ATS-6: Why Fairchild (and other questions) ?

[LittleBird]

Came across this nice vintage NASA film of von Braun talking about ATS-6.




 I've been interested in ATS-6 for a while, partly because of its antenna technology, but I was struck that I don't know the answer to several (with hindsight obvious) questions. Two in particular stand out

i) why was it built by Fairchild, a company which already had tremendous strength in electronics but was not an obvious choice when compared to other players like RCA, GE (who lost the competition iirc), TRW, Lockheed, and Hughes (who built ATS 1-5)  ?

ii) Is there anything out there about the very early history of ATS-6, and the evolution of the design between the model shown a couple of times in  the video, with a cylindrical "electronics box" (see grab below) and the final design with a square "box" (also shown in video) ? I think I've also seen the cylindrical box on a model of GE's contender shown at the Paris air show or Farnborough, but I need to search my files.

[LittleBird]

ii) Is there anything out there about the very early history of ATS-6, and the evolution of the design between the model shown a couple of times in  the video, with a cylindrical "electronics box" (see grab below) and the final design with a square "box" ? I think I've also seen the cylindrical box on a model of GE's contender shown at the Paris air show or Farnborough, but I need to search my files.

Aha-I see I should have been searching on ATS F https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710001365/downloads/19710001365.pdf

[Edit: Looking at this Phase B/C report there is additional info to what we already had on how and when Lockheed's wrap rib antenna design replaced Goodyear's, NASA's original choice (in late 1968, i.e. after CANYON 1), and on trade-offs like a cylindrical versus box-like EVM. Also says that original choice of launcher was between Atlas-Centaur and Titan IIIC but the former had a clear mass deficit.]

[Jim]

i) why was it built by Fairchild, a company which already had tremendous strength in electronics but was not an obvious choice when compared to other players like RCA, GE (who lost the competition iirc), TRW, Lockheed, and Hughes (who built ATS 1-5)  ?

Obvious


"After leaving NASA, von Braun moved to the Washington, D.C. area and became vice president for Engineering and Development at the aerospace company Fairchild Industries in Germantown, Maryland on 1 July 1972.[130]"

[LittleBird]

i) why was it built by Fairchild, a company which already had tremendous strength in electronics but was not an obvious choice when compared to other players like RCA, GE (who lost the competition iirc), TRW, Lockheed, and Hughes (who built ATS 1-5)  ?

Obvious


"After leaving NASA, von Braun moved to the Washington, D.C. area and became vice president for Engineering and Development at the aerospace company Fairchild Industries in Germantown, Maryland on 1 July 1972.[130]"

Indeed, though contract was awarded in 1971 1970. But he had left Marshall for HQ in 1970, so I take your general point.

I was surprised in part because afaik Fairchild had not integrated a spacecraft before, but the team is very strong (see grab from attached news release)

[LittleBird]

i) why was it built by Fairchild, a company which already had tremendous strength in electronics but was not an obvious choice when compared to other players like RCA, GE (who lost the competition iirc), TRW, Lockheed, and Hughes (who built ATS 1-5)  ?

Obvious


"After leaving NASA, von Braun moved to the Washington, D.C. area and became vice president for Engineering and Development at the aerospace company Fairchild Industries in Germantown, Maryland on 1 July 1972.[130]"

Indeed, though contract was awarded in 1971 1970. But he had left Marshall for HQ in 1970, so I take your general point.

I was surprised in part because afaik Fairchild had not integrated a spacecraft before, but the team is very strong (see grab from attached news release)

Turns out to be a bit less obvious ... In fact GE were the original awardees, and Fairchild successfully protested. See grabs below, from "The Technology Pork Barrel" by Linda Cohen and Roger Knoll, https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Technology_Pork_Barrel/PQC94RBgjO8C?hl=en&gbpv=0

So Fairchild may well have been "grateful", I'll give you that ...

Actually the most interesting  thing here is that Lockheed was third bidder chosen in May 68 for competitive contract negotiations from a larger pool that did indeed include all of the usual suspects.  It was not in the final 2, for whatever reason, but  Lockheed's wrap rib antenna had replaced  Goodyear's design in the ATS-F reference config by end of 1968. Meanwhile, in the dark world, Lockheed must have been working hard on CANYON 2, as CANYON 1 had failed due to operator error days  after going into GEO in August 68-it seems it had enough time to demonstrate its antenna, but perhaps not much else ;-)

[LittleBird]

Seems  I may have been a bit wrong in thinking that round Earth Viewing Model  was specific to GE design for ATS 6.

ii) Is there anything out there about the very early history of ATS-6, and the evolution of the design between the model shown a couple of times in  the video, with a cylindrical "electronics box" (see grab below) and the final design with a square "box" (also shown in video) ? I think I've also seen the cylindrical box on a model of GE's contender shown at the Paris air show or Farnborough, but I need to search my files.

