Author Topic: History of satellite recovery group  (Read 43123 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
History of satellite recovery group
« on: 05/26/2009 03:43 pm »
Here is a declassified history of the 6594th Recovery Group (later the 6594th Test Group) that used C-119 Flying Boxcars and later C-130 Hercules aircraft to recover satellite payloads in midair.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #1 on: 05/26/2009 05:33 pm »
Drool, good find ... thanks ...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #2 on: 05/27/2009 01:21 pm »
Thank you, Dwayne. All this wonderful history you are making accessible to "us" common folk is appreciated.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7979
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6533
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #3 on: 05/27/2009 02:24 pm »
This was done using the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system (or fulton skyhook) which was also used to pickup CIA paramilitary officers and the system was also fit on the Lockheed P2-V Neptune (the aircraft used to design this system)

Nice one there Blackstar, thanks

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #4 on: 05/27/2009 04:45 pm »
It's a different system than the Fulton Skyhook.  I do not know if some of the same people were involved.

This kind of technology has never been fully documented.  For instance, I have a few documents concerned the effort to recover capsules from the ocean.  That would have required a diver team to parachute to the capsule, attach a harness, and then deploy a balloon and cable system.  A low-flying C-130 would then snag it and haul it up.  They conducted some tests, although I do not have good photographs of that.  This would have been a heavy recovery, however.

The system was planned for the Samos E-6 reconnaissance spacecraft.  I have a series of articles that I want to publish on that, but am trying to get in the mood to finish them and submit them.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2009 04:46 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #5 on: 05/27/2009 05:13 pm »
  That would have required a diver team to parachute to the capsule, attach a harness, and then deploy a balloon and cable system.  A low-flying C-130 would then snag it and haul it up. 

It was similar to what was done in the movie Green Berets and Batman, The Dark Knight.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #6 on: 05/27/2009 08:32 pm »
It was similar to what was done in the movie Green Berets and Batman, The Dark Knight.

That was the Fulton Skyhook.  It was apparently developed for/by the CIA, originally using a B-17 (seen in the Bond movie Thunderball).  It was later put on special C-130s for special forces teams.  They used a V-shaped set of poles on the nose of the aircraft to snag a cable.

The system developed for the satellite recovery was apparently similar to the one used for the Corona/Gambit/Hexagon programs.  Instead of using the nose, they trailed a cable behind the plane between two poles, and the cable caught the cable hooked up to the balloon.  So the difference was that the gear was at the back of the plane, rather than at the nose.  I suspect that the rear-mounted version was better for heavier payloads.  I have an interview somewhere where a C-130 pilot says that by the end of the Hexagon program they were catching 2000 pound capsules in midair, which really jerked on the plane.

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7979
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6533
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #7 on: 05/28/2009 07:52 am »
It was similar to what was done in the movie Green Berets and Batman, The Dark Knight.

That was the Fulton Skyhook.  It was apparently developed for/by the CIA, originally using a B-17 (seen in the Bond movie Thunderball).  It was later put on special C-130s for special forces teams.  They used a V-shaped set of poles on the nose of the aircraft to snag a cable.

No, they originally used a P2V Neptune to develop it and run some ops near china and Antarctica (operation cold feet)

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7979
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6533
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #8 on: 05/28/2009 08:42 am »
btw:

anybody with AIAA access get this one:

Catch a Falling Star - Parachute system lessons learned during the USAF space capsule mid-air recovery program, 1959-1985
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=68875

« Last Edit: 05/28/2009 09:37 am by Jester »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #9 on: 05/28/2009 01:52 pm »
Those are some nice images.  Where did you acquire them?  And do you have them in higher resolution?

I think I posted some black and white pics of early tests of the C-130 in this role.  They used the early version of the C-130, with the ugly nose (I think the pilots called it the Roman nose).

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7979
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6533
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #10 on: 05/28/2009 05:09 pm »
Those are some nice images.  Where did you acquire them?  And do you have them in higher resolution?

