46 years of human spaceflight

[Jason Thompson]

On this day in 1961 Yuri Gagarin boarded his Vostok capsule and became the first human to fly in space. In his 108-minute flight he made a near-complete orbit of the Earth (not quite complete, because he took off heading east and landed a little west of his launch site: Gherman Titov, the next Russian in space, occasionally claimed he was the first man to orbit the Earth during his day-long flight).

Gagarin was no more than a passenger. Soviet scientists, concerned about the effect of weightlessness on a man's ability to function, decided on total automation of the capsule, with the controls only unlocked to a cosmonaut in an emergency. Vostok was a two-part spacecraft, consisting of a spherical re-entry module and an equipment module. When the time came to initiate retrofire and jettison the equipment module the main electrical umbilical refused to disengage, and the capsule tumbled as it re-entered until the cable burned through. Fortunately, the spherical re-entry module was covered over its entire surface in ablative heatshield material. Had such a tumbling re-entry occurred on NASA's Mercury capsule the spacecraft would have burned up.

An element of controversy surrounded his return to Earth. The USSR wanted to claim the world altitude record under the FAA guidelines. Unfortunately thay stipulated that a pilot must remain with his vehicle to landing. and Vostok culd not land softly enough to avoid injuring the cosmonaut. After re-entry, when the capsule parachute had deployed, Gagarin used an ejector seat and parachuted to Earth separately from the capsule. This was not mentioned for many years, and thanks to the remote landing area and the strict press censorship no-one outside the Russian space program knew he had ejected.

While he was in space, in keeping with the Russian system of not announcing projects until they were underway and successful, the world was told that a man was orbiting above them. Famously, or infamously, a NASA spokesman on being informed responded 'we're all asleep down here', which naturally made it to the headlines later as an official response indicating what a state the US manned space prgram was in. That was somewhat unfair: it was 2.30 in the morning when the press man called the spokesman, who was naturally in bed and asleep, and not really with it enough to take in the breathlessly rushed question fired at him the moment he picked up the phone. Interestingly, had it not been for a minor malfunction on a test flight that prompted an overcautious booster team to insist on a further unmanned test, NASA could have been first in space. The first manned flight had been scheduled for March. As it was, Alan Shepard took off for space barely three weeks later.

The space race had truly begun....

[Nathan]

Did he have windows?

[Si Hunt]

It's fascinating to read about how it all began, thanks Jason.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

You're very welcome, Si. And yes, Nathan, he did have windows.

[Nathan]

Good. Hate to go all that way and not have a view.

What a sight that must have been.

[Jason Thompson]

Indeed. Originally on both sides, as far as I know, the spacecraft designers made windowless capsules, on the grounds that adding a window was a complication in terms of structural integrity. In all cases more human considerations prevailed, considering it unacceptable to tell a man he was going into space but not allow him to see where he was going.

In the case of Mercury, the astronauts really got involved in the design process, and they insisted on the ability to control their spacecraft. Originally Mercury was to be fully automatic, but the astronauts always insisted that manual control was desirable.

In Vostok, the controls were locked with a numerical code. The code was written down and sealed in an envelope secreted in the cabin. In the event of an emergency the cosmonaut was to radio a request for the location of the envelope, answer a couple of questions to prove he was mentally sound enough to control the capsule, then he would be told where to find the envelope, open it, punch in the code and take manual control. If that sounds ludicrous, a lot of people thought so too, reasoning that in an emergency he wouldn't necessarily have time to go through all that, and if his comm system failed he'd be screwed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that at least three people disobeyed orders and risked disciplinary action ( not at all desirable in a communist regime) to tell Gagarin the release code before he got into the capsule.

[Ralph]

Yes the space race had begun but it limped home about 10 years later and not a lot has happened in the last 30 odd years...

[Jason Thompson]

The space race did anything but limp home. It charged ahead with daring missions, fantastic advances in technology, new inventions and real enthusiasm. Then it crossed the line and ambled around looking for something else to do and waiting for someone to give it the resources to do it.

[Logo Polish]

What was the first animal in space, a dog or a monkey? I have a feeling it was a dog but aren't certain. Circa 1956?

