TIR

O^N FA
Geis? w1mg
The Viking 2 orbiter photographed the dawn side of Mars as it approached tilt'
Planet in early August 1976. The photo has been computer enhanced. At the top,
with water-ice-cloud plumes on its western flank, is Ascraeus Mons, one of the
giant Martian volcanoes. In the middle is the great rift canyon Valles Marineris,
and near the bottom is the large, frosty crater Argyre.
 NASA SP-4212

0 e o
Exploration of the Red Planet
1958-1978

Edward Clinton Ezell

Linda Neuman Ezell

The NASA History Series

AND SP
rrJ A'C''S
q^F
0
i
e i

toY-,
Scientific and Technical Information Branch 1984
^^N
V. S. A. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC
NASA maintains an internal history program for two principal reasons: (1) Publication of
official histories is one way in which NASA responds to the provision of the National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 that requires NASA to "provide for the widest practicable
and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results
thereof." (2) Thoughtful study of NASA history can help agency managers accomplish the
missions assigned to the agency. Understanding NASA's past aids in understanding its
present situation and illuminates possible future directions.
One advantage of working in contemporary history is access to participants. During the
research phase, the authors conducted numerous interviews. Subsequently they submitted
parts of the manuscript to persons who had participated in or closely observed the events
described. Readers were asked to point out errors of fact and questionable interpretations
and to provide supporting evidence. The authors then made such changes as they believed
justified. The opinions and conclusions set forth in this book are those of the authors; no
official of the agency necessarily endorses those opinions or conclusions.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Ezell, Edward Clinton.
On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958-1978
(The NASA history series) (NASA SP; 4212)
Bibliography: p. 481
Includes index.
1. Viking Mars Program—History. I. Ezell, Linda Neuman. II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series:
NASA SP; 4212.
TL789.8.U6V524 1983 629.43'543 82-22302

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
 Contents
Page
FOREWORD ........................... I...................... ix
INTRODUCTION .............................................. xi
1. WHY MARS? ............................................ 1
Attractive Target for Exploration ........................ 2
Objectives in Space .................................... 10
2. THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE: MARINER SPACECRAFT
AND LAUNCH VEHICLES .............................. 25
Evolution of Unmanned Space Exploration to 1960 ....... 25
Centaur: Troublesome Launch Vehicle .................. 31
3. THE SEARCH FOR MARTIAN LIFE BEGINS: 1959-1965 ........ 51
The Rise of Exobiology as a Discipline .............I . I ..54
The Results of Mariner 4 ............................... 74
4. VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING, 1960-1967 • • . • . 83
Origins of Voyager .................................... 85
Misfortunes of Voyager ................................ 100
5. REORGANIZATION AND THE CREATION OF VIKING .......... 121
Langley Enters the Mars Business ....................... 121
Problems—Management Assignments and Budgets ........ 139
Support for Mars Exploration .......................... 142
The Mission Mode Decision ............................ 148
6. VIKING ORBITER AND ITS MARINER INHERITANCE.......... 155
Mariner Mars 69 ....................................... I56
Mariner Mars 71 ....................................... 159
First Phase of Viking Orbiter Planning .................. 167
Viking Mission Definition No. 2 ........................ 174
Mariner 69 Science Results ............................. 175
Quarterly Review ...................................... 182
Money Problems at NASA .............................. 185
Working toward July 1975 .............................. 192
7. VIKING LANDER: CREATING THE SCIENCE TEAMS .......... 203
A Team of Scientists ................................... 205
Selecting a Contractor ................................. 216
Scientists, Instruments, and Subcontractors ............... 220

I'


ON MARS
8. VIKING LANDER: BUILDING A COMPLEX SPACECRAFT ....... 243
Lander Mission Profile ................................. 244
Science Data Return ................................... 249
Top Ten Problems .................................... 251
Testing the Lander .................................... 256
Reorganizations and Additional Cutbacks ................ 268
Preparing for Launch .................................. 271
9. SAFE HAVENS: SELECTING LANDING SITES FOR VIKING...... 277
Financial Problems Threaten Orbital
Imaging System ..................................... 279
Preparing for Site Selection ............................. 284
Mariner 9's Mission .................................... 288
Candidate Sites ...................... I................. 297
10. SITE CERTIFICATION-AND LANDING ..................... 317
Planning Site Certification ............................. 317
The Significance of Radar .............................. 319
Evolving a Certification Process ......................... 323
Flight to Mars ........................................ 325
Viking I at Mars ...................................... 329
Second Site No Easier .................................. 346
Lessons Learned ...................................... 356
11. ON MARS .............................................. 363
Images from Orbit ..................................... 363
Measuring the Atmosphere ............................. 374
On the Surface ........................................ 380
Science on Mars ....................................... 390
Life or No Life? ....................................... 409
Other Results ......................................... 414

