Quote from: LittleBird on 02/08/2023 12:46 pmQuote from: leovinus on 02/08/2023 11:57 amQuote from: LittleBird on 02/08/2023 07:41 amQuote from: leovinus on 02/07/2023 09:41 pm1962. Magazine page and a summary.PS: I also enjoyed reading Chapter "12.SATURN,1959...", page 224 et al, in "LIQUID HYDROGEN AS A PROPULSION FUEL, JOHN L.SLOOP, 1945-1959" from The NASA History Series. "Sloop" is actually in some memos I read. No ARAGO though.Sloop was a major source for the much more recent Dawson Taming Liquid Hydrogen book, one wonders if the Aerojet LH2 programme was still secret in late 70s when Sloop's book was written.I'm willing to bet you won't find Arago in anything other than USAF documents. I'd be interested to be proved wrong. I'm also curious as to whether names "Space Launching System", "BC 2720" etc, and/or "Phoenix" ever turn up outside contemporary USAF docs, except in v high level ones like the November 1961 memo you found, and of course recent histories like Spires. It was striking that the 1959 NASA briefing you posted above had no mention of USAF/Aerojet LH2 work at all.Agreed. It is fascinating to learn more about these people and projects. So to learn more on ARAGO, BC2720, we would have to identify an Air Force project and/or contractor, around the right timeframe, dig up the technical report numbers, and either FOIA them or ask the contractor nicely. And then there is always the chance that the old reports have been simply destroyed and discarded.I think that's probably the point at which both the day job and the various other history projects I have overdue would take priority in my case, but good luck if you do pursue it. [Edit: That said, though, I must admit I am fascinated by the reference to Phoenix studies in grabs below from the recent Spires "Assured Access" book. One thing I've noticed is that "Phoenix" seems to always appear with a solid first stage and "Arago" with a liquid one.]On the "Project Phoenix", a couple things come to mind1) Via a reference in the NovaRockets.pdf from earlier, we find a reference Aviation Week & Space Technology, 3/27/61, “Project Phoenix Aims at Economical Super Space Probes, p.50. which is attached. It says among others QuoteProject Phoenix presentations were made early in January to Headquarters, USAF and Headquarters, ARDC. bv personnel from the Ballistic Missile Di vision as the cognizant military agency; Aerospace Corp., its nonprofit technical-support arm. which is establishing the Phoenix concept and design param eters; [snip]2) Therefore, maybe https://aerospace.org/article/history-aerospace and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aerospace_Corporation provide leads?3) Does NASA HQ History division have relevant material. Sure This box seems to be a good hit but would require a visit in person. Quoterg_11_spaceflight_march2020.csv:,10298,SPACE FLIGHT - LAUNCH VEHICLES,1961,"Tuesday, May 14, 1996",LAUNCH VEHICLES: PROJECT PHOENIX,LAUNCH VEHICLES: PROJECT PHOENIX,"Reports: ""Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Standardized Workhorse Launch Vehicles"" by Office of Defense Research and Engineering and Air Force Office for Research and Development and ""Study of Standardized Spacecraft and Launch Vehicles"" by Institute for Defense Analysis. Includes news clipping re Project Phoenix launch vehicle study.",MANUSCRIPTS,,PROJECT PHOENIX,"PROJECT PHOENIX, LAUNCH VEHICLE DESIGN, SPACECRAFT DESIGN, ATLAS LAUNCH VEHICLES, TITAN LAUNCH VEHICLES, SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLES, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF, US AIR FORCE (USAF), INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSIS"4) Any unpublished NTRS reports? 19640058674,Phoenix System Costs,1961,,19640058743,"Phoenix systems costs, volume iii- calculations of the generalized cost model interim report, jul. 1960-apr. 1961",1961,,19640058744,Interim report on phoenix system costs. volume 1- estimates and procedures,1961,,19660092468,"Phoenix rocket vehicles reliability study final report, nov. 1960 - mar. 1961",1961,,5) Any published ones? Via NTRS we find https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19620004468 titled "Manned Space flight" with a paper "SOLID PROPELLANT BOOSTERS FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT" which says on p269 Quote"Among the SSD/Aerospace studies pertinent to the present subject was a study -- or really a related series of studies -- begun by the Space Technology Laboratories in early 1960 and recently concluded by the Aerospace Corporation. This effort is known as the Phoenix Study2. It was undertaken as the result of a review of the course of events in aeronautics and science over the last 60 years in broad historical perspective, to seek the answer to what really needs to be done to make space travel -- particularly military space operations -- more practical. The answer seemed to be that the cost of putting objects into space needs to be reduced by one or two orders of magnitude, in terms of dollars per pound of payload. The purpose of the Phoenix Study, therefore, was to explore possible ways of accomplishing this objective. Much of the work is just now being formally reported, and undoubtedly many of the interesting aspects will be published in the future by the various authors. Suffice here to summariz a few conclusions significant to the use of solid propellant rockets in manned space vehicles." That article has a reference (2) Phoenix Space Launching System Study," Phase I Final Report Volume III, Aerospace Corporation, 28 Jan 1962 (Confidential).
