of using the altitude wind tunnel at the Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.

Mercury-Little Joe, LJ-5

Date: 1960?

SC: Possibly Mercury s/c #3 (used for actual LJ-5 flight)

Launcher: Little Joe I, vehicle #5

Astronaut: Chimpanzee or pig (!); possibly a human astronaut on this or another flight

Comments: In April 1959, nine animal flights were scheduled for Mercury, using Little Joe, Redstone, Jupiter, and Atlas flights. Three or four Mercury-Little Joe flights were to have primate passengers. Various sources mention the likelihood of a Mercury-Little Joe I flight from Wallops Island, Virginia, being accomplished with a chimpanzee or even a human astronaut in a Langley-built “boilerplate” or McDonnell production model spacecraft. NASA considered a manned mission in secret (despite it being announced in several articles in Aviation Week and Space Technology), but it was dropped as a possibility when it was learned the dynamic pressures would be too great. Other plans included sending pigs aloft in the same vehicles, but this was dropped in May 1959 when it was found that pigs did not survive on their backs for long periods. Only four primate flights were actually flown in the program: two rhesus monkeys in Langley-built prototype (a.k.a. “boilerplate”) spacecraft launched on Little Joe I vehicles, and two chimpanzees in McDonnell production-model spacecraft, one on a Redstone and one on an Atlas. A May 1959 schedule planned for a chimpanzee to ride the McDonnell Mercury used for the maximum dynamic pressure (max q) abort test on LJ-5, anticipated to be part of the final Mercury-Little Joe I flight series and the only Little Joe flights with production spacecraft. The chimp flight was (mercifully) deleted in October 1960, as the actual LJ-5 flight of November 8, 1960, suffered an accident that resulted in total destruction of the spacecraft. The max q test was repeated with Little Joe flights LJ-5A (another failure using Mercury s/c 14, which was recovered) and LJ-5B (a success, using the same Mercury, now s/c 14A), with no animals aboard.

Big Joe 2 (Big Joe II, BJ-2, BJ-II)

Date: Late 1959 or early 1960

SC: Prototype (sometimes called a “boilerplate”) Mercury, unique type (never built?)

Launcher: Atlas vehicle 20-D

Astronaut: None

Comments: This backup mission was canceled after the success of the Big Joe 1 flight on September 9, 1959. Had Big Joe 1 failed in any major regard, BJ-2 would have been flown. There is no record that a second Big Joe spacecraft was created as a backup, however. The unmanned MA-1 flight of July 29, 1960, was sometimes called Big Joe 2 by media of the period. (MA-2 was flown to make up for the disastrous MA-1 flight.) Atlas 20-D, the backup for BJ-1 booster 10-D, was transferred to NASA’s Atlas-Able program. On its November 26, 1959 moon-bound Pioneer flight, however, Atlas 20-D’s payload fairing tore free, and the entire flight was lost.

Mercury-Jupiter 1

Date: Last quarter 1959

SC: Boilerplate or prototype Langley-built Mercury, possibly McDonnell production-model Mercury

Launcher: Jupiter

Astronaut: None

Comments: Conceived in January 1959, Mercury-Jupiter flights were cancelled in July 1959 after an examination of costs revealed that a Jupiter, which once cost much less than an Atlas, now cost more than an Atlas and would produce less data for the program than an Atlas would. The original NASA flight plan from January-March 1959 called for two Mercury-Jupiter flights, both of them max q test flights simulating a Mercury’s escape from an Atlas under full power at altitude, under the worst flight conditions. The Mercury-Little Joe 5B (LJ-5B) mission essentially replaced both MJ flights.

Mercury-Jupiter 2

Date: First quarter 1960

SC: Boilerplate, prototype, or (most likely) McDonnell-built production model Mercury

Launcher: Jupiter

Astronaut: A primate flight was planned, and a human astronaut flight was discussed

Comments: See “Mercury-Jupiter 1.” The second Mercury-Jupiter flight was to be a max q test to qualify a production-model Mercury spacecraft with a primate aboard. The human astronaut element was considered but dropped before the Mercury-Jupiter flights were cancelled in July 1959; if a manned mission had been authorized, a production-model Mercury would have been used. One wonders why an astronaut would be put through a live—and extremely dangerous—abort simulation like this (see notes on LJ-5, above), but there was also a plan once to put an astronaut in a chamber right over a Jupiter engine firing at full throttle, to see what effects the 120+ decibel level would have, so there’s no accounting for rationality with some of these unflown Mercury plans.

Mercury-Redstone 5 (MR-5)

Date: Late August or early September 1961 (six weeks after MR-4)

SC: Mercury spacecraft #15 (see Mercury-Atlas 10, below, and Spacecraft 15, above)

Launcher: Redstone vehicle #4 (originally vehicle #5, which was used for the MR-BD flight of March 24, 1961)

Astronaut: Glenn; backup unknown (possibly Slayton, as he was the next scheduled to fly)

Comments: NASA ordered eight Redstone vehicles in 1959. Plans in March 1959 called for using the first Redstone for a Mercury qualification flight, and the second would have a nonhuman primate aboard the spacecraft. The remaining six Redstones would be manned for astronaut training. Of the eight, six were used (#1 on MR-1, #3 on MR-1A, #2 on MR-2, #5 on MR-BD, #7 on MR-3, and #8 on MR-4). One source says that all seven Mercury astronauts were at one time assigned to fly one suborbital Mercury-Redstone mission each, but the limited number of Redstones purchased in 1959, the failure of MR-1, and the need for MR-BD did away with this possibility. Further, the success of the first two manned MR flights (and extreme political pressure brought on by the Soviet Union’s success with Vostok I and Vostok II) forced cancellation of the remaining two MR missions and swift initiation of Mercury-Atlas orbital missions. The NASA astronauts argued for retaining this flight, as it was nearly ready to go, but (fortunately) lost out.