EPILOGUE ................................................... 421

APPENDIXES
A. Orbital Relationships of Earth and Mars ............... 427
B. Voyager Project Highlights, 1966-1967 • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • 430
C. Summary Data from Mariner, Voyager, and Viking ..... 434
D. Mars Experiments, Science Teams, and Investigators .... 453
E. ...................
Launch Vehicles for Mars Missions 465
F. ..........
Major Viking Contractors and Subcontractors 470
G. . ...............................
Organization Charts . 473
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY ........................................ 481
SOURCE NOTES .............................................. 489
INDEX ...................................................... 525
AUTHORS ................................................... 537
vi
 CONTENTS
Tables
Page
1. Milestones of the Recommended U.S. Spaceflight
Program, July 1958 ...........................................
2. Proposed Lunar and Deep Space Program, 1958 ................... 20
3. JPL-Proposed Lunar and Planetary Missions, 12 January 1959 ...... 21
4. Influences on the Ten-Year Plan, 1960 ............................ 23
5. Centaur Launch Schedule as Modified in January 1961 ............. 39
6. Physical Properties, Mars and Earth (1964) ........................ 60
7. Ames Life-Detection Team Evaluation of Proposed Biology
Instruments-Development Status, 1963 ........................ 72
8. Physical Properties of Mars: Mariner 4 Findings ................... 79
9. Highlights of Advanced Planetary Spacecraft Group
Investigations, 1962 .......................................... 87
10. Ranking of Contractors Bidding on 1963 Voyager Study ............ 90
11. AVCO Proposals for Missions to Mars, 1963 ....................... 95
12. Voyager System Weights from 1963 Contractor Studies ............. 97
13. Experiments Recommended for Voyager 1969
in 1963 Contractor Studies .................................... 98
14. NASA Budget Summary, Fiscal 1963 to 1966 ...................... 102
15. Voyager Projected Costs ........................................ 116
16. NASA Fiscal 1968 Budget ....................................... 117
17. Final NASA Budget, Fiscal 1968 ................................. 119
18. Sample Areas of Scientific Interest ............................... 130
19. Specific Objectives of an Early Mars Orbiter Probe ................. 131
20. Post-Voyager Proposals for Planetary Exploration Projects ......... 132
21. Estimated Costs for Mars Program, January 1968 .................. 136
22. Mars Program, January 1968 .................................... 137
23. Lunar and Planetary Exploration Budget Plan, FY 1969 ............ 141
24. 20 Alternative Mission Modes Examined for Viking 73 ............. 149
25. Viking Mission Modes Examined at 8-9 November 1968 Briefing .... 150
26. Sources of Viking Orbiter Subsystems ............................ 156
27. Mariner 69 and 71 Spacecraft Comparisons ........................ 162
28. Major Test and Flight Hardware to be Developed by JPL
for the Viking Orbiter ........................................ 171
29. Pictures from Mariner Mars 69 ................................... 176
30. Viking Project Orbiter System: Critical Schedule
Activities, 1969 ............................................... 183
31. Viking Project Orbiter System: Baseline Conceptual Design
Changes, Expected Weights, 1969 .............................. 184
32. NASA Appropriations, FY 1968-1971 ............................ 188
33. Viking Orbiter Schedules ....................................... 193
34. Growth in Capacity of Data Storage Subsystems ................... 197
35. Viking Orbiter Specifications, 1969-1975 .......................... 200
36. Viking Science Proposals ....................................... 212
37. Key Dates in Assessment of Viking Science Proposals ............... 213
38. Estimates for Lander Payload, September 1969 ..................... 214
39. Viking Science Cost Projections, September 1969 .................. 214
40. Alternatives for 1975 Viking Launch ............................. 219
vii
ON MARS
41. Viking Cost Increases Because of Launch Delay .................... 220
42. Viking Biology Instrument Schedule, 1971-1975 ................... 240
43. Cost History of Viking Lander and Selected Subsystems ............ 251
44. Top Ten Problems ............................................. 253
45. Mars Surface Thermal Simulation ............................... 261
46. Viking Cost Projections, 1974 ................................... 269
47. Viking Demonstration and Training Tests ........................ 275
48. Candidate Landing Sites Selected August 1972 ..................... 303
49. Changes in Candidate Landing Sites, October 1972 ................ 304
50. Polar Landing Sites Proposed December 1972 ..................... 306
51. Major Training Tests for Planetary Operations .................... 328
52. Geological Evolution of Martian North Polar Region .............. 372
53. Structure of Martian Atmosphere ................................ 379
54. Mars and Earth Temperatures, 21 July 1976 ....................... 391
55. Viking Radio Science Investigations .............................. 415