Quote from: leovinus on 02/08/2023 11:57 amQuote from: LittleBird on 02/08/2023 07:41 amQuote from: leovinus on 02/07/2023 09:41 pm1962. Magazine page and a summary.PS: I also enjoyed reading Chapter "12.SATURN,1959...", page 224 et al, in "LIQUID HYDROGEN AS A PROPULSION FUEL, JOHN L.SLOOP, 1945-1959" from The NASA History Series. "Sloop" is actually in some memos I read. No ARAGO though.Sloop was a major source for the much more recent Dawson Taming Liquid Hydrogen book, one wonders if the Aerojet LH2 programme was still secret in late 70s when Sloop's book was written.I'm willing to bet you won't find Arago in anything other than USAF documents. I'd be interested to be proved wrong. I'm also curious as to whether names "Space Launching System", "BC 2720" etc, and/or "Phoenix" ever turn up outside contemporary USAF docs, except in v high level ones like the November 1961 memo you found, and of course recent histories like Spires. It was striking that the 1959 NASA briefing you posted above had no mention of USAF/Aerojet LH2 work at all.Agreed. It is fascinating to learn more about these people and projects. So to learn more on ARAGO, BC2720, we would have to identify an Air Force project and/or contractor, around the right timeframe, dig up the technical report numbers, and either FOIA them or ask the contractor nicely. And then there is always the chance that the old reports have been simply destroyed and discarded.I think that's probably the point at which both the day job and the various other history projects I have overdue would take priority in my case, but good luck if you do pursue it. [Edit: That said, though, I must admit I am fascinated by the reference to Phoenix studies in grabs below from the recent Spires "Assured Access" book. One thing I've noticed is that "Phoenix" seems to always appear with a solid first stage and "Arago" with a liquid one.]
Quote from: LittleBird on 02/08/2023 07:41 amQuote from: leovinus on 02/07/2023 09:41 pm1962. Magazine page and a summary.PS: I also enjoyed reading Chapter "12.SATURN,1959...", page 224 et al, in "LIQUID HYDROGEN AS A PROPULSION FUEL, JOHN L.SLOOP, 1945-1959" from The NASA History Series. "Sloop" is actually in some memos I read. No ARAGO though.Sloop was a major source for the much more recent Dawson Taming Liquid Hydrogen book, one wonders if the Aerojet LH2 programme was still secret in late 70s when Sloop's book was written.I'm willing to bet you won't find Arago in anything other than USAF documents. I'd be interested to be proved wrong. I'm also curious as to whether names "Space Launching System", "BC 2720" etc, and/or "Phoenix" ever turn up outside contemporary USAF docs, except in v high level ones like the November 1961 memo you found, and of course recent histories like Spires. It was striking that the 1959 NASA briefing you posted above had no mention of USAF/Aerojet LH2 work at all.Agreed. It is fascinating to learn more about these people and projects. So to learn more on ARAGO, BC2720, we would have to identify an Air Force project and/or contractor, around the right timeframe, dig up the technical report numbers, and either FOIA them or ask the contractor nicely. And then there is always the chance that the old reports have been simply destroyed and discarded.
Quote from: leovinus on 02/07/2023 09:41 pm1962. Magazine page and a summary.PS: I also enjoyed reading Chapter "12.SATURN,1959...", page 224 et al, in "LIQUID HYDROGEN AS A PROPULSION FUEL, JOHN L.SLOOP, 1945-1959" from The NASA History Series. "Sloop" is actually in some memos I read. No ARAGO though.Sloop was a major source for the much more recent Dawson Taming Liquid Hydrogen book, one wonders if the Aerojet LH2 programme was still secret in late 70s when Sloop's book was written.I'm willing to bet you won't find Arago in anything other than USAF documents. I'd be interested to be proved wrong. I'm also curious as to whether names "Space Launching System", "BC 2720" etc, and/or "Phoenix" ever turn up outside contemporary USAF docs, except in v high level ones like the November 1961 memo you found, and of course recent histories like Spires. It was striking that the 1959 NASA briefing you posted above had no mention of USAF/Aerojet LH2 work at all.
