412TW-PA-19191

HISTORY OF U.S. AIR FORCE DEVELOPMENTAL TEST IN SPACE

STEPHANIE M. SMITH

AIR FORCE TEST CENTER EDWARDS AFB, CA

29 MARCH 2019

AFTC

Approved for public release A: distribution is unlimited.

AIR FORCE TEST CENTER EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

HISTORY OF U.S. AIR FORCE DEVELOPMENTAL TEST IN SPACE

STEPHANIE M. SMITH

HISTORY OF U.S. AIR FORCE DEVELOPMENTAL TEST IN

SPACE

STEPHANIE M. SMITH

AIR FORCE TEST CENTER HISTORY OFFICE EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA January 2019

viii

(U) Security Notice and Administrative Controls (U) The overall classification of this report is UNCLASSIFIED. This report has

been redacted to remove controlled unclassified information (CUI).

ix

x

(U) Table of Contents (U) Security Notice and Administrative Controls ............................................... viii

(U) Table of Contents ............................................................................................. x

(U) History of Air Force Developmental Test in Space ......................................... 1

(U) Abstract ........................................................................................................ 2

(U) Introduction .................................................................................................. 3

(U) Air versus Space ........................................................................................... 3

(U) Overview of Space Test ............................................................................... 5

(U) Air Force Developmental Test of Space Systems ........................................ 6

(U) Unmanned Space Systems........................................................................ 6

(U) Missile Tests at Arnold AFB ................................................................ 6

(U) Satellite Tests at Arnold AFB .............................................................. 8

(U) Air Force X-37B ................................................................................... 8

(U) NASA/Air Force X-51A Waverider ..................................................... 9

(U) Manned Space Systems .......................................................................... 10

(U) USAF/NASA/USN X-15 ................................................................... 10

(U) Space Capsule Projects: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo ............................ 14

(U) X-20A Dyna-Soar ............................................................................... 15

(U) Lifting Bodies ..................................................................................... 20

(U) Manned Orbiting Laboratory at Aerospace Research Pilot School ... 26

(U) Space Transportation System: the Space Shuttle ............................... 32

(U) F-15 Anti-Satellite Missile ................................................................. 35

(U) NASA Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle ............................................ 36

(U) Conclusion .................................................................................................. 37

(U) Glossary .......................................................................................................... 38

(U) Notes ............................................................................................................... 41

(U) Bibliography ................................................................................................... 51

(U) History of Air Force Developmental Test in Space

2

(U) Abstract

The history of Air Force developmental test in space includes both manned and unmanned vehicles and systems, ground and flight test, and the expertise of testers of both Arnold and Edwards Air Force Bases, with a history back to the 1950s. The examination of internal Air Force primary and secondary sources, as well external primary and secondary historical sources reveals that while developmental test and evaluation represented only a small part of the Air Force mission, the successful employment of air and space systems ultimately depended upon the expertise of testers in supplying relevant test data, gathered with rigor, objectivity, and discipline, to program designers, developers, and operators. Moreover, no other military organization in the nation matches the Air Force Test Center enterprise for experience in and capabilities for manned spaceflight, particularly in the transition from launch to orbit to reentry under pilot control, as well as for infrastructure and corporate and technical knowledge. This long, diverse, and fruitful history of space test expertise has made the Air Force Test Center test enterprise the optimal home for the future of Air Force developmental test in space.

3

(U) Introduction

(U) While test and evaluation within the Air Force at both Arnold and Edwards AirForce Bases constituted only a small part of the Air Force mission, the successful deployment of weapons and air and space systems in many ways relies upon the expertise and judgement of testers. The data they supply has allowed the Air Force to makes decisions on the future of a particular system, whether designed for air or space (or both), based upon verified rather than intended performance, as well as with knowledge of existing shortcomings and workarounds. The history of Air Force developmental test and evaluation has also demonstrated since the 1940s and the days of the Army Air Corps that no matter the domain, whether air, or space, that expertise still pertains. From manned space vehicles, including lifting bodies through the Space Shuttle, from ground tests at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC) at Arnold Air Force Base (AFB) to flight test at the Air Force Test Center (AFTC)1 at Edwards AFB, the ability of testers makes the difference between success and failure in the nation’s endeavors in both air and space.

(U) The curriculum of the United States Air Force (USAF) Test Pilot School at theEdwards AFB also reinforced the role of testers within the Air Force in the regimes of air and space. The school selected first-class professionals to attend, whether as pilots, astronauts or engineers, and provided them with exacting and extensive training in test and evaluation principles and their real-world application. During the space race, the USAF Test Pilot School became the Aerospace Research Pilot School to train USAF astronauts for military space projects. The high demand for trained graduates (both test pilots and astronauts) attested to the need for their expertise across the Air Force and beyond.

(U) The Arnold Engineering Development Complex at Arnold AFB, Tennessee,commenced operations in 1950. Ground test facilities there included an Engine Test Facility (ETF); the Propulsion Wind Tunnel (PWT); and the von Karman Gas Dynamics Facility (VKF). Arnolds AFB personnel conducted developmental test and evaluation of a wide variety of aerospace systems, both manned and unmanned. Among these included the first Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the U.S. Navy, satellites such as the first Air Force Global Positioning Satellite and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s weather satellite, the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules, as well as most of the manned and unmanned space vehicles flight tested at Edwards AFB, such as the lifting bodies, X-15, X-37, and X-51A.

(U) Air versus Space

(U) In order to discuss the invaluable role of the Air Force’s conduct ofdevelopmental test in space, one must first understand what constituted air versus space, or atmospheric versus exo-atmospheric flight, and what remained the province of aviation

4

versus that of aerospace. This answer varied among different international agencies and over time. The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), an international agency known for certifying aerospace records, accepted the Kármán line, 62 miles, 100 kilometers, or 328,000 feet above sea level as the boundary between Earth's atmosphere and outer space. However, the Kármán line stemmed from an arbitrary decision made by a group of researchers in the 1950s including Theodore von Kármán, and adopted since by a number of agencies. The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act that created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defined space simply as the region outside Earth’s atmosphere. The Department of Defense’s Joint Publication 3-14 on space operations defined space in April 2018 as the “area above the altitude where atmospheric effects on airborne objects become negligible.”2

(U) The X-15 flight research program epitomized the incongruities and ambiguity attendant upon delineating air versus space, particularly within a joint military and NASA project. Pilots in the X-15 rocket plane reached the edge of space and beyond, in both planned and unplanned high-altitude, high dynamic-pressure missions. Among the dozen X-15 pilots, eight reached the domain of space. Those employed by NASA, however, received no recognition as astronauts, while those in the USAF did. The USAF awarded astronaut wings to its five X-15 pilots: Michael J. Adams, Joe H. Engle, William J. “Pete” Knight, Robert A. Rushworth, and Robert M. White. However, NASA did not accord its X-15 research pilots astronaut wings until August 23, 2005, when William H. “Bill” Dana, and the late John B. “Jack” McKay and Joseph A. Walker, both recognized posthumously, received them. NASA reportedly later reconciled differences in what constituted an astronaut, at least. In light of the fact that civilian and military pilots might fly aboard the same craft under different definitions of space, NASA accepted the USAF definition of space as the region in which traditional aerodynamic control surfaces ceased to function. This meant an altitude in which dynamic pressure equaled less than one pound per square foot, or about 50 miles (82 kilometers) above mean sea level (MSL).3

(U) The definition of NASA astronaut fatalities provided additional confirmation of the contradictions inherent in attempting to delineate air and space. By the Air Force’s definition, USAF X-15 pilot Maj. Michael J. “Mike” Adams, who died in an X-15 mishap on November 15, 1967, comprised the first fatality on a U.S. space mission. Maj. Robert H. Lawrence, Jr., who died while completing a USAF Aerospace Research Pilot School astronaut training flight in an F-104 on December 8, 1967, represented the second. By the NASA definition, neither counted as an astronaut, but both appear on the NASA Kennedy Space Center’s Space Mirror Memorial honoring fallen American astronauts. Attempts to define a boundary between the regimes of air and space therefore have no clear, simple resolution.4

5

(U) Overview of Space Test

(U) President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act in 1958, after the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic’s (USSR) October 4, 1957 launch of Sputnik I, the first manufactured satellite to orbit the earth. President Eisenhower designated the Undersecretary of the Air Force as the Department of Defense (DoD)’s executive officer for space, and the Air Force’s acquisition executive for space vehicles and space technology. The National Aeronautics and Space Act also stated that the DoD would conduct military space activities, while also providing a mechanism for military and civilian coordination of space vehicle research and development.5

(U) The history of flight test of unmanned craft at Edwards AFB went back to the U.S Army Air Corps, predating the establishment of AFTC, with the first test of a General Motors (GM) A-1 “flying bomb” on November 15, 1941. The 200 horsepower aircraft, developed to carry a 500-pound bomb for 400 miles at speeds up to 200 miles per hour, constituted a larger version of the biplane “Bug” tested during World War I. While a final GM A-1 launch December 8, 1941 resulted in a successful flight of one hour and 35 minutes, ending the test series, it never went into production. If actually put into production, the A-1 would have represented the world’s first cruise missile.6

(U) The Air Force Test Center (AFTC), established in 1951 as the Air Force Flight Test Center∗ and headquartered at Edwards AFB, California, has had a long and illustrious history in the developmental test and evaluation of vehicles and systems operating at and beyond the edge of space. The X-15 flight research program, with 199 flights from 1959 to 1968, represented one of the longest, most productive, and most useful research programs ever undertaken by the USAF, the U.S. Navy, and NASA. A series of lifting body programs undertaken jointly between the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) and AFTC also contributed greatly to a body of skills in research and development of space vehicles and added to the wealth of data on space vehicles begun by the X-15 airborne research program. The AFTC also planned the X-20A Dynamic Ascent and Soaring (Dyna-Soar) program in 1958, which proposed a delta-winged glider boosted into orbit by a Titan III rocket. The Air Force administered the X-20A Dyna-Soar program, headed by former X-15 pilot Col. Pete Knight, when NASA itself had no orbital vehicles planned or underway. What is now the USAF Test Pilot School, known from 1961 through 1972 as the Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS), prepared USAF test pilots for the planned Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). Other projects included the approach and landing tests (ALT) conducted at AFTC for the Space Shuttle, as well as 54 landings from orbit accomplished at Edwards AFB. Finally, in 1985, then-Maj. Wilbert D. Pearson, Jr., destroyed a satellite from an F-15 in the culmination of an anti-satellite weapon program. Support for future hypersonic and other space vehicles continues at AFTC and Edwards AFB today.7

(U) Many often unseen contributions to American developmental space test originated in the Propulsion Wind Tunnels, Engine Test Facility, and von Karman Gas

6

Dynamics Facility of AEDC. The personnel there provided ground test and evaluation for a wide variety of space vehicles, systems, and components beginning in the 1950s. The diversity and impact of space-related projects tested at Arnold AFB exceeded the variety of flight test and evaluation projects conducted at Edwards AFB, particularly during the Cold War and space race. Arnold AFB provided ground test and data for unmanned space projects such as satellites for the Air Force and other federal agencies, and their engines and components, conventional and nuclear missiles for the Air Force and U.S. Navy, as well both the unmanned X-37 and X-51A space vehicles. Arnold testers also contributed to the development of numerous manned space vehicles, including the X-15, space capsules for Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, the Air Force’s military spaceplane, the X-20A Dyna-Soar, as well as lifting bodies, and NASA’s Space Transportation System, the Space Shuttle. This support for access to space continues today with ground test and evaluation of future capsules and other space vehicles.

(U) Air Force Developmental Test of Space Systems

(U) While not all space test programs related directly to the space race, competition with the Soviet Union, as a cultural, technological, and political clash, spurred American technological development. This particularly pertained to the series of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules, as well as many of the missiles and satellites under test in the facilities of AEDC. As the space race commenced, AEDC had begun developing capabilities to ground test missiles, space vehicles, and associated components. The testers there operated numerous aerodynamic and propulsion wind tunnels, rocket and turbine engine test cells, space environmental chambers, arc heaters, ballistic ranges, and other specialized units. The facilities at Arnold AFB provided simulated flight conditions from sea level to altitudes of more than 100,000 feet above mean sea level and from subsonic velocities to speeds well over Mach 20.8

(U) Unmanned Space Systems

(U) Missile Tests at Arnold AFB

(U) The capabilities of AEDC played a significant role in the development and ground test of many of the nation’s aerospace projects. Some of these included Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles such as the Atlas, Minuteman, and Peacekeeper. AEDC also contributed to development of the U.S. Navy’s Polaris, Poseidon, and Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles; the Tomahawk, Air-Launched Cruise Missile; and the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.9

(U) AEDC commenced its missile tests of the Air Force’s Convair SM-65 Atlas Intercontinental Ballistic Missile even before it became operational. Tests of a nose cone configuration for the Air Force’s Convair SM-65 Atlas Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

7

began in 1956 in Tunnel E-1. The Atlas nose cone became one of the first two test programs under test in the center’s 16-foot transonic wind tunnel (16T) in 1957.10

(U) The Arnold Engineering Development Complex counted the SM-75 Thor as among the earliest test articles to undergo aerodynamic tests of heat transfer, pressure distribution and forces during reentry. Among the first tests were those on early configurations proposed for Atlas, Titan, Thor and Polaris. The Air Force intended the Thor as an early Cold War stopgap until it completed development of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Only months later on December 29, 1958, AEDC testers commenced the first test phase of the Boeing LGM-30A Minuteman I Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), with tests of a scale-model in the 50-inch Mach 8 wind tunnel in the von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility (VKF). AEDC personnel followed this in 1959 with tests of subscale models of the missile for testing in the hypervelocity wind tunnels of VKF, providing data on the Minuteman’s flight characteristics. The Minuteman received the designation of highest national priority in 1959. On September 15, 1959, Boeing conducted the first flight test of a Minuteman at the Rocket Engine Test Station on Leuhman Ridge co-located at Edwards AFB with the launch of a tethered Minuteman missile with dummy second and third stages. The test validated launch from a silo.11

(U) Tests also took place at Arnold AFB on the replacement for the Minuteman, the Peacekeeper, with simulated high-altitude condition tests executed on the Peacekeeper’s Stage II motor in support of the Ballistic Missile Office. Testers also conducted 36 development motor firings, 12 full-scale flight proof tests, nine full-scale prequalification tests and 16 full-scale qualification tests in support of the Peacekeeper. All three stages of the missile also underwent production quality assurance (PQA) tests at AEDC. The DoD decommissioned the last of the first-strike capable Peacekeepers in September 2005 under the 1993 Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) II bilateral treaty, in spite of the fact that Russia had declared the treaty null and void June 14, 2002.12

(U) Tests of the U.S. Navy’s submarine-launched missiles also routinely took place at AEDC. AEDC conducted the first “user” tests in Tunnel F in von Kármán Gas Dynamics facility, on the U.S. Navy Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) Polaris (A1) program, built during the Cold War, and intended as a nuclear deterrent. The new wind tunnel 9 provided realistic simulation of 11,000 mile an hour speeds and 15,000 degree temperatures, designed for use in predicting the performance at high speeds and temperatures of long-range missiles and aircraft. The Polaris Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) represented the first of the U.S. Navy’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles tested at AEDC in 1956.13

(U) By 1967, AEDC had also begun ground test and evaluation of the U.S. Navy’s Trident missile, to aid in to reducing the missile’s drag and increasing its range, as well as verifying ignition and performance. The Navy intended its Trident missile, armed with nuclear warheads for launch from nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines such as its Ohio class submarines. AEDC’s personnel completed tests of the Trident missile in the base’s rocket test cells J-4, J-5 and J-6, the Decade facility, the Propulsion Wind Tunnel’s 16-foot transonic wind tunnel (16T), Tunnel F and the H-1 Arc Heater facility. Many of

8

these facilities represented unique capabilities. The U.S. Navy first deployed the Trident I in 1979, and began discontinuing it beginning in the 1990s.14

(U) Satellite Tests at Arnold AFB

(U) Arnold’s ground test facilities enabled tests of numerous American satellite programs beginning in the 1960s, including both the Block I and Block II NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS), and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s first Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-M (GOES-M) weather satellite. Beginning in February 1965, AEDC’s Mark 1 facility provided a space-environment simulation test chamber allowing full-scale test of space systems exposed to conditions replicating the vacuum and temperatures of space in which personnel at AEDC conducted two stages of test on the NAVSTAR GPS in 1977. The first stage certified the satellite’s thermal control system, by testing its ability to keep temperature-sensitive components within certain ranges both during normal flight and in emergencies caused by loss of electrical power from the satellite’s solar cells. The second stage verified the vehicle’s operational systems, with tests of the stability of the satellite’s clocks under temperature extremes. Accuracy of the rubidium clock in spacing a coded navigational signal formed the core of the satellite’s operating system, and such clocks had estimated accuracy to within a single second in 30,000 years. Finally, AEDC personnel verified the satellite’s ability to withstand six hot-cold cycles at extreme temperatures in AEDC’s Mark 1 chamber, completing these tests on July 15, 1977.15

(U) AEDC personnel performed thermal qualification and engineering design tests on an early prototype of the Block II Global Positioning Satellite in the Mark I facility in the mid-1980s. These tests utilized the center’s space chamber to simulate over 1,000 hours, or 45 days, of both normal temperature and vacuum conditions, as well as at extreme, “worst-case” temperatures that the satellite might encounter. AEDC completed these daily thermal qualification tests after four months of testing in 1985.16

