Moore NO GO 1

No Go:Project Mercury Missions and Spacecraft That Never Left Earth

A resource for creative space modelers and amateur space historians

©2001 by Roger E. MooreCreated June 26, 2001Fifth update: November 20, 2001Comments, updates, additions, and corrections are welcome. Please send them to: roger70129@aol.com

Utility

This document gives the locations and conditions of unflown Mercury spacecraft (s/c) that can be studied for improving the accuracy of Mercury space models, especially late-model designs like “Faith 7.” Unusual Mercury designs, configurations, and missions that were considered but never used are also detailed, giving an idea of the range of possibilities once envisioned for this historic vehicle. Unique models of these “might have been” missions can be researched and documented for accuracy, then used in space model competitions, science fairs, museum settings, and home displays.

Special sections have been added to this document describing famous Mercury missions from fiction, resources for creating scale models of unflown Mercury configurations, and a close examination of one unflown Mercury capsule, s/c 17, now on display at the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio.

Background: Preliminary Mercury Designs

When Project Mercury came into official existence (November 26, 1958), the physical design of a one-man American spacecraft was already undergoing considerable evolution. A variety of competing man-in-space projects, most from the military, were proposed and examined before NASA was created on October 1, 1958. Nearly all of these preliminary projects (e.g., U.S. Army’s Project Adam suborbital capsule, U.S. Navy’s MER inflatable glider, Avco’s Kantrowitz Drag Brake Satellite, North American’s orbital X-15, and the USAF’s extensive Project 7969) were cancelled when NASA immediately gained control over the man-in-space issue. One such project survived only by becoming exclusively military in nature (USAF’s X-20 Dyna-Soar).

A variety of spacecraft shapes were tested during the evolution of Mercury, mostly in wind tunnel research. Some shapes were built as full-scale boilerplates for escape-tower test flights, crane-dropped flotation tests, or aircraft-dropped parachute tests. Miniature spacecraft shapes were mounted on high-speed sounding rockets for heat-transfer studies. Purely for convenience, Shortal (A New Dimension, page 636) calls the four major Mercury shapes examined during the early phases of the project Types A, B, C, and D. The Type A Mercury was a cone with a rounded nose and curved rear heat shield, and Type D was very close to the final version of Mercury in appearance and dimensions; B and C were intermediate shapes. None of these early shapes were ever crewed or sent aloft in anything other than boilerplate form. Two full-size Type C capsules were used in escape-tower test flights in 1959. One full-size Type D capsule was used in a 1959 escape-tower test, and it was later reused on a Little Joe flight. These full-size capsules are properly called boilerplates, as they were constructed from actual steel plate.

Several full-scale prototype Mercury spacecraft, approaching the final production version in shape, size, and sophistication, were designed and built by NASA’s Langley facility. One was flown from the Cape on the “Big Joe” Atlas test in September 1959, and some were flown on Little Joe missions from Wallops in various tests between August 1959 and January 1960. One was reused for a Redstone test in March 1961. Two Little Joe flights had rhesus monkeys aboard them. None were manned or made orbital flights. Prototype spacecraft are sometimes called boilerplates, but they were made from a variety of materials.

Moore NO GO 2

Important subsystems of the Mercury also underwent design changes during the course of the project, such as the heat shield (ablation vs. heat sink) and escape system (tractor rockets on tower vs. rockets in a fin adaptor). Subsystem changes are too numerous to give here.

Several excellent resources follow for anyone interested in making scale models of evolving Mercury designs, to compare them to the final version in a “how it might have looked” display.

PRELIMINARY MERCURY DESIGNS: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blanchard, Willard S., and James L. Raper. “Full-Scale Flight Test from Sea Level of an Abort-Escape System for a Project Mercury Capsule” (NASA Technical Memorandum X-422). Washington, D.C.: NASA, October 1960. This includes a detailed dimensioned drawing and photos of a Type D capsule flown on an escape-tower test.

Blanchard, Willard S., and Sherwood Hoffman. “Full-Scale Flight Test of a Proposed Abort-Escape System for a Manned Space Capsule from Sea Level” (NASA Technical Memorandum X-351). Washington, D.C.: NASA, August 1960. This includes a detailed dimensioned drawing and photos of a Type C capsule flown on an escape-tower test.

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology (NASA SP–4001). Washington, D.C.: NASA Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 1963; pages 8-24 (pre-NASA projects), 23 (Type C), 36 (heat-shield changes), 48-49 (escape-system changes), 68 (Type D). This book is available online at: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4001/contents.htm/.

Mackowski, Michael J. Space in Miniature #5: Mercury. Gilbert, Ariz.: Space in Miniature, 1999; pages 2-4, 26-28, 30-31. See updates and corrections posted at website, immediately below. Dimensioned drawings for the prototype Mercury shape are given.

Mackowski, Mike. Space in Miniature – Reference Books for Space Model Builders. “Capsule Differences” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc1.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Mission Notes” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc2.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Capsule Configuration Table” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc3.html (accessed November 8, 2001). This website and the Space in Miniature book on Mercury have outstanding information and are highly recommended.

Shortal, Joseph Adams. A New Dimension: Wallops Island Flight Test Range: The First Fifteen Years (NASA 1028). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, 1978; pages 633-663. This section reveals Wallops’ considerable involvement in determining the final appearance and construction of the Mercury spacecraft. Details appear on Mercury types A through D, with pictures (page 640, Type B; page 642, Types A and B in background; pages 639, 643-644, 649-650, Type C; page 651, Type D) and a scale diagram (page 636, all types shown).

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 75-165 (Chapters IV-VI); see also the footnotes section for many more references. Illustrations of interest include those on pages 103 (Type B), 104 (Types A and B), 105 (Type A). This material is online at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/toc.htm (table of contents).

Background: The Ones That Flew

Moore NO GO 3

Once the final design of the Mercury spacecraft was settled, NASA ordered twenty production-model Mercuries, numbered 1-20, from the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation in St. Louis, Mo. Twelve were ordered in February 1959, the other eight later on. All twenty were built, but no two were completely alike. Each was designed and configured for a mission different from all others—the hallmark of an experimental design as opposed to an operation design. Of these twenty, fifteen spacecraft 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 later).

Seven astronauts were involved in Project Mercury. As they are mentioned so often in the following text, their names and service ranks at the start of Project Mercury (and their eventual missions and mission dates) are given in full here, and their last names only are used elsewhere.

Lt. Cmdr. Alan B. Shepard, Jr. (USN) MR-3 May 5, 1961Capt. Virgil I. Grissom (USAF) MR-4 July 21, 1961Lt. Col. John H. Glenn, Jr. (USMC) MA-6 February 20, 1962Lt. Malcolm Scott Carpenter (USN) MA-7 May 24, 1962Lt. Cmdr. Walter M. Schirra, Jr. (USN) MA-8 October 3, 1962Capt. Leroy Gordon Cooper, Jr. (USAF) MA-9 May 15-16, 1963Capt. Donald K. Slayton (USAF)

==========

I. 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 and conditions, with Internet resources for photos.

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 Spacecraft Center (MSC, in Houston) at least through July 1963, meant to be available for display afterward. A Smithsonian Institution photograph suggests that only the main body (truncated cone) of the spacecraft, minus its recovery compartment, was used for testing purposes; the capsule was filled with engineering and measuring equipment. Original exterior with restored interior (configuration unknown) 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.) SI/NASM catalog number is A 1968 0247 000.

Moore NO GO 4

http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/ME-10.html (restored version at present)http://digilib.si.edu/main.asp (go to “Search,” type in “mercury,” then skim the results for a B&W

photo of s/c 10, missing everything from recovery compartment on up)

Spacecraft 12: Delivered to Cape in October 1961, built as backup for Schirra’s six-orbit MA-8 flight using s/c 18 (Note: Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology, page 212, says it was the backup for Glenn’s MA-6 flight using s/c 13, but the same book, page 151, and personal communications with Mr. Needell and Mr. Ceruzzi of SI/NASM, indicate s/c 12 was the first MA-8 backup; s/c 19 was the second backup vehicle); s/c 12 was 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 (MODM) but not assigned, mission cancelled; spacecraft stored at McDonnell (St. Louis) for a while, then delivered to MSC and stored on or before July 1963, to be released for public display. Never delivered to the 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 of capsule is at NASA’s Garber Facility, Suitland, Md., possibly for later display at Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C. SI/NASM catalog number is A 1968 0247 000. Might have been used as a space-parts source, as it has been stripped of its internal equipment and has only six shingles remaining.

http://digilib.si.edu/main.asp (go to “Search,” type in “mercury,” then skim the results for a B&Wphoto of s/c 12B with recovery section, but missing antenna compartment, interior equipment,most shingles)

Spacecraft 15: Delivered to Cape on August 13, 1961, configured for third manned suborbital Mercury-Redstone flight (MR-5; see later); 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 after MA-8; assigned to MA-10 (Shepard, “Freedom 7-II”), redelivered to Cape on November 16, 1962, but mission already expected to be cancelled if MA-9 was a success; 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, kept at Hangar S at Cape during final modifications, further changes to environmental system made June 8, 1963, mission cancelled on June 12, 1963 after MA-9 success (Cooper, May 15-16, 1963). It was planned for s/c 15B to be used in the Hangar S high-altitude chamber until mid-June, undergo final changes dictated by MA-9 flight, then be mated to Atlas for a September flight. 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, nearly complete equipment for manned use, and an assigned pilot and launch vehicle. (Glenn probably would have named the MR-5 flight “Friendship 7,” per his MA-6 flight, as his own family named it in a contest.) This Mercury has the most advanced technological design of all existing spacecraft of its type, and it is worthy of extensive study for this reason.

Moore NO GO 5

http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/mc-15.htmlhttp://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/mercury/ma10.html (29 color photos here)http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/pages/outreachfolder/visitorcenter/visitorcenter.htmlhttp://www.distantsuns.com/downloads/ (“Index of /downloads” webpage of Michael Stanwick’s Distant

Suns website has a 5.4 MB Zip file (freedom_7_II.zip) with 33 color photos of s/c 15B)

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 MSC and made available for exhibition; no records exist of spacecraft’s disposition from 1963-1968. Apparently considered for conversion into a recoverable, reusable space telescope in OAO program by Langley Research Center in January 1965. In late February 1968, it was shipped from storage in NASA Building 380, Ellington AFB, Houston, Tex., to the Smithsonian Institution’s Garber Facility, Building 10, in Silverhill, Md., arriving March 1, 1968. The spacecraft was loaned to a museum in South Carolina in July 1970 for display (“Wings and Wheels,” Santee Exhibitions, Inc., Santee, S.C.). On March 5, 1975, the spacecraft was delivered directly from South Carolina to the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, still on loan from the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution. The spacecraft remains on public display at WPAFB, its loan contract being periodically renewed by the museum. Parts are missing from the spacecraft, some used on MA-9 (unknown which parts were so used) and some removed to show the interior of the displayed Mercury. See the detailed description of this spacecraft at the end of this article. Other than s/c 15B, and despite its missing parts, s/c 17 is the most complete unflown advanced-design Mercury in existence.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf5.htm (s/c 17; no mannequin inside)http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/mc-17.html (color photo, same as above)http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc_img/D4C-10504.jpg (color photo of instrument

panel of s/c 17, nearly complete (McDonnell photo D4C-10504); see also “Miscellaneous MercuryPhotos,” http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/misc_pix.html)

Spacecraft 19: Delivered to Cape on March 20, 1962; built for orbital manned mission (originally for the last of four three-orbit missions in 1962, then as the second backup vehicle for MA-8, s/c 12 being the first backup until it was reassigned), but mission canceled after MA-8 (Schirra, October 3, 1962), unassigned thereafter. Kept in storage at MSC. 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. SI/NASM catalog number is A 1968 0571 000d. Unknown if this Mercury possesses or is missing any significant parts or has an unusual configuration.

http://www.verkehrshaus.org/cosmorama/en/sec3de.htm (capsule is part of an animated GIF file)http://digilib.si.edu/main.asp (go to “Search,” type in “mercury,” then skim the results for a B&W

photo of s/c 19 on display with recovery section, apparently in Swiss museum; note the Swisscross on the tail of one aircraft in the background)

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.