Mercury-Redstone 6 (MR-6)

Date: October 1961? (six weeks after MR-5)

SC: Mercury s/c #16 (later used for MA-8, Schirra)

Launcher: Redstone vehicle #6

Astronaut: Unassigned (possibly Slayton, as he was the next scheduled to fly)

Comments: See comments under “Mercury-Redstone 5.” Redstone #6 was static-tested at the Marshall Space Flight Center on July 13, 1961, in preparation for flight.

Mercury-Atlas 7 (MA-7)

Date: Second week of April 1962

SC: Mercury s/c #18 (“Delta 7”)

Launcher: Atlas vehicle 107-D

Astronaut: Slayton, backup Schirra

Comments: Slayton was abruptly removed from flight status on March 15, 1962, out of concern that his performance in flight would be affected by a heart condition he had. His backup pilot had less experience than did Carpenter, so Carpenter was made the primary pilot, with Schirra as his backup. The same spacecraft and launch vehicle planned for Slayton’s flight were used for Carpenter’s flight, but the actual launch date was delayed to May 24, 1962, as new components were installed on the spacecraft, and the recovery ships were involved in a naval exercise for a time. Carpenter named his spacecraft “Aurora 7” when he was named the new pilot. Slayton’s flight was scheduled to include a number of medical and biological experiments, all performed on himself to determine the effects of weightlessness (EKG sensors, rectal thermometer, microphone-type respiration sensors, blood pressure checks). Carpenter’s many scientific experiments, performed in addition to the above, might have been the same ones that Slayton was to perform.

Mercury-Atlas 10 (MA-10)

Date: September 1963 if a three-day flight, October 1963 if a six-day flight (delay caused by extra preparation time required for spacecraft)

SC: 15B (“Freedom 7 II”)

Launcher: Atlas vehicle 144-D

Astronaut: Shepard; backup unknown (possibly Cooper as he was the only other Mercury astronaut still working in Project Mercury by this time; Grissom was already deeply involved in Project Gemini)

Comments: See “Unflown Mercury Spacecraft” above, “Spacecraft 15.” Also see “Fictional Mercury Flights” below (Caidin’s novel Marooned). Before its cancellation, MA-10 was regarded as a backup flight to MA-9, to be launched only if MA-9 did not return what NASA felt was the maximum possible amount of data that could be had from Project Mercury. If the spacecraft had been revamped once again for a six-day mission, it would probably have been designated s/c 15C. Cutting out this flight freed up over 700 workers from Project Mercury to start new work on Project Gemini. Some experiments that were planned for MA-10 found their way into early Gemini missions, furthering MA-10’s projected role as a bridge between the Mercury and Gemini projects.

==========

Mercury-Atlas Flights Beyond MA-10

Project Mercury was an excellent example of carefully laid plans being overtaken and greatly altered by circumstances. An early NASA plan from 1959 (January or March) allowed for Mercury flights on two balloons, five Little Joes, eight Redstones, two Jupiters, and ten Atlases, taking place from July 1959 to January 1961. This schedule is summarized and compared to actual flights in Swenson, Grimwood, and Alexander’s This New Ocean, pages 141 and 638-640. The first manned suborbital flight, Mercury-Redstone 3, would be launched on April 26, 1960, and the first manned orbital flight, Mercury-Atlas 7, on September 1, 1960. The program would conclude with flights of up to one day (eighteen orbits).

Another much-altered schedule was NASA’s master plan for Mercury orbital operations, dated July 19, 1961. This mid-program schedule is described by Martin Caidin in Rendezvous in Space (page 216), David Baker in The History of Manned Space Flight (page 109), and Hacker and Grimwood in On the Shoulders of Titans (page 47). Caidin says that following the MA-6 (Glenn) flight, NASA had eight Atlas boosters and eight Mercury spacecraft left to complete the program. Four spacecraft were outfitted for three-orbit flights, and four were outfitted for eighteen-orbit flights. Orbital missions would take place every 60 days following Glenn’s flight using the original astronaut crew roster. The last of the three-orbit flights were to be made in 1962, and all four one-day (eighteen-orbit) flights in 1963. This experience would give NASA seven highly skilled mission commanders (the original seven Mercury astronauts) to fly on later Mercury Mark II (Gemini) and Apollo spaceflights.

The July 1961 schedule also called for eight one-man Mercury Mark II spaceflights from October 1963 to December 1964. These missions would be lofted every 60 days to perform rendezvous and docking in Earth orbit. At this point in time, the Mercury Mark II spacecraft was undefined, and confusion exists as to what sort of vehicle was to carry out these “future Mercury” missions. NASA extended McDonnell’s original Mercury contract on April 14, 1961, to allow for acquisition of parts and materials for six additional Mercuries beyond the original twenty, once the final design was settled. A meeting in St. Louis (McDonnell plant) on July 27, 1961, with NASA and McDonnell representatives reviewed four potential types of follow-on Mercury spacecraft.