(U) The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-M, which provides the world’s weather satellite images, also underwent pre-launch qualification testing in the Mark 1 chamber beginning August 7, 2000, prior to its launch July 22, 2001. AEDC personnel validated the satellite’s operation in a simulated orbital environment, including cryogenic and solar temperatures under vacuum conditions. The Mark 1 chamber provided a vacuum of less than one-billionth of normal air pressure, while the walls cooled to -321 degrees Fahrenheit. Using special heaters to simulate solar effects, AEDC personnel verified the operation of the GOES-M at the seasonal temperatures the satellite would encounter in space. AEDC set a new test duration record with the GOES-M during the thermal vacuum tests, which lasted over 45 days.17

(U) Air Force X-37B

(U) An unmanned space vehicle under test at both Arnold and Edwards AFB, the Air Force’s X-37B originated when Boeing developed the Future X Space Maneuvering

9

Vehicle for NASA to supply unmanned, autonomous spacecraft able to convey small satellites into orbit, conduct on-orbit reconnaissance, and perform additional chores in space. The program began in January 1999, with a four-year cooperative agreement between Boeing and NASA to design the Space Maneuver Vehicle. The X-37 and smaller-scale X-40A formed two components of the Future X program originally managed by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. The X-40A Advanced Technology Demonstrator, an unpowered, 80-percent scale vehicle, would ultimately support the development of the X-37, the full-scale Space Maneuvering Vehicle. NASA intended the Space Maneuvering Vehicle to have the capability to orbit for a year and return to earth on demand, as the second stage of a Space Operations Vehicle system. The Space Operations Vehicle would have the ability to modify its orbit and perform a variety of missions for Air Force Space Command and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).18

(U) The personnel of both AEDC and AFTC provided support for the Future X program. Wind tunnel testing at Arnold helped provide information used for the final design of the X-37 flight control system. A model of the X-37 underwent wind tunnel tests in Tunnel 9 at AEDC. A team of AEDC personnel also conducted tests of the aerodynamic jet interaction effects resulting from small reactor control system jets on the aft section of the X-37, and in 2001, AEDC engineers collected data during two series of wind tunnel tests, which contributed to the final design and support of flight tests. In September 2004, NASA transferred the X 37 technology demonstrator to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and on April 7, 2006, the X-37 made its first flight in a drop test at Edwards AFB.19

(U) The Air Force conducted its own missions of an unmanned X-37B based on NASA’s X-37 design beginning with the first X-37B orbital mission on April 22, 2010. The Air Force’s fifth X-37B orbital mission launched September 7, 2017, from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.20

(U) NASA/Air Force X-51A Waverider

(U) The U.S. Air Force, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, NASA and The Boeing Company cooperated in a step toward the first air-breathing hypersonic flight in the unmanned X-51A WaveRider. Boeing built four X-51A WaveRider cruisers, intended as Scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) Engine Demonstrators to test an air-breathing hypersonic propulsion system. Like the X-37B, the X-51A underwent ground tests at AEDC at Arnold AFB, and flight test and evaluation at AFTC at Edwards AFB.21

(U) The X-51A underwent developmental ground tests at AEDC in 2006. Test of stability and control at hypersonic velocities, including both angle-of-attack and angle-of-sideslip, validated the aerodynamic configuration provided high fidelity data for the conduct of vehicle performance evaluations.22

(U) The Edwards AFB flight test team evaluated various X-51A systems and telemetry while demonstrating successful launch and flight of the system from launch through boost to Mach 5 or above, followed by non-recoverable splashdown. The key

10

technologies under test in the X-51A included scalable scramjet propulsion; high temperature materials; airframe and engine integration; and high speed guidance, navigation, and control. The first flight test of the X-51A took place December 9, 2009, a captive-carry test that verified the handling qualities and performance of the B-52 mothership with the X-51A attached, as well as communications and telemetry.23

(U) On its fourth flight test on May 26, 2010, the X-51A “Waverider” Scramjet Engine Demonstrator vehicle executed the longest ever supersonic combustion ramjet-powered hypersonic flight in a mission performed off the coast of southern California. The Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne-built air breathing scramjet engine accelerated the test vehicle to Mach 5. Air Force officials called the X-51A test an unqualified success, and considered it the first use of a practical hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet in flight. The flight reached an altitude of about 70,000 feet, a 200-second engine burn, and a top speed of Mach 5. A previous scramjet burn in a flight test of the X-43A had achieved a mere 10 seconds.24

(U) The successful demonstration of the hypersonic X-51A proved the viability of the supersonic combustion ramjet, while also contributing to an increase in confidence on the part of the Air Force in hypersonic technology. This in turn led to the approval of additional hypersonic projects, including the test of long-range, high-speed strike weapons to allow the Air Force to counter future threats and hold them at risk anywhere in the world.

(U) Manned Space Systems

(U) Test and evaluation of manned space vehicles operating at the edge of space and beyond took place beginning the 1950s at both Arnold and Edwards Air Force Bases (AFB) with tests of such joint Air Force and NASA test programs as the X-15, lifting bodies, and the space shuttle. Testers at both Arnold AFB and Edwards AFB also conducted development test and evaluation for Air Force’s military space programs like the planned X-20A Dyna-Soar spaceplane and Manned Orbiting Laboratory, AEDC’s personnel conducted numerous tests in support of the space capsule projects for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, as well.

(U) USAF/NASA/USN X-15

(U) In 1952, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration commenced studies to determine a means of exploring problems in spaceflight, which resulted in plans for the X-15. NASA, the U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Navy held their first joint meeting on the X-15 in May 1954, and by December had signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate in the X-15 space flight research program. The X-15 rocket-powered research vehicle would allow NASA, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Navy to investigate high-speed, high altitude flight. Their agreement delegated the technical direction of the program to the NASA, and created a Research Airplane Committee to provide advice and assistance, consisting of members from NASA, the Air Force, and U.S. Navy. The U.S. Air Force administered the design and construction phases and supported the program, with research aircraft constructed by North American, Inc.25

11

(U) The X-15 would explore the aerodynamics of hypersonic flight, the structural characteristics of an aircraft under high aerodynamic heating conditions, the effectiveness of a reaction control system in flight regimes in which conventional aerodynamic controls had proven ineffective, and the potential psychological and physiological issues attendant upon the weightless conditions of space flight. Some of the requirements for achieving these aims included the ability to reach 6,600 feet per second maximum velocity, the ability to reach at least 250,000 feet altitude above mean sea level, and structural areas that could survive heating rates of 30 British Thermal Unit (BTUs) per square feet per second.26

(U) North American produced three X-15 vehicles for the joint USAF/NASA/U.S. Navy program. Covered in a heat-treated Inconel-X nickel alloy to withstand the 1,200-degree Fahrenheit temperatures expected at high speeds, the X-15 measured only 50 feet, with a 22-foot wingspan. In the initial phases of the program, the X-15 employed two of the same engines used on the Bell XS-1, the XLR11, producing 8,000 pounds thrust and fueled by liquid oxygen and water alcohol. The Reaction Motors Division of Thiokol Chemical Corporation produced the XLR99 engine, used later in the X-15, and which provided 58,000 pounds of thrust using liquid oxygen and anhydrous ammonia.27

(U) Additional requirements for the survivability of the X-15’s pilot under high dynamic pressure and high speed also underwent test and evaluation at AFTC. Beginning March 25, 1958, the center’s Experimental High Speed Track undertook tests to determine the effects of high-speed windblast on the X-15 pilot’s pressure suit, and on the X-15 ejection seat. Both U.S. Air Force Captains Iven C. Kincheloe, and Robert M. White, U.S. Air Force test pilots assigned to the X-15 project, and Neil A. Armstrong, National Aeronautics and Space Administration test pilot assigned to the X-15 project, observed these initial wind-blast tests.28

(U) Both AFTC and AEDC contributed to test and evaluation efforts in the X-15 program. So too, did several facilities under the aegis of NASA, including the facility at Edwards AFB now known as the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center.

(U) Tests of the X-15 at Arnold AFB

(U) Arnold AFB’s support for the X-15 flight research project spanned the program. Early aerodynamic tests in the 1950s contributed to the design and development of the X-15. AEDC also conducted a series of high-speed and altitude wind tunnel tests measuring temperature and aerodynamic load at hypersonic speeds tests on a one-sixteenth-scale X-15 model in 1958.29

(U) The X-15 Flight Research Program at Edwards AFB

(U) The first X-15, serial number (s/n) 56-6670 arrived at Edwards AFB on October 17, 1958, the second, s/n 56-6671, on April 10, 1959, and the third, s/n 56-6672, July 30, 1959. Scott Crossfield, former NASA pilot then employed by North American, made the first, unpowered glide flight of the X-15 on June 8, 1959. Crossfield largely had responsibility for the contractor’s Phase I contract demonstration to validate speed up to

12

Mach 2 and altitudes up to 100,000 feet. North American then handed the X-15 off to the U.S. Air Force, NASA, and the U.S. Navy for the aerospace research program conducted at Edwards AFB to investigate piloted hypersonic flight in all its aspects.30

(U) As with previous rocket planes under test at AFTC at Edwards AFB, a B-52B mothership routinely air-launched it due to the excessive fuel requirements of a ground-based launch. The mothership released the X-15 at an altitude of approximately 45,000 feet. Depending on the mission, the X-15’s rocket engine provided thrust for the first 80 to 120 seconds of flight. Pilots typically executed of one two X-15 flight profiles. The first constituted a high-altitude flight plan, in which the pilot maintained a steep rate of climb. The second, a speed profile, called for the pilot to push over and maintain a level altitude. Engine cut-off timing and angle-of-attack both presented the pilot with absolutely critical tasks. Each extra second of unplanned engine operation resulted in an additional 7500 feet in altitude; one degree angle-of-attack also added or subtracted 7,500 feet in altitude. To help compensate for the sudden loss of thrust after engine burnout, the designers placed a side-arm controller with arm rest in the cockpit, keeping the pilot from lurching forward and causing unnecessary pitch inputs at high speeds. The pilot executed the rest of the 10- to 11-minute mission without power, using energy management to re-enter the atmosphere, glide to Edwards AFB, and land at approximately 200 miles per hour.31

(U) AFTC’s responsibilities in the X-15 flight research program included: pilot support, engineering, maintenance, and logistic support of X-15 engines, auxiliary power units, and pressure suits; support, control, and operation of the microwave added to the Air Force-owned and NASA-operated High Range instrumentation system; operation and maintenance of X-15 carrier airplanes and escort and rescue aircraft; and administration of Air Force-furnished propellants. The 6510th USAF Hospital Bioastronautics division at Edwards AFB also provided biomedical support. This encompassed both the provision and evaluation of the pressure suits in use as they evolved throughout the program, as well as in-flight monitoring and assessment of pilot physiological reactions to high-speed, high-altitude flight. Pressure suits evolved from a three-piece MC-2 suit to an A/P-22S-2 suit with a pressure-sealing zipper that allowed the development of a single-piece suit.32

(U) Between its first glide flight June 8, 1959 and the termination of the X-15 flight research program in December 1968, thirteen of the X-15’s 199 flights reached space. NASA X-15 pilots achieved six of these, with the other seven exo-atmospheric flights completed by U.S. Air Force pilots Robert M. White, Robert Rushworth, Joe Engle, William “Pete” Knight and Michael J. Adams. The X-15 also set unofficial world's unofficial speed and altitude records of Mach 6.7 (4,520 miles per hour), and 354,200 feet. The latter record remained unbroken for the next 35 years.33

(U) Technological Legacy of the X-15 Program

(U) When NASA research pilot William H. Dana made the final flight of the X-15 hypersonic rocket-powered airframe on October 24, 1968, he ushered out one of the most successful space and atmospheric research programs ever conducted at Edwards AFB. The

13

technological developments, data, and experience garnered from the X-15 flight research program directly informed the nation’s space capsule program. The X-15 program provided in-flight data on aerodynamics, structures, heating, flight controls, and physiological information on the effects of operating in a high-speed, high-altitude regime. The X-15 also performed as a testbed, used to repeatedly expose various scientific experiments to conditions beyond the Earth's atmosphere. The X-15 influenced Project Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo projects. This influence included both the Lunar Landing Research (LLRV) and Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV), developed to train Apollo astronauts like Neil Armstrong and others in simulated moon landings, which used the same hydrogen peroxide rockets utilized in the X-15. The X-15 also influenced the design concept, development, and test and evaluation of the Space Shuttle program.34

(U) The X-15 design demonstrated that the Air Force and NASA could predict hypersonic aerodynamic heating effects well enough to support a hot-structure-design vehicle. Moreover, with few exceptions, local thermal issues did not impact the main structural areas of the vehicle. Aerodynamic derivatives derived from flight-test data confirmed the estimates from wind-tunnel tests and increased the Air Force’s confidence in its wind-tunnel evaluations conducted at hypersonic speeds. In addition, flight and wind tunnel measurements of aerodynamic forces on the X-15 at low angles-of-attack generally agreed. Future flights at higher angles-of-attack would experience flow effects characterized by interference and non-linear effects, and X-15 model trim lift and drag data obtained via wind tunnel again agreed with flight data, once again confirming the utility and efficacy of wind tunnel tests.35

(U) Issues with hypersonic aerodynamic heating did cause some localized hot spots on the airframe. Due to differential pressure at altitude, the X-15’s canopy lifted slightly in flight, allowing stagnant air to burn the rubber canopy seal and resulting in a loss of cabin pressure. At Mach 5.28, the upper surfaces of the wing skins began to buckle just behind the expansion slots in the leading edge. This, along with tripping of the boundary layer, led to localized hot spots in the wing skin. At Mach 6.24, on the X-15’s maximum speed flight, the glass in the outer canopy had shattered soon after engine burnout. The development of a bi-metallic “floating retainer” dissipated stresses in the X-15's windshield, a technology also implemented in the windshields of the Apollo capsule and Space Shuttle orbiter.36

(U) Many of the data gathered by the X-15 flight research program had an impact on successive space flight programs. NASA utilized the X-15 as a testbed for the test of materials used in the Apollo Command/Service Module and spacecraft, and materials developed for the X-15, such as titanium and nickel-steel alloys also proved valuable for the design of the Apollo and later spacecraft.37

(U) Pilot and flight planner’s repeated use of the X-15 analog simulator to rehearse X-15 missions in advance aided in establishing pilot cues and timing. Practicing until techniques used in flight became routine eased the workload, and therefore the pilot's ability to make precise observations and obtain accurate data in flight. The experiences of AFTC and NASA AFRC with X-15 simulation made it an integral part of succeeding

14

programs, even for unmanned space vehicles, such as the X-33, a half-scale prototype of a reusable space plane with linear aerospike engines designed in the late 1990s.38

(U) The X-15 also made the first practical use of a reaction control system in space. A set of thrust rockets on the nose of the aircraft and powered by hydrogen peroxide allowed control of pitch and yaw. Another set of thrust rockets on the wings controlled roll. NASA later used a reaction control system in the design of the Space Shuttle for maneuvers outside the atmosphere, where aeronautical control surfaces did not function.39

(U) The Air Force also pioneered another system on the X-15 with significant future applications, the adaptive flight control system. The Air Force began flight test of the concept on two aircraft in 1957, the Lockheed F-94 and McDonnell F-101. Beginning in 1961, the number 3 X-15 operated with a Minneapolis-Honeywell MH-96 adaptive flight control system throughout its flight envelope—the first of its kind on any winged reusable spacecraft. The system provided pilots with variable control gains throughout a “stunning range of speeds, altitudes, and dynamic pressures.” The adaptive flight control system, as with many other features of the X-15 research program, would see use in the NASA Space Shuttle program, as well as in other aircraft.40

(U) Bioastronautics specialists at AFTC also demonstrated that pilots suffered no significant electrocardiographic abnormalities, no adverse physiological effects during X-15 operations, and no correlation between pilot performance and physiologic response. Gemini astronauts also wore a version of the X-15 pressure suit.41

(U) Maj. Gen. Joe H. Engle, the only astronaut ever chosen for the X-15, Apollo, and Space Shuttle programs, also piloted the prototype space shuttle Enterprise Approach and Landing Tests. Maj. Gen. Engle also became the only pilot ever to manually fly the shuttle back from orbit had ample opportunity to compare the X-15 with later space vehicles. He pointed out that maneuvers created to slow the X-15, and the proof-of-concept for an unpowered return from outside the atmosphere, gave Space Shuttle pilots the tools they needed for unpowered returns from orbit at Mach 30+.42

(U) Space Capsule Projects: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo

(U) The professionals at AEDC contributed to the development and test of U.S. access to space in the realm of manned spaceflight, including most famously, the NASA space capsule projects Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the Space Shuttle.

(U) During Project Mercury, AEDC provided critical testing on components of the spacecraft. AEDC personnel conducted tests on a 1/3-scale model of the space capsule in September 1959. The data AEDC provided aided McDonnell in determining the static stability of two Mercury capsule configurations. The personnel at Arnold AFB conducted 85 static tests on the Mercury capsule retro motors. They also test fired five motors at AEDC to validate their performance in the vacuum of space, while also putting the motors through temperature extremes, vibration tests, and static tests at vacuum and sea level.43

15

(U) Ground test and evaluation at AEDC for Project Gemini included tests on a number of technologies, as well as on the Gemini and Agena capsules. AEDC personnel tested Gemini models in the facility’s hypersonic tunnels at the extreme conditions expected upon reentry. These tests aided the designers with structure and survivability of the capsule and its heat shield before the building of a full-scale capsule began. AEDC also tested astronauts’ escape systems and attitude controls in simulated space conditions. Environmental tests of the Agena began in March 1959, which also contributed significantly to the Gemini program.44

(U) In the 1960s, the testers at Arnold AFB also conducted approximately 55,000 hours of ground tests in support of the Apollo capsule program, which involved 25 of the center’s existing 40 test facilities at the time. These included simulated reentry tests that evaluated thermal protection materials. Between 1960 and 1968, AEDC conducted more than 3,300 hours of wind tunnel tests, or more than 35 percent of all of NASA’s wind tunnel tests for the Apollo space capsule. In addition, between June 1965 and June 1970, the personnel of AEDC conducted 340 rocket-engine test firings in the single largest test program ever conducted at AEDC to man-rate the upper stages of the Saturn V.45

(U) Tests conducted at Arnold AFB for the nation’s manned space capsule programs during the space race provided an excellent demonstration of the utility of the expertise in ground test at AEDC on one of the most highly visible and important endeavors in American history. The tens of thousands of test hours conducted at Arnold AFB proved invaluable to the achievement of the first human space mission to land on the moon, which ultimately gave the United States a socio-political edge in the Cold War, as well as on the world stage, and the frontiers of science and technology.