Moore NO GO 6

Ames Communications Branch (NASA). Ames Research Center News Homepage (updated January 8, 2001) http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/pages/outreachfolder/visitorcenter/visitorcenter.html (accessed June 17, 2001). Webpage contains museum photo of s/c 15B, “Freedom 7-II.”

“Astronauts, Top NASA Leadership Split Over Attempting MA-10 Shot,” Missiles and Rockets (May 27, 1963); pages 16-17. Status of and debate over MA-10 flight; much detail on MA-9, including potential time in orbit given remaining consumables.

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

Ceruzzi, Paul (National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C.). Personal communication, e-mail dated August 24, 2001.

Finlayson, Ross. Current Locations of Manned Spacecraft (updated September 26, 2000) http://xenon.Stanford.edu/~rsf/CapsuleLocations.html (accessed May 2, 2001). Good reference that reinforces Gerard’s website (see immediately following).

Gerard, James H. A Field Guide to American Spacecraft, “Mercury Spacecraft” (updated November 17, 1999) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/index.html (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #10” (updated November 17, 1999) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/ME-10.html (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #15B” (updated November 17, 1999) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/mc-15.html (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #17” (updated November 17, 1999) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/mc-17.html (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: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4001/contents.htm/.

Knudson, Sven. Ninfinger Productions: Scale Models. “Ninfinger Productions: Mercury Photos” (no date) http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/mercury/ma10.html (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 September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc1.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Mission Notes” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc2.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Capsule Configuration Table” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc3.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Miscellaneous Mercury Photos,” http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/misc_pix.html (accessed November 8, 2001). This website and the Space in Miniature book on Mercury have outstanding information and are highly recommended. A color photo of the newly built control panel of s/c 17 can be seen at “Miscellaneous Mercury Photos.”

Moore NO GO 7

“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).

Needell, Allan (Chairman, Space History, National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C.). Personal communications, e-mail dated August 10, 2001 and September 6, 2001.

Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution Online Collections. “Smithsonian Online Collections” (no date) http://digilib.si.edu/main.asp (accessed November 13, 2001). Go to Search, then perform a text search for “mercury” to view an assortment of Mercury spacecraft in the museum’s collection (some on loan). Unflown s/c 10, 12, and 19 are included.

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 137, 420, 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: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/toc.htm (table of contents).

Swiss Museum of Transport and Communication (Verkehrshaus der Schweiz). “The Swiss Museum of Transport and Communication | Cosmorama” (no date) http://www.verkehrshaus.org/cosmorama/en/sec3de.htm (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.

“The Missile/Space Week: Cooper to Pilot MA-9,” Missiles and Rockets (November 19, 1962); page 8. If MA-9 is successful, MA-10 will be cancelled.

USAF Museum. United States Air Force Museum. “McDonnell Mercury Spacecraft” (no date) http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf5.htm (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, Schiphol, dated July 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.

==========

II. 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, launch dates, or astronauts. 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 Mercury-Redstone Booster Development mission (MR-BD) 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

Moore NO GO 8

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.

==========

II A. Major Unflown Mercury Missions

Mercury Balloon Flight TestsDate: Between July 1959 and January 1961SC: UnknownLauncher: Balloon (type unknown)Astronaut: None initially; later manned flights were planned for up to 24 hours aloft, with sea recoveryComments: 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-5Date: Late 1960SC: Possibly Mercury s/c 3 (used for first actual LJ-5 flight) Launcher: Little Joe I, vehicle #5Astronaut: Chimpanzee or pig (!); possibly a human astronaut on this or another flightComments: 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 (possibly even on the first Little Joe flight), but this was dropped in May 1959 when it was found that pigs could 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 a production-model 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 1960SC: Prototype (sometimes called a “boilerplate”) Mercury, unique type (never built?)Launcher: Atlas vehicle 20-DAstronaut: NoneComments: 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. Like BJ-1, the MA-1 spacecraft lacked a complete escape tower—which it unfortunately needed when the booster exploded in flight, resulting in the total destruction of the spacecraft. (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

Moore NO GO 9

moon-bound Pioneer flight, however, Atlas 20-D’s payload fairing tore free shortly after launch, and the entire flight was lost.

Mercury-Jupiter 1Date: Last quarter 1959SC: Boilerplate or prototype Langley-built Mercury, possibly McDonnell production-model MercuryLauncher: JupiterAstronaut: NoneComments: 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 2Date: First quarter 1960SC: Boilerplate, prototype, or (most likely) McDonnell-built production model MercuryLauncher: JupiterAstronaut: A primate flight was planned, and a human astronaut flight was discussedComments: 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 s/c 15 (see “Mercury-Atlas 10 (MA-10),” later in this section, and “Spacecraft 15,” earlier)Launcher: Redstone vehicle #4 (originally vehicle #5, but this 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; Shepard named his spacecraft “Freedom 7” to signify that it was not only s/c 7 on top of Redstone booster #7, but it was also anticipated to be the first of seven manned suborbital flights. However, 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. One source (Swenson, This New Ocean, page 585 fn 60) says that some NASA astronauts argued for retaining this flight, as it was nearly ready to go. However, Slayton (Deke!, page 101) states that none of the astronauts wanted this flight, and all lobbied to cancel it to move on with the Atlas orbital flights.

Mercury-Redstone 6 (MR-6)Date: October 1961? (six weeks after MR-5)SC: Mercury s/c 16 (later used for MA-8 as Schirra’s “Sigma 7”)Launcher: Redstone vehicle #6Astronaut: Unassigned (possibly Slayton, as he was the next scheduled to fly)

Moore NO GO 10

Comments: See comments under “Mercury-Redstone 5 (MR-5),” in this section. Redstone #6 was static-tested at the Marshall Space Flight Center on July 13, 1961, in preparation for flight. Slayton (Deke!, page 101) and Swenson (This New Ocean, page 377) state this mission was cancelled several (~6) weeks before Grissom’s flight because of pressure to move on with orbital flights, given Russian successes.

Mercury-Atlas 7 (MA-7)Date: Second week of April 1962SC: Mercury s/c 18 (“Delta 7”)Launcher: Atlas vehicle 107-DAstronaut: Slayton, backup SchirraComments: Slayton, assigned in November 1961 to the second orbital flight, planned to name his spacecraft after the space engineering term “delta-vee” (change in velocity). In Deke! (page 111), he says his flight date was in May 1962, though other sources say April. However, he was abruptly removed from flight status on March 15, 1962, out of concern that his performance in flight would be affected by a minor 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. See Slayton’s comments in Deke! (pages 110-116). Slayton hoped to be the pilot for a later Mercury flight, particularly MA-9, if his condition was termed irrelevant to flight. Cooper was assigned to MA-9 instead, and MA-10 was dropped, though Slayton tried as a NASA manager to keep it on the schedule.

Mercury-Atlas 10 (MA-10)Date: First week of 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-DAstronaut: Shepard; backup probably Cooper (the only other Mercury astronaut still working in Project Mercury at this time; Grissom, Glenn, Carpenter, and Schirra were already deeply involved in Projects Gemini and Apollo; and Slayton had taken an administrative position); see Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology, page 182.Comments: Mercury flights up to MA-13 had been planned for several years, but flight delays, removal of redundant flights, and pressure to move on with Project Gemini whittled away at the list. MA-10 was originally planned to be the very first 18-orbit, one-day flight. Later, as the schedule changed, it became the second of four one-day flights, when MA-9 was moved into the one-day slot; then, MA-10 became the second of two one-day flights when later shots were dropped. Not long before its cancellation, MA-10 was regarded as merely a backup one-day (MODM) 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. At the end of MA-9’s mission, it was estimated that Cooper had enough oxygen for six days total, and his flight was stable for 92 orbits minimum, with about half his fuel for attitude control remaining. This encouraged planning for the MA-10 mission, though the MA-9 success also discouraged further flights.

About the time MA-9 was flown, the primary mission for MA-10 became a three-day flight (72 hours, 48 orbits), but a four-day (96-hour) flight was considered, with MSC deputy director Walter Williams proposing a minimum duration of 100 hours. A six-day “open-ended” flight was also urged, lasting so long as the pilot was in good condition and consumables remained (maximum of 144 hours, 96 orbits). This had the potential to replace two early Gemini missions scheduled for one and three days, cutting six months from Project Gemini and allowing weeklong flights once Gemini systems were qualified. It would also have wrestled the space duration record from the Soviets (Nikolayev’s 64-orbit flight on Vostok III). If the spacecraft had been revamped for a six-day mission, it might have been designated s/c 15C.

Moore NO GO 11

The trouble Cooper had during MA-9 with the automatic control system aboard “Faith 7” helped the chances for MA-10’s launch (says one source), but his successful reentry and recovery worked against the longer flight as it fulfilled all of the original Mercury objectives. Research on the effects of prolonged weightlessness was also a driving factor in keeping MA-10 on the schedule, as was the issue of filling the long hiatus in American manned space travel between the Mercury and Gemini programs. The astronauts, many others in NASA, and some Congressmen supported MA-10.

However, cutting out the MA-10 flight freed up over 700 workers from Project Mercury (and considerable money) to start new work on Project Gemini, which had its own funding problems. Mercury flight controllers and ground crews were moved into the Gemini program at once. 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. The MA-10 mission would have cost $8 or $9 million. Flights of unmanned Gemini spacecraft gave flight control much needed experience in the meanwhile. NASA Administrator James Webb opposed MA-10 for the above reasons and killed the mission.

As a final note, MSC director Williams (who approved of MA-10) was still concerned that a disaster involving MA-10 would greatly harm the prestige America had built up in its space program. This possibility was seized upon by novelist Martin Caidin in his 1964 space technothriller, Marooned, which itself generated great concern in NASA over such an event occurring in the Gemini program. Precautions were taken to the GT-3 mission (Grissom and Young, March 1965) to prevent the astronauts from becoming stranded in orbit should their reentry be delayed. (See Hacker and Grimwood, On the Shoulders of Titans, pages 228-229.) Marooned, in later novel and movie forms, continued to affect NASA emergency flight planning even through the Apollo and Skylab programs.