[Jason Thompson]

That all depends on whether you mean in space or in orbit. The first animals in space were fruit flies, launched on a US-built V-2 rocket in 1946. In 1949 they sent a monkey up but he died on impact because the parachute for the re-entry capsule failed. Several mice, monkeys and dogs were launched by both the US and the USSR in the early 50s, but these were suborbital shots.

The first animal in orbit was the dog Laika aboard Sputnik II, launched in November 1957. The flight was perhaps the first real indication that the USSR was more concerned with setting records than really making sensible progress, as they rushed to get Laika into space before they had any way to bring her back. It would have made more sense to wait until they could bring her back alive to really assess her health, but to make a big impression they shot a dog into space to die just so they could say they'd put the first animal in orbit.

[Logo Polish]

Ta, Jason.

This thread reminds me of the bit on Record Breakers when the kids would ask Norris McWhirter about anything in the Guinness book.

[Jason Thompson]

Go on, ask me another....

[Ralph]

The space race did anything but limp home. It charged ahead with daring missions, fantastic advances in technology, new inventions and real enthusiasm. Then it crossed the line and ambled around looking for something else to do and waiting for someone to give it the resources to do it.

Up until they reached the Moon sure but after that nothing of real significance has happened Jason. Sure we landed a craft on Mars in 1977 and a few others since but nothing else of real impact. We haven't reached further than "the gate at our back yard" and don't let anyone else tell you any different



My favourite description of the trip to the moon was an analogy of like that of a dog pissing at a lamp post to declare territory.

Astronauts are things of history like medieval suits of armour

[Jason Thompson]

Up until they reached the Moon sure but after that nothing of real significance has happened Jason.

Um, reaching the Moon was the finish line of the race. NASA certainly didn't limp over that line. They raced at it full pelt and made some amazing advancements in many areas on the way to do it.

Sure we landed a craft on Mars in 1977 and a few others since but nothing else of real impact.

What utter bollocks. Voyager, Hubble, SOHO, Galileo, Cassini, the Mars rovers no real impact? OK, manned spaceflight stalled badly after Apollo, but the unmanned stuff is still going from strength to strength.

We haven't reached further than "the gate at our back yard" and don't let anyone else tell you any different

Don't confuse my interest and enthusiasm for blind adoration, thank you. I am well aware of the limitations of the current space programs, but why should that take away from what were truly great achievements?

[Ralph]

but why should that take away from what were truly great achievements?

It doesn't but I like to have a bit of response to my posts

Still I think public perception in 1969 was that we would be much further on by this stage. I think a manned flight to Mars is still what 20 years to go, so it'll be a gap of some 60 years since the Moon... It's not easy to be patient when a human life span averages 70 odd years

Anyway had someone criticised the space programme I'd be among the first to come to it's defence but I am disappointed we're not further ahead.

[Carol Baynes]

Did he have windows?

It would be a bastard to go all that way and not see anything.

And...thanks for that Jason!

[Jason Thompson]

Still I think public perception in 1969 was that we would be much further on by this stage.

Absolutely it was. A manned Mars flight was projected for the 80s. The greatest tragedy of the space program, I think, is that NASA and its associates viewed Apollo as the beginning of a prolonged manned presence in space, reaching ever outwards, while the politicians who decided what the money got spent on, and the public who provided that money from their taxes, saw it as an ending. A lot of stuff that people now say was wasted getting to the Moon was designed and built with continued operation past Apollo in mind. It only became wasted because the short-sighted idiots withdrew the means to allow that hardware and infrastructure to be used in the manner for which it was intended, even though NASA had always been upfront about why it wanted to design and build things in the way it did. Congress literally approved a long-term space program including lunar bases and flights to Mars, then changed its mind having allowed them to build half the stuff they needed. NASA paid for Saturn V rockets up to and including Apollo 20. When Apollo 18, 19 and 20 were cancelled they converted one for use in launching Skylab, and the other two became the most expensive lawn ornaments in history. When the shuttle was approved the Saturn V was specifically removed from production to avoid competing. Yes, the most successful launch vehicle ever developed was retired in favour of a new devloping system that didn't have its first launch scheduled for any earlier than four years after the final Saturn V flight.