(U) X-20A Dyna-Soar

(U) Developmental test and evaluation of Air Force manned space projects took place at both Arnold and Edwards. For example, early in the planning phase for the X-15 program, the Air Force foresaw the need for an extension of the flight capabilities of the X-15 into the high hypersonic flight regime up to orbital speed. The Air Force desired a system to explore and demonstrate re-entry of a piloted orbital space vehicle, capable of a conventional landing, to gather data on the hypersonic flight regime, and take a crucial step in attaining future military piloted space flight. Following the completion of several defense contractor studies on various boost-glide vehicle concepts, and the Soviet launch of Sputnik on 4 October 1957, the Air Force consolidated these discrete concepts into one, three-phase dynamic soaring program called the X-20A Dyna-Soar on October 10, 1957. The X-20A Dyna-Soar program represented the first industry-scale effort to use the lifting reentry approach to access to space.46

(U) Program planners described the X-20A as a hybrid between a missile and an aircraft. Boosters would lift the Dyna-Soar to orbital speed. Following booster separation, the X-20A would navigate and maneuver like an aircraft. The Air Force intended its X-20A Dyna-Soar (or dynamic soarer) flight test program to demonstrate the feasibility of a

16

manned boost-glide weapons systems operating in hypersonic flight regime at orbital speeds and global ranges. The flight test program would consist of air-launches of an X-20A test vehicle from a mother ship over the X-15 high range to a landing at 200-knots on the Rogers Dry Lake at Edwards AFB. The Air Force then planned to test the vehicle at sub-global ranges with planned landings on islands in the Atlantic Missile Range. The final portion of the test program called for the launch of the manned X-20A from a booster to the east from Patrick AFB, Florida into Earth orbit at global velocity to a horizontal landing at Edwards AFB.47

(U) Following the issuance of System Development Directive 464 by the Air Force in November 1957, the Air Force commenced a design competition for three phases of a military space plane: an experimental glider, reconnaissance vehicle, and bombardment vehicle. An X-20A Dyna-Soar competition followed, involving nine major aircraft companies. The Air Force chose Boeing and Martin for the Phase I competition. In November 1959, the Air Force chose Boeing as the contractor for the vehicle, with Martin chosen to develop the rocket to launch Dyna-Soar. However, each contractor answered directly to the X-20A System Program Office, which allowed friction and competition to mar the development process.48

(U) The Air Force also made another significant initial decision in the X-20A program, choosing to pursue a hot primary-structure approach (versus an active-cooled aluminum sub-structure), intended as the first of its type. To deal with the thermal expansion, the internal structure of the X-20A would consist of a Rene 41 nickel base steel alloy for the wing, chosen for its strength at elevated temperatures. This decision significantly increased the technical challenges involved in the X-20A Dyna-Soar program and might have better suited a technology demonstrator than an operational vehicle.49

(U) While the DoD solicited the assistance of the NASA in 1957, the two organizations did not finalize an agreement until 1958. Even so, their agreement made clear that the Air Force would remain preeminent in the development and test of the X-20A Dyna-Soar, with the role of NASA confined to technical consultation.50

(U) The Air Force unveiled the X-20A Dyna-Soar on September 20, 1962 at the Air Force Association convention in Las Vegas, Nevada. Undersecretary of the Air Force Joseph V. Charyk remarked on this occasion that, “The X-20A . . . is designed to explore the narrow band of speed and altitude into a complete corridor to space—a corridor within which man will be able to exit and reenter from space under his own control, using the atmosphere to arrive and land at a place of his own choosing.”51

(U) However, although Undersecretary Charyk also claimed that the X-20A had no specific military purpose, X-20A Dyna-Soar documents unclassified since program cancellation reveal the extent to which the USAF intended to use the X-20A as an inter-continental bomber and reconnaissance platform, perhaps via the mechanism of skipping off the atmosphere. President Eisenhower’s frequently expressed discomfort with militarizing space, even in the post-Sputnik era, made political support for the X-20A controversial. For example, at the 1961 meeting of the American Rocket Society, President

17

Eisenhower insisted, “We want to make the space age an age of peace. We have no desire to convert outer space into a battleground of the Cold War.” The Air Force could also have incurred potentially astronomical costs in moving from experimental glider to operations by 1971, particularly problematic when classified Corona satellites fulfilled the reconnaissance function Air Force advocates expected the X-20A to perform. The Air Force responded to such concerns by deemphasizing the military purpose of the vehicle, and focusing on the Dyna-Soar largely as a research and development vehicle.52

(U) X-20A Dyna-Soar Tests at Arnold AFB

(U) The X-20A Dyna-Soar program consumed over 16 million man-hours, 11 million of these devoted to engineering. Along with Boeing and NASA, AEDC, and AFTC at Edwards AFB cooperated in the X-20A Dyna-Soar program. The team at Arnold conducted wind tunnel tests on X-20A models, which aided Boeing in finalizing the X-20A vehicle’s design. Wind tunnels tests of models of the Boeing X-20A Dyna-Soar vehicle configuration took place numerous times during the Dyna-Soar program at AEDC.53

(U) In 1959, wind tunnel tests on four basic models of the Boeing Aircraft Company’s Phase I X-20A Dyna-Soar vehicle took place in AEDC’s Tunnel B, an axisymmetric, continuous-flow, hypersonic wind tunnel, with a 50-inch-diameter test section. Boeing had constructed three of the four models of Inconel-X, the same material as the X-15, and the fourth of stainless steel. These tests helped to determine heat transfer measurements, and before each test run required shielding the model under test from tunnel airflow via a pair of cooling shoes. Testers introduced cold air to cool the model skin to temperatures lower than 32 degrees Fahrenheit.54

(U) Tests of the effects on the Boeing Phase I Dyna-Soar vehicle’s stability and control resulting from configuration changes, control deflection, and attitude of the model took place in Tunnel B of the von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility, AEDC between April 13 and April 23, 1959 and between July 21 and July 28, 1959. These tests helped determined the effects on design of the wing’s lower surface design, fin vertical tip, and the impact of rudder, elevator, and ailevator deflections on stability and control, particularly at high angles-of-attack.55

(U) Between October 19 and December 22, 1959, tests took place in Tunnel 2 (Hotshot) of the von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility, an arc-discharge, blowdown wind tunnel with a 50-inch diameter test section, to determine trailing edge control effectiveness at hyper-velocities of Mach 16 through 20 in the Boeing Dyna-Soar model. Elevon deflection had no effect on pressures measured on the wing surfaces. Testers also determined that longitudinal pressure distributions remained constant.56

(U) The team at Arnold AFB conducted tests in Tunnel B between December 22 and 28, 1960 on the general level of aerodynamic heating on the Dyna-Soar with booster. The test article consisted of a complete Dyna-Soar vehicle, a glider and two-stage booster configuration. The test team obtained heat transfer and pressure distributions on a version

18

of the complete Dyna-Soar glider-booster vehicle, observing unusually high heat transfer coefficients and pressures immediately ahead of the forward booster case, and heat transfer coefficients on the most leeward ray of the model.57

(U) In mid-1961, personnel at Arnold AFB utilized visual techniques for determining qualitative aerodynamic heating and surface-flow streamline patterns along with conventional transient heat-transfer test techniques to determine flow properties over the forward section of the Dyna-Soar glider at Mach 8 and Mach 10. Tests took place in the 50-inch Mach 8 and Mach 10 wind tunnels of the von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility between July 5 and 6, 1961, and September 19 and 21, 1961. Arnold personnel observed boundary-layer transition on the lower surface of the delta wing in results of both the qualitative and quantitative heat transfer tests.58

(U) In early fiscal year 1962, an Arnold AFB test team also conducted tests on a 0.04-scale model of the Dyna-Soar DS-l air vehicle (Titan II booster) in the 40-inch diameter supersonic wind tunnel of the von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility. The team determined loadings on the horizontal booster fin, as well as the effects of fin, glider, and glider elevon incidence upon the aerodynamic characteristics of the complete vehicle at various combinations of pitch and sideslip. The team also investigated the aerodynamic characteristics of various completed X-20A Dyna-Soar configurations, including the glider in the presence of the booster; the booster with the glider removed; and the glider-second stage combination, and at various angles-of-attack. The team’s results showed that changing the elevon deflection angle had the same impact on normal force and pitching moment as changing the glider’s angle of incidence. In addition, testers at Arnold AFB found the complete vehicle both longitudinally and directionally unstable but the Stage II booster-glider combination both longitudinally and directionally stable.59

(U) X-20A Dyna-Soar at Edwards AFB

(U) An Edwards AFB team trained the pilots and planned the conduct of flight test and evaluation that would take place upon completion of the X-20A test vehicles. A pilot group of six received assignment to begin training to fly the X-20A Dyna-Soar in November 1960. Several considerations governed their selection and training. These included the complexity of the system, the long lead time before flight test could begin, and the nature of the research and development mission. The six pilots assigned to the X-20A Dyna-Soar included: Lt. Col. James W. Wood; Maj. Russell Lee Rogers; Maj. Henry C. Cordon, Jr.; Albert H. Crews, Jr.; Maj. William J. “Pete” Knight; and NASA research pilot Milton O. Thompson. Much of their work during the duration of the X-20A Dyna-Soar program consisted of over 2,000 hours of simulations to evaluate and determine optimal control techniques.60

(U) Additional support for the X-20A Dyna-Soar commenced in August 1963, when AFTC’s X-20A Test Force began planning a schedule for the Dyna-Soar’s ground intra-communications system in order to ensure adequate monitoring and control of the X-20A during its air-launch test phase. The test force also interfaced with the Missile

19

Technical Operations Communications System (MITOC) equipment via the Eastern Ground Electronics Engineering and Installation Agency to satisfy MITOC’s system requirements for successful intercommunication. The X-20A test force had also by this time established minimum system test requirements for the flight test control center. As of October 21, 1963, AFTC's 6511th Test Group (Parachute) in El Centro, California commenced live parachute jumps to test the personnel protection system. 61

(U) As of December 1963, plans for the X-20A had begun to fall into place at Edwards AFB. AFTC had almost completed facility construction, and Boeing began moving into the partially-completed Hangar 1881 complex in order to prepare for an initial X-20A air-launch test planned for May 1965. Honeywell's Florida Aeronautical Division, which the Air Force had selected in December 1960 to design the X-20A primary guidance system and ground support equipment, had begun tests at Eglin AFB, Florida in mid-1963. Honeywell thereupon moved to Holloman AFB, New Mexico in late 1963 to conduct a series of rocket sled tests on the guidance system. Boeing had also begun to assemble some of the jigs and hardware at its manufacturing facility in preparation for final assembly of the first air-launch vehicle.62

(U) The X-20A Dyna-Soar, although considered an important lifting reentry development effort by the Air Force, suffered in part due to the ascendance of NASA and a concentration on the capsule approach in the race with the Soviet Union to put a person in space first. These conditions also led to a shift the design philosophy away from the lifting reentry approach, despite the fact that the studies conducted with the X-20A Dyna-Soar demonstrated that a high hypersonic lift to drag ratio (L/D), a thermal control system, and horizontal landing capabilities remained the best way to operate to and from space according the X-20A advocates. However, the X-20A Dyna-Soar never flew, constituting what former AFTC hypersonic test force Chief Engineer Mr. Johnny G. Armstrong called a “paper airplane,” i.e., one that existed on paper only.63

(U) Technologically challenging and politically unpopular, described by former Force historian Dr. Richard Hallion as a “strangled child,” the X-20A Dyna-Soar program came to an end on December 10, 1963. This seemed, to AFTC, to occur with little warning. The DoD cancelled the X-20A Dyna-Soar not only due to its unpopularity, but also to fierce competition for resources within the DoD and the Air Force. Moreover, the X-20A faced competition from NASA space programs, a lack of political will for manned military space missions, as well as serious technical issues with the design of the X-20A vehicle. AFTC’s X-20A Test Force Office closed as of January 1964.64

(U) Impact and Lessons Learned, X-20A Dyna-Soar

(U) One lesson the Air Force learned from the X-20A Dyna-Soar program included confirmation in the laboratory, at least, that the pilot would in fact suffer no significant performance degradation under the expected high-G environment imposed by the Titan III during the boost phase. The X-15 flights completed thus far had demonstrated the practicability of pilot control during high-G missions, albeit of short duration. The Air

20

Force also saw pilot control as a factor in the success of the X-20A’s mission, even if only as a backup for the X-20A’s booster guidance and flight control systems. Boeing conducted a simulation of the X-20/Titan III air vehicle between February and May 1962, which then served as a basis for dynamic simulation tests beginning July 27, 1962 on the centrifuge at the Naval Air Development Complex, Johnsville. A final safety and reliability study conducted by Boeing demonstrated that pilot control could head off the majority of booster failure issues. In addition, the X-20A System Program Office recommended pilot control of the boost phase, with the possibility in future of incorporating full pilot control from liftoff. While this never came to fruition with the cancellation of the X-20A Dyna-Soar program in the planning phase, it served to help prove the feasibility of and highlight the Air Force’s preference for pilot control of space vehicles, in contrast to NASA’s disinclination toward pilot control.65

(U) The X-20A program did produce critical research breakthroughs, increased understanding of the requirements and technology needed for a successful lifting reentry vehicle, and influenced future development of lifting reentry vehicles. Lessons in structures and materials also resulted from the X-20A Dyna-Soar program, although advances such as materials databases and improved modeling and simulation have since eclipsed the Dyna-Soar program’s results.66

(U) Lifting Bodies

(U) Lifting body research began originally with NASA AFRC, a tenant at Edwards AFB, and its M2-F1 lifting body program. A joint NASA/USAF program came about only with the M2-F2 lifting body and beyond. NASA AFRC solicited proposals in February 1964 from 26 firms for designs for two heavyweight, low-speed lifting body gliders, one an M2, and the other based on NASA Langley's proposed the Horizontal Lander (HL)-10 modified delta shape. Of the five companies that submitted proposals, NASA selected the Norair Division of the Northrop Corporation to build the vehicles, and on June 2, 1964 awarded the company a fixed-price contract for the fabrication of both the M2 and HL-10 heavyweight gliders, the M2-F2 for delivery in late spring 1965, and the HL-10 to follow six months later.67

(U) In the spring of 1965, AFTC commander Maj. Gen Irving Branch met with Paul F. Bikle, Director of the NASA Flight Researcher Center, as Bikle realized both the benefits of a productive cooperative working relationship with the AFTC, particularly in view of their joint history on the X-15 program, and the scope of NASA AFRC’s ongoing lifting body program. Out of these meetings came a memorandum of understanding dated April 19, 1965. This memorandum drew upon those joint X-15 program experiences, and alluded to similarities between the X-15 and lifting body programs.68

(U) Paul F. Bikle then proposed on August 25, 1966 the creation of a joint partnership on lifting bodies with AFTC. The agreement to cooperate on a lifting body program included the M2-F2, the HL-10, and later the X-24A. The two agencies planned for a research program that would evaluate and develop the subsonic, transonic, and

21

supersonic handling qualities and performance of typical space vehicle reentry configurations, as well as advance technical knowledge in stability and control, aerodynamics, handling qualities, and energy management of medium lift over drag vehicles.69

(U) The joint USAF/NASA lifting body committee took charge of the research program, outside relations, and contacts. NASA assumed responsibility for the maintenance, instrumentation, and ground support of the lifting reentry vehicles, while AFTC provided the launch aircraft, support aircraft, medical support, rocket power plant, and the pilots’ personal equipment. The two jointly provided project pilots, planned research flights, analyzed flight test data, delivered range support, and oversaw total flight operations.70

(U) After the X-15, the joint USAF/NASA lifting body program remained the next major joint flight research effort between the two organizations. Experience with orbital reentry, although not originally an aim of the X-15 program, contributed to the development of lifting body and space shuttle maneuvers and technologies. X-15 entries from above 350,000 feet altitude provided piloting experience, and verified predicted control characteristics and operational techniques.71

(U) M2-F2/M2-F3

(U) The M2-F2 flight research program’s objectives included the evaluation and development of the subsonic, transonic, and supersonic handling qualities and performance of typical reentry lifting body configurations. The Northrop M2-F2 lifting body rollout arrived at Edwards AFB June 16, 1965. Following wind tunnel tests at the NASA Ames Research Center, static engine tests, and ground tests at Edwards AFB, the first captive-carry took place March 25, 1966. The M2-F2’s first glide flight took place July 12, 1966, with NASA research pilot Milton O. Thompson at the controls. The M2-F2 displayed performance and handling qualities at least as good as expected, and Thompson described the landing maneuver, sans landing rocket on this occasion, as closely resembling that of the X-15. Then, following flight number 14, NASA grounded the M2-F2 in order to install the lifting body’s rocket engine. Capt. Jerauld Gentry completed the next flight of the M2-F2, albeit still an unpowered glide flight, on May 2, 1967.72