This modern image https://nara.getarchive.net/media/applied-technology-satellites-ats-fandg-general-electric-version-7edcde is suposedly of the GE contender but shows a design rather more like Fairchild's than I remembered-seems more that both contractors explored several tradeoffs of module number, shape etc in the Phase B/C studies. Also seems clear that Lockheed's design of antenna, as soon as NASA became aware of it, became the reference choice, long before the choice of prime contractor. It would of course be fascinating to see Lockheed's proposal for ATS-F ...

There seems to have been some evolution between whatever the model (second grab) in the von Braun film in the OP represents, and both contractors' final versions.

[LittleBird]

Just came across a declassified NRO doc from May 69, see grabs, that confirms the SPAR Aerospace document that I posted about before, in the 60s SIGINT thread iirc, which stated that Lockheed transferred formerly classified antenna technology for ATS F.

It is minutes of one of the NRO-NASA interface committees.

Document refers to a contact being specified at Fairchild Hiller for access to the spaceflight history of the antenna, which makes sense.

Doesn’t mean that it was identical with CANYON’s, but suggestive.

[LittleBird]

Just came across a declassified NRO doc from May 69, see grabs, that confirms the SPAR Aerospace document that I posted about before, in the 60s SIGINT thread iirc, which stated that Lockheed transferred formerly classified antenna technology for ATS F.

It is minutes of one of the NRO-NASA interface committees.

Document refers to a contact being specified at Fairchild Hiller for access to the spaceflight history of the antenna, which makes sense.

Doesn’t mean that it was identical with CANYON’s, but suggestive.

Crossposting, via Blackstar's post in the KH-9 thread, about Philip Klass' 1971 inference that "Big Bird" (ie Hexagon) carried a large Lockheed-built dish antenna.

We think (me and LB) that Klass learned about the large flight-qualified deployable dish antenna and assumed that it was for the HEXAGON. He therefore assumed it was both film-return and film-readout (or scanning). It's not a bad assumption, it was just wrong.

The thing I find intriguing is that Klass didn’t just have a rumour about the dish, he had seen documents  (see grab below) that Fairchild/Lockheed had produced in the face of skepticism from Fairchild’s competitors on the domestic satellite ATS-F, saying that a space qualified 20 ft dish was available. The timing of the doc (Nov. 1969, after Canyon 1 in August 68, and the reportedly more successful Canyon 2 in April 69) strongly suggests that this was the CANYON dish, but we would need to know that no LEO dishes as large as this had flown to that date (we know of none).

[WallE]

It's also noteworthy for being the only civilian use of a Titan IIIC.

[LittleBird]

It's also noteworthy for being the only civilian use of a Titan IIIC.

It's interesting to see why it was a Titan and not an Atlas Centaur: 


(from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710001365/downloads/19710001365.pdf)

[Jim]

It's also noteworthy for being the only civilian use of a Titan IIIC.

It's interesting to see why it was a Titan and not an Atlas Centaur: 

Longer fairing too

[Jim]

It's also noteworthy for being the only civilian use of a Titan IIIC.

It's interesting to see why it was a Titan and not an Atlas Centaur: 

Not explicit, but the spacecraft is not the same for each vehicle.  The Atlas version would have to be able to be spun and that puts loads on parts of the spacecraft.

[LittleBird]

It's also noteworthy for being the only civilian use of a Titan IIIC.

It's interesting to see why it was a Titan and not an Atlas Centaur: 

Longer fairing too

Indeed. Interestingly the Lockheed wrap rib antenna packed up into a very small space,  58" inner diameter  x 78" outer diameter x 12" high, and the EVM wasn't huge (roughly a four and a half foot cube), so much of the available space in the 30 foot shroud was occupied by the truss structure (grabs from, again,  https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710001365/downloads/19710001365.pdf) .

[WallE]

HEAO could have also been launched on a Titan IIIC however NASA dropped that plan in favor of three smaller satellites to be launched on Atlas-Centaur.

[WallE]

It's interesting to see why it was a Titan and not an Atlas Centaur: 

It needed a little more power than what Atlas-Centaur could offer--the version of AC in use at that time could put roughly 4,000 pounds in GTO while Titan IIIC could put 6,600 pounds in GTO. Plus as has been mentioned, not needing spin stabilization. It was still technically an Air Force launch, just they were launching the payload for NASA which is why the booster had Air Force markings painted on it while Titan IIIE/Centaur was a purpose-built NASA vehicle and did not have Air Force markings. Presumably had HEAO used Titan IIIC it would have also been launched by the Air Force.