I think I posted some black and white pics of early tests of the C-130 in this role.  They used the early version of the C-130, with the ugly nose (I think the pilots called it the Roman nose).

I got them here:
http://www.usaf.com/afsoa/spaceopshistory/recovery/recoveryhome.html

this site goes up and down so thats why I grabbed them, maybe contact them for hi-res copies

More pictures here:
http://www.6594thtestgroup.org/64-14858.htm

they have a forum, maybe worth asking around for "stuff"
« Last Edit: 05/28/2009 05:17 pm by Jester »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #11 on: 05/28/2009 05:16 pm »
That bottom picture is interesting.  My suspicion is that it was for a heavier payload, hence a larger diameter parachute.  At some point the chute would have been too big to capture between the two poles hanging out the back of the airplane.  So the solution is to put that little bubble cap on the chute which has a smaller diameter.

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7979
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6533
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #12 on: 05/28/2009 05:21 pm »
That bottom picture is interesting.  My suspicion is that it was for a heavier payload, hence a larger diameter parachute.  At some point the chute would have been too big to capture between the two poles hanging out the back of the airplane.  So the solution is to put that little bubble cap on the chute which has a smaller diameter.

What I don't "get" is why they didnt (not sure but havent come across anything) use the fulton skyhook for sat. canister pickup....it seemed to work fine with human pickup...

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #13 on: 05/28/2009 07:51 pm »
What I don't "get" is why they didnt (not sure but havent come across anything) use the fulton skyhook for sat. canister pickup....it seemed to work fine with human pickup...

I think it has to do with the weight of the object.  The way that the satellite recovery system worked was that they strung a cable out behind the plane between two poles.  The cable was hooked to a winch with a friction brake.  As soon as it caught, a sergeant in the back of the plane engaged the brake, gradually.  This slowed down the cable.  This should have reduced the yank on the plane.

There's another issue--the Fulton was designed to capture a single cable/rope hanging under a balloon.  The satellite system was designed to snag a parachute and multiple shroud lines.

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #14 on: 05/28/2009 08:34 pm »
Interesting article related to this issue in the latest Space Policy magazine, by James David from the National Air & Space Museum:

What should nations reveal about their spying from space? An examination of the US experience

==Abstract

Revelation of the details of countries' space-based reconnaissance programs was unusual until the end of the Cold War, despite debates on the subject within the US government. Since then – and in contrast to Russia – the USA has been more open about its spying activities. This article charts the history of declassification in the USA from the Eisenhower Administration to that of G.W. Bush. It discusses issues such as the need to ensure freedom of space for the operation of spy satellites, gaining public acceptance of space-based reconnaissance by demonstrating the civil uses of such photography, and tradeoffs between revealing one's capabilities and letting others know how closely their actions can be observed.

==Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. The Eisenhower administration
3. The Kennedy administration
4. The Johnson administration
5. The Nixon and Ford administrations
6. The Carter administration
7. The Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations
8. Conclusion


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #15 on: 05/29/2009 01:50 am »
Will have to get a copy of that.  His paper on astronaut photography was excellent.

There is a lot of ground one could cover on the subject.  For example, not too long after the US began flying reconnaissance satellites it shared the imagery with the UK.  It also revealed the fact of the capability to (if I remember correctly) the French.  And one interesting little fact I learned years ago was that the collection of Corona film positives on file in the National Archives was originally the UK's collection.  Apparently there were (I think) 3 complete copies of the film positives.  I think one is in the Earth resources data center in the midwest (the actual name escapes me at the moment).  I don't know/remember what happened to the other one, but it might have been incomplete or damaged and might have been destroyed.

Another factoid off the top of my head: the US has actually endorsed higher resolution commercial satellite photography than the French, who don't think this stuff should be available.  (That is interesting when you consider that in the 1980s, they were the ones who were releasing higher resolution imagery from SPOT and the US was opposed.  Now the positions are reversed.)  The Russians were expected to be a major competitor in the 1990s as far as releasing commercial imagery, but they changed their minds.