(U) M2-F2 pilots had already noted M2-F2 lateral stability issues. At low angles-of-attack and high speeds the M2-F2 suffered from an increasingly severe rolling motion. On the M2-F2’s sixteenth flight May 10, 1967, NASA pilot Bruce Peterson experienced this upon release from the mothership. He landed without the gear fully extended at over 250 miles per hour. The M2-F2 tumbled multiple times before coming to rest on its back, sans canopy, footage later used in the opening credits of 1974-78 television series, The Six Million Dollar Man. Peterson survived to return to NASA as the Chief of Safety and to flying as a U.S. Marine Corps Reservist. The M2-F2 returned to the lifting body research program as the M2-F3, with a new vertical stabilizer, in 1970.73

22

(U) Following captive-carry flights of the MS-F3, NASA research pilot Bill Dana took the Northrop M2-F3 lifting body on its first glide flight on June 2, 1970. Several captive-carry and four free flights of the M2-F3 took place in 1971, and the M2-F3 flight test program concluded in December 1972.74

(U) HL-10

(U) With the M2-F2 out of commission for a time, flight test continued on the Northrop HL-10 lifting body, based on a flattened delta shape developed at the NASA Langley Research Center. NASA AFRC test pilot Bruce Peterson had completed the first unpowered flight of Northrop’s HL-10 lifting body vehicle on December 22, 1966. The wingless aircraft glided several minutes and landed on the lakebed at 234 miles per hour.75

(U) Following a lull in the HL-10 flight program due to retrofitting with an XLR-11 engine and subsequent captive-carry flights, the first attempt at a powered flight of a lifting body, and of the HL-10 in particular, took place October 23, 1968. However, the only one chamber of HL-10’s XLR-11 rocket motor lit after launch from the B-52 mother ship, forcing Maj. Gentry to make an emergency landing on the Rosamond Dry Lake bed. John A. Manke successfully completed the first powered lifting body flight in the HL-10 on November 13, 1968. Manke also became the first pilot to take a lifting body to supersonic speeds, as on May 9, 1969 the HL-10 reached Mach 1.127.76

(U) Several of the early HL-10 separation flights had experienced issues with retaining part of the umbilical to the B-52 mothership. Following tests in the wind tunnel at the NASA Langley Research Center on two possible modifications to the HL-10, NASA AFRC equipped the HL-10 with modified fin leading edges in November 1967.77

(U) On November 7, 1967, the DoD and NASA signed a Memorandum of Understanding incorporating the Air Force’s X-24A research vehicle and the NASA M2-F2 and HL-10 vehicles into the joint DOD (USAF)-NASA lifting bodies flight research program.78

(U) HL-10 captive-carry and taxi tests took place throughout the first several months in 1968. Maj. Jerauld Gentry made a successful glide flight March 15, 1968, with a new modification, the addition of fin tips. The HL-10 evinced good handling qualities and performed on the high side of lifting body program predictions. Maj. Jerauld Gentry accomplished a April 3, 1968 HL-10 flight and successfully executed 11 planned maneuvers, but noted the deterioration of handling qualities as he turned toward his final approach. Program engineers later determined that turbulence had caused the issue. The program cancelled a late April 1968 glide flight, again due to turbulence. Flight test and pilot checkout with the HL-10 continued through June 1968, when the HL-10 went into modification for the addition of the XLR-11 engine.79

(U) The lifting body program also made use of other platforms to work out the lessons of reentry. In mid-May 1969, AFTC’s lifting bodies test team developed a test plan for a Lifting Body Terminal Area Reentry Evaluation that used an F-111A aircraft. The

23

first flight of this program took place June 4, 1969. The AFTC used the data gathered to determine the idle power effective lift-drag ratio with swept wings, and to establish the subsonic landing patterns with wings both forward and back.80

(U) NASA research pilots Bill Dana and John Manke, and AFTC test pilot Maj. Peter C. Hoag completed flight test and evaluation of the HL-10 lifting body in 1970. Overall the lifting body successfully completed 37 flights, reached the highest Mach number and altitude of the lifting bodies, and thereby helped develop the experience, techniques, and technology used in development of the space shuttle and future lifting bodies.81

(U) X-24A

(U) Cancellation of the Air Force’s X-20A Dyna-Soar program had led to a redirection of its military space efforts, in part, toward attaining data and experience with lifting re-entry vehicle technology. This resulted in a program entitled the-Spacecraft Technology and Advanced Re-entry Tests (START), approved by the Air Force in November 1964. The X-24A lifting body originated with the Martin Marietta Corporation’s SV-5P/PRIME, originally designated the PILOT under the Air Force’s START program, as the Air Force’s own attempt to develop a manned space vehicle capable of returning from orbit to a horizontal landing. The basic X-24A aerodynamic configuration resulted from a contract with the Martin Company to investigate aerodynamic characteristics of maneuverable lifting bodies.82

(U) The X-24A fell under the existing NASA AFRC and AFTC lifting body collaboration. The X-24A manned lifting body, designed for air launch from a modified NB-52 aircraft, consisted of a glide vehicle with a rocket booster taking it to supersonic test conditions, after which the vehicle would glide to an unpowered landing. The wingless design obviated structural and heating problems typically associated with reentry, and provided aerodynamic lift for flight from the lifting body’s shape, designed particularly for lifting reentry from earth orbit. Its relatively inefficient configuration dissipated energy during reentry, a system poorly suited for hypersonic cruise.83

(U) The Air Force approved SV-5P procurement March 2, 1966, and the Air Force accepted the vehicle, then re-designated as the X-24A, on 3 August 1967. Upon delivery to Edwards AFB, the X-24A joined the M2 and HL-10 vehicles in the joint USAF-NASA Lifting Body Program.84

(U) Once the X-24A arrived at Edwards AFB in late summer 1967, it underwent a lengthy series of ground tests and preparation for the flight test program. The NASA Armstrong team first accomplished the mating of the X-24A and adapter to the B-52 mothership. They then conducted mated shake tests; instrument resonance tests; frequency response tests; limited cycle tests; and control systems checks. The team made some modifications to the X-24A’s systems to improve operation, add redundant systems, and facilitate aircraft maintenance, based on the experience with other lifting bodies in the

24

program. Edwards’s personnel also installed flight test instrumentation. Much of the pre-flight preparation activity consisted of control systems tests.85

(U) Tests to qualify the X-24A’s propulsion system for use in flight took place concurrently with the pre-flight ground test operations. The construction of an X-24A Propulsion System Test Stand, which exactly duplicated the X-24A’s propulsion system, facilitated a productive test program without tying up the vehicle itself. The team tested the hydrogen-peroxide landing rocket engines first, given that the X-24A glide flight program required their use. A meeting of X-24A stakeholders agreed upon small-scale X-24 wind tunnel tests conducted to support AFTC’s flight planning for the first X-24A flights, scheduled for late January 1968. This led to a rework of the control system based upon the data from wind tunnel tests.86

(U) The lifting bodies test team also produced a complete six-degree-of-freedom, real-time, fixed-base simulator of the X-24A. This supported the flight test program by facilitating detailed flight test planning, pilot preparation via representative mission rehearsal, and preparation for flight test, including studies of the control system and formulation of control laws. Other flight test preparations conducted on the X-24A simulator included studies of performance; launch characteristics; stability and handling qualities; and the approach to landing. What originated as a general-purpose cockpit evolved into a representative facsimile of the X-24A pilot compartment. It included the primary flight instruments and controls, and variable force feel system to allow realistic simulation of the stick and rudder pedal. One use for the simulator emerged with a study in December 1967 conducted to assess the X-24’s limitations on maximum SAS gains imposed by the structural resonance and limit-cycle issues.87

(U) AFTC testers conducted flight test of the X-24A (serial number 66-1355) in 28 flights at Edwards AFB between April 17, 1969 and its last free flight June 4, 1971. Three pilots of the joint USAF/NASA lifting body test team completed two captive-carry flights, 10 glide flights and 18 powered flights in 27 months. AFTC test pilot Maj. Jerauld R. Gentry flew the X-24A lifting body on its first glide flight, and made the first powered flight on March 19, 1970. On October 14, 1970, NASA test pilot John Manke completed the X-24A lifting body’s first supersonic flight, reaching a speed of 759 mph at an altitude of 66,000 feet.88

(U) The X- 24A flight test program did successfully demonstrate the ability of a pilot to take this lifting body configuration from Mach 1.6, its maximum speed, to a horizontal landing. It achieved a maximum altitude of 71,400 feet. This satisfied the Air Force’s objective to acquire piloted, low-speed, flight-test data on the re-entry configuration. These results, along with the successful re-entry from orbital velocity, of the same basic aerodynamic configuration during the PRIME program, completed flight test of a program that began as a research effort to develop technology for lifting re-entry from earth orbit.89

25

(U) X-24B

(U) To reduce the costs of constructing another research vehicle, the Air Force returned the X-24A to the Martin Marietta Corporation for modification on December 15, 1971. The X-24A’s bulbous shape became one resembling a flat iron, with a rounded top, flat bottom, and double-delta planform with a pointed nose, a configuration that evolved from the X-20A Dyna-Soar. A number of the X-24B’s design features developed from compromises between aerodynamics and heating problems as far as possible with the technology of the day. The X-24B’s leading edge radius, flat bottom, and high sweep-angle contributed to its high hypersonic lift-over-drag ratio, as well as providing a method of preventing thermal issues. Martin delivered the vehicle to the Air Force in the fall of 1972.90

(U) Among the X-24B’s final flights included two precise landings, one each executed by Manke and Maj. Love in 1974. These flights landed on the main concrete runway at Edwards, demonstrating the operational feasibility of such accurate, unpowered re-entry vehicle landings. NASA research pilot Bill Dana made the final powered flight of the X-24B flight research program on September 23, 1975, which also represented the last rocket-powered, manned, lifting body flight test at Edwards AFB. While six pilot familiarization flights in the X-24B followed, Dana’s flight marked the final milestone in a program that helped write the flight plan for today's space shuttle landings. Moreover, as of 1975, the 495 rocket-powered, piloted flights conducted from (and usually back to) Edwards AFB by NASA and AFTC far surpassed the number of flights executed by NASA’s space program, and would for several more years.91

(U) In addition to glide flights and simulator time, the X-24B pilots also made numerous flights in AFTC’s T-38 and F-104, rehearsing the approach and landing of the X-24B. Just for the X-24B program alone, the project’s test pilots completed over 8,000 such simulated approaches.92

(U) The X-24B displayed excellent handling qualities at subsonic speeds and during landing in the 8,000 simulated approaches conducted at Edwards AFB, with subsonic gliding performance close to predictions. Landing accuracy to within approximately 500 feet provided testers with the assurance to complete the first landing of a low lift over drag vehicle on a conventional runway. Wind tunnel tests at Arnold AFB simulated the X-24B’s rocket engine exhaust, and demonstrated the degraded stability pilots experienced during powered flight in the transonic regime. However, X-24B pilots John Manke and Maj. Love found the handling qualities surprisingly good at all speed regimes, and gave the X-24B a 2.5 on the Cooper-Harper pilot rating scale.93

(U) The rocket-powered lifting body and experimental aircraft in flight test at Edwards AFB historically took advantage of the natural landing field afforded by the Rogers Dry Lake. The X-24B’s nose wheel steering permitted successful landings on the

26

relatively constricted target of the concrete runway, on the suggestion of John Manke. These landings allowed the flight testers at Edwards AFB to develop confidence in the ability of a low-lift-over-drag aircraft to perform safely and successfully on a concrete runway, which later benefited the Space Shuttle orbiter.94

(U) Lessons Learned, Lifting Bodies

(U) The development of energy management represented one of the most significant accomplishments in these flight research programs at Edwards AFB, beginning with the X-1, then the X-15, and the lifting body flight test programs. This then proved readily adaptable to the space shuttle, as well. The lifting body programs also proved their worth in successfully demonstrating the feasibility of the various lifting body configuration, based upon the aerodynamic and handling qualities of their wingless shapes. Experience with the lifting body programs also demonstrated the need for a lightweight, reusable thermal protection system, which the design of the space shuttle design incorporated. The flight test data gathered and lessons learned from the lifting bodies at Edwards AFB proved essential influences in the design and operation of the shuttle.95

(U) All three joint NASA/USAF lifting bodies, M2, HL-10, and the X-24A had aerodynamic configurations required for lifting/maneuvering reentry from earth orbit to a power-off horizontal landing. Evaluation of the power-off landing characteristics of lifting bodies represented one of the critical purposes of these programs. Despite crosswind limits and some lateral stability issues, the lifting bodies verified that the touchdown accuracy of power-off landing of low-lift-over drag vehicles sufficed for landing on conventional runways.96

(U) Manned Orbiting Laboratory at Aerospace Research Pilot School

(U) Just as the DoD began to consider cancellation of the X-20A Dyna-Soar program for military access to space for weapons and reconnaissance, it also began to evince interest in a different approach to the military and space, the Manned Orbital Laboratory.97

(U) On August 25, 1965, the Secretary of the Air Force authorized development of a Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) system. Billed by the Air Force as a scientific mission to determine the military utility of placing active-duty personnel into space, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory’s classified mission called for the placement of a manned surveillance satellite into orbit as the best method of attaining high-resolution photographic coverage of the Soviet Union. The Manned Orbiting Laboratory therefore consisted largely of a photographic reconnaissance system that took up fully half of the station’s capacity. The NRO had developed a high-resolution ground photographic system. The rest of the station would consist of a modified NASA Gemini capsule and a habitable laboratory module, boosted into orbit by a Titan-IIIM booster. The MOL’s crew would participate in

27

this development project while living and working in space for 30-day periods, working to expand the frontiers of technology in space as the Air Force had traditionally done in the air.98

(U) AEDC personnel conducted ground test and evaluation of systems in the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program, including tests of a Titan III booster with a MOL and its Gemini capsule tested in tunnel 16S in the Propulsion Wind Tunnel facility. In 1969, dynamic response tests with more than 30 different Titan III booster payload configurations in the 16T tunnel, including a 7-percent scale model of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory and other advanced payloads. The Arnold AFB test team subjected these vehicles to large, unsteady aerodynamic forces through the transonic speed range to determine structural dynamic response.99

(U) In response to such efforts, the USAF Test Pilot School began to develop additional courses intended to prepare test pilots for new responsibilities and tasks in air and space. Test Pilot School instructors first extended the six-month course to eight months. As the Air Force developed its aerospace doctrine, the Test Pilot School began to create additional courses to train TPS graduates for conducting test of new spacecraft, and operating as an Air Force astronaut.100

(U) AFTC had hosted and operated the U.S. Aerospace Research Pilot School, then known as the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, since February 4, 1951. The school had formerly made its home at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Then-commander Col. Albert Boyd intended to consolidate the majority of the U.S. Air Force’s flight test activities in the high desert of the Antelope Valley, with its isolated location and average of 360 good flying days per year, in securing the school for AFTC.