See “Unflown Mercury Spacecraft: Spacecraft 15,” above. Also, see “Fictional Mercury Flights” later (Caidin’s Marooned).

==========

II B. 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 begin with each astronaut making a suborbital flight (see “Unflown Mercury Missions: Mercury-Redstone 5 (MR-5),” earlier), and it 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 (pages 216-217), 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. Project Mercury’s end was planned for 1963, in any event, and budgets reflected this eventuality.

Based on the above, one can deduce that the “three-orbit” capsules would have included s/c 13 (Glenn, three orbits), s/c 16 (Schirra, six orbits), s/c 18 (Carpenter, three orbits), and s/c 19 (unused). This makes only three, not four, spacecraft after Glenn’s flight. It is possible that Caidin mistakenly excluded Glenn’s flight from the original four three-orbit flights planned; three-orbit missions were originally meant for

Moore NO GO 12

missions MA-6 through MA-9. The only other unused Mercury spacecraft not rigged for one-day flight was s/c 10, assigned to Project Orbit and not equipped or configured for manned flight. (Perhaps Caidin thought this one could be prepared for actual flight, which might have been possible but would have required extensive alterations. Alternatively, a previously flown capsule could have been flown with a new heat shield and other changes. This, however, seems unlikely to have been the case.)

MA-9 was once intended to be the last three-orbit mission, using s/c 19 in mid- to late 1962. As Slayton was on flight status at this time, this probably meant Schirra was the original MA-9 pilot; strangely, then, Cooper would still have made the first one-day Mercury flight (though on MA-10, the spacecraft for which would have been almost identical to “Faith 7”).

Three-orbit flights were discarded as redundant after Carpenter’s flight, and the drive began with MA-8 (Schirra) for ever-longer missions and increased modification of the spacecraft. Schirra’s extended flight was originally planned for seven orbits, but a six-orbit flight allowed for easier recovery near Midway Island and better safety margin for consumables. One source from July 1962 mentions that one or two flights of three to six orbits would be flown after MA-7, in late summer 1962 and early 1963, but this confusing element was dropped.

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). 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. Final flight configurations for Project MODM (Manned One-Day Mission) were settled in September 1962. Changes made to the Mercury spacecraft for long-duration flights are described in This New Ocean (chapter XIV). Four such one-day flights for 1963 were anticipated as late as April 1962, for missions MA-10 through MA-13.

Some sources dispute the above figures, probably because Project Mercury’s goals and missions changed so rapidly during 1962-1963. In fact, the level of confusion over how many late-model spacecraft and launch vehicles were flight-ready is considerable. For example, Slayton (in Deke!, page 130) said only two Mercury spacecraft and Atlas boosters were left for use after Cooper’s flight. One set was apparently destined for MA-10. He does not name which spacecraft or boosters these were, however, or detail the missions for which they were intended. Another source (Missiles and Rockets, June 17, 1963) says that three Mercury spacecraft were left at the Cape after MA-9; two were “in preliminary status,” and one, s/c 15B, “was being modified for the MA-10.” The two “preliminary status” spacecraft might have been s/c 12B and s/c 17, part of the MODM group; s/c 19 was still configured for a three- or six-orbit flight. Yet another source (Missiles and Rockets, May 20, 1963) says three man-rated Atlases and four Mercuries were left, counting the Mercury for MA-10. This count apparently included s/c 19 as well as the three MODM spacecraft. A last source (Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 11, 1965) says there were four Mercury spacecraft at the end of the program, three completed and one partially completed (s/c 17?).

Such confusion was nothing new to this program. After Glenn’s MA-6 flight, NASA Director D. Brainerd Holmes (Office of Manned Space Flight) stated in an interview that “five or six” more three-orbit flights would be made, at two-month intervals, before the eighteen-orbit flights would begin in 1963. The first eighteen-orbit flight was originally scheduled for later 1962 but shifted to 1963 after Glenn’s flight. Doubt was cast on NASA’s ability to stick to its two-month flight intervals, however, because of recurring technical and weather delays.

The Atlas launch vehicles for post-Glenn Mercury flights might 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. (See “Advanced Mercury Missions and Configurations: Other Mercury Launch Vehicles,” later.)

Had all available spacecraft been used after Cooper’s MA-9 flight (except for s/c 10, instrumented for Project Orbit), Mercury-Atlas missions could have run as high as MA-13, as noted earlier. S/c 19 could

Moore NO GO 13

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—or whatever NASA wanted them to be. Missions MA-8 through MA-10 were so different from each other in reality, so far off the original schedule, that any sort of mission after MA-10 was possible, given NASA’s unwillingness to repeat earlier successes and its desire to try new (and increasingly risky) missions in its race with the Soviets.

Mercury-Atlas flights beyond MA-10 were questionable before Schirra’s flight in late 1962. Four eighteen-orbit flights were still on the schedule by July 1962, but NASA anticipated only two such flights. Flights beyond MA-10 were cancelled right after MA-8, with MA-10 at first expected to be a one-day flight in 1963, a late third-quarter or early fourth-quarter mission.

The 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. Congress was reviewing calls for a great reduction on NASA’s budget in mid-1963. The later Mercury missions were highly successful themselves, which also led to the program’s early end. The long hiatus in American space travel, between MA-9 and GT-3, concerned many in NASA; the interruption grew to almost two years given unforeseen delays in Project Gemini. The delay was accepted for the sake of achieving the agency’s long-range goals, particularly the moon landings. 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?

==========

II C. Mercury Mark II (Proto-Gemini) Spacecraft Designs

NASA’s July 1961 launch 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 existed as to what sort of vehicle was to carry out these “future Mercury” or “advanced Mercury” missions.

The primary distinction between existing Mercury spacecraft and the Mercury Mark II design was that the existing Mercury was an experimental spacecraft, with every flight extensively and individually outfitted for a series of one-shot special mission objectives. Note, for instance, how mission time increased from MR-3 through to the end of the program, with dramatic increases in mission duration from MA-7 (three orbits) to the proposed MA-10 mission (three to six days). Many aspects of space travel, such as human capabilities in weightlessness, were being investigated for the first time, and long-duration missions were difficult to design for such a small vehicle. In other words, the Mercury was not an operational spacecraft meant for routine space missions to give astronauts common experience in critical operations (e.g., long-duration flight, rendezvous and docking, and extravehicular activity). Mercury Mark II was less “pure investigation” and more “workhorse” than the original Mercury spacecraft, which was continuously altered as the program progressed. It is significant that NASA Administrator James Webb, in a 1963 interview, compared the unflown Gemini spacecraft to the old DC-3, seeing it as a likely workhorse for American space activities, but he flatly stated Mercury could not be used in the same way.

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 one-day, 18-orbit flights, which was perceived as the standard Mercury vehicle.

Moore NO GO 14

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 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). Proposals for enlarged, two-man Mercury spacecraft were discussed as early as 1958-1959 by NASA’s Space Task Group (STG, formed to oversee the development of the Mercury spacecraft) at Langley Field, Va., for long-duration missions lasting three days and missions using space stations. The concept resurfaced several times at NASA in early 1961 and gained momentum from then on.

As a rule of thumb, any mission or configuration suggested for a Mercury Mark II spacecraft after July 1961 was almost certainly for a two-man, “proto-Gemini” Mark II.

The “Mark I” and “Minimum Change Mark II” Mercuries can be simulated with standard (but modified) model kits of Mercury spacecraft. Cooper’s “Faith 7” works admirably as a Mark I model, though some changes might have been made to it, such as a web couch. The one-man configurations were doomed in part because Project Apollo (already in design and production) involved space missions for three crewmen each, and a two-man Mark II prepared the astronauts for working in groups and using EVA. A larger spacecraft also allowed more space for equipment and a stronger overall structure.

After the conclusion of Project Mercury and the end of the USSR’s Vostok flights in June 1963, only one other manned space mission was ever launched with one crewman aboard. That was the disastrous flight of the USSR’s Soyuz I on April 23, 1967. This trouble-plagued mission ended with the death of cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov in a fiery crash after reentry, when the spacecraft’s parachute lines became entangled.

==========

II D. 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. Some proposals were adopted later for Project Gemini.

Artificial gravity: In May 1959, H. Kurt Strass of Langley’s STG offered several follow-on ideas for Project Mercury, one of which involved launching a Mercury attached to a cylinder (a space station attached to the heat shield) that was itself connected by cables to the upper stage of the launch vehicle. The whole configuration would be rotated to create artificial gravity in the cylindrical station. This proposal might have been meant for a two-man late-model Mercury; the source is unclear on this point. Artificial gravity experiments were also considered for Mercury (no details given) in a January 1960 STG meeting.

Circumlunar and lunar-landing flight: The startling idea of sending a Mercury on a circumlunar flight was first proposed in March 1961 by James A. Chamberlin (see “Modular plug-in systems,” later). 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. Among the many major problems facing such a mission were the construction of a heat shield that could withstand

Moore NO GO 15

high-speed reentry following a return from the Moon, and the lack of a booster powerful enough to send the spacecraft on its way. These same problems dogged proposed Gemini lunar missions as well. (See later, “Proposed Unmanned Mercury Missions: High-speed reentry test.”)

Nonetheless, throughout 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” later, Hank Searls’ The Pilgrim Project.) However, nearly all such missions for the Mark II were meant for the two-man proto-Gemini version, not the one-man advanced Mercury sort. See, for example, the illustration in Project Gemini Technology and Operations, page 12, of one-man lunar landing vehicle (designed November 1961) to accompany an “advanced Mercury” to the Moon. See also Hacker and Grimwood, On the Shoulders of Titans, page 60, and Morse and Bays, The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume 2, page 105, for a July-August 1961 proposal by Chamberlin and James T. Rose of STG. This involved using an “improved” Mercury (probably for two men) as part of a 35,000-lb. payload, including a 5,000-lb. lunar lander, to be sent to the Moon using two Saturn C-3 launch vehicles (an unflown predecessor of the Saturn V that used only two F-1 engines) and lunar-orbit rendezvous.

The general ideas expressed above, concerning non-Apollo lunar missions, appear to have mingled with others floated in the latter half of this year, involving the placement of emergency long-duration shelters on the Moon for astronauts. These concepts formed the basis for the fictional Mercury mission described in The Pilgrim Project. See “Soviets Indicate Lunar Landing Set For 1965” (Missiles and Rockets, June 18, 1962, page 32) and “One-Man, One-Way Moon Trip Urged” (Missiles and Rockets, June 25, 1962, pages 16-17), and compare to the events described in Searls’ novel, which includes a foreword dated June 19, 1962. Mr. Searls clearly heard John Cord read his paper aloud at the IAS meeting mentioned in the second article above, and he notes that some IAS listeners later described Cord’s proposal as “Project Kamikaze.”