But we're now off-topic.  Thanks for the tip-off.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #16 on: 05/31/2009 03:48 pm »
Gusess what I found.

http://6594thtestgroup.org/

Hopefully more info will be added later

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #17 on: 05/31/2009 04:16 pm »
Gusess what I found.

http://6594thtestgroup.org/

Hopefully more info will be added later

This could be a BINGO ! someday.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #18 on: 05/31/2009 04:33 pm »
Well, well, well...

Some interesting things there.  See the next post.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #19 on: 05/31/2009 04:34 pm »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #20 on: 05/31/2009 04:34 pm »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #21 on: 05/31/2009 04:36 pm »
Now look at the two images posted above, taken from that website.  Note the capsule that they were training with.  Note how much bigger it was than the Discoverer/Corona/Gambit capsule.

Okay, I won't spoil the surprise--this appears to be our first public image of the KH-9 HEXAGON capsule (a training version, anyway).  it is actually a little smaller than I expected, but imagine four of these stacked alongside each other on a KH-9 "Big Bird" satellite.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #22 on: 05/31/2009 04:41 pm »
Those are some nice images.  Where did you acquire them?  And do you have them in higher resolution?

I think I posted some black and white pics of early tests of the C-130 in this role.  They used the early version of the C-130, with the ugly nose (I think the pilots called it the Roman nose).

The C-130 and the C-124 were both ugly until they got the radar nose.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #23 on: 05/31/2009 04:42 pm »
Another comment about the bottom photo.  That is a Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King helicopter.  Anybody who has read my stuff over the years knows that for inexplicable reasons I like that aircraft.  (Also like the Sky Crane--Sikorsky made some nice helicopters.)

Anyway, one thing that I note is that it is in USAF markings.  I was unaware that the USAF operated the Sea King.  They certainly operated related aircraft, like the one on the top, the H-3 "Jolly Green Giant."  They were most famous as search and rescue helos in Vietnam.  You can find that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-61R

It's possible that the USAF also had Sea Kings that we knew about (and I was ignorant of them), but this raises an eyebrow for another reason: the helicopter appears to be in US Navy markings.  The paint scheme for the forward part of the aircraft looks Navy.  The aft part is pretty dirty, which is odd.  I wouldn't think that they'd let their aircraft get that crappy looking before they cleaned it up.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #24 on: 05/31/2009 04:46 pm »
The C-130 and the C-124 were both ugly until they got the radar nose.

Even then, I'm not sure anybody would call either aircraft attractive.  The 124 in particular looks like a cartoon aircraft.

The C-130 is a little better.  At least it is a little utilitarian.  I've long harbored a view about "ugly" aircraft.  There's "ugly" and then there's "ugly/cool."  The B-52 and the A-10 Warthog both fit the latter category--neither one is pretty, but you respect their looks.  There's other planes, like the 124, that are just ugly and don't generate any respect.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #25 on: 05/31/2009 04:52 pm »

Okay, I won't spoil the surprise--this appears to be our first public image of the KH-9 HEXAGON capsule (a training version, anyway).  it is actually a little smaller than I expected, but imagine four of these stacked alongside each other on a KH-9 "Big Bird" satellite.

I have been trying to find the photos of T-IIID/34D's with the four doors in the fairing for our thread on T-IIID.  I can't find mine.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #26 on: 05/31/2009 06:40 pm »
The C-130 and the C-124 were both ugly until they got the radar nose.

Even then, I'm not sure anybody would call either aircraft attractive.  The 124 in particular looks like a cartoon aircraft.

The C-130 is a little better.  At least it is a little utilitarian.  I've long harbored a view about "ugly" aircraft.  There's "ugly" and then there's "ugly/cool."  The B-52 and the A-10 Warthog both fit the latter category--neither one is pretty, but you respect their looks.  There's other planes, like the 124, that are just ugly and don't generate any respect.