Viii
 Foreword

It is difficult for me to believe that there is already a written history

of the Viking program. After all, the Vikings landed on Mars in 1976, just
a few years ago. The Viking 1 lander, designed for a 90-day surface
mission, actually transmitted science messages to Earth for seven years.
That such an extended mission was even possible is a crowning tribute to
the people of Viking, in government, industry, and academia. This
history is largely the story of those people of Viking, how they faced and
dealt, emotionally at times, with technical problems, with adversity in the
form of budget and people troubles, and with the political world. It is all
too easy to forget these things in the face of gleaming, sophisticated
spacecraft successfully performing their miracles in orbit around and on
the surface of Mars.
This is indeed the time to capture the Viking history, for the
memories of those who spent almost a decade with the program will
rapidly fade, most have already moved on to new ventures, and relevant
documents will disappear. The Viking history is of interest not only as
the story of how the first planetary landing came to fruition or of how the
first in-situ search for evidence of extraterrestrial life came about, but as
a lesson on how thousands of individuals performed as a coherent team
to accomplish what some believed to be impossible.

NOEL W. HINNERS
Associate Administrator for
Space Science, NASA, 1974-1979
Director, National Air and
Space Museum, 1979-1982

ix
Page intentionally left blank
 Introduction
For many members of the Viking flight team, the early morning hours
of 20 July 1976 were the culmination of 8 years of intense activity. Several of
the scientists had more than 15 years invested in preparations for the
investigations that would begin once Viking safely landed on the surface of
Mars. The focus of everyone's attention on this day was the Viking 1
spacecraft in orbit around Mars. Across 348 million kilometers, the team
maintained contact with the 3250-kilogram craft from the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. JPL this night stood jewellike,
its brightly lit buildings contrasting sharply with the darkened silhouette of
the San Gabriel Mountains. Outside the Theodore von Karman Auditor-
ium, converted into a press center for the mission, mobile television vans
were being readied to broadcast the news of Viking's success or failure.
While reporters prepared stories and visitors strolled over the grounds,
members of the flight team could be seen on the closed-circuit television
monitors as they sat in the half-light of the control room. Elsewhere,
hundreds of engineers, scientists, technicians, and support crews were at
work or waiting to go to work. At 1:52 a.m., PD -1, the audio circuit on the
JPL television came to life, and George Sands, associate project scientist
and for the moment the "Voice of Viking," announced: "We have separa-
tion.... We have engineering data indicating separation.... Separation is
being confirmed all along the line." Eighteen minutes 18 seconds earlier,
the time it took the confirming radio signal to travel from Mars to Earth, the
lander had separated from the orbiter.'
By 2 a.m., the noise that had been building up at the press center and in
the visitor areas diminished. Mission control, a small, glass-walled room
with men seated around a circular console watching data displayed on
television screens, was being projected on monitors around the lab.
"Beyond the controllers' desks and the consoles, through the glass walls of
his office ... [was] Jim Martin, a big man in a short-sleeved blue shirt."
James Slattin Martin, Jr., had the bearing and appearance of a military
man. His closely cropped iron gray hair added to the image and encouraged
nicknames like the "Paratroop Colonel" and the "Prussian General."
Many members of the Viking team would attest publicly that he had run a
tight project, but even those who had cursed him under their breath over the
years had to admit that the incredible performance of the spacecraft during
its 11-month cruise toward Mars and the normal postseparation checkout of