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 photoreconnaissance. Remarkable Earth observations by Mercury astronauts in orbit, particularly by Cooper during MA-9, and the results of camera experiments on the last three orbital missions led to increased use of cameras aboard Gemini and later spacecraft, sometimes for military-sponsored experiments. The 76-lb. periscope was originally to have been deleted for MA-8 and replaced by a 16-mm camera for ultraviolet studies, but the troubles experienced during MA-7 led to its retention for further flight experiments. The periscope was deleted for MA-9 and all other one-day flights, as suggested by Carpenter after MA-7 (Swenson, This New Ocean, pages 490, 596 fn 82) and Schirra after MA-8. “Freedom 7-II” (the unused s/c 15B for MA-10) has no periscope. I myself [Roger E. Moore] did not see evidence of a periscope on the unused s/c 17 in Dayton (see description later). Special cameras, used by the astronaut or mounted somewhere on the spacecraft, would likely have taken the periscope’s place on advanced Mercury missions, as happened on MA-9; Cooper described his spacecraft as “practically a flying camera” during one news conference. The TV camera used aboard “Faith 7” to show his face during the flight was considered for military satellite use. Military photoreconnaissance on American manned missions essentially began during MA-9, when Cooper took photos of Communist China from orbit, though he stated he did not take pictures of specific objects.

Extravehicular activity: Little has been mentioned about EVA proposals involving Mercury missions, though it was considered by NASA’s STG in March 1961. It appears that EVA was considered for two-man Mercury Mark II missions only, not for one-man Mark I missions in which it would have been exceedingly risky. However, on April 22, 1963, the Bendix Corporation completed the design and construction of a “Utica” airlock for Mercury spacecraft. The airlock was useful for many experiments, including the collection of micrometeorites, the ejection of objects into space, and the exposing of objects to space for observation and retrieval. The airlock, being modular in construction, could be fitted to later Gemini and Apollo spacecraft as well. A fictional account of an emergency Mercury EVA—with the expected dangers—occurs in Caidin’s Marooned, during the rescue of the stranded astronaut.

Ferry vehicle: The use of a “space ferry loaded with a Mercury capsule” was discussed in October 1961 at a NASA meeting as part of orbital training in docking techniques for astronauts, prior to an Apollo lunar journey. The proposal came from Paul J. DeFries of the Marshall Space Flight Center. No further details on

Moore NO GO 16

this concept are available, so it is uncertain if a one-man Mercury or a two-man Mercury Mark II was meant for this use, or how the spacecraft was to be configured.

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 overall structure and endangered the pilot during reentry by reducing heat protection. This and the modular systems concept (see “Modular plug-in systems,” later in this section) were generated to turn Mercury from an experimental spacecraft into an operational one. Mercury, with so many systems packed so tightly together, was extremely difficult to repair and upgrade; whenever anything had to be fixed, only one man at a time could get into the pilot’s hatch. In April 1961, NASA contracted with McDonnell for the Mercury Mark II (in whatever form it took) to have some vehicle parts placed outside the pressurized compartment for ease of access.

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 self-contained 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 orbital maneuverability” and “Improved reentry maneuverability,” which follows. On April 5, 1960, NASA’s STG looked at a similar proposal that would give lift capability to the Mercury using a reentry control navigation system. The system would include a stable platform, a digital computer, possibly a star tracker, and associated electronic equipment for the above. This would improve touchdown targeting to within 10 miles of the predicted point. A prototype system was to be delivered to NASA in February 1961, the first qualified system (Modification I) by August 1961, and the final qualified system (Modification II) by January 1962. Four navigation systems were anticipated for use.

Improved orbital maneuverability: As early as 1959, designs were considered for Mercury spacecraft to have maneuvering rockets or an attached upper stage with a restartable engine to make minor orbital changes. In most proposals, orbital maneuvers would be improved by adding a propulsion adapter with rockets and fuel to the Mercury (assumedly behind the heat shield, where the retropack was), controlled by inertial or other guidance. The adapter would allow the spacecraft to change its altitude from 90 to 150 nautical miles, change its orbital plane angle, rotate its line of apsides, and perform “catch up” maneuvers. McDonnell’s September 1959 proposal along this line was eventually rejected, though an October 1959 meeting for NASA’s STG showed some interest in combining some of these proposals to create an advanced Mercury. The concept of orbital maneuvering arose again 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, however, used many of these ideas.

Improved reentry maneuverability: McDonnell’s September 1959 report (mentioned earlier) explored giving the Mercury lift characteristics to change its reentry path for a more accurate and precise ocean touchdown. McDonnell suggested the addition of an external trim-flap device, with radar or inertial guidance, to improve reentry targeting. Other proposals to improve reentry targeting surfaced at a January 1960 meeting between NASA’s Flight Systems Division and Engineering and Contracts Division. Here, Caldwell C. Johnson suggested using rotors mounted on Mercury to do this, and H. Kurt Strass proposed enlarging the spacecraft’s heat shield, adding half-ringed flaps that could be extended from the afterbody next to the heat shield to give subsonic lifting powers. In April 1960, NASA’s STG looked at giving lift capability to the Mercury by adding a reentry control navigation system (see “Improved guidance”). A June 1960 STG document included several types of lifting Mercuries being considered, among them one with a deployable, rectangular flap (see illustration in Project Gemini Technology and Operations, page 5).

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

Moore NO GO 17

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 (paraglider) 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. STG Director Robert R. Gilruth suggested in June 1959 that a follow-on Mercury program explore using maneuverable Mercury spacecraft for land landings at predetermined spots. An STG design study was begun in May 1961 to combine a lifting Mercury (see “Improved reentry maneuverability,” this section) with a paraglide landing system; this program was moved into Project Gemini later. (See the illustration in Project Gemini Technology and Operations, page 9, of one concept using a detachable heat shield as a skid-type landing leg.) Most Rogallo wing studies were intended for the two-man Mark II, not the one-man Mark I.

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 minimum length of time required for a “no-frills” circumlunar or lunar-landing flight—thus, the great interest in weeklong 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 in a September 1959 report from McDonnell and at a NASA meeting on January 20, 1961. This latter 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. This idea arose in April 1961 when NASA contracted with McDonnell for the Mercury Mark II (in whatever form it took) to have some vehicle parts placed outside the pressurized compartment. Indeed, on MA-10, extra batteries and water were mounted on the heat shield by the retropack to sustain the astronaut on his long-duration flight.

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 in a shirtsleeve environment before returning to Earth. The gross weight of the whole combination at launch would be 7,259 lbs. Diagrams and weight breakdowns of this vehicle appear in On the Shoulders of Titans, page 24, and Project Gemini Technology and Operations, pages 5-6. McDonnell’s original report was completed on August 24, 1960, revised on October 28, 1960, and presented to NASA on January 5-6, 1961.

However, H. Kurt Strass and other members of NASA’s STG 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.

Moore NO GO 18

(See illustration in Skylab: A Chronology, page 15.) At a NASA meeting on January 20, 1961, the possibility was mentioned of having a Mercury dock with a space station already in orbit.

Rendezvous and docking: 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; the docking satellite could, however, remain attached to the final (orbital insertion) Scout stage. 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. A rendezvous was proposed between an Echo-type inflatable satellite and a Mercury with additional maneuvering capability (see “Improved orbital maneuverability,” earlier in this section) in August 1961, but this was discarded.

All four Mercury-Atlas astronauts observed their Atlas sustainers for brief periods after orbital insertion and separation from the Atlases. None were able to maneuver closer to the booster or perform stationkeeping (close formation flying in orbit between two spacecraft), as the Mercury was not very maneuverable in orbit. However, this was attempted on Gemini IV and done successfully on Gemini V, each with a Titan II second stage outfitted with flashing lights. A similar operation might have been performed on an advanced Mercury after MA-10. (See “Satellite ejection,” this section.)

One rendezvous mission that was apparently never discussed in reality—being notable for this particular reason—was a rendezvous between a Mercury and a Soviet Vostok. Cold War hostility, secrecy, and paranoia kept this from becoming a reality until the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975. Only in fiction (Caidin’s Marooned) would a Mercury-Vostok rendezvous occur, but only under dire circumstances.

Satellite ejection: Cooper was the first man to deliberately launch a satellite in spaceflight, from “Faith 7” (MA-9). It was a small object, 5.75-inches diameter, with two flashing beacons that was spring-ejected from the retropack on the heat shield. It was designed to test the pilot’s ability to see a nearby space target for later rendezvous operations; the test was a success. The unused Bendix Utica airlock was designed to allow for ejection of small satellites (see “Extravehicular Activity,” this section).

Though Mercury carried no tracking radar, McDonnell and NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC, formerly STG, the Space Task Group) developed during 1962 the concept of a piggyback rendezvous package to be lofted with an early Gemini flight. This led to the creation of the 30-kg. (some sources say 34-kg.) Rendezvous Evaluation Pod (a.k.a. Radar Evaluation Pod) used during the flight of Gemini V, which had tracking radar. A late-model Mercury, had the program continued beyond MA-10, might have been given more orbital maneuvering ability and tracking radar, with its own ejectable REP, to perform these maneuvers. (See “Rendezvous and docking,” this section.)

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 interceptor, also known as [project] 621A) was a USAF-proposed antisatellite system studied at least as far back as 1957. (SAINT was cancelled in December 1962 in the midst of great controversy, not the least element of which was its name.) 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 D-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. Target satellites were to be lofted by Blue Scout for test purposes.

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. For safety reasons, it seems unlikely that a SAINT chosen for a Mercury docking would be the hunter-killer

Moore NO GO 19

type the USAF originally sought before making the vehicle’s mission inspection only. Perhaps the SAINT was to seek and rendezvous with the Mercury as a test of the SAINT system. A manned SAINT was considered but cancelled in June 1962. (See “Rendezvous and docking,” this section.)

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, perhaps in the manner of the MA-5 mission with the chimp Enos, with a potentially longer duration. It is not known which animals or spacecraft configurations were being considered. NASA looked for suggestions on ways to use the flight-ready s/c 15B when MA-10 was cancelled; a deadline of July 15, 1963, was imposed for suggested experiments (mostly involving life-support equipment), but nothing was approved, and the capsule was stored away.

High-speed reentry test: The development of a heat shield that could withstand high-speed reentry by a spacecraft returning from a lunar mission was a high priority in NASA’s early years. In March 1959, H. Kurt Strass and Leo T. Chauvin of Langley’s STG proposed Project Boomerang, a heat shield test on an unmanned Mercury spacecraft. The Mercury would be launched by an advanced Titan (probably the Titan II), pass through part of the Van Allen belts, then reenter the atmosphere at lunar reentry speeds. Project Boomerang was postponed and dropped because of its costs. Later, in a September 1959 report (“Follow On Experiments, Project Mercury Capsules”), McDonnell Aircraft also 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 (36,000 fps). This would let researchers study heating and stability problems during high-speed reentry. NASA ignored this proposal, but it again surfaced, unsuccessfully, during Project Gemini.

Recoverable Meteoroid Penetration Satellite: In June 1962, MSC proposed using an unmanned Mercury spacecraft on a mission to evaluate the dangers of micrometeorites in space, much as the later Pegasus satellites did. Sheets of aluminum would be extended from the spacecraft and exposed to space for two weeks, after which they would be pulled back in before the spacecraft deorbited and was recovered for examination.