The C-124 could generate a little concern and fear when you are in a 3 story high school at the end of a runway that is hidden by trees and you can hear the warmup and then the takeoff run. When that beast came over the trees with the roaring radials and the ground shaking you had to be relieved you were still ok. Like the B-24 the C-124 does have some good angles.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2009 06:40 pm by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #27 on: 05/31/2009 10:24 pm »
What I don't "get" is why they didnt (not sure but havent come across anything) use the fulton skyhook for sat. canister pickup....it seemed to work fine with human pickup...

I think it has to do with the weight of the object.  The way that the satellite recovery system worked was that they strung a cable out behind the plane between two poles.  The cable was hooked to a winch with a friction brake.  As soon as it caught, a sergeant in the back of the plane engaged the brake, gradually.  This slowed down the cable.  This should have reduced the yank on the plane.
...

It was also an analysis of the failure modes. Trouble with the front mounted arrangement was that it didn't accept the loads, nor when it could fail did it do so as gracefully - could bring down the aircraft in some cases.

With the rear mount, the load was where a cargo would be anyways, so all you had to cope with was flattening out the peak pulse by stretching it out ... including a slight dive.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline rolfkap

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Missouri, United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #28 on: 06/01/2009 03:16 pm »
Anyway, one thing that I note is that it is in USAF markings.  I was unaware that the USAF operated the Sea King.  They certainly operated related aircraft, like the one on the top, the H-3 "Jolly Green Giant."  They were most famous as search and rescue helos in Vietnam.
They apparently had 3 ex-Navy SH-3As as CH-3As.  Serial numbers would seem to match.
62-12571/12573      Sikorsky CH-3A
            ex-Navy SH-3A (149009,149011,149012)
            Redesignated CH-3B in 1962.

Offline rolfkap

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Missouri, United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #29 on: 06/01/2009 04:14 pm »
Additional interesting information is available here:
http://usafhpa.org/6593rd/6593%20Hawaii.html

Similar drone operations are shown here:
http://usafhpa.org/6514/6514TS.html
http://usafhpa.org/432drone/drone.htm

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #30 on: 06/02/2009 01:51 am »
That's pretty neat.  Thanks for the information.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #31 on: 06/10/2009 12:09 am »
Additional interesting information is available here:
http://usafhpa.org/6593rd/6593%20Hawaii.html

Now this site is rather interesting.  It has some information that I have not previously seen.  Here's a quote:

"As the spy satellite program (Corona Harvest) progressed, new and more sophisticated satellites were developed and the size of at least one of these, code named SAMOS, precluded midair recovery. It was decided that a helicopter recovery using swimmers and buoyancy equipment similar to that utilized by the Navy in support of astronaut recovery could be developed. Johnston Island, some 800 miles southwest of the Hawaiian Islands, would be the approximate aiming point for the SAMOS vehicles and H-21s were the helicopter of choice for the recovery aircraft."

I doubt that they ever used the term "Corona Harvest" officially.  Corona was a code word that was above top secret (it was a BYEMAN controlled term), and I doubt that anybody in the recovery group, even the commander, knew that name. 

However, the rest of that quote is pretty interesting.  What they're referring to is the Samos E-6 program, which used a recovery vehicle based upon the RVX-2 reentry shape.  It was very pointy.  Also pretty darned big.  A little more in the next post.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #32 on: 06/10/2009 12:11 am »
"The top secret program involved the recovery of a cone shaped vehicle some 19 feet long and weighing approximately 1200 pounds. Helicopter crew training would be conducted at Johnston Island under a cloak of secrecy concurrent with civilian contractor establishment of tracking and communications facilities. This program continued even as the squadron at Hickam converted from their worn out C-119s to the newer turbo prop C-130 Hercules."

The recovery vehicle for the Samos E-6 suffered a number of problems during reentry and apparently burned through a few times.  I have the data somewhere, but I think that they only launched three and all three failed.