• A one-man Mercury “Mark I” spacecraft with escape tower, configured for 18-orbit flights, which was now the standard Mercury vehicle.

• A “Minimum Change Mark II,” essentially the Mark I but with hatches cut in the sides to allow engineers and technicians easier access to the spacecraft hardware. Unfortunately, this weakened the already tiny spacecraft structure and endangered its survival on reentry.

• A “Reconfigured Mark II,” a larger Mercury-style spacecraft for one man, with many new systems added (ejection seat in place of escape tower, exterior hatches, modular plug-in systems on exterior of cabin) but still with one astronaut.

• A “Two-Man Mark II,” essentially the Reconfigured Mark II but for two astronauts. This option, of course, was chosen, and from it sprang Project Gemini in January 1962. The best description of the conversion from Mercury Mark II to Gemini is given in Hacker and Grimwood’s On the Shoulders of Titans (chapters II-III).

Based on the above, one can deduce that the “three-orbit” capsules would have included s/c 16 (Schirra, six orbits), s/c 18 (Carpenter, three orbits), and s/c 19 (unused). This makes only three, not four, spacecraft. The only other unused Mercury spacecraft not rigged for one-day flight was s/c 10, assigned to Project Orbit. It was not configured for manned flight. (Perhaps Caidin thought this one could be reconfigured for actual flight, which might have been possible.)

The “eighteen-orbit” capsules included s/c 12 (unused), s/c 15 (unused), s/c 17 (unused), and s/c 20 (Cooper), per Grimwood in This New Ocean (page 487). Final flight configurations for Project MODM (Manned One-Day Mission) were settled in September 1962, though the original directive authorizing Mercury spacecraft to be so configured was issued October 25, 1961, following a meeting between NASA and McDonnell, concerning eighteen-orbit Mercury flights, on July 27-28, 1961. Changes made to the Mercury spacecraft for long-duration flights are described in This New Ocean (chapter XIV).

The Atlas launch vehicles for post-Glenn Mercury flights would have included 77-D (originally scheduled for MA-3, but replaced and cancelled), 103-D (cancelled), 107-D (Carpenter), 113-D (Schirra), 130-D (Cooper), 144-D (MA-10, cancelled), 152-D (cancelled, put in storage), and 167-D (cancelled). Some Atlas boosters were considered for use as Agena boosters in the Gemini program, but the idea was dropped once Gemini got more funding and didn’t have to borrow vehicles.

Had all available spacecraft been used after Cooper’s MA-9 flight (except for spacecraft 10, instrumented for Project Orbit), Mercury-Atlas missions could have run as high as MA-13, as was implied earlier in the section on Mercury s/c 15. Spacecraft 19 could have been reconfigured for a one-day or longer flight, and missions MA-10 through MA-13 could each have been three-day, 48-orbit flights. The long hiatus in American space travel between MA-9 and GT-3 (which grew longer due to unforeseen delays in Project Gemini) concerned many at NASA, but it was accepted for the sake of achieving the agency’s long-range goals, particularly the moon landings.

Mercury-Atlas flights beyond MA-10 were questionable before Schirra’s flight in late 1962, and they were all cancelled right afterward. Pressure to transfer all Mercury personnel, resources, and (limited) finances to the Mercury Mark II (Gemini) program, fired on by stunning successes in the rival Soviet space program, did away with all post-Cooper missions. The later Mercury missions were highly successful themselves, which also led to the program’s early end. Had the Russians been less successful, the Mercury program might have continued at a more leisurely pace until Gemini started. Had the Americans been less successful, the program might have continued under greater pressure to achieve an American triumph in space technology before Gemini. Had NASA had more money . . . who knows?

==========

Advanced Mercury Missions and Configurations

Many sorts of advanced Mercury missions were considered using one-man Mercury spacecraft without extensive modifications. If one removes the mission proposals aimed at the highly modified, two-man “proto-Gemini” Mercury Mark II, the range of proposed advanced missions for one-man “standard” Mercuries is still amazing. However, all such options were limited by the small size of the Mercury spacecraft and the lifting capabilities of the Atlas. Some of the options are briefly described below; many were adopted later for Project Gemini.

Circumlunar flight: This startling idea was proposed in March 1961 by James A. Chamberlin (see “Modular plug-in systems,” below). He designed a Mercury spacecraft with external modular systems—probably for extra fuel, electricity, air, and water—that allowed the pilot to make a circumlunar flight, which would take about six days. Other NASA officials, who were focused on Apollo instead, did not take this dramatic suggestion seriously. However, through the Mercury Mark II and Gemini programs, the concept periodically arose of sending a non-Apollo spacecraft on a circumlunar (or even lunar landing) mission. (See “Fictional Mercury Missions” below, Hank Searls’ The Pilgrim Project.)

Earth photography: McDonnell Aircraft submitted a September 1959 report to NASA entitled, “Follow On Experiments, Project Mercury Capsules.” Among the six recommended experiments that could be conducted with a modified, one-man Mercury spacecraft was placing a camera on the spacecraft’s periscope for Earth photography studies (and military photo-reconnaissance). Earth observations by Mercury astronauts led to greatly increased use of cameras aboard Gemini and later spacecraft, sometimes for military-sponsored experiments. The Mercury periscope was deleted for MA-9.