1962. Magazine page and a summary.PS: I also enjoyed reading Chapter "12.SATURN,1959...", page 224 et al, in "LIQUID HYDROGEN AS A PROPULSION FUEL, JOHN L.SLOOP, 1945-1959" from The NASA History Series. "Sloop" is actually in some memos I read. No ARAGO though.
Project Phoenix presentations were made early in January to Headquarters, USAF and Headquarters, ARDC. bv personnel from the Ballistic Missile Di vision as the cognizant military agency; Aerospace Corp., its nonprofit technical-support arm. which is establishing the Phoenix concept and design param eters; [snip]
rg_11_spaceflight_march2020.csv:,10298,SPACE FLIGHT - LAUNCH VEHICLES,1961,"Tuesday, May 14, 1996",LAUNCH VEHICLES: PROJECT PHOENIX,LAUNCH VEHICLES: PROJECT PHOENIX,"Reports: ""Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Standardized Workhorse Launch Vehicles"" by Office of Defense Research and Engineering and Air Force Office for Research and Development and ""Study of Standardized Spacecraft and Launch Vehicles"" by Institute for Defense Analysis. Includes news clipping re Project Phoenix launch vehicle study.",MANUSCRIPTS,,PROJECT PHOENIX,"PROJECT PHOENIX, LAUNCH VEHICLE DESIGN, SPACECRAFT DESIGN, ATLAS LAUNCH VEHICLES, TITAN LAUNCH VEHICLES, SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLES, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF, US AIR FORCE (USAF), INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSIS"
"Among the SSD/Aerospace studies pertinent to the present subject was a study -- or really a related series of studies -- begun by the Space Technology Laboratories in early 1960 and recently concluded by the Aerospace Corporation. This effort is known as the Phoenix Study2. It was undertaken as the result of a review of the course of events in aeronautics and science over the last 60 years in broad historical perspective, to seek the answer to what really needs to be done to make space travel -- particularly military space operations -- more practical. The answer seemed to be that the cost of putting objects into space needs to be reduced by one or two orders of magnitude, in terms of dollars per pound of payload. The purpose of the Phoenix Study, therefore, was to explore possible ways of accomplishing this objective. Much of the work is just now being formally reported, and undoubtedly many of the interesting aspects will be published in the future by the various authors. Suffice here to summariz a few conclusions significant to the use of solid propellant rockets in manned space vehicles."
Of the launch vehicle stages considered for the required performance (10,000 pounds in a ZOO n. mile orbit and 1500 pounds in a 24 hour equatorial orbit) many are undesirable; TITAN I because it has been obsoleted, PHOENIX because it does not meet the operational time, SATURN because it is oversize, AGENA B because the performance is too low.
A SURVEY OF VARIOUS VEHICLE SYSTEMS FOR THE MANNED LUNAR LANDING MISSION APPENDIX III-2 PHOENIX BOOSTERS10 June 1961 George W. S. Johnson Lt. Col., USAF
Not sure what I can offer without reading those docs, but I might crosspost anything of mine from a few mnths ago that I still find convincing ;-) However I do have one question, what is the *oldest* document you have that has name Phoenix in it ? [Edit: Because my default presumption now is that BC 2720/SLS and Phoenix may not have been same thing-I'd be happy to be proved wrong.]
Quote from: LittleBird on 06/22/2023 03:57 pmNot sure what I can offer without reading those docs, but I might crosspost anything of mine from a few mnths ago that I still find convincing ;-) However I do have one question, what is the *oldest* document you have that has name Phoenix in it ? [Edit: Because my default presumption now is that BC 2720/SLS and Phoenix may not have been same thing-I'd be happy to be proved wrong.]The earliest reference by name to Phoenix seems a document from April 1961. We can speculate on why that is One explanation would be that there were various committees and working groups that year to come up with a standardized launch vehicle. In other words, in 1961, all existing Army, Navy, Air Force, NACA, ARPA, Aerospace, Convair etc plans and studies were tossed in a hat to work out what would be best going forward for larger payloads. With this line of thinking, it would mean that Phoenix was studied one year or two before in the USAF world only. As Aerospace Corp was involved, and that company only was formed June 25, 1960, a start in 1960 is possible. As Aerospace Corp was formed based on an act of Congress, an earlier start in a different organization like TRW or STL is possible?