"Meanwhile the seven helicopter crews practiced and trained to peak proficiency. A series of events was to move the operation back to Hawaii where the helicopter mission was to be changed to provide a backup from the closest Hawaiian Island in the event the recovering fix wing aircraft were unsuccessful in the attempt to snag the airborne descending satellites. Either because of improvements in the smaller satellites or reduction in the size of the initial SAMOS, the initial plan had evolved to something else. Johnston Island, once a sleepy tropical atoll, became a busy base, firing nuclear tipped rockets. The limitations of the H-21 in range, speed, load capacity and ungainly size resulted in them being replaced by the only six CH-3B Sikorsky helicopters ever bought by the USAF."

That refers to the cancellation of the E-6.  A little more in the next post.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #33 on: 06/10/2009 12:17 am »
The documentation that has been declassified and released on the Samos E-5 and the E-6 is rather sparse.  There's a lot more on the film-readout versions.  There is an official Samos history that discusses them, but it was a drafty document and so it leaves a lot of holes in the story.

What none of the documents or the histories say, but which is pretty clear to me, is that the Air Force was developing the E-6 to replace the Corona.  They wanted to run the show and part of that meant replacing the existing search system.  At least one document states that a couple of senior reconnaissance figures (I think they were both USAF, one uniformed and the other civilian) never really liked the Corona camera.  They thought it was too complex and had too many moving parts.  The E-6 was supposed to be a more elegant solution.  Except that it never worked right on reentry.  Because of the failure of the E-5 and the E-6 to work right, the Corona soldiered on.

The helicopter history cited above adds a bit to this story, explaining that they did a lot of training and did it way out in the Pacific.  That's not really contained in any of the histories I have.  So the website is a rather neat find.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #34 on: 06/15/2009 11:56 am »
I have been trying to find the photos of T-IIID/34D's with the four doors in the fairing for our thread on T-IIID.  I can't find mine.

Found one.

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #35 on: 06/15/2009 01:45 pm »
I'm looking at all this mid-air recovery stuff and I often wonder if the USAF's lifting body program had two elements. One was the obvious, collecting data for manned space shuttles derived from the lifting body shape. The other was a bit darker. Were the PRIME and ASSET research vehicles prototypes for new methods of returning film in a much more controlled fashion?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #36 on: 06/15/2009 02:05 pm »
I'm looking at all this mid-air recovery stuff and I often wonder if the USAF's lifting body program had two elements. One was the obvious, collecting data for manned space shuttles derived from the lifting body shape. The other was a bit darker. Were the PRIME and ASSET research vehicles prototypes for new methods of returning film in a much more controlled fashion?

Not really, again it goes to the utility of the wings on orbit.  Or actually, the reduced film or propellant load vs a more precise landing.  The mid-air capsule recovery technique was very reliable and secure.  Any off course capsule would either still be reachable by an aircraft or helicopter if is splashed down and lost capsules would sink.  Using an aerovehicle on land would have some security issues with off course landings or not to mention the additional hardware to soften the landing.   The  mid-air recovery teams were not cleared on the program and never saw inside a capsule.  Sinking capsules lessened the chance that they would, a smashed capsule on land would have more security issues,

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #37 on: 06/15/2009 04:09 pm »
I'm looking at all this mid-air recovery stuff and I often wonder if the USAF's lifting body program had two elements. One was the obvious, collecting data for manned space shuttles derived from the lifting body shape. The other was a bit darker. Were the PRIME and ASSET research vehicles prototypes for new methods of returning film in a much more controlled fashion?

They were essentially separate.  However, I have seen at least one reference to the fact that USAF hoped that they could develop winged reentry for a film-return vehicle.  They initially wanted to go to land recovery, bringing it down in Nevada (or possibly New Mexico) and then eventually going for a winged recovery vehicle.

Big caveat: there just is not a lot of documentation about this available.  Land recovery is mentioned in a couple of documents, and I think that winged recovery is only mentioned in one declassified history with regards to reconnaissance.