Improved accessibility: The Minimum Change Mercury Mark II had access panels cut into the hull of a standard Mercury to allow technicians to get at interior components more easily. Unfortunately, though the change would be cheap and fast, this weakened the spacecraft’s structure and endangered the pilot during reentry by reducing heat protection. This and the modular systems concept were generated to turn Mercury from an experimental spacecraft into an operational one. Mercury, with so many systems packed in tightly together, was extremely difficult to repair and upgrade; it was one man at a time in the pilot’s hatch.

Improved guidance: McDonnell, in its September 1959 report, proposed using a minimally modified Mercury spacecraft, launched by an Atlas, with three individual experiments that would be combined into one large test system. One of the experiments involved an improved inertial guidance system: an inertial platform, star tracker, and computer. This system would be used for orbital rendezvous, precision landings on Earth, and lunar and interplanetary missions, particularly in conjunction with an attached propulsion system (see below). Such a system would reduce the spacecraft’s dependence on ground control. The other two experiments in this combined package are detailed under “Improved maneuverability” below.

Improved maneuverability: As early as 1959, designs were considered for Mercury spacecraft to have maneuvering rockets to make minor orbital changes, and lift characteristics to change its reentry path for an accurate and precise touchdown. McDonnell suggested in September 1959 the addition of an external trim-flap device, with radar or inertial guidance, to improve reentry targeting. Orbital maneuvers would be improved by adding a propulsion adapter to the Mercury (assumedly behind the heat shield), with rockets and fuel, controlled by inertial (or other) guidance. Though McDonnell’s proposal was rejected, it arose in August 1961 after the flights of Vostok III and Vostok IV, when an adapter with maneuvering rockets (weighing at least 400 lbs.) was considered for a later Mercury, so it could move close to an Echo-type satellite. The weight of the adapter, lack of time, and safety concerns scuttled the project. Lifting reentry itself was explored in depth but never developed for Mercury. Gemini used many of these ideas.

Improved systems sequencing: The Mercury is alleged to have had a nightmarish problem in electronic systems sequencing that one expert (James Chamberlin) called “the root of all evil.” Designers struggled mightily to reduce the number of relays in the Mercury Mark II, in whatever configuration it took, separating systems and giving the pilot complete control over the spacecraft without automatic interference.

Land landings: The Rogallo inflatable, flexible wing and landing skis proposed for Gemini had their genesis with Mercury in 1958-1959, when Francis M. Rogallo (Langley) made a proposal for this system to be used with later-model Mercury spacecraft.

Long-duration flights: Several sorts of long-durations missions were considered that extended well beyond one day in orbit.

• Three-day mission (manned): This was the generally anticipated mission for MA-10 (s/c 15B, “Freedom 7-II”). An external battery pack and extra water were mounted on the heat shield, next to the retropack.

• Six-day mission (manned): This was an optional mission for MA-10, though the spacecraft would have to be revamped once again, delaying the flight by one month. Six to seven days is the minimal length of time required for a “no-frills” circumlunar or lunar-landing flight—thus, the great interest in week-long missions for Mercury Mark II and Gemini.

• Two-week mission (manned): Two weeks was the maximum time that NASA allowed for actual American manned space missions in the 1960s. A two-week flight for a one-man, “augmented” Mercury spacecraft was considered at a NASA meeting on January 20, 1961. This proposal did not include an attached orbiting laboratory, only the Mercury itself with additional supplies and systems. An Atlas D-Agena B launch vehicle was considered for use with such a mission, as the spacecraft’s weight would exceed the lift capabilities of an Atlas alone.

Modular plug-in systems: This was a suggestion made by James A. Chamberlin, a high-ranking Mercury engineer also considered by many to be the father of Project Gemini. To aid engineers and technicians working on Mercuries, Chamberlain suggested mounting some spacecraft systems outside the pilot’s cabin on the exterior of the vehicle, making them “plug-in” devices that were easily added or removed (see “Circumlunar flight,” above). This made the spacecraft much easier to test and check before flight, unlike the cramped Mercury, which had grossly interconnected and diffuse systems. The concept came from Chamberlin’s work on fighter aircraft.

Orbital laboratory: McDonnell Aircraft tinkered with the possibility of sending aloft a one-man Mercury atop a small, cylindrical space station (“orbital laboratory”), the arrangement strongly reminiscent of the later USAF Gemini B/Manned Orbiting Laboratory combination on a Titan IIIM. The Mercury and space laboratory would be launched on an Atlas D-Agena B into a 240-mile-high orbit. The astronaut would exit his spacecraft and enter the station through an inflatable tunnel, then remain in the station for two weeks before returning to Earth. McDonnell’s original report was completed on August 24, 1960, revised on October 28, 1960, and presented to NASA on January 5-6, 1961. (See illustration in On the Shoulders of Titans, page 24.) However, members of NASA’s Space Task Group at Langley Field, Va., had already floated very similar designs in 1958-1959. These involved a two-man Mercury and cylindrical orbiting laboratory lofted by an Atlas-Vega, a never-flown launch vehicle replaced in 1959 by the Atlas-Agena. (See illustration in Skylab: A Chronology, page 7.) In October 1960, another Langley scientist devised an inflatable, toroidal space laboratory packed into a cylinder that would be sent up under a one-man Mercury. (See illustration in Skylab: A Chronology, page 15.) At a NASA meeting on January 20, 1961, the possibility of having a Mercury dock with a space station already in orbit was mentioned.