(U) The October 12, 1961, redesignation of the USAF Test Pilot School as the USAF Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS) punctuated this effort, as the school’s curriculum also expanded again to encompass a full year. Pilots who attended the first formal American military astronaut training course not only completed the school’s traditional performance and flying qualities curriculum. The course also subjected its attendees to a rigorous array of space-related courses, including thermodynamics, bioastronautics, and Newtonian mechanics. The new curriculum now required a full year: The new 12-month curriculum now included two phases. Phase I consisted of the Experimental Test Pilot Course, while Phase II supplemented the latter with an Aerospace Research Pilot Course.101

(U) With over 300 applications to the Aerospace Research Pilot School per year, the curriculum designers also made academic prerequisites more stringent in 1963, with a bachelor's of science degree in engineering, a physical science, or mathematics a minimum requirement. The school also required outstanding piloting abilities, particularly under stress; a reputation for judgement and decisiveness; and meeting minimum physiological standards as determined by psychological and physiological tests. The caliber of applicants often exceeded these minimums, as many of the 300 applicants per year already had advanced degrees, and most had over 2,000 hours in the cockpit. One student at the time

28

appositely described his hard-charging classmates as “hyperthyroid, superachieving first sons of superachievers.” This resulted in the selection of 37 Aerospace Research Pilot School graduates for the U.S. space program, of which 26 earned their astronaut's wings in space.102

(U) Acquisition of new aircraft and a new computer system also supported the transformation of the school’s curriculum. The aircraft assigned to the school included three F-104 Starfighter aircraft converted to NF-104s with a rocket in the tail to allow zoom climb training in out-of-atmosphere maneuvering and reentry above 100,000 feet altitude, and most importantly, training in the use of reaction control systems so crucial to operating in the regime of space beginning in 1968. A first-of-its-kind T-27 Spaceflight Simulator formed the cornerstone of space curriculum, replicating nearly all of the conditions Air Force astronauts would encounter in various space missions and vehicles.103

(U) The NRO’s personnel made a multi-faceted argument for the use of a crewed vice an automatic reconnaissance function in the MOL in 1966. Firstly, while the system could use an automatic function for achieving the desired photographic resolution, the system had not yet undergone test in orbit, which posed a significant risk to early achievement of the required photographic resolution. A crew could also continue to produce actionable intelligence in the face of equipment failures. In addition, the NRO remained convinced that the orbiting laboratory could reach functionality more quickly in the crewed mode. In addition, a crew could better provide cloud-free photography using current technology. Thirdly, the presence of a crew maximized the intelligence content of a mission, in that they could selectively choose targets likely to include objects of high intelligence value. This held true particularly in the case of transitory targets, such as missiles on pads or launchers. Moreover, the crew could also determine the best approach to obliquely-situated photographic targets while correcting for navigation errors. Using current technology, therefore, the NRO determined that a crew provided maximum resolution and overall performance for intelligence collection.104

(U) The man in the MOL formed an essential part of its photographic reconnaissance mission. Gen. John P. McConnell, Secretary of the Air Force, also argued in 1969 for the indispensability of the crew for ensuring that the MOL’s high-gain optical system with narrow field accurately focused on intended targets. The MOL astronauts would also provide target selection capability, real-time interpretation, and the ability to work around multiple potential equipment failures. The man in the MOL gave the DoD and Air Force confidence that they would achieve the maximum reconnaissance capability on each flight, and assure the system could play the crucial role planned for it in verifying Soviet arms limitations.105

(U) Manned Orbiting Laboratory Training and Curriculum

(U) The Dyna-Soar program had committed the Air Force to pursuing manned spacecraft, and had indicated to the staff of the Aerospace Research Pilot School an increasing need for highly-trained test pilots to support this and future Air Force manned

29

space systems (such as the Manned Orbiting Laboratory). The school staff both instituted an appropriate training program and recommended changing the school name to the USAF Aerospace Research Pilot School, in order to suggest the dual training capability in training for aircraft test and manned space vehicles. The name change came to fruition on October 12, 1961.106

(U) The school curriculum before 1961 consisted of two separate courses, each about seven months long. The first, the experimental test pilot course, provided students with training in the latest methods of test and evaluation of aircraft and related aeronautical equipment. This course generally consisted of Air Force pilots, pilots of other U.S. military services and agencies, pilots from allied nations, and pilots employed by defense contractors. The aerospace research pilot course represented the second phase. This course updated the skills of experimental test pilots with technical backgrounds and flying and simulator experience with those required for space flight projects, preparing pilots and project officers for manned space programs. The school combined these two phases of training into one as of July 1, 1963, condensing the training period to one year and reducing duplication of effort; students no longer had to refresh their skills after time elapsed between the training phases. A demand for a longer span of participation in space projects also led to recruitment of younger pilots by reducing the requirements for flying time, while also reducing the school’s training time. These initiatives helped to boost the eligible pool of young test pilots available and qualified for aerospace research pilot training. Merging the two former courses also positioned the Aerospace Research Pilot School curriculum to meet the requirements of evolving Air Force space test and operations.107

(U) The first Aerospace Research Pilot Course began June 5, 1961. Although undertaken with USAF approval, the class represented an Air Force Systems Command and AFTC-driven effort. The Aerospace Research Pilot curriculum consisted of the following topics: academics; flying; simulator; and bioastronautics. Academics covered all phases of space technology; aerodynamics; flight mechanics; guidance and control; propulsion; instrumentation; communications; astronomy, navigation, and aeronomy, or the science of the upper atmosphere; and analog and digital computer theory and operation. The flying portion of the course included specialized training in high performance fighter aircraft, often modified for variable stability, reduced lift-to-drag characteristics, and wing loading in order to provide the examples of the recovery and landing issues associated with space craft. The school utilized NF-104 aircraft to provide training in energy management, acceleration profiles, experience with reaction control systems, rocket engine operation, and with the space environment through the use of a pressure suit.108

(U) Simulator training enhanced the Aerospace Research Pilot course. The school had several simulators, but on December 22, 1965, Gen. McConnell, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff formally accepted the T-27 Space Flight Simulator from the Link Division, General Precision, Inc. for the Aerospace Research Pilot School. The tilting, 15-ton mechanism simulated the motion, sights, and sounds of space flight and provided realistic training in orbital launch, rendezvous, and docking. Delivered piecemeal beginning October 5, 1964, use of the $5,500,000 static space simulation facility in a new wing of the school

30

commenced in February 1965, despite the fact that the T-27 still lacked the full projector portion of the visual system designed to provide complete mission effects. For the first time, however, the school could provide to students in-house experience in a simulator with realistic orbital launch, rendezvous, and docking space flight training, nearly four years after beginning to train space pilots, project managers, and space flight consultants.109

(U) The Aerospace Research Pilot School trained 17 personnel for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory between 1966 and 1968. The first class trained for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory commenced at the Aerospace Research Pilot School on February 7, 1966. The class consisted of three Air Force majors, three Air Force captains, and two Navy lieutenants: Maj. Michael Adams; Maj. Albert H. Crews; Lt. John L. Finley, USN; Capt. Richard E. Lawyer; Capt. Lachlan Macleay; Capt. Francis G. Neubeck; Lt. Richard H. Truly, USN, and Maj. James Taylor. This first class would graduate August 1, 1966.110

(U) The second Manned Orbiting Laboratory class began training January 2, 1967. Members of class two included: Capt. Karol J. Bobko; Capt. Robert L. Crippen; Charles G. Fullerton; Maj. Henry W. Hartsfield, Jr.; and Capt. Robert F. Overmyer. Class two completed training May 5, 1967.111

(U) The third class selected to train for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory included: Maj. James A. Abramson; Lt. Col. Robert T. Herres; Maj. Robert H. Lawrence, Jr.; and Maj. Donald H. Peterson. MOL training commenced October 2, 1967. Maj. Lawrence died while completing a MOL training flight in an F-104 on December 8, 1967.112

(U) The MOL astronauts also underwent additional training beyond that provided by the Aerospace Research Pilot School. In addition to the school’s simulators, the MOL astronauts also experienced the U.S. Navy’s Johnsville centrifuge and visited various contractor facilities for specific project orientation and training. In addition, beginning March 20, 1967, the first group of four MOL astronauts attended ten days of intensive training to prepare them for their photographic reconnaissance roles aboard MOL. A second session trained the next three astronauts beginning April 3, 1967. Finally, between July 15 and 25, 1968, the surviving members of the third ARPS-trained cadre of Manned Orbiting Laboratory astronauts undertook two weeks of training in photographic reconnaissance: Lt. Col. Robert T. Herres; Major Donald H. Peterson; and Major James A. Abrahamson. All received training via covert access to the National Photographic Interpretation Center, a joint project of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the DoD for imagery analysis created by President Eisenhower in 1961, due to the secrecy surrounding the names of the astronauts assigned to the MOL.113

(U) Finally, the MOL students underwent bioastronautics training at Brooks AFB, San Antonio, Texas, designed to provide basic knowledge in light of which the Air Force might evaluate space missions. The course equipped them to read, understand, and to some extent critique the aeromedical literature on specific space missions, while also providing skills which combined with their operational knowledge and experience, could help inform the design of aeromedical equipment and techniques for spaceflight.114

31

(U) Manned Orbiting Laboratory Cancellation

(U) On June 9, 1969, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Secretary of the Air Force to terminate the MOL Program with the exception of any elements of the camera system that might prove useful for incorporation into a cheaper, unmanned satellite system. The Deputy Secretary of Defense also directed all future work on the camera and an unmanned system take place under the auspices of the NRO. During its six-year development program, the MOL program had accomplished only a single, unmanned launch.115

(U) The cancellation of the X-20 Dyna-Soar and Manned Orbiting Laboratory programs and the reduction of the Air Force’s man-in-space mission undermined the Aerospace Research Pilot School rationale for offering space training, ending the expectation that its graduates would play a role in space flight (unless selected by NASA as an astronaut candidate). The school no longer officially incorporated expectations of manned space missions conducted by active-duty Air Force personnel into its mission and curriculum. The school began to reorient its curriculum and equipment to de-emphasize the spaceflight training mission. On August 31, 1969, the Aerospace Research Pilot School deactivated the T-27 Space Flight Simulator and eventually sold it to NASA. On July 1, 1972, AFTC at Edwards AFB redesignated the USAF Aerospace Research Pilot School as the USAF Test Pilot School (TPS) once again. The change reflected the Air Force’s reduced role in manned spaceflight and the approaching end of the Apollo program.116

(U) The Manned Orbiting Laboratory project had several tangible, positive impacts for the Air Force and NASA. First, despite the program’s cancellation, the choice of Vandenberg Air Force for future west coast military space launches had a lasting impact, including for the future X-37B. Secondly, the DoD and the Air Force transferred the equipment originally destined for the MOL to NASA, where it became part of the future International Space Station. Finally, the research and development experience of the many joint USAF/NASA test projects, and of the USAF X-20A Dyna-Soar and MOL, would contribute significantly to the development of the future manned Space Transportation System, the Space Shuttle.117

(U) The continually evolving and updated curriculum process of the USAF Test Pilot School, which over the decades since incorporated Remotely Piloted Vehicles into the curriculum as well as civilian flight test engineers, and enlisted personnel into the graduate pool, continued to evince the flexibility and expertise required to accommodate this mission in future if called upon. The Manned Orbiting Laboratory and space test curriculum revealed the extent to which the Test Pilot School did, and could once again if needed, actively work toward training, seeding, and institutionalizing space test expertise throughout the military test enterprise.

(U) The cancellation of the MOL also ushered in another shift within the Air Force. From the Dyna-Soar to the MOL, the Air Force had continued to endeavor to convince a skeptical DoD of the need for military manned space capabilities, independent of NASA’s

32

projects. However, following the cancellation of the X-20A Dyna-Soar and the MOL, the locus of control for access to space shifted decisively to NASA. Never again would the Air Force take the lead on a manned space vehicle test program. In fact, the next opportunity for DoD access to space, aside from the experiments conducted and data that the X-15 would gather during the final five years of its lifespan, would not come until the Space Shuttle, which offered some capability for Air Force space cargo on orbit.118

(U) Space Transportation System: the Space Shuttle

(U) The Space Shuttle space transportation system originated with NASA and designs based upon the lessons learned from the test and evaluation of the X-15 and lifting bodies in the 1960s, vital forerunners of a new space transportation system. The experience of maneuvering and landing the X-15 and lifting bodies produced data on energy management and landing techniques used in each flight of the Space Shuttle orbiters. The experience of the participants from AFTC and the example of the X-24B and its experience in unpowered reentry supported the decision to build Space Shuttle orbiters without air-breathing jet engines for use in descent and landing operations due to reasons of weight and cost. The NASA Johnson Space Center’s original plan for the shuttle had included jet engines for a horizontal, airplane-like, powered landing. Instead, Milt Thompson, X-15 and lifting body pilot, presented the benefits of an unpowered landing like the X-15 at a NASA AFRC meeting with personnel from NASA Johnson Space Center.119

(U) The concept of an aerospace plane for manned spaceflight had taken hold of the engineering imagination at NASA, a preoccupation taken up again following the closeout of the Apollo program. President Richard Nixon announced a program to develop a new space transportation system on January 5, 1972, his declaration concentrated on routinizing manned space access routine with a readily reusable launch-vehicle rather than a capsule. The decision on a next-generation manned space vehicle arose within the context of over a decade of NASA and Air Force efforts in research in lifting body reentry vehicles, numerous plans for manned space vehicles, and a Vietnam-era of budget austerity. NASA ended by selling the ideal of a space vehicle that would make manned access to space a predictable occurrence. This led to a space transportation system marked by significant compromises, which could not fully meet its requirements.120

(U) Space Shuttle Tests at Arnold AFB

(U) Tests at AEDC commenced quite early in the development of the Space Transportation System program that produced the Space Shuttle. On October 13, 1971, tests concluded in Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel 4T of the Propulsion Wind Tunnel Facility of the Space Transportation Launch Configuration, used to determine the effects of different axial locations of the orbiter on the booster. Additional tests completed April 4, 1972 on shock-induced heating at Mach 8 investigated hypersonic interference heating in support of the Space Shuttle Program and acceptance of the reusable launcher-orbiter concept.121

33

(U) Ground tests of the Space Shuttle by the test personnel of AEDC spanned the design, development, and operation of the shuttle. Early in the design phase of the Space Transportation System program, testers of AEDC evaluated various model configurations of the Space Shuttle, and obtained data on shuttle heat transfer, aerodynamic forces, and aerodynamic pressures, which aided NASA and Rockwell in determining appropriate Shuttle construction materials, as well as establishing baseline flight models for the launch and ascent portion of Shuttle missions. The data collected at Arnold AFB facilities also provided separation predictions for the two solid-propellant boosters from the shuttle following burnout after launch. Arnold AFB ground testers also played a crucial role in NASA’s return to flight program following the Columbia mishap upon reentry in February 2003.122

(U) Space Shuttle Tests at Edwards AFB

(U) Tests applicable to the space shuttle such as low lift-over-drag landings, critical to the operation of the shuttle and its recovery from space commenced at Edwards AFB and NASA Ames Research Center as early as 1958. Both NASA and AFTC pilots began conducting these low lift-over-drag landings using fighter aircraft. Neil Armstrong, NASA AFRC pilot and future Project Gemini astronaut conducted a number of these. In 1972, these flights progressed to use of a Convair CV-990 to better replicate the mass and weight of a proposed space shuttle. Approach and landing tests even took place with pilots in blackout hoods to simulate instrumented-flight rules (IFR) only landings. The experience of the lifting bodies, X-15, flight research programs, and these approach and landing tests revealed that lift-over-drag ratios on such landings transitioned through three regimes: the hypersonic, supersonic, and the subsonic. With landing as the most essential operation, the subsonic received the most attention. The experiences at Edwards AFB confirmed that the M2-F1 had a subsonic lift-over-drag ratio of 2.45, the X-15, 4.1, and the space shuttle a subsonic lift-over-drag ratio of 4.1.123

(U) Beginning in 1977, Edwards AFB became the site of Space Shuttle approach and landing tests executed with the prototype orbiter Enterprise. NASA and the Air Force cooperated in conducting the approach and landing tests and in evaluating the glide and landing characteristics shuttle prototype. Edwards AFB also acted as primary or alternate landing site for slightly under half the Space Shuttle landings since the first orbital mission touched down there April 14, 1981.124

(U) The involvement of AFTC in the Space Shuttle program came about because of the national importance of the project, and the DoD’s interest in the availability of heavy payload capability in the next space transportation system for deployment of its systems in orbit. The U.S. Air Force made AFTC responsible for Air Force support of the Shuttle space transportation system approach and landing tests and of the later orbital flight-test program, allowing the personnel of AFTC’s Office of Advanced Manned Vehicles, a project manager and six engineers, to join the shuttle program.125

34

(U) AFTC flight test engineer Mr. Robert Hoey, who had previous experience with the X-15 and lifting bodies, proposed in 1974 that AFTC should provide the benefit of its experience in developmental test and evaluation of space vehicles through participation in the Space Shuttle program. He argued particularly for the AFTC’s participation in the areas of Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) flight test, orbiter approach and landing tests, the reentry-through-landing portion of orbital flight test, and the reentry portion of orbiter aborts.126

(U) AFTC’s contributions to the space transportation system’s developmental test and evaluation included planning and coordinating AFTC facility and aircrew support for NASA space transportation system testing, and evaluating the Space Shuttle’s potential for accomplishment of DoD space missions. The testers at Edwards AFB already had expertise in hypersonic aerodynamics, energy management, approach, and landing in vehicles with low lift-to-drag ratios, aircraft performance, aircraft stability and control, aerodynamic heating, rocket propulsion, aircraft flight control systems, and engineering flight simulation.127

(U) Shuttle approach and landing tests at Edwards AFB between August 12 and October 26, 1977 consisted of eight captive and five free flights. The approach and landing tests involved a purpose-built, non-orbiting, full-scale orbiter prototype dubbed the Enterprise, released from the modified Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. On August 12, 1977, the SCA aircrew released Rockwell’s OV-101 Space Shuttle Enterprise, which thereupon made its first unpowered free flight to a landing on Rogers Dry Lake bed. The final free flight test of the Enterprise took place October 26, 1977. The program culminated with Enterprise making the first shuttle landing on a concrete runway rather than the dry lakebed at Edwards AFB. The captive and free flights successfully validated the Shuttle’s low-speed airworthiness and landing characteristics.128

(U) In addition, between February 10, 1977, and March 10, 1978, AFTC conducted an independent evaluation of the Space Shuttle to ensure it met the criteria DoD’s critical payload capabilities. AFTC personnel also played a significant role in designing maneuvers for performance in the Space Shuttle flight test program, for the purpose of securing performance, stability and control, and aerodynamic heating data.129

(U) Upon the completion of the Space Shuttle Approach and Landing Tests, the personnel at Edwards AFB continued to collect data on the shuttle into the orbital phase. AFTC’s testers leveraged their considerable experience in space test to create longitudinal maneuvers, allowing them to collect performance and heating data during shuttle re-entry. They then rehearsed planning and conducting these evaluations on AFTC's shuttle simulator.130

(U) Edwards AFB also continued first as the default shuttle landing site, and later an emergency divert landing site for the shuttle, hosting 54 shuttle landings, with over 500 AFTC personnel providing direct support to each of the Shuttle landings. On April 14, 1981, Space Shuttle Columbia touched down on Rogers Dry Lake. Astronauts John Young and Robert Crippen had just successfully landed the first orbiting space vehicle ever to leave the earth under rocket power and return on the wings of an aircraft. On November

35

14, 1981, former X-15 pilot and Apollo astronaut candidate Col. Joseph H. Engle (TPS Class 61C) and U.S. Navy Capt. Richard H. Truly (ARPS Class 64A) Columbia on Rogers Dry Lake following its second orbital spaceflight mission. Col. Engle flew much of the postorbital flight in the manual mode. The flight validated the central concept of the shuttle program: that a manned space vehicle could launch, safely land on a runway like an aircraft, and launch again.131

(U) The Space Shuttle program ended after 135 orbital flights. The last flight of the program took place when Atlantis landed at the NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida July 21, 2011. The Shuttle never became a truly a reusable space plane. The program, moreover, experienced tragedy as had other attempts at human spaceflight. But the contributions of developmental test and evaluation expertise on the part of the personnel at both Arnold and Edwards AFBs again proved critical to program accomplishment.132