[LittleBird]

Just came across a declassified NRO doc from May 69, see grabs, that confirms the SPAR Aerospace document that I posted about before, in the 60s SIGINT thread iirc, which stated that Lockheed transferred formerly classified antenna technology for ATS F.

It is minutes of one of the NRO-NASA interface committees.

Document refers to a contact being specified at Fairchild Hiller for access to the spaceflight history of the antenna, which makes sense.

Doesn’t mean that it was identical with CANYON’s, but suggestive.

Crossposting, via Blackstar's post in the KH-9 thread, about Philip Klass' 1971 inference that "Big Bird" (ie Hexagon) carried a large Lockheed-built dish antenna.

We think (me and LB) that Klass learned about the large flight-qualified deployable dish antenna and assumed that it was for the HEXAGON. He therefore assumed it was both film-return and film-readout (or scanning). It's not a bad assumption, it was just wrong.

The thing I find intriguing is that Klass didn’t just have a rumour about the dish, he had seen documents  (see grab below) that Fairchild/Lockheed had produced in the face of skepticism from Fairchild’s competitors on the domestic satellite ATS-F, saying that a space qualified 20 ft dish was available. The timing of the doc (Nov. 1969, after Canyon 1 in August 68, and the reportedly more successful Canyon 2 in April 69) strongly suggests that this was the CANYON dish, but we would need to know that no LEO dishes as large as this had flown to that date (we know of none).

I think I was too pessimistic here. A document in the recent SIGINT declassifications was a list of Lockheed SIGINT payloads, all LEO bar the last one, the first in Program  827, i.e. CANYON 1. This is stated to have had a lifetime of 20 days, the same as the space quilified 20 foot antenna in the Lockheed document quoted by Klass.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59075.msg2669027#msg2669027

[Blackstar]

I think I was too pessimistic here. A document in the recent SIGINT declassifications was a list of Lockheed SIGINT payloads, all LEO bar the last one, the first in Program  827, i.e. CANYON 1. This is stated to have had a lifetime of 20 days, the same as the space quilified 20 foot antenna in the Lockheed document quoted by Klass.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59075.msg2669027#msg2669027

That's a great connect-the-dots story.

For those who don't know/remember: as I think I recounted elsewhere on this site, I talked to somebody who was assigned to the ground control segment for the first CANYON. He was sent to Bad Aibling, Germany, as a Lockheed employee. I think he was on a one-year assignment. Soon after he got there the satellite was launched. And then not too long after it reached orbit, it malfunctioned. And he had nothing to do. So he and his wife spent much of the rest of his assignment traveling around Germany.

He told me that it was a command error with CANYON 1 that caused it to start tumbling and it could not be controlled. The satellite was healthy, it was just tumbling end over end.

As fun as this connect-the-dot stuff can be, I also find it really frustrating and rather pointless. Lots of work to piece together tiny details that tell us nothing of importance, when there is a wealth of data available on many other projects that has not been examined.

[LittleBird]

I think I was too pessimistic here. A document in the recent SIGINT declassifications was a list of Lockheed SIGINT payloads, all LEO bar the last one, the first in Program  827, i.e. CANYON 1. This is stated to have had a lifetime of 20 days, the same as the space quilified 20 foot antenna in the Lockheed document quoted by Klass.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59075.msg2669027#msg2669027

That's a great connect-the-dots story.

[...]

As fun as this connect-the-dot stuff can be, I also find it really frustrating and rather pointless. Lots of work to piece together tiny details that tell us nothing of importance, when there is a wealth of data available on many other projects that has not been examined.

Well, to each his own, I'd say. I happen to like joining the dots, but I also like stories that link the various parts of the US space programme laterally-and feel this aspect isn't covered as much as it could be.

Less glibly I would also say that pinning down the size of CANYON's dish, and the wrap rib technology it seems to have used, is not a tiny detail, because this capability, even if buggy, was available to the US from 69ish to 75ish quite possibly without Soviet knowledge. I would need to reread what is known about Geoffrey Prime to confirm those dates but that's what I remember.

I also think that the fact that while the NRO was going to exceptional lengths to conceal CANYON, Lockheed's GEO and antenna technology was being surfaced not only in ATS-6, but also in various domestic and Intelsat comsat bids, is both fascinating and ironic. Your  mileage may of course vary. More of this in due course-I know I need to write it up.