Rendezvous and docking (Project MORAD): A Mercury spacecraft launched by an Atlas would rendezvous and dock with a small unmanned spacecraft launched by a Scout vehicle. Interestingly, the Mercury pilot would control the Scout-launched satellite. This mission, Project MORAD (Manned Orbital Rendezvous and Docking) was part of a larger proposal (“Manned Lunar Landing via Rendezvous”) delivered as an internal document to NASA, by John C. Houbolt and others of NASA’s Langley Research Center, on April 19, 1961. The rendezvous and docking would take place before mid-1963 period, serving as a first step toward a rendezvous-based lunar landing in Project Apollo. The Scout-launched spacecraft would be limited in size by the Scout’s payload-lifting power, which remained at under 200 lbs. until 1964. This rendezvous-and-docking concept was developed into the Gemini dockings with Agena D vehicles launched by Atlases, but in 1961 rendezvous was seen as too complicated an option.

Satellite intercept (SAINT) docking tests: This interesting but curiously suspicious mission proposal was made at a NASA meeting on January 20, 1961. At the time, SAINT (satellite intercept) was a USAF-proposed antisatellite system studied at least as far back as 1957. (SAINT was cancelled in mid-1961 in the midst of great controversy.) SAINT’s aim, per its name, was the interception, inspection, and possible destruction of foreign, hostile spacecraft in near-Earth orbit. A typical SAINT spacecraft was unmanned, controlled from the ground. Some sources say it was a lifting body that could maneuver during reentry. Lofted by an Atlas-Agena B, it would have had its own propulsion system to close with a suspicious target satellite. (Each SAINT was good for only one mission and one target satellite.) Its sensors included radar, television, and infrared detectors, as well as radiation detectors to determine if a nuclear payload was present. The spacecraft would also contain electronic countermeasures. SAINT was one of the earliest in a long stream of USAF orbital-rendezvous projects. A proposal to have a Mercury dock with a SAINT spacecraft has a funny ring to it, as it would deeply involve the astronaut in covert military activity in space—which is not unknown on Space Shuttle missions today, or on numerous Soyuz/Salyut missions conducted by the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s. It seems unlikely that a SAINT chosen for a Mercury docking would be the hunter-killer type the USAF originally sought before making the vehicle’s mission inspection only.

Proposed Unmanned Mercury Missions

Several interesting suggestions were made for using unmanned Mercury spacecraft, some proposals coming after Project Mercury was closed out in 1963.

Animal flights: The four Mercury spacecraft left unused after MA-9 (s/c 12, 15, 17, and 19) were suggested for animal flights. It is possible each Mercury would be turned into a retrievable biosatellite in the manner of the MA-5 mission with the chimp Enos, with a potentially longer duration. It is not known what types of animals were to be used.

High-speed reentry test: In a September 1959 report (“Follow On Experiments, Project Mercury Capsules”), McDonnell Aircraft suggested using an unmanned, heavily instrumented Mercury in a simulated lunar-return mission. Launched into a highly elliptical, 1,200-mile-apogee Earth orbit by Atlas-Centaur, the spacecraft (with a special heat shield) would be sent homeward with a third-stage firing to reenter at 25,000 mph. This would let researchers study heating and stability problems during high-speed reentry. NASA completely ignored this proposal, but it resurfaced, unsuccessfully, during Gemini.

Orbiting Astronomical Observatory use: The January 11, 1965 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology (page 23) reported a Langley Research Center scientist’s proposal to rework the four unflown Mercury spacecraft (apparently s/c 12, 15, 17, and 19) into Orbiting Astronomical Observatories, each with a 76-cm (30-inch) Cassegrainian telescope and six cameras. An OAO-Mercury would be unmanned, recoverable, and reusable. (Actual OAO spacecraft were not recoverable.) Each mission would last 100-200 days in Earth orbit, taking 6,000 frames total on 70-mm film. The system could also be used as a test bed for more advanced orbiting telescopes. The launch weight of the spacecraft would be about 4,730 lbs., including a maneuvering system. A launch vehicle was not given. (See detailed illustration with this article, noting the “clamshell top” of the spacecraft and arrangement of recovery devices.)

Other Mercury Launch Vehicles

Several types of launch vehicles other than the Little Joe, Redstone, and Atlas were considered for Project Mercury. These included the Jupiter IRBM (see above), the Thor IRBM (considered unreliable in the late 1950s and discarded early on), the Atlas C (one was offered to NASA in 1959 by the USAF, to be used for the Big Joe I flight with a May 1959 flight date, but it was quickly replaced by an Atlas D), and the Atlas D-Agena B and Titan II (both for advanced Mercury Mark II missions, but the former also for orbiting laboratories sent aloft with Mercuries). An Atlas-Centaur was suggested for one type of unmanned Mercury mission (see “Proposed Unmanned Mercury Missions,” above). Some 1959 models of a Mercury-Atlas vehicle show an Atlas B for the rocket (with equal-length side pods), but NASA never considered this combination, as the B model was only a test flight vehicle. The model-makers likely went with the best-known 1959 version of the Atlas.