(U) F-15 Anti-Satellite Missile

(U) Unlike the United States, the Soviet Union had no compunctions about militarizing space. The Soviets set about creating an anti-satellite system in the 1960s, whereas the U.S. reliance on NASA as the leader in space, lack of a deeply-rooted military space doctrine, and discomfort on the part of American leaders with the militarization of space hindered comprehensive efforts at the development of similar weapons. In addition, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibited nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in space, albeit without banning non-nuclear weapons, and the 1972 Antiballistic Missile treaty limited anti-ballistic missile systems.133

(U) Only a few nations ever tested an anti-satellite weapon, including the former Soviet Union, the United States, China, and India. The U.S. conducted the first tests of an anti-satellite weapon in October 1959. These tests fell under project Bold Orion, the launch of an air-launched ballistic missile from a U.S. Air Force B-47. The Air Force aimed the missile at an Explorer IV satellite, and came within only four miles of the target. Another Air Force project High Virgo, launched from a Convair B-58.134

(U) Launched from a specially-configured F-15A (s/n 76-0084), the Ling-Temco-Vought ASM-135 weapons system had three basic elements. The system consisted of the first stage, the aircraft used to launch the missile at altitude. The missile constituted the second state of the system, and it itself had two stages as well. The missile, once released from the F-15A, then launched a Miniature Homing Vehicle (MHV). The small autonomous homing vehicle collided with the target satellite and destroyed it in a kinetic hit-to-kill.135

(U) The F-15 ASAT program commenced in 1982. The five F-15A pilots assigned to the ASAT Combined Test Force rehearsed the various subsonic and supersonic ASAT flight and launch profiles over both land and sea ranges hundreds of times. The program also included five test launches.136

36

(U) One of those test launches took place 21 January 1984. Maj Ralph B. Filburn, piloted F-15A s/n 76-0086 and successfully launched an LTV ASM-135 anti-satellite missile. The mission verified Combined Test Force’s ability to launch the missile at a specific, intended point in space, but did not yet aim to destroy a target.137

(U) On February 29, 1984, George Brown, Jr., representing California’s 36th Congressional District, highlighted the controversy over the F-15 ASAT program for destroying low-altitude satellites in the House of Representatives, siding with other members of Congress who had spoken out against the militarization of space. Moreover, he pointed out with dismay the fact that the DoD had recently requested $143 million of the House Armed Services Committee for fiscal year 1985 to continue the development and proceed to initial procurement of the Air Force’s first-generation anti-satellite weapon, flight-tested for the first time only the previous month. The House of Representatives passed a one-year moratorium on ASAT testing later that year, although a conference compromise with the Senate revised that ban to end March 1, 1985. This allowed the Air Force to carry out three more ASAT tests the coming summer upon receiving certification from Congress. This lack of bipartisan support and of agreement on the importance of an antisatellite system for U.S. national security would come back to haunt the F-15 ASAT program.138

(U) On 23 September 1985, F-15 test pilot and director of the F-15 Anti-Satellite Combined Test Force then-Maj Wilbert D. “Doug” Pearson (now retired Maj. Gen.) took off from Edwards AFB for the Pacific Missile Test Range on a mission dubbed the “Celestial Eagle Flight.” The mission parameters of this fifth aerial test of the ASAT included a near vertical ascent in the F-15A. Once Maj Pearson reached an altitude of over 38,000 feet, he fired the 2,700 pound, 18-foot long Vought ASM-135A ASAT missile at the obsolete Solwind weather satellite. The mission made Maj Pearson the first space ace.139

(U) Despite additional successful testing, the DoD terminated the air-launched ASAT program on March 14, 1988. The cancellation took place after three years of Congressional test bans, as well as budgetary constraints following the expenditure of $1.5 billion on the program.140

(U) NASA Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle

(U) Design of NASA’s newest space capsule, the reusable Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, commenced in 2006. NASA intended the Orion to ferry up to six astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station. The personnel of the Arnold AFB test team conducted ground test and evaluation of the capsule in 2006 with aerothermal tests of a scale model of the Orion in Tunnel 9, to acquire heating data over the surface of the model. Another team tested the Orion’s temperature sensitive paint to its limits.141

(U) Airdrop tests conducted by test personnel of Edwards AFB of the NASA Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Capsule Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) from a C-17A aircraft began in 2008. A final airdrop took place from an Edwards AFB C-17A on

37

September 12, 2018 over the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The tests verified the performance of the CPAS in normal and failure landing sequences, and in a numerous aerodynamic conditions.142

(U) Safety concerns with the design of manned wingless space vehicles requiring significant protection against reentry heating such as the shuttle dictated a return to the blunt-ended capsule shape of the 1960s. However, the Orion also carried forward NASA’s desire for a reusable manned space vehicle. The work of Air Force Test Center personnel at Arnold and Edwards AFBs contributed to the early development of the Orion.

(U) Conclusion

(U) AFTC’s experience in developmental test and evaluation of space vehicles and systems offers a broad overview of the history of American accomplishments in space. The AFTC’s test enterprise, consisting of testers at Edwards AFB, Arnold AFB, Eglin AFB, and Holloman AFB, reveals a multi-domain culture. AFTC possesses an enormously rich legacy of research and development in aerospace and orbital vehicles, and an unparalleled proficiency in technological development. This history, as well as AFTC’s training, facilities, and processes for test and evaluation make AFTC, writ large, the test professionals par excellence in ground, air, weapons, and space test.

(U) In addition, the milieu of the AFTC enterprise readily lends itself to providing superior support for future Air Force space projects. Decades of experience in balancing potential hazards with test accomplishment have resulted in s test professionals who remain unrivaled in risk management. Their legacy of test and evaluation dating back to the Army Air Corps highlights a deeply-rooted, pioneering attitude. AFTC’s culture of accountability makes it matchless in its customer focus. A long record of technological research and development also underscores AFTC’s unwavering commitment to supporting the warfighter, and a readiness to take on space as a contested, warfighting domain.

(U) AFTC remains poised to accomplish rapid development and test of space technologies. Moreover, without equal in military space test expertise and experience, the AFTC enterprise constitutes the obvious home for the future of space test and evaluation for the Air Force and the nation.

38

(U) Glossary AEDC Arnold Engineering Development Center Arnold Engineering Development Complex AFB Air Force Base

AFFTC Air Force Flight Test Center

AFRC Armstrong Flight Research Center

AFTC Air Force Test Center

ALT Approach and Landing Tests

ARPS Aerospace Research Pilot School

ASAT anti-satellite

BTUs British Thermal Unit

CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CPAS Capsule Parachute Assembly System

CUI Controlled Unclassified Information

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DoD Department of Defense

Dyna-Soar Dynamic Ascent and Soaring

ETF Engine Test Facility

FAI Fédération aéronautique international

FBM Fleet Ballistic Missile

GM General Motors

39

GOES-M Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-M

GPS Global Positioning System

HL Horizontal Lander

ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

IFR Instrumented Flight Rules

IRBM Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile

L/D lift over drag

LLRV Lunar Landing Research Vehicle

LLTV Lunar Landing Training Vehicle

MITOC Missile Technical Operations Communications System

MSL mean sea level

MOL Manned Orbiting Laboratory

MSL mean sea level

NACA National Committee on Aeronautics

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NRO National Reconnaissance Office

PI Program Introduction

PID Program Introduction Document

PTO Participating Test Organization

PWT Propulsion Wind Tunnel

RTO Responsible Test Organization

SCA Shuttle Carrier Aircraft

40

SED Scramjet Engine Demonstrator

SOC Statement of Capability

SSD Space Systems Division

START Spacecraft Technology and Advanced Re-entry Tests Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

TPS Test Pilot School

USAF United States Air Force

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

VKF von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility

41

(U) Notes

1 The Air Force Test Center enterprise, headquartered at Edwards AFB, currently consists of the AFTC headquarters, the 412th Test Wing at Edwards AFB, the 96th Test Wing at Eglin AFB, and the Arnold Engineering Development Center at Arnold AFB. To avoid confusion, all organizations will be referred to herein by their current, rather than their historical names: Air Force Test Center at Edwards AFB vice Air Force Flight Test Center (1951-2012); Arnold Engineering Development Complex at Arnold AFB vice Arnold Engineering Development Center (1950-2012); National Aeronautics and Space Administration vice National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (1915-1958); and NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center vice NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (1976-1984, 1992-2014).

2 (U) Robert Z. Pearlman, “(U) Former NASA X-15 Pilots Awarded Astronaut Wings,” collectSPACE.com, August 23, 2005, https://www.space.com/1465-nasa-15-pilots-awarded-astronaut-wings.html; Kevin D. Scott, Vice Admiral, USN, Director, Joint Force Development, “Joint Publication 3-14: Space Operations,” April 10, 2018, https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=810222.

3 (U) Ibid. 4 (U) William H. Dana, foreword to Dennis R. Jenkins, X-15: Extending the Frontiers of

Flight, (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 2007), xv. 5 (U) Patricia Moloney Figliola, et. al., “CRS Issue Brief for Congress: U.S. Space

Programs: Civilian, Military, and Commercial,” (U) June 13, 2006. 6 (U) Kenneth P. Werrell, The Evolution of the Cruise Missile (Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air

University Press: 1985), 27.

7 (U) Robert Hoey, “AFTC Overview of Orbiter Reentry Flight Test Results,” (U) (paper,

Second Flight Testing Conference, co-sponsored by the AIAA, AHS, IES, SETP, and SFTE, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 16-18, 1983).

8 (U) Phillip Lorenz, III, “AEDC Space and Missile Ground Test Complex: 60 Years of Pioneering Work Defending the Nation,” AEDC 1951-2011, 1; Arnold Engineering Development Complex “Test Facility Guide,” (U//Dist. A) [n.d.], 4, 6.

9 (U) “Test Facility Guide,” (U//Dist. A) [n.d.], 5. 10 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound [Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn.] : [The Base], [2010],

136. 11 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 148; “’Minuteman I’ ICBM,” October 7, 2007,

https:\\hill.af.mil\About-Us\Fact-Sheets\Display\Article\397251/minuteman-i-icbm/. 12 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 162. 13 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 139-140. 14 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 140-141. 15 (U) Ibid.

42

16 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 115; Lorenz, 60 Years, 1; “Final Environmental

Assessment: Test Operations at Arnold Engineering Development Center,” 1-3. 17 (U) Ibid. 18 (U) D. F. Kip Mikula, et al., “X-37 Flight Demonstrator System Safety Program and

Challenges,” (paper, AIAA Space 2000 Conference and Exposition, Long Beach, California, September 19-21, 2000), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2000-5073; USAF, “X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle,” April 17, 2015.

19 (U) Leonard David, “X-37B Military Space Plane Wings Past 400 Days on Latest Mystery Mission,” Space.com, October 18, 2018; “Tunnel 9 X-37 Test,” ca. 2013, accessed at https://www.arnold.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000373788/; Beyond the Speed of Sound, 127; USAF, “X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle,” April 17, 2015.

20 (U) USAF, “X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle,” April 17, 2015; Leonard David, “X-37B Military Space Plane Wings Past 400 Days on Latest Mystery Mission,” Space.com, October 18, 2018, https://www.space.com/42175-x-37b-space-plane-otv5-400-days-orbit.html.

21 (U) USAF, “X-51A Waverider,” March 2, 2011, https://www.af.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=854&Article=104467.

22 (U) Phillip Lorenz, III, “AEDC Heralds Successful First Flight of X-51 Waverider,” (U) June 1, 2010, https://www.arnold.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/409450/aedc-heralds-successful-first-flight-of-x-51-waverider/.

23 (U) (U) USAF, “X-51A Waverider,” March 2, 2011,

https://www.af.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=854&Article=104467.

24 (U) “X-51A Conducts Flight Test,” Aerotech News and Review, June 4, 2010. 25 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test

Center, 1 January thru 30 June 1969,” (U), [n.d.], 74; EA-59-336-36: Flight Test Progress Report No. 36 for Week Ending November 7 (1959) for NAA Model No. NA-240 Contract AF33(600)-31693 System 605A collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, 1 January thru 30 June 1959,” (U), December 21, 1959, 173-4.

26 (U) “Flight Test Progress Report No. 36 for Week Ending November 7, 1959 for NAA Model No. NA-240 Contract AF33(600)-31693 System 605A” (EA-59-336-36) collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, 1 January thru 30 June 1959,” (U), December 21, 1959, 173; Hugh L. Dryden, “General Background of the X-15 Research Airplane Project,” in Research Airplane Committee Report on the Conference on the Progress of the X-15 Project: A Compilation of the Papers Presented (Langley, VA: NACA, 1956), xvii.

27 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, 1 January thru 30 June 1969,” (U), [n.d.], 74; EA-59-336-36: Flight Test Progress Report No. 36 for Week Ending November 7 (1959) for NAA Model No. NA-240 Contract AF33(600)-31693 System 605A; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, 1 January thru 30 June 1959,” (U), December 21, 1959, 173-4.

28 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, 1 January thru 30 June 1959,” (U), December 21, 1959, 170.

43

29 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 25. 30 (U) Dennis R. Jenkins, Hypersonics Before the Space Shuttle: a Concise History of the

X-15 Research Airplane (Washington, D.C: NASA, 2000), 21-22, 24, 29. 31 (U) Jenkins, X-15: Extending the Frontiers of Flight, 43, 165. 32 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test

Center: 01 January - 30 June 1964,” (U), [n.d.], 76-77; Lt. Col. Harry R. Bratt, “Biomedical Aspects of the X-15 Program: 1959-1964,” (FTC-TR-11-24), (U) August 1965; Kenneth S. Thomas, Harold J. McMann, U.S. Spacesuits (Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing Limited), 2006, 352.

33 (U) Pearlman, “Former NASA X-15 Pilots Awarded Astronaut Wings.” 34 (U) Gene Matranga, et al., Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly: the Lunar Landing

Research Vehicle, (NASA: 2005). 35 (U) Joseph A. Walker, “The X-15 Program,” (U//Dist. A) 1962, 20. 36 (U) NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, “Research Data from the X-15 Program

Contributed to Apollo Lunar Missions,” (U) July 10, 2009, https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/Features/X-15_Apollo.html; Robert G. Hoey, “X-15 Contributions to the X-30,” Proceedings of the X-15 First Flight 30th Anniversary Celebration, NASA CP 3105. (Edwards AFB, CA: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, 1991), 104-5.

37 (U) Ibid. 38 (U) Dennis R. Jenkins, X-15: Extending the Frontiers of Flight (Washington, D.C.:

NASA, 2007), 297; Joseph A. Walker, “The X-15 Program.” (U//Dist. A) (U//Dist. A) 1962, 20; NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, “Historical Fact Sheet: X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator,” [n.d.], https:\\www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/x33.html.

39 (U) NASA Dryden, Research Data from the X-15 Program Contributed to Apollo Lunar Missions; Dr. Christian Gelzer, NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center Chief Historian, pers. comm., (U) October 11, 2018.

40 (U) Christian Gelzer, ed., NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center’s Contributions to the Space Shuttle Program. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. (NASA: Washington, D.C., forthcoming in 2019).

41 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 01 January - 30 June 1964,” (U), [n.d.], 76-77; Lt. Col. Harry R. Bratt, “Biomedical Aspects of the X-15 Program: 1959-1964,” (FTC-TR-11-24), (U) August 1965; Kenneth S. Thomas, Harold J. McMann, U.S. Spacesuits. (Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing Limited), 2006, 352.

42 (U) NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, “Joe Engle Recalls the Legacy of the X-15 Rocket Plane,” August 6, 2012, https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/Features/joe_engle_recalls_X-15_legacy.html.

43 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 95; D. K. McGrath, “The Development and Qualification of the Mercury and Gemini Capsule Retro Rockets,” (paper, 337thh AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Salt Lake City, Utah, July 8-11, 2001), 5-6, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2001-3877 ), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-3877

44 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 97-99. 45 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 92. 46 (U) Richard P. Hallion, ed., The Hypersonic Revolution: Case Studies in the History of

Hypersonic Technology, volume I, From Max Valier to PRIME (1924-1967) (Air History and

44

Museum Program: Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C., 1998), II-xi; Calvin B. Hargis, Jr., “The X-20A (Dyna-Soar) Progress Report,” (U), 1964; Loveneesh Rana and Bernd Chudoba, “Design Evolution and AHP-based Historiography of Lifting Reentry Vehicle Space Programs” (paper, AIAA Space Forum 2016, Long Beach, California, September 13-16, 2016), 2, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-5319.

47 (U) Lt. Col. Harold Russell and John Wesesky, “Dyna-Soar Test Program,” June 16, 1959, 2.

48 (U) Hargis, 21; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July-31 December 1963,” (U), xvii, 104.

49 (U) Hargis, 21; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July-31 December 1963,” (U), xvii, 104; Richard B. Baird, “Lessons Learned in the Structures, Dynamics, and Materials Area during the X-20A (Dyna-Soar) Program,” (U//Dist. A), (ASIAC 685.1A), September 1986, 81.

50 (U) Mark Erickson, Into the Unknown Together: the DOD, NASA, and Early Spaceflight, (Air University Press: Maxwell AFB, AL, 2005), 168, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a459973.pdf.

51 History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July-31 December 1963,” (U), 105.

52 (U) Mark Erickson, Into the Unknown Together: the DOD, NASA, and Early Spaceflight, (Air University Press: Maxwell AFB, AL, 2005), 165-6, 170, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a459973.pdf; Clifford I. Cummings and Harold R. Lawrence, “The Military Role in Space,” in Technology of Lunar Exploration. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. PLACE: Academic Press, 1962, 961, https://doi.org/10.2514/4.864834.

