Highways Into Space: A first-hand account of the beginnings of the human space program (34 page)

I had the opportunity to fly the simulator. The first impression was that there were far fewer displays and controls compared to the switches and circuit breakers in our ships. When our flight crews engaged later in the project, there was far more conversation about the philosophical difference in approach to the role of ground control and automated sequencers, which was the Soviet approach, and the American approach of a much larger role in the crew operation of the spacecraft. This debate never resolved itself completely, but it was typical of our experience with most of design and operations. At first, the response was to not understand why anyone would do it that way. But then go through the thought process and examine it for something to learn. There almost always was some different angle or it may have been based on having different capabilities. For example, the state of the art of each side sometimes dictated the solutions as in the case of using computers: the U.S. state of the art in computers enabled a more widespread use of math models to evaluate many conditions, while the Soviet side preferred to confirm design by more testing. (I hear that this general process of understanding the other side’s rationale is repeated often in the International Space Station today, more than four decades later.)

Back inside the simulator, Colonel Shatalov explained the layout of the cockpit – a globe to display position over the earth, a TV display of data, digital readouts, systems status lights and a TV camera mounted forward gave a display of the cross-shaped alignment target on the other vehicle. This was used to evaluate and correct, when necessary, the attitude of the vehicle for docking. Range and range rate came from other sensors and from the TV visual. My first lesson in how idioms do not translate well came on my exit from the simulator. I was actually trying to compliment the design and remarked that it felt just like flying by the seat of the pants (i.e. it was intuitive and comfortable). A lot of frowns and unfriendly looks, while my interpreter explained that the translation by the Russian interpreter came out as, “It felt like flying with my a-- going backwards.” Once explained, they took it as a laugh on all of us.

We did stay for a meal there at Star City. It was hosted by General Kuznetsov and attended by a dozen or more cosmonauts in military uniform. The General’s opening toast was a serious one and emphasized the importance of keeping space activities peaceful. We did get to the vodka and toast-making ritual. Well outnumbered, we held our own at that diplomatic exercise and even claimed victory. Toast-making stayed with us throughout the project. It was an art form. The choice of subject and delivery was a competition in itself, and sometimes, the performances were to be admired.

Back in the city and in keeping with our full schedule, we went to the Bolshoi ballet that night.

The next day was the start of our three-day meeting. On the Soviet side, Konstantin Feoktistov led their delegation. Academician Boris Petrov seemed to be the policy person. Vladimir Syromyatnikov represented the docking system, the guidance system was done by V. Suslennikov and Ilya Lavrov covered the life support systems. We also had the Science Attache from our Embassy. Apparently, the embassy stayed with visiting U.S. delegations to assure that we behaved according to some unspecified rules. I assume that we did because they soon left us to our discussions. Whenever we asked, they were very helpful.

Up first, I gave a summary of the primary systems necessary for rendezvous, such as communications, guidance and propulsion and a number of the related equipment including range measurements, lights, reflectors, targets and radios. I also summarized the rendezvous techniques and recognized that we each had differences in the degree of automation, but they seemed amenable to a joint solution.

Feoktistov presented the Soviet rendezvous model in three distinct phases: approach to the vicinity of the target, closure to station keeping distance and final docking maneuvers. They preferred to put the two vehicles in similar (coplanar) orbits and then perform propulsion burns designed to arrive at the station keeping point. The docking closure would be performed by small thrusters in auto or manual, with a preference for automatic.

Caldwell Johnson presented next on the docking system. He saw this as a major opportunity to avoid some of the difficulties inherent in the probe and drogue systems used on Apollo and Soyuz. For one thing, two spacecrafts with probes cannot dock with each other, nor can two with drogues. Probes also block the tunnel passage and can be inconvenient to remove. The probe and drogue concept can be described as male and female. Caldwell introduced the androgynous concept (without gender) as an ideal solution, permitting any spacecraft with one to dock with any other spacecraft so equipped. Think of it as two rings of interleaving fingers with capture latches to affect a “soft” docking and, when retracted, heavy-duty structural rings are drawn together to affect a rigid mating of sufficient strength to accommodate the mass and inertia of the spacecraft. In effect, something like a mirror image. Since this was different than the current Soyuz system, Caldwell couched it as illustrative of possible future options. They were interested.