Unflown Mercury Missions: Bibliography

Air University. Air University Library. “Eisenhower Years: 1953-1960” (updated June 12, 2001) (accessed June 24, 2001), and “Kennedy and Johnson Years: 1961-1968” (updated June 12, 2001) (accessed June 24, 2001). Air University, Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL. Background and description of SAINT project of the USAF.

“Astro notes: Man in Space,” Astronautics (July 1960), page 4.

“Attempt to Launch Lunar-Orbiting Payload Fails,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (December 7, 1959), pages 52-53. Sad fate of Atlas-Able using Big Joe 2 booster.

Baker, David, Ph.D. The History of Manned Space Flight. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1981 (hardbound), pages 90, 106-107, 109, 128, 144, 146.

Baker, David. Spaceflight and Rocketry: A Chronology. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996, pages 92, 117, 122, 123, 152.

Brownlow, Cecil. “Jupiter Launch Precedes Primate Tests for Mercury,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (June 8, 1959), page 32. Primate tests planned for Little Joe.

Caidin, Martin. Rendezvous in Space: The Story of Projects Mercury, Gemini, Dyna-Soar and Apollo. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1962, pages 216-225. Slayton controversy and post-Glenn flights covered.

Clark, Evert. “NASA Reveals Mercury Pre-Orbit Plans,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (20 April 1959), pages 28-29. Mercury-Jupiter flight schedule revealed.

Clark, Evert. “Third Atlas-Able Lunar Launch May Be Attempted Despite Failures,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (December 7, 1959), page 31. Atlas-Able using Big Joe 2 booster.

Clark, Evert. “U.S. Hammers Out Integrated Space Plan.” Aviation Week and Space Technology (26 January 1959), pages 99-105. Manned Mercury-Jupiter flights planned.

Ertel, Ivan D., and Mary Louise Morse. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume 1, Through November 7, 1962 (NASA SP-4009). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, 1969; pages 81-82. This document is available through the Internet at: (starting point for all four volumes).

“Extended MA-10 Flight,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 14, 1963); page 29. Mission length of 2-5 days considered for MA-10.

Finlayson, Ross. Current Locations of Manned Spacecraft (updated September 26, 2000) (accessed May 2, 2001).

“Flexibility Highlights Mercury Program,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (13 July 1959), pages 26-28.

Fusca, James A. “NASA Spells Out Space Biology Program,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (June 1, 1959), pages 52-53. Chimpanzee flight possible on Little Joe I.

Gerard, James H. A Field Guide to American Spacecraft, “Mercury Spacecraft” (updated November 17, 1999) (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #10” (updated November 17, 1999) (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #15B” (updated November 17, 1999) (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #17” (updated November 17, 1999) (accessed June 17, 2001).

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology (NASA SP–4001). Washington, D.C.: NASA Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 1963 (paperback), pages 32, 33, 36, 39, 41, 43, 47-48, 49-50, 56, 58-59, 65, 74, 85, 117, 128, 132-133, 143, 145, 146, 207, 214. This is an essential Project Mercury reference. This book is available online at: .

Hacker, Barton C., and James M. Grimwood. On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini (NASA SP-4203). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, 1977, pages 1-94 (particularly pages 15, 17-24, 29-30, 32-34, 39, 46-47, 53, 61-63), 115, 117-118, 418. This document is available online from NASA as On The Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini ().

“Industry Observer,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 26, 1959), page 23. Manned Mercury-Jupiter flights possible.

“Industry Observer,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (August 3, 1959), page 23.

“Industry Observer,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (October 31, 1960), page 23. Chimp flight deleted for last Little Joe.

“Industry Observer,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (February 11, 1963), page 23. Possible transfer of spare Atlases from MA program to GT program as Agena launchers; MA-10 considered for three-day mission.

“Industry Observer,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 27, 1963), page 19. A 100-hr. Mercury flight would require 300 lbs. of consumables, mainly batteries.

Isakowitz, Steven J. International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1995, pages 328-329. Scout lifting power.

Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System, The Beginning through STS-75. Cape Canaveral, Fla.: Dennis R. Jenkins, 1999, page 19. SAINT 1 information.

Knudson, Sven. Ninfinger Productions: Scale Models. “Ninfinger Productions: Mercury Photos” (no date) (accessed June 16, 2001). Twenty-nine superb color photographs of the MA-10 Mercury spacecraft “Freedom 7-II” at the Ames Research Center in California.

Kolcum, Edward H. “Glenn Flight Results Spur NASA to Emphasize Man’s Space Role,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (March 19, 1963), page 34. Seven Mercury astronauts to complete programs of three orbits and eighteen orbits; Major Slayton’s MA-7 flight information.

Kolcum, Edward. H. “NASA Weighs 72-hr. Mission After MA-9,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 13, 1963); pages 34-35. Detailed look at the factors going into having the MA-10 flight, considered just before the MA-9 flight.

Kolcum, Edward H. “NASA Weighs MA-10; 6-Day Flight Urged,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 27, 1963), page 23.

Kolcum, Edward H. “Slayton Controversy Emphasizes Widening Breach Within NASA,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (March 26, 1962), pages 18-19.

Kolcum, Edward H. “U.S. Space Effort Turns to Gemini, Apollo,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (March 11, 1963), page 107-115. MA-10 predicted for summer-fall 1963.

“MA-9 to Use Standard Couch,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (February 4, 1963); page 34. MA-10 might have used new-type net couch for astronaut.