53 (U) The Boeing Company, Aerospace Division, “Summary of Technical Advances: X-20,” (D2-23418), (U), July 1964, X-20 box, collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office.

54 (U) E.L. Clark, et al., “Heat Transfer and Pressure Distribution in Tests of Boeing Dyna-Soar Models at Mach Number 8,” (AEDC TN-59-151), (U), December 1959.

55 (U) Edward L. Clark and Robert G. Payne, “Force Tests of the Boeing S-3661-I Dyna-Soar Model at Mach Number 8,” (AEDC-TN-59-166), (U), January 1960; R. L. Palko, et al, “Force Tests of the Boeing S-3661-I Dyna-Soar Model at Mach Number 8 (Supplement to AEDC-TN-59-166),” (AEDC-TN-60-86) (U), May 1960.

56 (U) E.E. Edenfield, W. Wolny, and P.C. Shelton, “Pressure Distribution Tests to Determine Trailing Edge Control Effectiveness on a Boeing Dyna-Soar Model at Mach Numbers from 16 to 20,” (AEDC-TN-60-146), (U), August 1960, 2.

57 (U) R.S. Hiers, M.E. Hillsamer, and S.D. Morris, “Heat Transfer and Pressure Distribution Tests on a Version of the Complete Dyna-Soar Vehicle at Mach 8,” (AEDC-TN-61-47), (U), May 1961, 2. Also see: Edward L. Clark and Robert G. Payne, “Static Stability and Control Tests of the Boeing P-3201-1 Dyna-Soar at Mach Number 8,” (AEDC-TN-59-148), (U), December 1960.

58 (U) R.S. Hiers and M.E. Hillsamer, “Heat Transfer and Flow Visualization Results on the Forward Section of the Dyna-Soar Glider at Mach Numbers 8 and 10,” (AEDC-TN 61-168), (U), December 1961.

45

59 (U) D.R. Bell and J.C. Donaldson, “An Investigation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics

of the Dyna-Soar Air Vehicle Incorporating the Titan II Booster,” (AEDC-TN-61-139), (U), October 1961, 3.

60 (U) Hargis, 21; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July-31 December 1963,” (U), xvii, 104; Maj. Russell L. Rogers, “Pilot Training for the X-20A Hypersonic Research Aircraft,” (U), (paper, Testing of Manned Flight Systems Conference, sponsored by the AIAA, Edwards AFB, California, December 1963).

61 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July-31 December 1963,” (U), xvi, 104, 107.

62 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July-31 December 1963,” (U), 107.

63 (U) John Manke and Lt. Col. Michael V. Love, “The X-24B Flight Test Program,” (paper, Society of Experimental Test Pilots, September 26, 1975), 2.

64 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July-31 December 1963,” (U), xvi; Col. Joseph R. Myers, “Project Status Report: X-20A (Dyna-Soar): Accomplish Objectives of the X-20A (Dyna-Soar) Flight Test Program,” February 5, 1964, X-20A box, “X-20A Technical Papers,” folder; Courtland D. Perkins, “Man’s Utility in Military Space Missions,” (paper, Heterogeneous Combustion Conference, Palm Beach, Florida, December 11-13, 1963), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1963-1436.

65 (U) “Pilot Control of the X-20/Titan III Boost Profile,” [n.d.], X-20 box, “X-20 Technical Papers,” X-20 box.

66 (U) Hallion, ed., The Hypersonic Revolution: Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology, volume I, From Max Valier to PRIME (1924-1967), II-xi; The Boeing Company, Aerospace Division, “Summary of Technical Advances: X-20,” (D2-23418), (U), July 1964, 41, X-20 box, collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office; Richard B. Baird, “Lessons Learned in the Structures, Dynamics, and Materials Area during the X-20A (Dyna-Soar) Program,” (U//Dist. A), (ASIAC 685.1A), September 1986, 81; Rana and Chudoba, 14.

67 (U) Richard P. Hallion and Michael H. Gorn, On the Frontier: Experimental Flight at NASA Dryden (Smithsonian Books: Washington, D.C., 2003), 151.

68 (U) Maj. Gen. Irving L. Branch, commander, AFTC, and Paul F. Bikle, Director, NASA FRC, “Memorandum of Understanding Between Air Force Flight Test Center and NASA Flight Research Center on Joint NASA-FRC - AFTC Lifting Body Flight Test Committee,” (U) [n.d.]; Richard P. Hallion, et al., The Hypersonic Revolution. Volume 2. From Max Valier to Project Prime, (ASC: 1995), 866.

69 (U) Maj. Gen. Irving L. Branch, Commander, Air Force Flight Test Center and Paul F. Bikle, Director, NASA Flight Research Center, “Memorandum of Understanding Between Air Force Flight Test Center and NASA Flight Research Center on Joint NASA-FRC-AFTC Lifting Body Flight Test Committee,” (U), April 5, 1965, box 1, folder 7, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California; Paul F. Bikle, Director, NASA Flight Research Center to All Concerned, “Formulation of a Joint NASA FRC/AFTC Lifting Body Flight Test Committee,” (U), August 25, 1966, box 1, folder 7, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California; DoD-NASA, “Memorandum of Understanding: Provisions for the Use of the X-24A Research Vehicle in a Jointly Sponsored NASA-DOD (USAF) Lifting Body Flight Research Program,” (U), November 7, 1967, box 1, folder 7, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

70 (U) Hallion and Gorn, On the Frontier, 152.

46

71 (U) Euclid C. Holleman and Elmor J. Adkins, “Contributions of the X-15 Program to

Lifting Entry Technology,” Journal of Aircraft 1, no. 6 (November-December 1964): 360. 72 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test

Center: 1 January - 30 June 1966,” (U) [n.d.], 84; Hallion and Gorn, On the Frontier, 154, 156; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July 1966 - 30 June 1967,” (U), [n.d.], 84.

73 (U) Hallion and Gorn, On the Frontier, 156-8. 74 (U) Hallion and Gorn, On the Frontier, 158. 75 (U) Robert Kempel and Weneth D. Painter, “Development and Flight Testing of the HL-

10 Lifting Body,” Biennial Flight Test Conference, 1994, 457, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1994-2180.

76 (U) Kempel and Painter, 1994, 459. 77 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test

Center: 1 July - 31 December 1967,” (U) [n.d.], 75. 78 (U) DoD-NASA, “Memorandum of Understanding: Provisions for the Use of the X-24A

Research Vehicle in a Jointly Sponsored NASA-DOD (USAF) Lifting Body Flight Research Program,” (U), November 7, 1967, box 1, folder 7, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California .

79 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 January – 30 June 1968,” (U) [n.d.], 89-90.

80 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, 1 January thru 30 June 1969,” (U), [n.d.], 76.

81 (U) Robert Kempel and Weneth D. Painter, “Development and Flight Testing of the HL-10 Lifting Body,” Biennial Flight Test Conference, 1994 https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1994-2180.

82 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, Air Force Systems Command, United States Air Force: 1 January through 30 June 1969,” (U), [n.d.], vi; Martin Marietta, “X-24A,” (U), [n.d.], box 1, folder 1, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California; Rana and Chudoba, 16.

83 (U) NASA Flight Research Center, “X-24 Lifting Body,” (U), [n.d.], box 1, folder 1, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California; Rana and Chudoba, 16; Johnny G. Armstrong, “Flight Planning and Conduct of the X-24A Lifting Body Flight Test Program,” (FTC-TD-71-10) (U//Dist. A), 14 July 1972, 3, 6; Manke and Love, 7.

84 (U) Armstrong, FTC-TD-71-10, 3. 85 (U) Armstrong, FTC-TD-71-10, 16; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center,

“History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July - 31 December 1967,” (U) [n.d.], 76. 86 (U) Armstrong, FTC-TD-71-10, 20; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center,

“History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July - 31 December 1967,” (U) [n.d.], 76-7. 87 (U) Armstrong, FTC-TD-71-10, 22-3; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center,

“History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July - 31 December 1967,” (U) [n.d.], 77. 88 (U) Armstrong, FTC-TD-71-10, ii, 1; Rana and Chudoba, 19. 89 (U) Armstrong, FTC-TD-71-10, 70. 90 (U) Manke and Love, 5.

47

91 (U) Manke and Love, 7; Richard P. Hallion and Michael H. Gorn, On the Frontier:

Experimental Flight at NASA Dryden (Smithsonian Books: Washington, D.C., 2003), 165, 167; “NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Lifting Bodies,” August 7, 2017, https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-011-DFRC.html; W.J. Hennigan and Los Angeles Times, “Bill Dana, NASA Test Pilot Whose Work Helped Usher in Space Age, Dies at 83,” Washington Post, May 8, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/bill-dana-nasa-test-pilot-whose-work-helped-usher-in-space-age-dies-at-83/2014/05/08/7f85f5fe-d6c2-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0b82897ce435.

92 (U) Hallion and Gorn, On the Frontier, 166. 93 (U) Johnny G. Armstrong, “Flight Planning and Conduct of the X-24B Research Aircraft

Flight Test Program: 1 August 1973-26 November 1975,” (AFFTC-TR-76-11), (U//Dist. A), Dec 1977, 87; Hallion and Gorn, On the Frontier, 165-166; R. B. Norris, “Simulation of Rocket Plume Interference on the X-24B at Transonic Speeds,” (U//Dist. A) (paper, 5th Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference for Future Space Systems, Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Co-located Conferences, 1979) https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.1979-1666.

94 (U) Johnny G. Armstrong, “Flight Planning and Conduct of the X-24B Research Aircraft Flight Test Program: 1 August 1973-26 November 1975,” (AFFTC-TR-76-11), (U//Dist. A), Dec 1977, 87; Hallion and Gorn, On the Frontier, 165-166.

95 (U) Rana and Chudoba, 16. 96 (U) Johnny G. Armstrong, “Flight Planning and Conduct of the X-24B Research Aircraft

Flight Test Program: 1 August 1973-26 November 1975,” (AFFTC-TR-76-11) (U//Dist. A), Dec 1977, 78.

97 (U) Mark Erickson, Into the Unknown Together: the DOD, NASA, and Early Spaceflight, (Air University Press: Maxwell AFB, AL, 2005), 361, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a459973.pdf

98 (U) Will Holsclaw, “Walking the High Ground: The Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the Age of the Air Force Astronauts,” (U) (undergraduate thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2018), 2, https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2811&context=honr_theses; John Steadman, “The Military and the Advancement of Space Knowledge.” Paper presented at the Impact of Aerospace Science and Technology on Law and Government Conference, Washington, D.C., August 28-30, 1968, 5XXX; Headquarters, Air Force Systems Command, “Operation Order for Support of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) Program (Program 632A),” (U) November 14, 1967, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory; “Talking Paper: MOL/AAP Considerations,” (U) 1 November 1967, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

99 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 145. 100 (U) “U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School History,” March 22, 2013. 101 (U) Ibid. 102 (U) Lt. Col. Robert S. Buchanan and William G. Schweikhard, “Space Training Past

and Future.” Paper delivered at the Testing of Manned Flight Systems Conference, Edwards AFB, CA, 1963, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1963-1809; USAF Test Pilot School, 1944-1994: 50 Years and Beyond [Edwards AFB: Edwards, California, 1994], 49.

103 (U) Ibid.

48

104 (U) Secretary of the Air Force memorandum to the Director, Defense Research and

Engineering, “Manned/Unmanned Comparisons in the MOL,” August 26, 1966, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

105 (U) Gen. J.P. McConnell, Secretary of the Air Force, “MOL,” May 14, 1969, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

106 (U) Historical Division, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 January – 30 June 1962,” 143.

107 (U) Historical Division, Office of Information, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California: 1 July-31 December 1965,” (U) [n.d.], 124; Buchanan and Schweikhard; USAF Test Pilot School, 1944-1994: 50 Years and Beyond [Edwards AFB: Edwards, California, 1994], 49.

108 (U) Buchanan and Schweikhard, “Space Training Past and Future.” 109 (U) Historical Division, Office of Information, “History of the Air Force Flight Test

Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California: 1 July-31 December 1965,” (U) [n.d.], 129. Also see: Clifford H. Allen, Jr., “Space Flight Simulator for U.S. Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 3, no. 6 (June 1966), https://doi.org/10.2514/3.28539.

110 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 January - 30 June 1966,” [n.d.], 92.

111 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July 1966 - 30 June 1967,” [n.d.], 100.

112 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July - 31 December 1967,” (U) [n.d.], ii, 93; History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July thru 31 December 1965,” (U) [n.d.], 74.

113 (U) Maj. Gen James P. Stewart, “NPIC Training for Astronauts,” (U), July 5, 1968, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory; James Q. Reber to Edward W. Proctor, pers. communication, (U), March 13, 1967, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory; Buchanan and Schweikhard, “Space Training Past and Future.”

114 (U) Buchanan and Schweikhard, “Space Training Past and Future,” 75. 115 (U) Will Holsclaw, “Walking the High Ground: The Manned Orbiting Laboratory and

the Age of the Air Force Astronauts,” (undergraduate thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2018), 2, https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2811&context=honr_theses; Deputy Secretary of Defense, “Memorandum for the Secretary of the Air Force, Director National Reconnaissance Office,” (U) June 9, 1969, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

116 (U) Holsclaw, “Walking the High Ground: The Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the Age of the Air Force Astronauts,” 2, https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2811&context=honr_theses; Deputy Secretary of Defense, “Memorandum for the Secretary of the Air Force, Director National Reconnaissance Office,” (U) June 9, 1969.

117 (U) David N. Spires, Beyond Horizons: a Half Century of Air Force Space Leadership (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1998), 133.

49

118 (U) David N. Spires, Beyond Horizons: a Half Century of Air Force Space Leadership

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1998), 97. 119 (U) NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, “Space Shuttles and the Dryden Flight

Research Center,” (U//Dist. A) August 7, 2017 at https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-015-DFRC.html; Roger D. Launius, “Defining the Shuttle: The Spaceplane Tradition,” in Space Shuttle Legacy: How We Did it and What We Did (Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2013), 1, https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781624102172.0001.0024.

120 (U) Roger D. Launius, “Designing the Shuttle: Living within the Political System,” in Space Shuttle Legacy: We Did it and What We Did (Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2013), 25, https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781624102172.0025.0046; John M. Logsdon, “Retiring the Space Shuttle: What Next?” in Space Shuttle Legacy: How We Did it and What We Learned (Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2013), 323, https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781624102172.0323.0344.

121 (U) History Office, Arnold Engineering Development Center, “History of Arnold Engineering Development Center: 1 July-31 December 1971,” [n.d.], in the collection of the History Office, Arnold Engineering Development Complex, Arnold AFB, Tennessee.

122 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 102. 123 (U) Dr. Christian Gelzer, NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center Chief Historian,

pers. comm., (U) January 19, 2019. 124 (U) NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, “Space Shuttles and the Dryden Flight

Research Center,” (U//Dist. A) August 7, 2017, at https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-015-DFRC.html.

125 (U) Richard P. Hallion, ed., The Hypersonic Revolution Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology. Volume II From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986). ASC: 1998, 1175; Johnny G. Armstrong, interviewed by Guy T. Noffsinger, “Shuttle Documentary Interview,” October 2010, Christian Gelzer, ed., The Spoken Word II: Recollections of Dryden History, the Shuttle Years,” (NASA SP-2011-4552: 2013), 1.

126 (U) Hoey, “AFTC Participation in Space Shuttle Program.” 127 (U) Hallion, The Hypersonic Revolution Volume II, 1998, 1177-1180. 128 (U) Hallion, The Hypersonic Revolution Volume II, 1998, 1142. 129 (U) Hallion, The Hypersonic Revolution Volume II, 1998, 1176. 130 (U) History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test

Center: 1 January 1979 - 31 December 1982,” [n.d.], 347. 131 (U) Richard P. Hallion, ed., The Hypersonic Revolution Case Studies in the History of

Hypersonic Technology. Volume II From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986). ASC: 1998, 485.

132 (U) John M. Logsdon, “Retiring the Space Shuttle: What Next?” in Roger D. Launius, John Krige, and James I. Craig, Space Shuttle Legacy: How We Did it and What We Did (Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2013), 323, https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781624102172.0323.0344.

133 (U) Maj. Steven R. Petersen, “Space Control and the Role of Antisatellite Weapons,” (Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press, May 1991), 7; Paul Glenshaw, “The First Space

50

Ace: F-15 vs. Satellite,” Air and Space Magazine, (April 2018), https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/first-space-ace-180968349.

134 (U) Justin Paul George, “The History of Anti-Satellite Weapons: US tested 1st ASAT Missile 60 Years Ago,” The Week, March 27, 2019, https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/03/27/history-anti-satellite-weapon-us-asat-missile.html; Paul Glenshaw, “The First Space Ace: F-15 vs. Satellite,” Air and Space Magazine, (April 2018), https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/first-space-ace-180968349.

135 (U) Mike Killian, “That Time an F-15 Pilot Shot Down a Satellite, 32 Years Ago This Week,” September 13, 2017, https://www.avgeekery.com/that-time-an-f-15-pilot-shot-down-a-satellite-32-years-ago-this-week/; Glenshaw, “The First Space Ace.

136 (U) Paul Glenshaw, “The First Space Ace: F-15 vs. Satellite,” Air and Space Magazine, (April 2018), https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/first-space-ace-180968349.

137 (U) “This Day in Aviation History: 21 January 1984,” January 21, 2019, https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/anti-satellite-missile/.