I think that the better way to understand this is that they wanted to develop winged reentry anyways, and if it paid off, they would possibly migrate that technology to the reconnaissance satellites.  But the reconnaissance program did not drive the development of PRIME and ASSET.  They were not cover stories for a reconnaissance technology development effort.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #38 on: 06/15/2009 04:18 pm »
Keep in mind that right now we only have the Corona program declassified.  Gambit and Hexagon, the other two recovery programs, remain classified, although some aspects of them have been declassified.

We do know that Gambit used the same recovery vehicle as Corona.  That was a clear decision to use a safe system that was already proven.  If you look at the history of that time period--1960-1963--they were having problems with recovery for the Samos E-5 and the E-6, both of which used bigger, slightly more complex recovery vehicles.  The Gambit designers chose to go the safe route and use the Corona SRV (built by General Electric) and this proved to be a smart move.  They already had a technologically sophisticated camera and stabilization system, so they decided to use a proven reentry vehicle.

The decision on the recovery vehicle for Hexagon would have been made around 1966-1967 or so.  By this time the E-5 and E-6 designs were rejected, and there was already experience with ASSET and PRIME (launched in Dec 1966-April 1967).  They decided upon a safer option.  I have some documents that discuss the "Big-D" (for "Big Discoverer") reentry vehicle.  I suspect that this is what was selected for the Hexagon.  It's the same shape.

I imagine that there were also issues of weight.  A Corona-like SRV was a simple design.  But imagine trying to put more than one winged reentry vehicle into a spacecraft nosecone.  You end up using a lot of mass for things like wings, control surfaces, landing gear, guidance.  And you don't need ANY of that for a simple dumb SRV like on Corona.  So at most you would get one of these winged reentry vehicles into a reconnaissance satellite, and you would waste a lot of mass doing it.

I've seen a lot of indications that the reconnaissance guys in the 1960s were quite practical and didn't make many dumb decisions.  The USAF tended to want flashier things, which had more problems and cost more to develop.  I think that reentry vehicles for spysats are a good example of this. 
« Last Edit: 06/15/2009 10:06 pm by Blackstar »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #39 on: 06/15/2009 04:57 pm »
I have seen at least one reference to the fact that USAF hoped that they could develop winged reentry for a film-return vehicle. 

What would make more sense, but would have been beyond a big stretch for the times, would have been to make the entire upper stage and payload recoverable/reusable.  At the high Corona flight rates, a reusable upper stage and payload might have paid off.  It would have been a big money sink to develop, though, and Thor probably wouldn't have been able to lift it.  And it all would have been obsolete within a few years.

 - Ed Kyle   
« Last Edit: 06/15/2009 04:58 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #40 on: 06/15/2009 05:12 pm »
And it all would have been obsolete within a few years.

 - Ed Kyle   

I'll agree there. By the time any winged recovery vehicles would be considered operational, real time imagery transmission would have made the lifting body unnecessary.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #41 on: 06/15/2009 05:45 pm »
What would make more sense, but would have been beyond a big stretch for the times, would have been to make the entire upper stage and payload recoverable/reusable.

Actually, they tried this, for the Samos E-5 spacecraft.  It turned out to be a bad way to do it.  I interviewed the camera designer and he said that the camera was a really poor design compromise because of the need to recover it (in particular, he had to retract the camera in order to adjust the spacecraft center of gravity for reentry).  This was a case where the USAF had ulterior motives--they wanted to develop a manned spacecraft--and they compromised the reconnaissance mission in order to satisfy those motives.  The NRO had a different approach.  They sought to maximize the reconnaissance mission and that led them to throw away the cameras after each mission.

I have attached my 3-part article on the Samos E-5.  I apologize for the poor quality of the scan.  I have decent quality artwork of the capsule layout that I can provide as well (they're in the articles).

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #42 on: 06/16/2009 03:32 pm »
Here is the only schematic that has been released of the Samos E-6 spacecraft.  The reentry vehicle was based upon the RVX-2 experimental reentry vehicle (there are some pictures out there of the RVX-2 on top of an Atlas--it was a pointy thing).