Recoverable Orbiting Astronomical Observatory: 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 (s/c 12, 15, 17, and 19) into Orbiting Astronomical Observatories, each with a 76-cm (30-inch) Cassegrainian telescope and six cameras. All interior equipment and the forward pressure bulkhead would be removed for telescope installation. The heat shield and retropack would be retained. An OAO-Mercury would be unmanned, recoverable, and reusable. (Actual OAO spacecraft were not recoverable.) Each mission would last 100-200 days in a 300-mile-altitude Earth orbit, taking 6,000 frames total on 70-mm film. Recovery would be near Bermuda in the Atlantic. 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. The telescope and cameras would weigh 1,340 lbs., and communications, control, and power systems, 1,400 lbs. The Mercury structure, reentry, and recovery systems would weigh 1,990 lbs. A launch vehicle was not given. (See the detailed illustration with that article, noting the “clamshell” top of the spacecraft and the arrangement of recovery devices.)

Alternate Proposed Mercury Astronauts

Even if Project Mercury had been extended to the end of 1963 for mission MA-13, using all available spacecraft and boosters, Group One astronauts (the “Mercury Seven”) were intended to be the sole pilots

Moore NO GO 20

for those flights, to build an experienced core of mission commanders for Project Apollo. The idea of alternate Mercury astronauts still tantalizes, however.

The most famous of these alternate astronauts is, of course, the only one of the Mercury Seven who never flew a Mercury—Slayton, who was cut from MA-7 for health reasons (see “Major Unflown Mercury Missions: Mercury-Atlas 7 (MA-7)”).

During the lifetime of Project Mercury, the USAF chose and trained six pilots for its X-20 Dyna-Soar program (cancelled without a flight in December 1963). The USAF/NASA X-15 program had its own group of suborbital pilots, including NASA test pilot Neil Armstrong. None of these received Mercury training, however, as none was ever considered for it.

By the time the nine NASA’s Group Two astronauts were selected in September 1962, Mercury was already in its terminal phases, and the nine went directly into Gemini and Apollo training. Some Group Two astronauts had been considered for the original Mercury group but failed to make that cut; one of them was USN Lt. Charles “Pete” Conrad, later famed for his Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab exploits. Martin Caidin, in his famous novel Marooned, had a fictitious Group Two astronaut fly MA-10, but this was never planned for in reality.

For a year or two before his assassination in November 1963, President John F. Kennedy attempted to have an African-American airman, USAF Capt. Edward J. Dwight, Jr., brought into the astronaut corps. Capt. Dwight was not accepted for astronaut training under controversial circumstances, though most authorities agree he did not legitimately make the final cut. Even if he had, he would not have flown in Project Mercury, which concluded months before the next astronauts (Group Three) were selected in October 1963. The only African-American selected for actual astronaut training in the 1960s was USAF Major Robert H. Lawrence, Jr., inducted into the semi-secret USAF Gemini B/MOL program in June 1967. He died in an aircraft accident at Edwards AFB in December 1967.

In 1960-1961, thirteen women underwent secret medical tests for NASA at the Lovelace Clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to evaluate their potential performance as astronauts. This group, often called the “Mercury 13” today, at the time called themselves the FLATs, for First Lady Astronaut Trainees. NASA, however, did not consider them for actual flight, as they were not military test pilots. (It has also been suggested that public reaction would have been against women as astronauts, despite Valentina Tereshkova’s groundbreaking flight on Vostok VI, particularly if men and women had to go on space missions together.) Jerrie Cobb, the most notable civilian test pilot in the group, worked for NASA as a consultant once the program was disbanded. Even if she had been made an astronaut, however, Mercury was already accelerating toward a terminal 1963 deadline, and the original group of seven had been in training since 1959; any FLAT chosen would probably have been a Group Two candidate. Online information on the “Mercury 13” is available at: http://www.ninety-nines.org/mercury.html

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). A September 1959 STG discussion brought up the point that advanced Mercury spacecraft (covered in McDonnell’s proposal of that time) might be very heavy and thus require more powerful second-stage propulsion systems with thrust-control and restart abilities to achieve altitudes of up to 150 miles or control reentry for the modified spacecraft.

Moore NO GO 21

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 version of the Atlas for 1959.

The Atlas D itself was upgraded during the Mercury program. The upper sections were strengthened following the disastrous MA-1 flight. The Atlas for MA-8 used an improved MA-5 engine that eliminated pad hold-down and smoothed out engine performance during flight; this system was used on MA-9 as well.

After MA-9, NASA briefly considered a plan to use one of the Atlases left over from the Mercury program as a micrometeoroid satellite. An instrumented Atlas would be placed into orbit, as was done during Project SCORE in December 1958, and micrometeoroid impact on the large surface area of the vehicle would be recorded. This was not done, but, curiously, an unflown Mercury was considered for exactly the same mission (see Proposed Unmanned Mercury Missions: Recoverable Meteoroid Penetration Satellite, in the previous section).

UNFLOWN MERCURY MISSIONS: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Air University. Air University Library. “Eisenhower Years: 1953-1960” (updated June 12, 2001) http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/school/awc/au18003c.htm (accessed June 24, 2001), and “Kennedy and Johnson Years: 1961-1968” (updated June 12, 2001) http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/school/awc/au18003d.htm (accessed June 24, 2001). Air University, Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL. Background and description of USAF’s SAINT project.

“Apollo Study May Have Vast Effects,” Missiles and Rockets (April 23, 1962); page 15. Insertion of Mercury flight to fill gap between three-orbit and eighteen-orbit flights; MA-8 being considered to stretch standard capsule life-support to its maximum.

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

“Astronauts, Top NASA Leadership Split Over Attempting MA-10 Shot,” Missiles and Rockets (May 27, 1963); pages 16-17. Status of and debate over MA-10 flight, with many MA-9 flight details.

“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.

Benford, Timothy B., and Brian Wilkes. The Space Program Quiz & Fact Book. New York: Harper & Row, 1985; pages 27, 29, 83, 200, 206. FLATs, Group 2, and why Shepard named his Mercury “Freedom 7.”

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.

Butler, Chris. “Modified Propulsion Proves Itself,” Missiles and Rockets (October 8, 1962); page 13. Improved Rocketdyne MA-5 engine used for MA-8 flight.

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.

Moore NO GO 22

Chun, Lt. Col. Clayton K. S. “A Falling Star: SAINT, America’s First Antisatellite System,” Quest (Summer 1998); pages 44-48. A detailed look at the SAINT system and history, with a good partially dimensioned drawing of the satellite itself.

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 mission used 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.

Coughlin, William J. “Editorial: Speak Up, Mr. Secretary,” Missiles and Rockets (June 18, 1962); page 46. Details on the controversial cancellation of the manned SAINT project.

Coughlin, William J. “Editorial: That MA-10 Flight,” Missiles and Rockets (June 3, 1963); page 46. Editorial supporting decision to cancel MA-10; concern over effects of a space disaster described.

David, Heather M. “Schirra Conducts New Biomed Tests,” Missiles and Rockets (October 8, 1962); page 14. MA-8 medical experiments, with commends on projected MODM experiments. If s/c 19 had been used after MA-8, some of these experiments might have been used on it as well.

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 18, 29, 81-82. This document is available through the Internet at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/cover.htm (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) http://xenon.Stanford.edu/~rsf/CapsuleLocations.html (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) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/index.html (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #10” (updated November 17, 1999) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/ME-10.html (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #15B” (updated November 17, 1999) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/mc-15.html (accessed June 17, 2001); “Mercury #17” (updated November 17, 1999) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/mc-17.html (accessed June 17, 2001).

Grimwood, James M., and Barton C. Hacker, with Peter J. Vorzimmer. Project Gemini Technology and Operations: A Chronology (NASA SP-4002). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Division, Office of Technology Utilization, 1969; pages 1-9, 12-15. Much information appears here on the development of the Mercury Mark II and various proposals involving it.

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology (NASA SP–4001). Washington, D.C.: NASA Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 1963; pages 32, 33, 36, 39, 41, 43, 47-48, 49-50, 56-59, 65, 74, 85,

Moore NO GO 23

117, 128, 132-133, 143, 145, 146, 167, 179, 192, 207, 214. This is an essential Project Mercury reference. This book is available online at: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4001/contents.htm/

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), 113, 115, 117-118, 131, 228-231, 246-248, 255, 257, 418. This document is available online from NASA as On The Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4203/cover.htm).

“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) http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/mercury/ma10.html (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.

Lagerstedt, Ilpo. “Mercury Atlas 10” (no date) http://www.helinski.fi/~lagerste/mercury-atlas10.html (accessed September 29, 2001). Despite problems with spelling and grammar, this Finnish webpage has interesting information on the MA-10 mission.

Moore NO GO 24

“MA-7 Success Might Bring Series Near End,” Missiles and Rockets (May 14, 1962); page 14. MA-8 anticipated to close out the three-orbit flights, but might go for seven orbits.

“MA-9 Boosts Hopes for Tenth Mission,” Missiles and Rockets (May 20, 1963); pages 10, 12-16. Details on MA-9 mission and considerations for MA-10.

“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, Michael J. Space in Miniature #5: Mercury. Gilbert, Ariz.: Space in Miniature, 1999. MA-10 information.

Mackowski, Mike. Space in Miniature – Reference Books for Space Model Builders. “Capsule Differences” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc1.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Mission Notes” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc2.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Capsule Configuration Table” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc3.html (accessed November 8, 2001). MA-10 information.

“Manned Military Satellites May Use MA-9-type TV,” Missiles and Rockets (May 20, 1963); page 12. Military photoreconnaissance during MA-9.

“Mercury 7 a Month Away,” Missiles and Rockets (April 16, 1962); page 12. Changes planned for three-orbit flights.

“Missiles and Rockets Sixth Annual World Missiles/Space Encyclopedia 1962,” Missiles and Rockets (July 30, 1962); page 41-56+ (page 42, “Mercury (NASA)”). Two MA flights, 3-6 orbits, after Carpenter.

Morse, Mary Louise, and Jean Kernahan Bays. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology (NASA SP-4009), Volume 2. Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, 1973; page 105.

“NASA Considers Six-Orbit Mission For MA-8 Flight,” Missiles and Rockets (June 4, 1962); pages 15-17, 36, 39. Change from three-orbit to six-orbit mission for MA-8, plus Slayton controversy mentioned.

“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.

“No Apollo Slowdown: Webb,” Missiles and Rockets (June 3, 1963); pages 14-16. Discussion of why MA-10 was not flown.

Moore NO GO 25

Phelps, J. Alfred. They Had a Dream: The Story of African-American Astronauts. Novato, Calif.: Presidio Press, 1994; pages 1-46. Superb book on the topic; section noted covers the Dwight controversy.

“Planetary Flight Is Major NASA Goal,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (June 22, 1959); page 130-135. Note photo of model of Mercury-Jupiter and compare to that shown in “Project Mercury Test Vehicles,” immediately below. The adapter between the Jupiter booster and the Mercury payload differs between the two pictures, and it is possible the adapter’s final shape was not finalized when the project was cancelled. The current location of this unique model is unknown.