Quote from: leovinus on 06/22/2023 04:51 pmQuote from: LittleBird on 06/22/2023 03:57 pmNot sure what I can offer without reading those docs, but I might crosspost anything of mine from a few mnths ago that I still find convincing ;-) However I do have one question, what is the *oldest* document you have that has name Phoenix in it ? [Edit: Because my default presumption now is that BC 2720/SLS and Phoenix may not have been same thing-I'd be happy to be proved wrong.]The earliest reference by name to Phoenix seems a document from April 1961. We can speculate on why that is One explanation would be that there were various committees and working groups that year to come up with a standardized launch vehicle. In other words, in 1961, all existing Army, Navy, Air Force, NACA, ARPA, Aerospace, Convair etc plans and studies were tossed in a hat to work out what would be best going forward for larger payloads. With this line of thinking, it would mean that Phoenix was studied one year or two before in the USAF world only. As Aerospace Corp was involved, and that company only was formed June 25, 1960, a start in 1960 is possible. As Aerospace Corp was formed based on an act of Congress, an earlier start in a different organization like TRW or STL is possible?Looking back to our earlier posts I see that an official history of Aerospace says it started at STL. See name of book, as cited in Spires Assured Access to Space, first grab, and result of a search on Google books (second grab)-I can't see an online pdf, but there are several s/h sources for physical book-it's one I am sure I would find interesting and plan to get round to eventually. You had a NASA source that dated this to early 1960: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58046.msg2455973#msg2455973 So I guess I'll read the other things you've found and see if they seem to be telling the same story. Will probably take me a while ;-)
Among the SSD/Aerospace studies pertinent to the present subject was a study or really a related series of studies -- begun by the Space Technology Laboratories in early 1960 and recently concluded by the Aerospace Corporation. This effort is known as the Phoenix Study. It was undertaken as the result of a review of the course of events in aeronautics and science over the last 60 years in broad historical perspective, to seek the answer to what really needs to be done to make space travel -- particularly military space operations — more practical.
Phoenix Space Launching System Study," Phase I Final Report Volume III, Aerospace Corporation, 28 Jan 1962 (Confidential).
So I guess I'll read the other things you've found and see if they seem to be telling the same story. Will probably take me a while ;-)
Looks as if I may well have been wrong and BC series and Phoenix were indeed same thing, at least by mid 1961. Your new mid 61 doc refers to a Phoenix lunar booster and then specifically to it as BC (3000 not 2720, I think this was a number that referrred to 1st stage thrust in some way iirc). So I've learned something already, thanks ;-)
Quote from: LittleBird on 06/22/2023 05:52 pmLooks as if I may well have been wrong and BC series and Phoenix were indeed same thing, at least by mid 1961. Your new mid 61 doc refers to a Phoenix lunar booster and then specifically to it as BC (3000 not 2720, I think this was a number that referrred to 1st stage thrust in some way iirc). So I've learned something already, thanks ;-)Agree on the thrust and 3000. Remember the LUNEX document we earlier discussed? It had the A,B,C boosters in the glossary (attached). Based on that "BC3000" means a combination of a LOX/LH2 booster 800,000 lbs thrust and one "C" booster LOX/LH2 with 3,000,000 lbs vacuum thrust. The 800,000 and 3,000,000 numbers match this "survey" document. However, this "survey" document says it was for 2nd and 3rd stage while the attached screenshot of LUNEX indicates BC3000 refers to 1st and 2nd stage. Maybe I am misreading something but I really puzzled over the 3 million lbs thrust for a >>2nd<< stage in this survey document. Somebody is counting funny
The group heard a brief description of results . Air Force Phoenix study with regard to a Nova-class launch vehicle having a capability of placing 134,000 lbs. in an earth escape trajectory. Basically, a three stage vehicle was considered. The first stage consisted of solid units (total thrust of 8.7M lbs.) clustered around a 3 million lb. single-unit H2O2 engine.
Importance of Phoenix may in one way seem small, as the ex ABMA/NASA Rocket Team got the lunar booster mission pretty quickly. But I think it was a little more important than it seems because the M-1 had political support, and the large solids were (at least officially) being considered in the early days after the Moon committment. I think these may have been "compensations" to the AF lobby and are in some sense a legacy of the Phoenix moment. I'll post supporting info for these rather vague statements when time allows.