I believe that they launched five of these (I'd have to check) and lost all five.  They burned up during reentry.  The plan was to splash them into the ocean, then have USAF pararescue divers jump into the ocean and secure them with a float collar.  The divers would then deploy a balloon with a cable to the spacecraft and a C-130 would fly by and snatch the spacecraft out of the ocean.  This was apparently a problematic approach, but I assume that they solved it if they were flying actual missions.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #43 on: 06/16/2009 03:36 pm »
Here is the Samos E-5 capsule.  This was originally started as part of the MISS program.  The USAF kept it alive as a pressurized reconnaissance capsule. 

The camera designer (Jack Herther at Itek in Boston) was told to design a camera that would fit inside the capsule.  Although he had a lot of volume, there were other constraints that really limited the design.  In particular, the "lens cell" in the middle of the vehicle had to be pulled down closer to the reentry shield to lower the center of gravity.  That was a lousy way to design a camera (you really want the lenses fixed, not moving around, because they have to be precise).  The nose cone and the reflecting mirror popped off prior to reentry.

I really wish that I had photographs of this equipment.  I find it hard to believe that none were taken, but so far none have been released.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #44 on: 06/16/2009 03:37 pm »
This is an illustration of Lockheed's proposed Man In Space Soonest proposal, which became the Samos E-5 pressurized capsule.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #45 on: 07/17/2011 07:39 pm »
This is obscure, but some may be interested:

http://military.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=52.15852.22404.0.0

Jul 25, 3:00 pm, (60 minutes)
   
A Supercarrier is Burning: The U.S.S. Enterprise
 
"A fire aboard a supercarrier detonates the ship's weapons. The harrowing minutes that follow are packed with terror, heroism, sacrifice and courage. There are 18 detonations, 15 aircraft destroyed, 17 damaged, 28 dead and 343 wounded."


This is a pretty good documentary produced around 2000 or so about the fire on the carrier USS Enterprise in (I think) 1969. If you watch closely, you can see footage of a US Air Force CH-3 Sea King helicopter used to ferry wounded off the ship. That helicopter was one of the ones from the recovery group. It's rather rare, since there were only three of them in service. It's rather beat up--you don't get the sense that the Air Force made much effort to keep them painted.

I can record this on my DVR, but have no way to burn a DVD. Anybody have a suggestion on how to burn this to DVD?
« Last Edit: 07/17/2011 07:43 pm by Blackstar »

Offline bobthemonkey

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #46 on: 07/17/2011 10:11 pm »
What DVR?

Offline Jwiggins60

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Birmingham Alabama
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #47 on: 09/17/2014 03:51 pm »
Hi,
Very old thread, but I just stumbled across it. I was in the 6594th Test Group for 5 years. A Flight Engineer, Examiner, and instructor. I was qualified on the Test Groups, JC-130,B,E,H. (Satellite Recovery), and the C-130P inflight refueling. I did notice on item that was at least not accurate when I was there 80-85, If a Satellite was not recovered and splashed down, the plan was that accompaining PJ's were dropped from an HH-53, put a collar around it, and it was hoisted into the HH-53. HC-130P's accompained the HH-53's, inflight refueling as required. One of our HH-53's hit a commercial fishing vessel rescuing an injured crew member who tried to kill himself. During the recovery over the ship, the tail rotor failed and seperated. The HH-53 crashed into the ship and all crewmembers died on impact and the resulting fireball. Hat's off to all the brave and fearless men and women of the 6594th Test Group who had gone where no other C-130 or HH-53 went. DXXX, I miss the C-130, now manning two computers. Ha. Peace. Jim Wiggins

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: History of satellite recovery group
« Reply #48 on: 09/17/2014 05:12 pm »
Are you aware that the group has a reunion coming up? Not sure if it is this month or next, in Hawaii.

There are some official histories of the recovery group, although the most extensive one only really covers Corona operations, not later.

Tags: C-130 6594th JC-130 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1