“Project Mercury Test Vehicles,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (April 27, 1959); page 29. Note illustration of Mercury-Jupiter vehicle and compare the adapter’s shape to that in “Planetary Flight Is Major NASA Goal,” immediately above 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.

Siddiqi, Asif A. Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 (NASA SP-2000-4408). Washington, D.C.: NASA History Division, Office of Policy and Plans, 2000; pages 576-590. This astounding work is both scholarly and readable, and it discloses shocking details about the circumstances of the catastrophic Soyuz I mission.

Slayton, Donald K., and Michael Cassutt. Deke! U.S. Manned Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 1995; pages 95, 101, 110-113, 115, 122, 127-134. Slayton controversy covered, and Slayton’s intended name for his MA-7 spacecraft is revealed (“Delta 7”). Interesting items on MA-9 flight and MA-10, plus proposed female and African-American astronauts.

Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution Online Collections. “Smithsonian Online Collections” (no date) http://digilib.si.edu/main.asp (accessed November 13, 2001). Go to Search, then perform a text search for “mercury” to view an assortment of Mercury spacecraft in the museum’s collection (some on loan).

“Soviets Indicate Lunar Landing Set For 1965,” Missiles and Rockets (June 18, 1962); page 32. This article and the one called “One-Man, One-Way Moon Trip Urged” appear to form the basis for the fictional Mercury mission detailed in the novel The Pilgrim Project.

“Spacecraft Due for $1.2 Billion,” Missiles and Rockets (April 9, 1962); pages 12-13. Four MODM flights planned for 1963. Capsule modifications for MODM flights are described.

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, 600 fn 37, 638-640. This document is available online from NASA as This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/toc.htm).

Taylor, Hal. “Lunar Drive Gets $4-billion Push,” Missiles and Rockets (January 22, 1962); pages 16-17, 33. Mercury certain to be phased out in 1963; budget projections low.

Taylor, Hal. “MA-6 Speeds Spaceflight Plans,” Missiles and Rockets (February 26, 1962); pages 13-14. Interview with Mr. Brainerd on extra three-orbit Mercury flights.

Moore NO GO 26

Taylor, Hal. “NASA Weighs MA-10 Possibility,” Missiles and Rockets (April 1, 1963); page 14. MA-10 considerations.

Taylor, Hal. “One-Day Flight Plans Pushed,” Missiles and Rockets (October 8, 1962); pages 12-13. Results of MA-8, changes in plans for MODM.

“The Countdown: Washington: Atlas Proposed as Satellite,” Missiles and Rockets (May 27, 1963); page 9. Atlas micrometeoroid satellite proposed.

“The Countdown: Washington: Camera to Replace Periscope in MA-8,” Missiles and Rockets (July 23, 1962); page 9. Periscope for MA-8 to be replaced by 16-mm camera (but this was not actually done).

“The Countdown: Washington: First One-Day Mercury Shot Slips,” Missiles and Rockets (July 16, 1962); page 9. Four eighteen-orbit Mercury missions originally planned likely to be cut to only two.

“The Countdown: Washington: Gemini Moon Orbit Doubtful,” Missiles and Rockets (May 7, 1962); page 9. Problems associated with a lunar Gemini mission.

“The Countdown: Washington: How About Naming It Fundless 7?” Missiles and Rockets (June 17, 1963); page 9. Three Mercury spacecraft left after MA-9.

“The Countdown: Washington: NASA Seeks Use for MA-10 Capsule,” Missiles and Rockets (June 3, 1963); page 9. Unmanned mission considered for MA-10.

“The Missile/Space Week: Cooper to Pilot MA-9,” Missiles and Rockets (November 19, 1962); page 8. If MA-9 is successful, MA-10 will be cancelled.

“The Missile/Space Week: Late Mercury Developments,” Missiles and Rockets (May 21, 1962); page 7. Slayton controversy, removal from MA-7. Slayton was eligible to pilot later Mercury flights if his heart condition was seen to have improved, though it did not at that time. [Note: Slayton did fly on the ASTP mission in 1975, when his heart condition had mostly subsided.]

“The Missile/Space Week: MA-10 Decision This Week,” Missiles and Rockets (June 10, 1963); page 10. 100-hour flight urged.

“The Missile/Space Week: Manned Saint Cancellation,” Missiles and Rockets (June 18, 1962); page 11.

“The Missile/Space Week: Mercury Gone, Holmes Going,” Missiles and Rockets (June 17, 1963); page 10. MA-10 cancelled.

“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) http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf5.htm (accessed June 16, 2001). Large excellent color photograph with links to two others, showing one side of s/c 17 and its control panel.

Wade, Mark. Encyclopedia Astronautica. “Your Flight Has Been Cancelled…” (updated February 6, 2001) http://www.astronautix.com/articles/youelled.htm (accessed September 10, 2001). This article inspired me, and I updated and corrected parts of it here. See also “Mercury Mark I” (updated March 12, 2001) http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mermarki.htm (accessed October 7, 2001).

Wilks, Willard E. “One-Man, One-Way Moon Trip Urged,” Missiles and Rockets (June 25, 1962); pages 16-17. Two Bell Aerospace Systems engineers proposed this idea at an Institute of Aerospace Sciences

Moore NO GO 27

meeting in June 1962. Unmanned cargo vessels would supply the lone astronaut for up to three years before his rescue by a regular Apollo spacecraft. This proposal formed the basis for the novel The Pilgrim Project, but the original proposal involved an “Apollo-like capsule.” Much information on the one-way mission is given here, including details on cargo resupply vehicles. One-man, one-way missions to Mars and Venus are also considered in this article, which is breathtaking (and sort of crazy) when you think about it.

Wolfe, Tom. The Right Stuff. New York: Bantam Books, 1980; pages 305-308, 354-365. Brief discussion of Shepard’s MA-10 mission and Slayton’s situation.

==========

III. Fictional Mercury Missions

Elements of Project Mercury were rapidly adopted into many parts of mainstream American culture, from postage stamps to toy astronaut dolls (Hasbro’s G.I. Joe). Media fiction also made use of Mercury, drawing from actual space events and NASA plans (some never used) as the kernel of reality around which the stories grew. Of particular interest are two remarkable space-technothriller novels from 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 for the Mercury (now a three-man Apollo CSM), Vostok (Soyuz), and Gemini (an Air Force lifting body).

Real elements: See “Unflown Mercury Spacecraft: Spacecraft 15,” “Unflown Mercury Missions: Mercury-Atlas 10 (MA-10),” and “Modeling Unflown Mercury Configurations: Unflown Advanced Missions: MA-10, “Freedom 7-II” (Spacecraft 15B).”

As mentioned earlier, this novel and its updated later version (and movie form) had some influence over NASA’s emergency planning, leading to changes on the GT-3 mission and to later Apollo and Skylab missions. Recent examination of the relationship between science fiction and the actual space program has shown a remarkable tendency for each to influence the other, creating a powerful synergy in which the themes and ideas from SF lead to changes in real-space planning, which then creates new situations and possibilities for SF to explore. For further reading, see the following books.

Burrows, William E. This New Ocean: The Story of the First Space Age. New York: Modern Library, 1999.

Emme, Eugene M. (editor). Science Fiction and Space Futures, Past and Present (AAS History Series, Volume 5). San Diego, Calif.: American Astronautical Society Publications Office, 1982.

Ordway, Frederick I., III, and Randy Liebermann (editors). Blueprint for Space: Science Fiction to Science Fact. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.

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 is sent on a one-way trip to the Moon. He is to survive there in a large shelter sent to a designated landing area by Saturn IB, shortly before his liftoff. The

Moore NO GO 28

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 body of the Soviet cosmonaut, who got to the Moon first but died after landing from an explosion in his spacecraft. 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 on a white LM base.

Real elements: See “Unflown Mercury Missions: Advanced Mercury Missions and Configurations: Circumlunar and lunar-landing flight.” The one-man, one-way lunar ticket was given little serious consideration at NASA, as the risk involved for the gain received was entirely unacceptable—which, of course, did not stop anyone from playing with the idea anyway. (You never know.) As noted earlier in this document, Mr. Searls heard a proposal for a one-man, one-way lunar mission at an IAS conference in June 1962, and he drew heavily from that report to create this work.

Capitol Arts & Entertainment, and Fox Family Channel (producers). Rocket’s Red Glare. 2000; 94 minutes.

This made-for-cable-TV movie (which this author has not yet seen) tells about a teenager (played by Ryan Merriman) and his ex-astronaut grandfather (Robert Wagner) who build a working replica of a Mercury-Redstone launch vehicle, which comes in handy when NASA requires it for a space-shuttle rescue mission. The boy, of course, gets to be the pilot. Parts of this movie were filmed at Vandenberg AFB, with guest appearances by astronauts Alan Bean and Gordon Cooper, playing themselves. Further details will be given on this movie when they become available. One online reviewer (Dave Akin, in a message to Yahoo! group “space-modelers” dated November 9, 2001, 5:38 p.m., “Re: [space-modelers] Mercury Missions from Media Fiction”) states that his own research shows that a Redstone, even with clustered solid-fuel strap-on motors, could not get a Mercury into Earth orbit.

Real elements: The general idea here is clearly along the line of Caidin’s novel Marooned, except that the Mercury spacecraft is the rescue vehicle, not the disabled one in need of assistance. Good old American know-how, especially that of good old American teenagers (who seem to know everything), appears to be the core of the movie.

Online information on this movie, including outtakes, is available at:http://www.sciflicks.com/rockets_red_glare/http://www.youarego.com/rrg.html (computerized flight simulations)http://www.af.mil/news/May2000/n20000510_000705.html (Vandenberg AFB notes)http://www.wonderworksweb.com/Ships2.html (movie props)http://www.wonderworksweb.com/Suits2.html (movie props)

Sheldon, Sidney (producer), Columbia Pictures Television. “I Dream of Jeannie” TV series. NBC, 1965-1970 (many reruns up to the current date).

Anyone who has seen the introductory cartoon for an episode of the TV show, “I Dream of Jeannie,” remembers the (very Mercury-like) space capsule floating down by parachute to a deserted tropical island, where the lone astronaut opens the hatch to find a bottle with a female genie inside. This was pretty much how the first episode of this famous comedy series began. A lone astronaut, USAF Captain Anthony Nelson (actor Larry Hagman) returns to Earth from an aborted space mission to find himself stranded on a deserted island far from his recovery force. While waiting, he finds a bottle containing a magical genie (“Jeannie,” played by Barbara Eden), and the tale is off and running. Film clips of assorted Mercury launches are seen in other early TV episodes, replaced by other NASA spacecraft as the series (and NASA missions) progressed. Nelson was promoted to major during the course of the show’s five-year run, and he and Jeannie married on an episode broadcast in December 1969.

Moore NO GO 29

Real elements: Major Nelson’s castaway predicament is a bit like Carpenter’s situation on MA-7. The characters on this comedy have personalities curiously reversed in certain ways from those of real-life Mercury astronauts and their wives, per certain space-age tell-all books like Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff and Walt Cunningham’s All-American Boys. Jeannie is a seductive (monogamous) extravert with romance and adventure on her mind, and Major Nelson is a serious, no-nonsense (monogamous) military man driven to distraction by Jeannie’s antics, which threaten to expose his “normal” personal life as anything but.