“MA-10 Pilot,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 13, 1963); pages 34. Shepard is prime pilot of MA-10, aided by Major Gordon Cooper.

“MA-10 Discussions,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (June 10, 1963), page 38.

“MA-10 Ruled Out; Project Mercury Ends,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (June 17, 1963), page 36. Animal flights suggested for remaining Mercuries.

Mackowski, Mike. Space in Miniature – Reference Books for Space Model Builders. “Capsule Differences” (updated October 11, 2000) (accessed June 16, 2001); “Mission Notes” (updated October 1, 2000) (accessed June 16, 2001); “Capsule Configuration Table” (updated October 10, 1999) (accessed June 16, 2001)

“NASA Ends MR Flight,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (August 28, 1961), page 31.

“NASA Space Pilot Assigned Duties,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (February 4, 1963); page 36.

“New Lunar Schedule,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (October 5, 1959), page 26.

Newkirk, Roland W., and Ivan D. Ertel, with Courtney G. Brooks. Skylab: A Chronology (NASA SP-4011). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, 1977, pages 7, 8, 14, 15. Check for the space-station proposal illustrations on pages 7 and 15.

“Planetary Flight Is Major NASA Goal,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (June 22, 1959), page 130-135. Note photo of model of Mercury-Jupiter, different from that in “Project Mercury Test Vehicles” below.

“Project Mercury Test Vehicles,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (April 27, 1959), page 29. Note illustration of Mercury-Jupiter vehicle and compare to “Planetary Flight Is Major NASA Goal.” Note also that the Mercury-Atlas drawing shows an Atlas B.

“Rocket Contracts Let For Project Mercury,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (March 2, 1959), page 22. Manned Mercury-Jupiter flights considered.

Scala, Keith J. “Rockets Red Glare: Atlas-Able: A Forgotten Failure,” Quest (Spring 1995), pages 36-37.

Shepard, Alan, Deke Slayton, Jay Barbree, and Howard Benedict. Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America’s Race to the Moon. Atlanta: Turner Publishing, Inc., 1994, pages 152-154. Slayton controversy covered.

Slayton, Donald K., and Michael Cassutt. Deke! U.S. Manned Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 1995. Slayton controversy covered, and Slayton’s intended name for his MA-7 spacecraft is revealed (“Delta 7”).

Swenson, Loyd S. Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander. This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury (SP-4201). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Division, 1966, pages 99, 122-125, 141, 151-152, 156, 180, 185, 200-201, 205, 210-212, 239, 259, 322-325, 342, 349, 377-378, 407, 418, 440-446, 462, 486-487, 492, 503, 505-506, 541 (fn 36), 545 (fn 49-51), 551 (fn 40), 554 (fn 90), 585 (fn 60), 638-640. This document is available online from NASA as This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury ().

“USAF Launches Anti-Satellite Program,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (November 14, 1960), page 26-27. Brief but detailed description of Project SAINT, including interception flight path, different from that later used by the Soviets with their ASATs.

U.S. Air Force Museum. U.S. Air Force Museum. “McDonnell Mercury Spacecraft” (no date) (accessed June 16, 2001). Large excellent color photograph with links to two others, showing one side of spacecraft 17 and its control panel.

Wade, Mark. Encyclopedia Astronautica. “Your Flight Has Been Cancelled…” (updated February 6, 2001) (accessed June 18, 2001). This article inspired me, and I updated and corrected parts of it here.

==========

Fictional Mercury Missions

Elements of Project Mercury appeared in two remarkable space-technothriller novels of 1964.

Caidin, Martin. Marooned. New York: Bantam Books, 1965 (original copyright 1964).

Mission MA-10 is eventually flown by a fictional Group Two astronaut (USAF Major Richard J. Pruett) in late July 1964, to conduct medical experiments over a three-day period. However, his spacecraft (named “Mercury Seven”) malfunctions and does not achieve retrofire for reentry, leaving him marooned in orbit awaiting the depletion of his oxygen—and death—before his spacecraft’s orbit decays. America and the Soviet Union both attempt desperate one-man rescue missions using a hastily completed Gemini spacecraft (originally scheduled for mission GT-3) and an advanced Vostok, respectively. Pruett is rescued during his fifth day in orbit by the combined efforts of both spacecraft, and he returns to Earth in the Gemini. The novel was rewritten in 1969 and made into a 1969 movie (Marooned), with other spacecraft substituted in for the Mercury, Vostok, and Gemini in both cases.

Searls, Hank. The Pilgrim Project. New York: Pocket Books, 1978 (original copyright 1964).

In what appears to be the late 1960s, the Apollo program is stalled for lack of the Saturn V booster, which has not completed testing; only Earth-orbit missions using the Saturn IB can be flown. When the Soviets begin final orbital assembly of a moon-bound advanced Vostok, the Americans bring to life an emergency mission called Project Pilgrim, in which one astronaut will be sent on a one-way trip to the Moon. He will survive there in a large shelter sent to a designated landing area by Saturn IB, shortly before his liftoff. The Pilgrim lunar spacecraft is essentially a Mercury spacecraft, with heat shield, escape tower, and parachutes ejected in flight, mounted directly over an early-model Lunar Excursion Module (descent stage only) with three legs and three descent engines. A periscope (as per the earliest missions) is added to the Mercury to help with the lunar landing. The Pilgrim has life support for about six days, allowing flight to the Moon and return to Earth, if the mission was aborted. The launch vehicle is a Saturn IB with a Centaur third stage for translunar injection. A Polaris missile fourth stage (solid fuel) is used as the braking rocket prior to lunar descent. The astronaut (Steven J. Lawrence, a civilian pilot) makes it to the Moon safely despite having only three weeks to prepare for the mission. He finds the Soviet cosmonaut died following an explosion on landing, but Lawrence’s lunar shelter, lost for a time, is eventually found and he is saved. The book was made into a 1968 movie (Countdown), with a Gemini spacecraft substituted for the Mercury.