While withholding response, Vladimir Syromyatnikov presented his briefing on the Soviet docking system. Vladimir was a serious young man, thirty-seven at the time, and very proud of the accomplishments of his team for their work on the docking systems for Soyuz. They used a “pin and cone” (like our probe and drogue) design, but their implementation precluded internal transfer. The Soviet design also included the engagement of electrical umbilicals, which were positioned by six-inch guide pins mating with sockets. Syromyatnikov also reported that they were working on an assembly of probe and drogue that could be rotated out of the tunnel for transfer clearance.

In the afternoon, George Hardy of MSFC, presented material on the upcoming Skylab program. George continued on the next morning. V. Suslennikov briefed on the radio guidance system of Soyuz. We gathered the points discussed earlier and compiled a list. Included in the listing of the issues was an action to define the cabin atmospheres – composition and characteristics – but it was not discussed in much detail as we expected that future ships would have cabins of one atmosphere of pressure (fourteen point seven pounds per square inch (PSI), as opposed to the Apollo cabin pressure of five PSI). Feoktistov then gathered all of the subjects and submitted a review draft. He listed the pertinent issues and documented our agreed forward plan of a document exchange by January-February 1971 and a second meeting in the March-April 1971 time frame. To address the subjects, he suggested a three working group arrangement to address the list of issues. After more discussion, this draft became the basis for the “Summary of Results” of this meeting and was signed the next day, with the intention to recommend it to the leadership of NASA and the Soviet Academy of Science. The speed of reaching understanding and agreement impressed and surprised all of us. And then it was time to come home.

We gave thought to the lessons of the meeting and recorded some of the major ones:

• Write a draft of the Summary of Results (minutes) before the meeting.
  

• Send the plan for the meeting with content and schedule of work to the other side.
  

• Write a draft Press Communique.
  

• Allow time for translation and verification of results into both languages.
  

• Select correct people for working groups and support.
  

• Plan travel to allow at least a day of rest before meetings.
  

• Slow down on social events.
  

• Prepare for documenting task – staff and equipment.
  

• Recognize the value of competent and consistent
  

• interpreters for each activity.
  

There were differences in Moscow and they really struck us. We were new to the scene, and looking hard at everything for the first time. We stayed at the Russiya hotel, which was a giant building, about a block off Red Square. Red Square was always brightly illuminated, with Lenin’s tomb across the square from us when we walked form the hotel. In the hotel lobby, there were watchers whose only job seemed to be checking people entering and leaving the hotel. They must have memorized the faces of those who belonged there. The rooms were simple and adequate. They favored balalika music on the hotel music system. It must be their equivalent to our elevator music.

The hotel had a restaurant on the top floor and did serve reasonably good food. There were different tastes than what we were familiar with. We usually went there on the first free night for a visit and ate our fill of caviar with black bread simply because we had never had it and we could order it in quantities. There were small breakfast areas in the corners of the corridors and our guys worked at getting eggs cooked in a familiar way. They were always passing around the locations of their favorites for breakfast. There were other stations occupied by what we called the “key ladies.” Their stations were located so they could see all the doors or access to the doors for which they had the keys. When you left the hotel, you delivered your key to the key lady, who gave it back to you when you returned. They were not happy if you forgot to leave your key.

On the streets, in the early morning, there were brigades of older women sweeping the streets. Their brooms looked homemade and they all wore babushkas. As expected, we called them the “babushka ladies.” The pedestrians on the sidewalks were always very serious, even somber, and dressed in various shades of black or gray. This was not the “smile capitol” of the world. Other ladies were in the coat rooms of office buildings; they took your coat in the morning and gave you a ticket. After a full day, you went back and got your coat from the same ladies. I wondered what else they did during the day, but this seemed like “full employment” in action. There was always a lot of construction underway. A lot of it was done by young soldiers. Caldwell used to watch the soldier working on the concrete or mortar mixing in their wheel barrels. He was always amazed at the amount of water that was added to the mix over the course of the day.