Some information on this show is available from: Brooks, Tim, and Earle Marsh. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows, 1946-Present (fifth edition). New York: Ballantine Books, 1992; page 420. Useful online websites on this show are found at http://www.idreamofjeannie.com/ (a nicely done fan website) and http://www.spe.sony.com/tv/shows/sgn/jeannie/home.html (the official website, complete with introductory cartoon and theme song).

Walt Disney Productions (producer). Lt. Robin Crusoe, U.S.N. 1966; 110 minutes.Ford, Bill. Lt. Robin Crusoe, U.S.N. New York: Tempo, 1966 (novelization).

A Navy pilot with an unfortunate name (played by Dick Van Dyke) bails out over a Pacific island when his jet’s engines malfunction. Through a series of misadventures, he meets an attractive native woman he calls Wednesday (Nancy Kwan), as well as a card-playing, pistol-toting chimpanzee named Floyd, who wears blue trunks. Lt. Crusoe learns that Floyd is a castaway himself, a NASA space chimp whose Mercury spacecraft landed on the island several years earlier. This Walt Disney movie was the sixth top-grossing film of 1966, a comedy blockbuster for its time, though recent reviewers have been much less kind to it. (Film critic Leonard Maltin gives it a “bomb” rating.) Released on video from Disney in 1988, the movie has not appeared since, except on e-Bay.

Real elements: A chimpanzee named Enos made two orbits of the Earth in a Mercury spacecraft (mission MA-5) in 1961, after another chimp made a suborbital Mercury flight earlier that year (MR-2). Both flights suffered serious but nonfatal mishaps. Ham’s Mercury missed its landing area by over 100 miles, and Enos’s Mercury developed mechanical problems that forced a mission abort after two orbits.

How Floyd got out of his Mercury is unresolved, as the hatch on each of the two real chimp flights could be removed only from the outside, and each chimp was carefully strapped into his special couch. Poker and marksmanship were also not parts of NASA’s primate program, as far as is known. This, however, was a Disney movie, and one cannot quibble too much.

Real space primates had distinct personalities, attested to in many accounts, particularly in reports by people who worked closely with the chimpanzees. MR-2 occupant Ham, the first “astrochimp,” was said to be “exceptionally frisky and in good humor” before his flight, and the chief veterinarian for the MA-5 primate flight described space chimp Enos as “quite a cool guy and not the performing type at all” (Swenson, Grimwood, and Alexander, This New Ocean, pages 314, 400). A review of the literature on chimpanzees and gorillas observed in the wild by many researchers reveals a powerful and universal tendency to anthropomorphize them, and for good reason, as wild primates clearly display emotion, communicate among themselves, form social units, invent and use tools, and so on.

Wollheim, Donald A. Mike Mars at Cape Canaveral (Mike Mars #3). New York: Doubleday, 1961.Wollheim, Donald A. Mike Mars in Orbit (Mike Mars #4). New York: Doubleday, 1961.Wollheim, Donald A. Mike Mars Flies the Dyna-Soar (Mike Mars #5). New York: Doubleday, 1962.

The Mike Mars series of juvenile science-fiction novels came out in the early 1960s and included eight volumes. Each book detailed the adventures of Mike Alfred Robert Samson, an American astronaut who was part of a secret military program called Project Quicksilver (an alternate name for mercury—a space pun, if you will). Young, single test pilots like Mike Samson (a.k.a. Mike “Mars,” using his convenient acronym) made covert flights of new, untried spacecraft before the “real” astronauts did, to work out any bugs before the “real” space flights were made. Project Quicksilver was never revealed to the public.

The third, fourth, and fifth volumes of the Mike Mars series offer descriptions of Mercury space missions. A Mercury-Redstone mission is flown by Mike Mars in Mike Mars at Cape Canaveral, making Mike the first man in space (before Gagarin, even). Mike becomes the first American to orbit the Earth in Mike Mars in Orbit (in a sabotaged spacecraft, too), and he flies a USAF Dyna-Soar spacecraft on a rescue

Moore NO GO 30

mission to a stranded Mercury (as per Caidin’s Marooned) in Mike Mars Flies the Dyna-Soar. Details on these missions are unavailable, as this author hasn’t yet read the books and has relied instead on the reports of SF fans.

The above books came out in softcover form from Paperback Library in 1966, but the third book was retitled Mike Mars at Cape Kennedy.

Real elements: All of the Mike Mars novels made use of space technology and spacecraft known in the early 1960s, though some projects described, like the Dyna-Soar and the X-15/Blue Scout combination (from another Mike Mars book), were never actually flown. Various reviewers have commented on the air of authenticity Mr. Wollheim brought to this series, and it was popular with young male readers.

There is no evidence that NASA considered covert manned space missions in the early 1960s, though the USAF had its own team of military astronauts at the time, training for Dyna-Soar missions. Soviet surveillance of launches from the Cape, using Cuban “fishing trawlers,” was widely known, though no episodes of sabotage occurred.

The fear that a disastrous public space mission would hamper America’s space program permeated Project Mercury, a fear made worse by widely reported unmanned failures such as the MR-1, MA-1, and MA-3 flights, plus coverage of exploding Atlases, Titans, Vanguards, Thors, Junos, etc.

This series theme mirrors, in a curious way, the space-age urban legend that the Soviets made secret but unsuccessful manned space flights before Gagarin, each of which ended with the tragic death of the cosmonaut(s) involved.

The idea of rescuing someone on a stranded Mercury, in book #5, is curious because this book predated the original Marooned by two years. Also, when Marooned came out as a movie in 1969, the USAF’s rescue spacecraft was the “X-RV,” a lifting body similar in ways to the Dyna-Soar.

A brief overview of the series appears in the following: Scala, Keith J. “Mike Mars, Man or Myth?” Quest (Spring 1998); page 57.

Note: The MA-7 mission (Carpenter) makes a cameo appearance at the end of the 1962 James Bond movie, Dr. No, but it is unclear if this appearance was supposed to represent the Mercury mission itself or a lunar flight (referred to earlier in the movie—possibly an Apollo reference instead). Photos of what appears to be a Titan I on its pad also appear on Dr. No’s TV screens in the end scene, apparently meant to be the space mission that Dr. No tried to sabotage. Nothing here is useful for the space-modeler, alas.

==========

IV. Modeling Unflown Mercury Configurations

Extensive lists of model kits of Mercury spacecraft, in a variety of scales, appear in the following sources. The most common and easily available kit is probably the Revell 1:48-scale kit, but kits in 1:32-scale and 1:12-scale are also available at this time.

Mackowski, Michael J. Space in Miniature #5: Mercury. Gilbert, Ariz.: Space in Miniature, 1999; pages 37-45. Many superb kit reviews with extensive information for the space modeler.

Knudson, Sven. Ninfinger Productions: Scale Models. "Ninfinger productions: Spacecraft models" (no date) http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/ models/space_models.html (accessed October 8, 2001); and “Quick Looks” (no date) http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/quick_looks.html (accessed October 8, 2001).

==========

IV A. Unflown Early Missions

Moore NO GO 31

MR-5, “Friendship 7” (Spacecraft #15)

Probably the best version of this strange but entertaining space model would have Glenn’s almost-flown suborbital Mercury spacecraft placed aboard its Redstone, using s/c 15 in its very first configuration. S/c 15 had a window, not portholes, and would have resembled Grissom’s “Liberty Bell 7” externally. “Friendship 7” might be painted on in the same block style as “Liberty Bell 7,” below the pilot window, without the nice logo used on the orbital version (or the painted-on crack for “Liberty Bell 7”); the spacecraft name was selected by Glenn’s family, so it would most likely have been used. Documentation on s/c 15’s initial appearance as a suborbital capsule is difficult to locate. Include Glenn’s nametag if the interior of the craft is shown and if the scale allows (say, for a 1:12-scale model).

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology (NASA SP–4001). Washington, D.C.: NASA Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 1963; pages 145, 214.

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

Slayton, Donald K., and Michael Cassutt. Deke! U.S. Manned Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 1995; page 101.

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 324-325, 377.

MA-7, “Delta 7” (Spacecraft #18)

Slayton’s almost-flown “Delta 7” mission aboard s/c 18 instead became Carpenter’s “Aurora 7.” A full Mercury-Atlas model of this cancelled mission would exactly resemble that for “Aurora 7,” but with a different logo on the spacecraft: “Delta 7,” possibly a colored triangle with a number 7 superimposed. If the interior of this spacecraft is shown and scale permits (for a large, 1:12-scale model, for instance), remember to include Slayton’s nametag on the astronaut.

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.

Kolcum, Edward H. “Glenn Flight Results Spur NASA to Emphasize Man’s Space Role,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (March 19, 1963); page 34. Slayton’s MA-7 flight information before cancellation of flight.

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

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, Donald K., and Michael Cassutt. Deke! U.S. Manned Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 1995; pages 95, 101, 110-113, 115, 122, 130. 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 440-460. This section covers the Slayton controversy and the flight of “Aurora 7.” This document is available online from NASA as This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/toc.htm).

Moore NO GO 32

==========

IV B. Unflown Advanced Missions

MA-10, “Freedom 7-II” (Spacecraft 15B)

The best-documented unflown Mercury mission is unquestionably MA-10, for which a Mercury spacecraft (s/c 15B) exists on public display in nearly complete condition. Extensive references and resources on this mission are available, some of which are reprinted below from elsewhere in this document. This spacecraft is a national treasure, the only one of its kind. Because of the unique detail available on this spacecraft, larger models are preferable—1:12-scale would be ideal, perhaps using a modified version of Revell’s “Astronaut in Space” kit (H-1841) for the Mercury pilot.

Ames Communications Branch (NASA). Ames Research Center News Homepage (updated January 8, 2001) http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/pages/outreachfolder/visitorcenter/visitorcenter.html (accessed June 17, 2001). Webpage contains a museum photo of s/c 15B, “Freedom 7-II.”

“Astronauts, Top NASA Leadership Split Over Attempting MA-10 Shot,” Missiles and Rockets (May 27, 1963); pages 16-17. MA-10 flight details.

Coughlin, William J. “Editorial: That MA-10 Flight,” Missiles and Rockets (June 3, 1963); page 46. Editorial supporting decision to cancel MA-10; concern over effects of a space disaster described.

“Extended MA-10 Flight,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 14, 1963); page 29.

Gerard, James H. A Field Guide to American Spacecraft, “Mercury #15B” (updated November 17, 1999) http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/mercury/mc-15.html (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; pages 177, 180-196. This section covers many of the specific changes made to s/c 15B, some of which paralleled changes to s/c 20 (“Faith 7”). On page 177 is a note about a spacesuit helmet visor improvement made by B. F. Goodrich, a change that might have been made for the astronaut on MA-10. This book is available online at: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4001/contents.htm/

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 229-231. Describes three unique experiments meant for MA-10 but moved to Project Gemini.