Meanwhile I think this all illuminates a redacted section in Vance Mitchell's "Sharing Space", https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/012422/F-2019-00002_C05116216.pdf about how NASA planned to do a wordldwide electronic interference survey with ATS-6. I think I've seen more on this elsewhere-I can't now remember if they were talked out of it.

[LittleBird]

I think I was too pessimistic here. A document in the recent SIGINT declassifications was a list of Lockheed SIGINT payloads, all LEO bar the last one, the first in Program  827, i.e. CANYON 1. This is stated to have had a lifetime of 20 days, the same as the space quilified 20 foot antenna in the Lockheed document quoted by Klass.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59075.msg2669027#msg2669027

That's a great connect-the-dots story.

[...]

As fun as this connect-the-dot stuff can be, I also find it really frustrating and rather pointless. Lots of work to piece together tiny details that tell us nothing of importance, when there is a wealth of data available on many other projects that has not been examined.

Well, to each his own, I'd say. I happen to like joining the dots, but I also like stories that link the various parts of the US space programme laterally-and feel this aspect isn't covered as much as it could be.

Less glibly I would also say that pinning down the size of CANYON's dish, and the wrap rib technology it seems to have used, is not a tiny detail, because this capability, even if buggy, was available to the US from 69ish to 75ish quite possibly without Soviet knowledge. I would need to reread what is known about Geoffrey Prime to confirm those dates but that's what I remember.

I also think that the fact that while the NRO was going to exceptional lengths to conceal CANYON, Lockheed's GEO and antenna technology was being surfaced not only in ATS-6, but also in various domestic and Intelsat comsat bids, is both fascinating and ironic. Your  mileage may of course vary. More of this in due course-I know I need to write it up.

Meanwhile I think this all illuminates a redacted section in Vance Mitchell's "Sharing Space", https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/012422/F-2019-00002_C05116216.pdf about how NASA planned to do a wordldwide electronic interference survey with ATS-6. I think I've seen more on this elsewhere-I can't now remember if they were talked out of it.

It's also gratifyingly tidy that the 20ft dish is the same size as that considered in 1966 in Lockheed's  now declassified  GEO P-11 concept  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40314.msg2519060#msg2519060

[LittleBird]

I think I was too pessimistic here. A document in the recent SIGINT declassifications was a list of Lockheed SIGINT payloads, all LEO bar the last one, the first in Program  827, i.e. CANYON 1. This is stated to have had a lifetime of 20 days, the same as the space quilified 20 foot antenna in the Lockheed document quoted by Klass.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59075.msg2669027#msg2669027

That's a great connect-the-dots story.

[...]

As fun as this connect-the-dot stuff can be, I also find it really frustrating and rather pointless. Lots of work to piece together tiny details that tell us nothing of importance, when there is a wealth of data available on many other projects that has not been examined.

Well, to each his own, I'd say. I happen to like joining the dots, but I also like stories that link the various parts of the US space programme laterally-and feel this aspect isn't covered as much as it could be.

As WallE had noted, the story of how Hughes managed to bridge the worlds of NASA, the USAF and the NRO for both national and corporate advantage, ie the story of Tacsat, Intelsat IV, Jumpseat and SDS is indeed a good example of this: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4096/1

Lockheed's role as a competitor to them (and to TRW) in the then very new arena of  USAF and NRO GEO  is much less well known, and not merely a footnote to history in my view-but I'll need to make a coherent case elsewhere.

Less glibly I would also say that pinning down the size of CANYON's dish, and the wrap rib technology it seems to have used, is not a tiny detail, because this capability, even if buggy, was available to the US from 69ish to 75ish quite possibly without Soviet knowledge. I would need to reread what is known about Geoffrey Prime to confirm those dates but that's what I remember.

I also think that the fact that while the NRO was going to exceptional lengths to conceal CANYON, Lockheed's GEO and antenna technology was being surfaced not only in ATS-6, but also in various domestic and Intelsat comsat bids, is both fascinating and ironic. Your  mileage may of course vary. More of this in due course-I know I need to write it up.

Meanwhile I think this all illuminates a redacted section in Vance Mitchell's "Sharing Space", https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/012422/F-2019-00002_C05116216.pdf about how NASA planned to do a worldwide electronic interference survey with ATS-6. I think I've seen more on this elsewhere-I can't now remember if they were talked out of it.

Turns out I had indeed seen it in an excellent book which should be better known, Jim David's Spies and Shuttles (reviewed here: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2727/1). And they weren't so much "talked out of" doing the interference study as banned. Couple of grabs to follow-I think the original docs may also be on a site such as the National Security Archive but I can't find them quickly.