The car traffic we would call light. There were more buses than cars at work in Moscow. We hardly ever saw gas stations. But, then again, nothing had the signage that we were used to. Locals just knew where they were.

The Moscow subway was a striking exception to almost all of the other construction. The stations were very beautiful. We were always happy to see the next one. The subway seemed to be the main mode of transportation for the residents. In that regard, it was more like the NYC system than the Washington, DC, metro. Buying something in the store was at least a two-step process. Beer came by the single bottle. There were no six-pack containers. To buy, the first line was to pay for a ticket for whatever you wanted, the next line was to redeem the ticket for the product. We never bought more than one thing at a time. The experience of seeing something that was brand new caused me to observe the architecture more carefully. I noticed this started to apply when I was back home and I can now “see and admire” buildings that are a hundred years or older in my hometowns of Scranton and Houston.

Dr. Gilruth gathered us shortly after returning home to discuss our observations and reactions. All of us (Dr. Gilruth, Caldwell, George and myself) were encouraged by the tone and substance of the meeting. Each of us felt that we should move the effort towards a real test with current vehicles in order to bring a strong focus of reality to the work. We were unanimous that a real project would be much preferable to an exercise “in the abstract.” Abstract might not have the same sense of urgency and can trail off into a process of establishing a set of specifications and putting them on the shelf. A real design challenge like the docking system needs to be about real hardware. However, that approach obliged all of us to mature this possibility into a realistic and serious proposal.

In terms of implementation within MSC, two more organizational units were engaged. The first was a program office function, headed by René Berglund and called the Advanced Mission Office. René did many of the advanced studies for the Center and knew the ropes for lining up study funding and the right players to involve in the contractor organizations. Clarke Covington was supporting René’s studies, from the Spacecraft Design Office in the Engineering Directorate. Both of these men jumped in quickly and added their talents to this growing effort. They helped with some of the initial framing of options as background for MSC management and then George Low.

For reasons of keeping the options limited and focused, the René Berglund study concentrated on Apollo/Soyuz vehicles with various methods of crew transfer from EVA to internal transfer to the use of an airlock adapter to handle the two different cabin atmospheres. The result of this effort was presented by Clarke Covington to George Low and HQ staff. The first data package entitled “Preliminary Rendezvous and Docking System Requirements for United States Spacecraft” was prepared in accordance with the October 1970 actions. They also created a second, new paper entitled “A Concept for a United Socialist Republics/United States of America Rendezvous and Docking Mission.” Both of these were later transmitted in February to Academician Petrov. Dr. Gilruth explained the second paper as a follow-up to the Low/Keldysh discussions in January. He also explained that specific configurations were very useful in understanding the problems of compatibility. He also recommended this concept as a useful way to assess compatibility during the upcoming March/April meeting.

George Low planned to travel to Moscow in January for further discussion with the President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, Dr. Keldysh, of four other cooperative space studies and/or projects, outside of manned space flight. Within manned space, the U.S. had concrete plans for Apollo and Skylab only at this time. Shuttle was under study but not yet approved. However, unknown to us, but probably known by Dr. Gilruth, there had been several months of active work by the NASA HQ staff in OMSF on the possibility of manned space cooperation in compatible rendezvous and docking systems. One of the outcomes was a similar proposal to conduct a test with an existing vehicle, Skylab. So, the proposal by Dr. Gilruth, Caldwell Johnson and supported by the rest of us to work on a real mission was a confirmation of the HQ efforts, albeit with a different U.S. vehicle. As far as we knew, the Soviet plans centered around the Soyuz. Our developing proposal did not preclude consideration of system compatibility of future vehicles but added the possibility of a real-live, near-term test of the larger questions: what would the White House and then the Soviet response be to such an idea?