Conference 7.286::space

20.0. "Manned Space Mission No. 100" by CASTOR::RABAHY () Mon Nov 05 1984 12:34

Date: 03 Nov 84  2232 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <[email protected]>
Subject: 100 manned space flights
To:   [email protected]

[I presume this count does not include the upcoming shuttle mission, since the
article acknowledges 13 shuttle flights (Wednesday's mission will be the 14th)
- Ross.]

BC-MANNED-FLIGHTS 2takes
(Newhouse 010)
For Monday use
MAN MARKS 100 FLIGHTS IN SPACE
(Note to editors: Dave Dooling is science editor for the Huntsville
(Ala.) Times)
By DAVE DOOLING
Newhouse News Service
    (UNDATED) One hundred times in the past quarter-century, man has
left the surface of his home world in quest of the unknown beyond the
sky.
    Ninety-seven times, humans have circled the Earth for hours or
months, projecting the species far beyond its natural environment in
a way that philosophers have likened to the next step in evolution.
    Six times, humans went to the surface of another world and returned.
    The current total of 100 manned space flights consists of:
    - Six of the U.S. Mercury series.
    - Six of the Soviet Vostok series.
    - Ten of Gemini (U.S.).
    - Two of Voskhod (USSR).
    - Fifteen of Apollo (U.S.). (This was the moon-flight series, but
three trips went to Skylab and one to rendezvous with the Soviets in
orbit.)
    - Forty-eight of Soyuz (USSR) in its two versions.
    - And 13 for the U.S. Space Shuttle.
    Perhaps the best image of humanity extended beyond its environnment,
the stereotype of man in space, is that of first U.S. spacewalker Ed
White floating against a black background, the Earth a curve to one
side, umbilical coiled snake-like around him and his limbs slightly
bent by the shape and pressure of his space suit.
    Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov made the first spacewalk, but pictures of
him were stiff and inhibited. White is the 21st century cowboy riding
the sky, his lariat floating wild.
    It was the Soviet Union that scored the first two psychological and
technological breakthroughs in space. In 1957, the Russians orbited
the first manmade satellite, Sputnik 1. In 1961, they placed the
first human in orbit, Yuri Gagarin aboard Vostok 1.
    The greatest leap was made by the United States, placing a man on
the moon in 1969.
    But the shock of the Soviets' placing a man in orbit before
Americans even could send one on a brief lob shot aboard a Mercury
space capsule led a visionary president to set a tough goal. The
United States would sail across ''this new ocean,'' as John F.
Kennedy called it, and place a man on the moon ''before this decade
is out.''
    The three-man Apollo spacecraft that had been planned for Earth
orbit research was retargeted for the moon, and a two-man interim
craft, Gemini, was initiated to perfect rendezvous and other
techniques that would be needed for the missions.
    The Soviets responded, again before the United States could act,
with an upgraded Vostok called Voskhod that first carried three men,
then carried two and an airlock.
    But the value of having men in space never has gone unquestioned,
and many critical voices were raised at the start and continue today
with basically the same litany: Robots can do the job as well as men,
and without the cost or the risk.
    A summer 1962 ''Review of Space Research'' by the National Academy
of Sciences found: ''By his presence, man will contribute critical
capabilities for scientific judgment, discrimination and analysis
(especially of the total situation) which can never be accomplished
by his instruments, however complex and sophisticated they become.
Hence, manned exploration of space is science in space.''
    But other, equally eloquent voices argued against man's presence in
space, and quickly the space program was viewed as having an internal
battle of manned vs. unmanned exploration.
    Speaking at the University of Maryland in April 1963, Phil Abelson,
editor of Science magazine, said: ''What we are witnessing is the
expansion of a new sophisticated form of the pre-war Public
WorkPdministration. Science is being used as a 'front' for
technological leaf-raking.''
    Such criticism would grow louder after both U.S. and Soviet flight
crews were lost in tragedies. On Jan. 27, 1967, Gus Grissom, White
and Roger Chaffee were asphyxiated when fire swept through their
Apollo capsule during a countdown test. On April 4 that year,
cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov died when his Soyuz 1 spacecraft, tumbling
out of control, became entangled in its parachute lines and crashed
to Earth.
    Grissom, aware of the hazards, had said: ''If we die, we want people
to accept it. ... The conquest of space is worth the risk.''
    Both nations pressed on, and Apollo became a complete success,
placing 12 men (including a geologist) on the moon and providing a
cliffhanger with one mission disabled and barely making it back to
Earth.
    In 1972, while the last Apollo mission was under way, Time magazine
criticized the program's demise. Those who had opposed it were
''prisoners of limited vision who cannot comprehend, or do not care,
that Neil Armstrong's step in the lunar dust will be well remembered
when most of today's burning issues have become mere footnotes in
history.''
    Space stations became the order of the day. Apollo gave way to
Skylab, and Soyuz became the servant of Salyut, comparable to Skylab
but smaller. But again tragedy struck, killing three cosmonauts
returning from Salyut 1 after a three-week stay. A leaky valve let
all their air escape from the re-entry capsule.
    Again the Soviet program recovered, following with a series of space
stations, the most recent and successful being Salyuts 6 and 7.
    As NASA started shaping its post-Apollo future, the debate on manned
space flight livened again.
    Then-Sen. Walter F. Mondale, D-Minn., led the fight against the
proposed space shuttle, saying: ''I have seen no persuasive
justification for embarking upon a project of such staggering costs
at a time when many of our citizens are malnourished, when our rivers
and lakes are polluted, and when our cities and rural areas are
decaying.''
    ''I want to shift spending from space extravaganzas to needy
programs,'' the late Sen. Clifford Case, R-N.J., said then. ''The
space shuttle ... should not be allowed to go forward until the
proper role of manned vs. unmanned exploration has received a fuller
examination than it has to date.'''
    An opposing view came from Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska. ''Future
historians will smile at the irony of our situation,'' he said of the
early end to Apollo. ''Immediately following the fantastic feat of
sending men to the surface of the moon and back in safety, our
national resolve in expanding this effort faced a mounting wave of
domestic criticism. The irony of homo sapiens for the first time
standing upright on his planet and not availing himself of his full
ability to explore and experiment in the universe. The irony of not
moving forward as aggressively as possible from a new beginning
almost as fundamental as the beginning of life itself.''
    Even the New York Times, which had opposed Apollo, responded
favorably to the shuttle, noting it was less expensive than Apollo
and not conceived in a ''beat the Russians'' atmosphere.
    NASA went on to build the space shuttle, the reusable spacecraft
which has not flown as frequently or cheaply as the agency promised
at the start, but which has done virtually everything else from
hosting scientists to repairing satellites in its first 13 missions,
the latest being the 100th manned space flight.
RB END DOOLING
(DISTRIBUTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE)

nyt-11-02-84 1844est
***************