==========

Appendix: Mercury Spacecraft #17, USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

While traveling on June 20th, 2001, I had a chance to drop by the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. That is one of the nicest, cleanest, best-looking aviation museums I recall seeing. The last Mercury spacecraft ever built, #17, is here on loan from the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum. The capsule is completely encased in (and bolted to) a clear, form-fitting plastic covering. Several impressions leapt out at me when I found #17, down the hall from the Apollo 15 CM and adjacent to the Gemini B.

1. It is not very big. I had expected it would be impressively large but it was actually surprisingly small, and not just because it was missing lots of parts (which it is).

2. It is very dirty. This spacecraft must have dust on it dating from 1963. Some wiring had tape on it that appears to be both filthy and disintegrating. Still, it has aged well over the last near-forty years.

3. It is missing a lot of parts—an awful lot of parts. Some were removed and used on Cooper’s “Faith 7,” and some were removed to show off the spacecraft better in its display. I was unable to find out where many missing parts are currently kept, though a phone call to the Collections division (June 28, 2001) revealed that the heat shield is kept in storage at the USAF Museum. A partial list of #17’s missing parts would include: the heat shield, the impact attenuation bag, the retro-package and straps, half the fiberglass shield over the honeycomb structure behind the (missing) heat shield, the pilot’s (two-piece?) hatch, shingles over the right roll thrusters, shingles over two metal loops on opposite sides of the vehicle near the roll thrusters (ground-handling fittings used when the vehicle was placed in a space cradle to be worked on), at least eight long shingles over the recovery compartment (revealing the wiring and tubing for the pitch and yaw thrusters), the parachutes, the antenna canister, the escape tower, all large lettering and symbols typically seen on flown Mercuries (UNITED STATES, mission logo, and US flag), and large number of screws and washers holding the shingles on.

More missing parts are apparent inside the spacecraft, especially after I held up my flash camera and shot some photos down inside the pilot’s cabin, where I couldn’t normally see. Many items are missing from the center control panel and to the right and left sides of the pilot, where various instruments were located. I could not tell if any of the life-support equipment, below the pilot’s seat, was present, thanks to the mannequin (see below). From the photos I took, it appears the astronaut’s seat itself is missing, which makes sense as they were specially designed to form-fit designated astronauts (and this spacecraft had no assigned astronaut).

Inside the spacecraft is a mannequin in a spacesuit that doesn’t quite look like a Mercury suit, though it is difficult to tell. In flash photos, the mannequin looks strikingly like a large G.I. Joe. The spacecraft is mounted on its side so that the pilot sits straight upright, the central axis of the spacecraft parallel to the ground. A fluorescent light is mounted over the dummy’s helmet to show off the interior, but as the spacecraft is raised and mounted behind a guardrail, it is hard to look into the craft. I shot flash photos by holding up my camera and shooting down into the cabin. I had to be careful not to get a lot of photo glare from the flashes, coming off the plastic covering, so I always shot at an angle to the plastic. You can climb some steps and walk on an elevated sidewalk on the other side of the Mercury, but the guardrails get in the way when shooting pictures.

The cabin itself is painted a boring sort of light gray that you usually associate with Navy ships. The control panels inside the spacecraft come in a surprising variety of colors, from tan (or light bronze) to gray to a sort of light grayish green, with different shades of each. The instrument panel (what’s left of it) strongly resembles the one depicted for “Faith 7” (MA-9, Cooper) on page 22 of “Space in Miniature #5: Mercury.” You can see the circular forward bulkhead behind the instrument panel, between the cabin and the recovery section. The observation window has a steel-colored metal frame that looks like it was not a part of the spacecraft (unless it was just unpainted when delivered). The window itself is edged in bright red (a metal holder?), and the recessed external area around the window, inside the metal frame, was black. The pilot’s hatch opening also has a steel-colored lip around it.

No white “paint squares” are present on the outside of the craft, as seen on MA-7 through MA-9. A lot of hand-painted white capital-letter captions are painted on the outside of the craft in various places, saying things like “HE PROOF PORTS UNDER SHINGLE” and “H202 VENT” and “CAUTION TEMP P/U 18” (lots of the latter, all over the spacecraft, always with different numbers inside painted boxes). The shingles are held on by large Phillips-head, hemispherical-topped screws with washers ranging in size from an inch across to about an inch and a quarter. Many washers are scratched up and missing black paint. The C-and-S band antennas are still present. Where shingles are missing, you can see a 1-inch clearance between the outer shingles and the inner metal shell.

The umbilical door has been replaced by a steel-colored flat metal sheet of about the same size and shape. It is on the bottom of the craft in a place impossible to see unless, as I did, you hold out your flash camera and shoot the underside of the craft at a shallow angle, looking at the film later.

END

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download