But that's true of everything in the space program, it seems now, especially the manned parts. Plans are made, approved and funded, then halfway through everything changes, making NASA look like it's been wasting money. The shuttle has wings because the Department Of Defence wanted to be able to use it for certain reconnaissance flights that required the wings for post-re-entry manoeuvrability in order to land at a site inaccessable by straightforward re-entry. NASA duly put wings in and finalised the design, then the DoD withdrew that requirement. Nothing the shuttle does now requires those wings at all. The cost of building and running the shuttle fleet was to be spread across commercial launches, research launches and military launches. Commercial customers who were interested originally withdrew, military custom was withdrawn after the Challenger disaster. Result: the shuttle is used far less than it was supposed to be, so the cost-per-flight is higher than it was meant to be when the program was approved. It's like buying a huge, gas-guzzling people carrier because you and your wife agreed to foster four children, then after you spent the money she changed her mind and left you, making you look like a posing prick who bought a car far bigger than you needed just to show off.

[Ralph]

Cheers Jason - yes it's interesting to see the influences which have slowed up progress. I had no idea the shuttle didn't actually need wings.

Looking further back if I'm correct the scientists working on behalf of the Nazis developed the V2 rocket which then became the blueprint for the Apollo rockets which got us to the moon.

Also in regard to progress I wonder if we would have had the moon landings in 1969 without two world wars earlier in the century - I suspect not. Having wars is good for human advancement sadly, perhaps best expressed as "necessity is the mother of invention".

[Wayne]

Looking further back if I'm correct the scientists working on behalf of the Nazis developed the V2 rocket which then became the blueprint for the Apollo rockets which got us to the moon.

There may've been others, but the only one i'm aware of is Wernher von Braun who if memory serves, was head of the team that designed the Saturn V rocket that was used during the apollo missions.

[Ralph]

Yeah I think there was quite a few German scientists scooped up by the americans after the war.

[Jason Thompson]

Cheers Jason - yes it's interesting to see the influences which have slowed up progress. I had no idea the shuttle didn't actually need wings.

They're useful, and the shuttle does now use a re-entry prifile that uses the wings, but that's a case of using the capability because it is there. Originally the DoD wanted to use the shuttle for single polar orbit flights. The shuttle would go up over the pole, make a single orbit and land again, taking pictures and performing other monitoring duties while it was up. Of course during one polar orbit the Earth rotates under the shuttle so that the landing strips are no longer on the flight path, hence the requirement for a delta wing shape to allow the shuttle to change direction in the atmosphere so it could reach a landing strip.

Looking further back if I'm correct the scientists working on behalf of the Nazis developed the V2 rocket which then became the blueprint for the Apollo rockets which got us to the moon.

A team of German scientists headed by Wernher von Braun was taken to the US after the war. They had indeed developed the V-2, but it's a bit of a stretch to say it was the blueprint for the Saturn V. The Redstone missile, which launched the suborbital Mercury flights, was based heavily on the V-2, but the Saturn V was a whole different beast. It was, however, designed by Wernher von Braun's team.

Also in regard to progress I wonder if we would have had the moon landings in 1969 without two world wars earlier in the century - I suspect not. Having wars is good for human advancement sadly, perhaps best expressed as "necessity is the mother of invention".

Probably not.

[Nathan]

Having wars is good for human advancement sadly, perhaps best expressed as "necessity is the mother of invention".

Very easily said when you are not actually doing the fighting.

[Ralph]

Very easily said when you are not actually doing the fighting.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there Nathan - I'm stating a fact not an opinion.

[Nathan]

Wars being good and necessary and all that.

[Jason Thompson]

Who said war was good and necessary? The statement was that war is good for technological progress, which sadly is undeniably true, and the reason for this is the necessity of developing technology in order to stay one jump ahead of your enemy. What is wrong with that statement? It doesn't say war is good, it doesn't say war is necessary. It says war can have positive outcomes driven by the necessities that arise when one is at war.