POST-SATURN FPO Study Plan for FY 1965(approved by Dr.von Braun June -10,1964)A . Definition of Problem1. Do we need a launch vehicle larger than SATURN V (and improvedversions of it) at all?332. It the answer is yes, which size and type of program would justify thedevelopment of a Post-SATURN?3. If the answer is yes, when do we need the capability and when do we have tomake a decision?B. Evidence available1. D i r e c t operational cost effectiveness to orbit expected for SATURN V athigh launch rates is about 200 $/lb, as compared with total operating cost ofabout 120 $/lb for a typical POST-SATURN and 60 $/lb for direct operatingcost. Including orbital operations burden (required for assembling big Mars-Ships) the specific cost (based on weight departing orbit) are approximately:SATURN V: 200+2,000 = 2,200 $/lbPOST-SATURN 120 + 500 = 620 $/lb2. Short orbital stay-time enhances probability of mission success.3. Large diameters in launch vehicles are more compatible with highperformance nuclear systems and planetary spacecraft.4. There is room at the Cape for up to 4 launch positions of a Post-SATURNvehicle. This is adequate for even the most ambitious program underconsideration.5. There is room at MTF for two test positions for each stage with some soundsuppression.6. The present M-1 program calls for a 1971 PFRT date and about 300 M $expenditure through PFRT. Strong political pressures are behind this project.7. Considerable Momentum is developing for a high-pressure engine in the300-400 K class, with uses in the advanced SATURN IB and V, and in thesecond stage of a reusable transport. We are starting a preliminary design ofthis engine this fiscal year.(Note: This became the SSME engine for the Shuttle).8. If new large launch vehicles are developed, they ought to be reusable.They have better cost effectiveness potential and better reliability potential.They have better sales potential and smaller obsolescence rate.9. If the philosophy of "reusable space vehicles" is adopted in principle, thequestion of "solids versus liquids" is easier to answer.(NOTE: All manned transportation that have found a permanent place in thedaily life of mankind- for several thousand years - have been reusablesystems!)10. There is very little to choose from in vehicle and stage concepts, if the sizeand utility versus time of the reusable launch vehicle is determined.Particularly, the type of propulsion system selected for the first stage makesvery little difference in overall cost-effectiveness.
Political support for M-1:I don't have anything to add re stage nomenclature, but re:Quote from: LittleBird on 06/23/2023 06:04 amImportance of Phoenix may in one way seem small, as the ex ABMA/NASA Rocket Team got the lunar booster mission pretty quickly. But I think it was a little more important than it seems because the M-1 had political support, and the large solids were (at least officially) being considered in the early days after the Moon committment. I think these may have been "compensations" to the AF lobby and are in some sense a legacy of the Phoenix moment. I'll post supporting info for these rather vague statements when time allows.the simpler of the two issues that I may have anything to say about is political support for the M-1-but it's simpler only because I have just one data point ;-) . It's from a document written by Hermann Koelle, who was head of the Future Projects Office at Marshall until late 65, and was posted here by Dmitry_V_home: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58046.msg2448087#msg2448087 I've included some of the text around the bit I've boldfaced, to give a bit of context, and italicised the notes that Koelle had added later on.[snip]I'll ask again, as I did in the old thread-do we have any idea what those political pressures were ? My only guess comes from fact that Sacramento is both Aerojet's then HQ, and the capital of California ... [Edit: Aerojet may not have been happy that all 11 main engines of the Saturn V were built by rivals Rocketdyne.]