Harman, Ken R. “Space Is The Place – Page 2” (no date) http://www.spaceistheplace.ca/space2.htm (accessed September 28, 2001). Among a number of real-space models and dioramas created by Mr. Harmon is a 1/32-scale version of “Freedom 7-II” with interior lighting, built with an escape tower as if for flight (see also under Mackowski, later).

“Industry Observer,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 27, 1963); page 19. Possibility of 100-hour mission for MA-10, consumables needed.

Knudson, Sven. Ninfinger Productions: Scale Models. “Ninfinger Productions: Mercury Photos” (no date) http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/mercury/ma10.html (accessed June 16, 2001). Twenty-nine color photographs of the MA-10 Mercury s/c 15B, “Freedom 7-II,” at the Ames Research Center in California.

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.

Moore NO GO 33

Kolcum, Edward H. “NASA Weighs MA-10; 6-Day Flight Urged,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 27, 1963); page 23. Much detail here on the three- and six-day flights proposed for MA-10.

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.

Lagerstedt, Ilpo. “Mercury Atlas 10” (no date) http://www.helinski.fi/~lagerste/mercury-atlas10.html (accessed September 29, 2001).

“MA-9 Boosts Hopes for Tenth Mission,” Missiles and Rockets (May 20, 1963); pages 10, 12-16. Considerations for MA-10, including planned experiments.

“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. MA-9 (“Faith 7”) did not use the new couch; it is unknown if MA-10 was going to use it.

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

Mackowski, Michael J. Space in Miniature #5: Mercury. Gilbert, Ariz.: Space in Miniature, 1999; pages 14, 27, 37, 51-52. A two-page article by Ken Harman (see earlier, this section) tells how he built a 1/32-scale model of “Freedom 7-II.” See the website following for updated information related to s/c 15B.

Mackowski, Mike. Space in Miniature – Reference Books for Space Model Builders. “Capsule Differences” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc1.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Mission Notes” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc2.html (accessed November 8, 2001); “Capsule Configuration Table” (updated September 30, 2001) http://www.inficad.com/~mjmackowski/ref/merc/merc3.html (accessed November 8, 2001).

“No Apollo Slowdown: Webb,” Missiles and Rockets (June 3, 1963); pages 14-16. Discussion of why MA-10 was not flown. See B&W photo of s/c 15B being assembled on cradle, on page 15.

Slayton, Donald K., and Michael Cassutt. Deke! U.S. Manned Space: From Mercury to the Shuttle. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 1995; pages 122, 127-130. Interesting items on MA-9 flight and MA-10, such as the proposed net couch, which Slayton did not like.

Smithwick, Mike. “Index of /downloads,” Distant Suns. (file dated October 16, 2001) http://www.distantsuns.com/downloads/ (accessed November 8, 2001). This webpage has a 5.4 MB Zip file (freedom_7_II.zip) with 33 color photos of s/c 15B.

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 492, 501, 503, 506, 585 fn 60, 602 fn 51. This is online at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/toc.htm (table of contents).

Taylor, Hal. “NASA Weighs MA-10 Possibility,” Missiles and Rockets (April 1, 1963); page 14. MA-10 considerations, pro and con.

Moore NO GO 34

“The Missile/Space Week: Cooper to Pilot MA-9,” Missiles and Rockets (November 19, 1962); page 8. If MA-9 is successful, MA-10 will be cancelled.

Wilson, Keith T. “Mercury Atlas 10: A Mission Not Flown,” Quest (Winter 1993); pages 22-25. Article with many references.

Wolfe, Tom. The Right Stuff. New York: Bantam Books, 1980; pages 354-365.

MA-10 and later, Six-Day Mission

Some in NASA urged that MA-10 be flown as a six-day mission, though a three-day mission was the most likely outcome. The rationale for a six-day mission is best covered in the article, “NASA Weighs MA-10; 6-Day Flight Urged,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 27, 1963); page 23.

If Project Mercury had continued beyond MA-9, would a six-day mission have been flown? Here, we leave the realm of “almost happened” for the entertaining realm of “what if?” It is not unreasonable to suppose that if MA-10 had been successfully flown for three days, and if money, time, manpower, and sufficient motivation had been available to fly one more Mercury mission before Gemini got underway, then a six-day endurance mission would have been launched. If NASA was considering a one-man circumlunar mission for the mid-1960s (using any sort of spacecraft, possibly in reaction to a similar Soviet mission), or if time had to be shaved from the Gemini schedule, a six-day orbital Mercury mission would have been reasonable. Equipment and experiments later used in Gemini spacecraft might have found their way into MA-11 to receive a preliminary workout, making MA-11 even more of a “bridge” between Projects Mercury and Gemini than MA-10 would have been. The choice of astronaut for a six-day mission is pure conjecture, though a Group 1 astronaut is more likely than a Group 2.

S/c 12B and 17 were both configured for one-day missions, but s/c 17 supplied parts to Cooper’s “Faith 7.” Thus, s/c 12B (perhaps “s/c 12C” after yet another conversion) would have been a likely choice for this mission. This vehicle is in NASA storage at present, but it was apparently gutted at some point in the past and is missing a great many parts, making it difficult to use as a model even if it were placed on public display. An MA-11 version of s/c 12B can be reconstructed for modeling purposes using s/c 15B (“Freedom 7-II”) as the base model. Deciding which systems would have been deleted and which systems added is a challenge for the modeler. A close examination of changes made to the MA-9 and MA-10 spacecraft is recommended, with an eye to keeping the spacecraft within the lift capability of a standard Atlas D. Additional consumables (oxygen, water, and batteries) would likely have been attached to the heat shield, as was done on s/c 15B. Certain modifications proposed for advanced Mercury spacecraft (see next heading) might have been added to this mission, but the bottom line for including them would be the weight involved. Deletion of the periscope is almost certain.

“Extended MA-10 Flight,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 14, 1963); page 29.

“Industry Observer,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (May 27, 1963); page 19.

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

Mercury “Advanced Mark I”

A Mercury model can be changed into any one of a number of advanced configurations that were proposed during the program but not used. A spacecraft for missions MA-11 or later might have flight-tested a number of vehicle improvements that found their way into later Gemini spacecraft. Additions most notable on a scale model (the larger sizes would work best) could include reentry control flaps, more powerful

Moore NO GO 35

orbital maneuvering rockets, an airlock, rendezvous radar and docking equipment, or special antennas or cameras, per earlier notes here. Exact details on many of these proposals are difficult to locate.

An interesting (and probably amusing) modeling challenge would be to build an advanced Mercury of the modeler’s own design, one that he or she would have liked to fly if that had been possible, with a unique logo and personalized cockpit additions and décor.

==========

IV C. Unflown Advanced Missions, Extreme Modifications

The likelihood that any of the following missions would have been flown is very low, but the proposals are quite interesting and show clearly NASA’s long-range thinking for the space program as a whole.

Mercury Orbital Laboratory, Proto-MOL

The USAF Gemini-B/Manned Orbiting Laboratory program was anticipated in great detail during Project Mercury’s early years. Some designs were for two-man advanced Mercury spacecraft, but some were for the one-man version. The following references are best.

Grimwood, James M., and Barton C. Hacker, with Peter J. Vorzimmer. Project Gemini Technology and Operations: A Chronology (NASA SP-4002). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Division, Office of Technology Utilization, 1969; page 6.

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; page 24.

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; page 14.

Mercury Orbital Laboratory, Inflatable Torus

Aside from several illustrations, little else is available on this proposed one-man Mercury and its attached inflatable space station, in the shape of a torus with a dishlike solar collector on the bottom.

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; page 15.

Wade, Mark. Encyclopedia Astronautica. “Mercury Mark I” (updated March 12, 2001) http://www.astronautix.com/ (accessed September 29, 2001). This page reproduces most of the illustration from Newkirk and Ertel’s Skylab; page 15.

==========

IV D. Unflown Unmanned Missions

Recoverable Orbital Astronomical Observatory

A detailed cross-section of an OAO spacecraft made from a Mercury is available with this article.

Moore NO GO 36

“Mercury Capsule Conversion Seen Feasible for Recoverable Telescope,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 11, 1965); page 23.

==========

IV E. Alternate Mercury Launch Vehicles

Mercury-Jupiter

Only the following two articles show illustrations of this cancelled launch-vehicle combination.

“Planetary Flight Is Major NASA Goal,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (June 22, 1959); page 130-135.

“Project Mercury Test Vehicles,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (April 27, 1959); page 29.

Mercury-Atlas-Agena

The following two sources show the same illustration of an Atlas-Agena used to launch a Mercury spacecraft and a space station.

Grimwood, James M., and Barton C. Hacker, with Peter J. Vorzimmer. Project Gemini Technology and Operations: A Chronology (NASA SP-4002). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Division, Office of Technology Utilization, 1969; page 6.

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; page 24.

==========

IV F. Fiction-Based Missions

“Marooned” Diorama

Caidin, Martin. Marooned. New York: Bantam Books, 1965.

The best event from this novel, for purposes of building an action-oriented space diorama, is the climactic rescue of the lone Mercury astronaut by the Soviet cosmonaut in Vostok IX and the American astronaut in the Gemini III spacecraft. The novel provides considerable information on each spacecraft, thought the appearance of the Vostok was not known at the time the novel was written. (Caidin gave the Vostok spotlights, for instance, but this detail can be easily added to a genuine Vostok model as a rescue-mission modification.) The chief trouble in designing this diorama lies in the lack of large scale models of all three spacecraft, to make the spacewalking astronauts look significant and bring drama to the collection. For example, 1:24-scale plastic models of the Vostok and Gemini are available from Revell, but no Mercury in that scale. Experienced scratch-builders will not find this a terrible problem, however. Scale models of astronauts for the above are similarly hard to find; two are required, one Gemini and one Mercury.

“Pilgrim Project” Diorama

Searls, Hank. The Pilgrim Project. New York: Pocket Books, 1978.

Moore NO GO 37

The best diorama of this peculiar Mercury configuration is the landing scene, in which the lone astronaut has left his spacecraft to set foot on the Moon. As with the “Marooned” diorama, the chief problem lies in finding large scale spacecraft for use in the diorama. The best option might be to use a 1:12-scale Mercury, available from one or two sources, with the Revell “Astronaut in Space” kit (much modified) to depict the Moonwalker. A careful read of the novel is required to get the correct appearance of the spacecraft, which had three landing legs.

Insufficient information exists at this time to present Mercury-based dioramas from other media fiction, but this topic is being investigated.

==========

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 s/c 17, down the hall from the Apollo 15 CM and adjacent to the only existing Gemini B spacecraft.

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, though certainly not as many as s/c 12B seems to be missing. 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. The capsule also has no periscope installed, but this was probably intended. I doubt that any Mercury after Cooper’s MA-9 was to have a periscope mounted inside it, as this was deleted for MA-9 to conserve weight for needed life support and batteries on long space missions.

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).

Moore NO GO 38

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. (Interestingly, the mannequin might be a recent addition, as one clear online photo of s/c 17 shows the mannequin is not in the cabin.) 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 (black) shingles and the inner (steel-colored) 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