138 (U) U.S. House of Representatives, “H.R.5571 -Arms Race Moratorium Act, 98th Congress (1983-1984),” Congressional Record—House, May 2, 1984.

139 (U) Glenshaw, “The First Space Ace.” 140 (U) Mike Killian, “That Time an F-15 Pilot Shot Down a Satellite, 32 Years Ago This

Week,” September 13, 2017, https://www.avgeekery.com/that-time-an-f-15-pilot-shot-down-a-satellite-32-years-ago-this-week/; Maj. Steven R. Petersen, “Space Control and the Role of Antisatellite Weapons,” (Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press, May 1991), 8; Henry F. Cooper, “Anti-Satellite Systems and Arms Control: Lessons from the Past,” Strategic Review, 17, (1989), 40.

141 (U) Beyond the Speed of Sound, 129-30. Mike Killian, “That Time an F-15 Pilot Shot Down a Satellite, 32 Years Ago This Week,” September 13, 2017, https://www.avgeekery.com/that-time-an-f-15-pilot-shot-down-a-satellite-32-years-ago-this-week/.

142 (U) William Kucinski, “Final Orion Capsule Parachute System Test Successful,” SAE International, September 28, 2018, https://www.sae.org/news/2018/09/final-orion-capsule-parachute-system-test-successful; Kenji Thuloweit, “418th FLTS Completes 10-Year Support of NSA Orion Parachute Tests.” (U//Dist. A) October 9, 2018.

51

(U) Bibliography Allen, Jr., Clifford H. “Space Flight Simulator for U.S. Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot

School,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 3, no. 6 (June 1966), https://doi.org/10.2514/3.28539.

Armstrong, Johnny G., “Flight Planning and Conduct of the X-24A Lifting Body Flight Test Program,” (FTC-TD-71-10) (U//Dist. A), 14 July 1972.

Armstrong, Johnny G., interview by Guy T. Noffsinger, “Shuttle Documentary Interview,” October 2010, Christian Gelzer, ed., The Spoken Word II: Recollections of Dryden History, the Shuttle Years, NASA SP-2011-4552: 2013.

Arnold Engineering Development Complex “Test Facility Guide,” (U//Dist. A) [n.d.]. Baird, Richard B. Lessons Learned in the Structures, Dynamics, and Materials Area during

the X-20A (Dyna-Soar) Program. (ASIAC 685.1A, September 1986. D.R. Bell and J.C. Donaldson. An Investigation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of the

Dyna-Soar Air Vehicle Incorporating the Titan II Booster. AEDC-TN-61-139, (U), October 1961.

Beyond the Speed of Sound. [Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn.] : [The Base], [2010]. Bikle, Paul F. “Formulation of a Joint NASA FRC/AFTC Lifting Body Flight Test

Committee,” (U), August 25, 1966, box 1, folder 7, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

Branch, Maj. Gen. Irving L. and Paul F. Bikle. “Memorandum of Understanding Between Air Force Flight Test Center and NASA Flight Research Center on Joint NASA-FRC-AFTC Lifting Body Flight Test Committee,” (U), April 5, 1965, box 1, folder 7, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

Bratt, Lt. Col. Harry R. “Biomedical Aspects of the X-15 Program: 1959-1964,” (FTC-TR-11-24), August 1965.

Buchanan Lt. Col. Robert S. and William G. Schweikhard, “Space Training Past and Future.” Paper delivered at the Testing of Manned Flight Systems Conference, Edwards AFB, CA, 1963, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1963-1809.

Clark, Edward L. and Robert G. Payne, “Force Tests of the Boeing S-3661-I Dyna-Soar Model at Mach Number 8,” (AEDC-TN-59-166), (U) January 1960.

Cummings, Clifford I. and Harold R. Lawrence, “The Military Role in Space” in Technology of Lunar Exploration. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. PLACE: Academic Press, 1962, 961, https://doi.org/10.2514/4.864834.

Clark, E.L.et al., Heat Transfer and Pressure Distribution in Tests of Boeing Dyna-Soar Models at Mach Number 8. AEDC TN-59-151, (U), December 1959.

52

Clark Edward L., and Robert G. Payne, Static Stability and Control Tests of the Boeing P-3201-1 Dyna-Soar at Mach Number 8. AEDC-TN-59-148, (U), December 1960.

Cong. Record 3985 (February 29, 1984) (statement of Congressman George F. Brown, Jr., CA-36)

Dana, William H. foreword to Dennis R. Jenkins, X-15: Extending the Frontiers of Flight. US GPO: 2007.

David, Leonard. “X-37B Military Space Plane Wings Past 400 Days on Latest Mystery Mission,” Space.com, October 18, 2018.

Deputy Secretary of Defense, “Memorandum for the Secretary of the Air Force, Director National Reconnaissance Office,” June 9, 1969, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

DoD-NASA, “Memorandum of Understanding: Provisions for the Use of the X-24A Research Vehicle in a Jointly Sponsored NASA-DOD (USAF) Lifting Body Flight Research Program,” (U), November 7, 1967, box 1, folder 7, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

Dryden, Hugh L. “General Background of the X-15 Research Airplane Project,” in Research Airplane Committee Report on the Conference on the Progress of the X-15 Project: A Compilation of the Papers Presented .Langley, VA: NACA, 1956.

EA-59-336-36: Flight Test Progress Report No. 36 for Week Ending November 7 (1959) for NAA Model No. NA-240 Contract AF33(600)-31693 System 605A, (U) in the collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

Edenfield, E.E., W. Wolny, and P.C. Shelton, Pressure Distribution Tests to Determine Trailing Edge Control Effectiveness on a Boeing Dyna-Soar Model at Mach Numbers from 16 to 20. AEDC-TN-60-146, (U), August 1960.

Erickson, Mark. Into the Unknown Together: the DOD, NASA, and Early Spaceflight. Air University Press: Maxwell AFB, AL, 2005. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a459973.pdf.

Figliola, Patricia Moloney, et. al., “CRS Issue Brief for Congress: U.S. Space Programs: Civilian, Military, and Commercial,” June 13, 2006.

Gelzer, Christian. NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center Chief Historian, pers. comm., October 11, 2018.

Gelzer, Christian, ed., NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center’s Contributions to the Space Shuttle Program. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. NASA: Washington, D.C., forthcoming in 2019.

George, Justin Paul. “The History of Anti-Satellite Weapons: US tested 1st ASAT Missile 60 Years Ago,” The Week, March 27, 2019, https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/03/27/history-anti-satellite-weapon-us-asat-missile.html.

53

Glenshaw, Paul. “The First Space Ace: F-15 vs. Satellite,” Air and Space Magazine (April 2018), https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/first-space-ace-180968349.

Hallion, Richard P. ed., The Hypersonic Revolution: Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology, volume I, From Max Valier to PRIME (1924-1967). Air History and Museum Program: Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C., 1998.

Hallion, Richard P. et al., The Hypersonic Revolution. Volume 2. From Max Valier to Project Prime. ASC: 1995.

Hallion, Richard P. ed., The Hypersonic Revolution Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology. Volume II From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986). ASC: 1998.

Hallion Richard P. and Michael H. Gorn, On the Frontier: Experimental Flight at NASA Dryden. Smithsonian Books: Washington, D.C., 2003.

Hargis, Jr., Calvin B. The X-20A (Dyna-Soar) Progress Report. 1964. Headquarters, Air Force Systems Command, “Operation Order for Support of the Manned

Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) Program (Program 632A),” November 14, 1967, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

Hennigan, W.J. and Los Angeles Times, “Bill Dana, NASA Test Pilot Whose Work Helped Usher in Space Age, Dies at 83,” Washington Post, May 8, 2014

Hiers, R.S., M.E. Hillsamer, and S.D. Morris, “Heat Transfer and Pressure Distribution Tests on a Version of the Complete Dyna-Soar Vehicle at Mach 8,” (AEDC-TN-61-47), (U), May 1961, 2.

Hiers, R.S. and M.E. Hillsamer, Heat Transfer and Flow Visualization Results on the Forward Section of the Dyna-Soar Glider at Mac Numbers 8 and 10. AEDC-TN 61- 168, (U), December 1961.

Historical Division, Air Force Flight Test Center, “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 January – 30 June 1962,”(U), [n.d.], in the collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards Air Force Base, California.

History Office, Space and Missile Systems Center, Historical Overview of the Space and Missile Systems Center, 1954-2003. Los Angeles AFB: Space and Missile Systems Center, 2003.

Holsclaw, Will. “Walking the High Ground: The Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the Age of the Air Force Astronauts,” (undergraduate thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2018), https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2811&context=honr_theses.

Hoey, Robert. “AFTC Overview of Orbiter Reentry Flight Test Results,” (paper, Second Flight Testing Conference, co-sponsored by the AIAA, AHS, IES, SETP, and SFTE, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 16-18, 1983).

54

Hoey, Robert. “AFFTC Participation in Space Shuttle Program,” April 14, 1974 attachment B, Office of Advanced Manned Vehicles, “History Report: July 1975-July 1976,” (U) [n.d.], in History Office, Air Force Flight Test Center. “History of the Air Force Flight Test Center: 1 July 1975 - 31 December 1976,” March 19, 1982, collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

Hoey, Robert G. “X-15 Contributions to the X-30,” Proceedings of the X-15 First Flight 30th Anniversary Celebration, NASA CP 3105. Edwards AFB, CA: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, 1991.

Holleman, Euclid C. and Elmor J. Adkins, “Contributions of the X-15 Program to Lifting Entry Technology,” Journal of Aircraft 1:6 (November-December 1964).

“Hotshot 11,000 MPH- 15,000°,” High Mach. September 1956. Kempel Robert, and Weneth D. Painter, “Development and Flight Testing of the HL-10

Lifting Body,” (paper, Biennial Flight Test Conference, 1994), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1994-2180

Kraemer, Sven F. Inside the Cold War from Marx to Reagan: An Unprecedented Guide to the Roots, History, Strategies, and Key Documents of the Cold War. University Press of America: Lanham, Maryland, 2015.

Launius, Roger D. “Defining the Shuttle: The Spaceplane Tradition,” in Space Shuttle Legacy: How We Did it and What We Did Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2013, https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781624102172.0001.0024.

Logsdon, John M. “Retiring the Space Shuttle: What Next?” in Roger D. Launius, John Krige, and James I. Craig, Space Shuttle Legacy: How We Did it and What We Did Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2013, https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781624102172.0323.0344.

Lorenz, III, Phillip. “AEDC Heralds Successful First Flight of X-51 Waverider,” (U) June 1, 2010, https://www.arnold.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/409450/aedc-heralds-successful-first-flight-of-x-51-waverider/.

Lorenz, III, Phillip. “AEDC Space and Missile Ground Test Complex: 60 Years of Pioneering Work Defending the Nation,” AEDC, 1951-2011.

McConnell, Gen. J.P. Secretary of the Air Force, “MOL,” May 14, 1969, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

Manke, John and Lt. Col. Michael V. Love, “The X-24B Flight Test Program,” (paper, Society of Experimental Test Pilots, September 26, 1975).

Martin Marietta, “X-24A,” (U), [n.d.], box 1, folder 1, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

Matranga, Gene, et al., Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly: the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. NASA: 2005.

55

Myers, Col. Joseph R. “Project Status Report: X-20A (Dyna-Soar): Accomplish Objectives of the X-20A (Dyna-Soar) Flight Test Program,” February 5, 1964, X-20A box, “X-20A Technical Papers,” folder, collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

“NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Lifting Bodies,” August 7, 2017, https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-011-DFRC.html.

ASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, “Space Shuttles and the Dryden Flight Research Center,” September 24, 2014, at https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-015-DFRC.html.

NASA Flight Research Center, “X-24 Lifting Body,” (U), [n.d.], box 1, folder 1, X-24 collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, “Joe Engle Recalls the Legacy of the X-15 Rocket Plane,” August 6, 2012, https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/Features/joe_engle_recalls_X-15_legacy.html.

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, “Research Data from the X-15 Program Contributed to Apollo Lunar Missions,” July 10, 2009, https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/Features/X-15_Apollo.html.

Norris, R. B., “Simulation of Rocket Plume Interference on the X-24B at Transonic Speeds,” (U//Dist. A) (paper, 5th Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference for Future Space Systems, Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Co-located Conferences, 1979), https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.1979-1666.

Palko, R. L., et al. Force Tests of the Boeing S-3661-I Dyna-Soar Model at Mach Number 8 (Supplement to AEDC-TN-59-166). AEDC-TN-60-86. May 1960.

Pearlman, Robert Z. “Former NASA X-15 Pilots Awarded Astronaut Wings,” collectSPACE.com, August 23, 2005, https://www.space.com/1465-nasa-15-pilots-awarded-astronaut-wings.html.

Perkins, Courtland D. “Man’s Utility in Military Space Missions,” (paper, Heterogeneous Combustion Conference, Palm Beach, Florida, December 11-13, 1963), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1963-1436.

Petersen, Maj. Steven R. Space Control and the Role of Antisatellite Weapons. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press, May 1991.

“Pilot Control of the X-20/Titan III Boost Profile,” [n.d.], X-20 box, “X-20 Technical Papers,” folder, collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

Rana, Loveneesh and Bernd Chudoba. “Design Evolution and AHP-based Historiography of Lifting Reentry Vehicle Space Programs” (paper, AIAA Space Forum 2016, Long Beach, California, 13-16 September 2016), 2, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-5319.

56

Reber, James Q. to Edward W. Proctor. Pers. Communication, (U), March 13, 1967, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

Rogers, Maj. Russell L. “Pilot Training for the X-20A Hypersonic Research Aircraft,” (U), (paper, Testing of Manned Flight Systems Conference, sponsored by the AIAA, Edwards AFB, California, December 1963).

Russell, Lt. Col. Harold, and John Wesesky, “Dyna-Soar Test Program,” June 16, 1959. Scott, Kevin D. “Joint Publication 3-14: Space Operations,” April 10, 2018,

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=810222. Secretary of the Air Force memorandum to the Director, Defense Research and

Engineering, “Manned/Unmanned Comparisons in the MOL,” August 26, 1966, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

Spires, David N. Beyond Horizons: a Half Century of Air Force Space Leadership. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1998.

Stares, Paul B. The Militarization of Space: US Policy, 1945-1984. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, N.Y., 1985.

Steadman, John. “The Military and the Advancement of Space Knowledge.” Paper presented at the Impact of Aerospace Science and Technology on Law and Government Conference, Washington, D.C., August 28-30, 1968.

Stewart, Maj Gen James P. “NPIC Training for Astronauts,” (U), July 5, 1968, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

“Talking Paper: MOL/AAP Considerations,” 1 November 1967, from the collection of the National Reconnaissance Office, FOIA reading room, Special Collection, Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

The Boeing Company, Aerospace Division, “Summary of Technical Advances: X-20,” (D2-23418), (U), July 1964, X-20 box, collection of the Air Force Test Center History Office, Edwards AFB, California.

Thomas, Kenneth S. Harold J. McMann. U.S. Spacesuits. Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing Limited, 2006.

Thuloweit, Kenji. “418th FLTS Completes 10-Year Support of NSA Orion Parachute Tests.” (U//Dist. A) October 9, 2018.

USAF Test Pilot School, 1944-1994: 50 Years and Beyond [Edwards AFB: Edwards, California, 1994].

“U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School History,” March 22, 2013. U.S. House of Representatives, “H.R.5571 -Arms Race Moratorium Act, 98th Congress

(1983-1984),” Congressional Record—House, May 2, 1984. Walker, Joseph A. “The X-15 Program,” 1962.

57

Werrell, Kenneth P. The Evolution of the Cruise Missile. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press, 1985.

“X-51A Conducts Flight Test,” Aerotech News and Review, June 4, 2010.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

04-15-2019 2. REPORT TYPE Historical Study

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 1958-2018

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE History of U.S. Air Force Developmental Test in Space

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) Smith, Stephanie M.

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Stephanie M. Smith, PhD, DAFC Chief Historian, AFTC History Office 305 East Popson Avenue Edwards AFB, California 93524

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

412TW-PA-19191

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) HQ Air Force Test Center 1 South Rosamond Blvd. Edwards AFB CA 93524

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) N/A

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release A: distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT The history of Air Force developmental test in space includes both manned and unmanned vehicles and systems, ground and flight test, and the expertise of testers of both Arnold and Edwards Air Force Bases, with a history back to the 1950s. The examination of internal Air Force primary and secondary sources, as well external primary and secondary historical sources reveals that while developmental test and evaluation represented only a small part of the Air Force mission, the successful employment of air and space systems ultimately depended upon the expertise of testers in supplying relevant test data, gathered with rigor, objectivity, and discipline, to program designers, developers, and operators. Moreover, no other military organization in the nation matches the Air Force Test Center enterprise for experience in and capabilities for manned spaceflight, particularly in the transition from launch to orbit to reentry under pilot control, as well as for infrastructure and corporate and technical knowledge. This long, diverse, and fruitful history of space test expertise has made the Air Force Test Center test enterprise the optimal home for the future of Air Force developmental test in space.

15. SUBJECT TERMS AFTC; Air Force Test Center; AFFTC; Air Flight Force Test Center; space; manned space; unmanned space; access to space; AEDC; Arnold Engineering Development Complex; Arnold AFB; Edwards AFB; X-15; lifting bodies; X-24; Apollo; Gemini; Mercury; X-37; X-51A; Atlas; Titan; Polaris; Trident; Manned Orbital Laboratory; MOL; X-20A; Dyna-Soar; CPAS; Orion 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: Unclassified

17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 412 TENG/EN (Tech Pubs)

a. REPORT Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE Unclassified

None 80 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) 661-277-8615

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18