Quote from: LittleBird on 06/24/2023 02:36 pmPolitical support for M-1:I don't have anything to add re stage nomenclature, but re:Quote from: LittleBird on 06/23/2023 06:04 amImportance of Phoenix may in one way seem small, as the ex ABMA/NASA Rocket Team got the lunar booster mission pretty quickly. But I think it was a little more important than it seems because the M-1 had political support, and the large solids were (at least officially) being considered in the early days after the Moon committment. I think these may have been "compensations" to the AF lobby and are in some sense a legacy of the Phoenix moment. I'll post supporting info for these rather vague statements when time allows.the simpler of the two issues that I may have anything to say about is political support for the M-1-but it's simpler only because I have just one data point ;-) . It's from a document written by Hermann Koelle, who was head of the Future Projects Office at Marshall until late 65, and was posted here by Dmitry_V_home: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58046.msg2448087#msg2448087 I've included some of the text around the bit I've boldfaced, to give a bit of context, and italicised the notes that Koelle had added later on.[snip]I'll ask again, as I did in the old thread-do we have any idea what those political pressures were ? My only guess comes from fact that Sacramento is both Aerojet's then HQ, and the capital of California ... [Edit: Aerojet may not have been happy that all 11 main engines of the Saturn V were built by rivals Rocketdyne.]This might not be the answer you are looking for, and I have no details on the specific pressure in 1964 but it is clear that the initial pressure, in May 1961, was simply the directive to go the Moon before the end of the decade. Earlier of course there was the whole Jupiter vs Thor and Army vs AirForce episode with the pressure of building the functioning IRBMs asap. For the Moon goal, the conflicts between direct-ascent via Nova vs other approaches as well as concepts, prototypes by team Army (von Braun, Meradis, IRBM Jupiter) vs team Air Force (Schriever, IRBM Thor) are already clear in 1961. First the Golovin LLVPG committee recommends in November 1961 "build a M-1 with like 1.5 million lb thrust" to be applied in first or second stage. See recommendation 8 in the screenshot from the Golovin draft summary report. Note that the M-1 final report attached earlier as M1RocketEngine.pdf NTRS 19680006392 says the M-1 project only "commenced on 30 April 1962" as NAS3-2555 which is after the Golovin recommendation. Immediately after Golovin in November 1961, Rosen tweaks the recommendations (Exploring_the_Unknown, Vol4, Accessing_Space NTRS 19990116994 pp123-128). Hence plenty of example of intense discussion and rivalry for what is the best way to the moon and I would not be surprised if that continued. I believe the Schuette report from 18 Aug 1961 attached earlier demonstrates that as well with competition between Atlas, Titan, Phoenix, Saturn for a standardized vehicle. So my guess would be that these discussions and competitions continued till 1964 with the pressure "land on the Moon before the end of the decade".
Maybe they just refer to the Solids as stage 1, then the central core "C3000" as stage 2, and a final stage 3 "B" with 800k thrust?
In contrast to the reports on NTRS which are all of a technical nature, the attached list also has some memos from the relevant time. Those should contain discusion on the advantages and disadvantages of the M-1 engine leading to the cancellation. If there was any pressure by companies or political then the answer should be in those discussions and memos, right? On a practical note, when you see a pdf file mentioned in that list then you can ask NASA HQ history for a copy. I wonder, based on your understanding, which 2 or 3 boxes would be most interesting to have a look at to answer your "pressure" question?
In meantime I'll also locate the big splash that AW&ST ran when a new white AF space setup was created, from memory this was the forerunner of SAMSO.
Space Systems Command is the oldest military space organization in the United States Armed Forces, first established as the Western Development Division (WDD) on 1 April 1954 under Air Research and Development Command to manage the U.S. Air Force's ballistic missile program. It gained responsibility for spacecraft development in 1955 and was renamed the Air Force Ballistic Missile Division (AFBMD) in 1957. As part of Air Research and Development Command's transformation the Air Force Ballistic Missile Division's space and missile responsibilities were split, with the Space Systems Division (SSD) established in 1961. In 1967, the Space Systems Division was reorganized as the Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO), absorbing the Ballistic Systems Division. In 1979, the Space and Missile Systems Organization was renamed the Space Division and divested itself of ballistic missile development. In 1989, the Space Division returned to its historic name of the Space Systems Division and regained its ballistic missile development role in 1990.
Quote In meantime I'll also locate the big splash that AW&ST ran when a new white AF space setup was created, from memory this was the forerunner of SAMSO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Systems_CommandQuoteSpace Systems Command is the oldest military space organization in the United States Armed Forces, first established as the Western Development Division (WDD) on 1 April 1954 under Air Research and Development Command to manage the U.S. Air Force's ballistic missile program. It gained responsibility for spacecraft development in 1955 and was renamed the Air Force Ballistic Missile Division (AFBMD) in 1957. As part of Air Research and Development Command's transformation the Air Force Ballistic Missile Division's space and missile responsibilities were split, with the Space Systems Division (SSD) established in 1961. In 1967, the Space Systems Division was reorganized as the Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO), absorbing the Ballistic Systems Division. In 1979, the Space and Missile Systems Organization was renamed the Space Division and divested itself of ballistic missile development. In 1989, the Space Division returned to its historic name of the Space Systems Division and regained its ballistic missile development role in 1990.
- BAMBI and SAINT are known from ARPA documents.- E S B S or ESBS and Advanced Weapon System. Krafft Ehricke at Convair was involved with work on Advanced Weapon System (AWS) and Space Weapon System (SWS). So we could speculate that "E S B S" could be Earth Space Ballistic System" or something like that? Does anyone have any pointers to what exactly this was?