xi
ON MARS

the lander indicated that all i he discipline and hard work Martin had put
them through had been worth it. With a billion dollars invested in two
spacecraft, someone had to have a firm grip. As the lander in its protective
aeroshell fell freely toward the surface thousands of kilometers below it, Jim
Martin listened to the controllers reporting tersely and calmly on the latest
electronic news.2
At 3 a.m., Albert R. Hibbs, a senior advanced missions planner at JPL,
relieved George Sands in the commentator's booth. Hibbs, a veteran
"voice" of many earlier unmanned spacecraft directed from Pasadena, had
what one observer called "marvelous sense of theater." Smiling, Hibbs
noted that the deorbit burn of the lander's eight small rocket motors had
gone smoothly and the spacecraft had proper velocity. Impishly, he noted
that it was also going the right direction.
At 2 p.m., everyone was st i It waiting. Hibbs reported: "So far, every-
thing that is supposed to have happened ... has happened and right on
schedule. We are rapidly approaching the surface of Mars...." As the craft
followed its curved trajectory, Hibbs noted that it had only 11 340 kilome-
ters to go. *
4:43:08 a.m. PDT. Less than 10 minutes to touchdown, 28 minutes to
confirmation. Al Hibbs informed his audience that he and George Sands
would talk the lander down, but neither they nor anyone else at the mission
center had any control over the spacecraft at this point; they could only keep
listeners posted on the latest news. Obeying only its preprogrammed
onboard computers, the lander was "inexorably going to the surface...."
By now "the lander has felt the impact of the Martian atmosphere, although
we won't know for 19 minutes."
4:53:14 a.m. PDT. Hibbs reminded the people at JPL that "Viking
should be on the surface by now, one way or another." A steady volume of
18-minute-old data kept flowing into the control center. The Viking team

*Hibbs and most of his Viking teammates used the common English measurements (miles and feet),
but the authors have used metric units in this book to conform with NASA requirements that the
systeme internationale d'unites (SI) be used in all NASA publications.

Viking Project Manager James

S. Martin, Jr., works at his
desk at Jet Propulsion Labora-
tory.
 INTRODUCTION
watched each new data point with increasing interest. The flight path
analysis group had devised a visual display that portrayed the predicted
descent curve for the lander—a single line graph that measured the lander's
altitude against time. That line, a gentle curve sweeping downward from
left to right, ended at touchdown. Once the lander in its aeroshell reached
about 244 000 meters, the upper limits of the Martian atmosphere, onlook-
ers could watch on the TV monitors as the actual path of the Lander (in the
form of data points) was plotted against the predicted normal curve. That
graph was the tangible link between the watchers gathered in Pasadena and
the Viking spacecraft approaching Mars. The first data point was right on
the "nominal" curve.
From mission control, a disembodied voice began calling out the
velocity and altitude of the spacecraft. The descent progressed rapidly. At
98 707 meters, the spacecraft was traveling 4718 meters per second.
When Viking 1 reached 60 960 meters, Hibbs suggested, "... we can
now put out some of the instruments that cannot stand the temperature of
entry—pressure and temperature sensors that have to stick out of the aero-
shell." Call ing attention to a second graph on the television screens, he said
that the viewers could watch the gravity forces "build up on that graph.
Very violent changes in the effective combination of Mars' gravity and
atmosphere on the spacecraft." In just the few seconds that it had taken him
to make that remark, the acceleration force had increased from 2.7 times to 5
times the normal Martian gravity. By the time tlic° spacecraft reached 30,000
meters, the atmosphere was beginning to exert a braking effect, slowing the
lander to only 3000 meters per second. The gravity forces continued to
rise-6.8, then 8.4, the maximum force encountered. At 27 000 meters, the
velocity dropped to 1820 meters per second. As the craft passed the 24 000-
meter mark, Hibbs reported: "Well, we're coming down. We're coming
down. It's a long period of glide; almost flat glide to get rid of some more of
the speed before the parachute comes out." From mission control, the
callout of the descent continued in a measured, emotionless tone. When the
craft passed through an altitude of 22 800 meters, it was moving at 982
meters per second. The acceleration forces had been reduced to 0.8. At
5:09:50 a.m., the parachute deployed, slowing the craft even further, to 709
meters per second.
5:11:27 p.m. PDT. 1463 meters, 54 meters per second. At 1400 meters, the
terminal descent engines started. At 5:12:07.1 a.m. PDT July 20, a voice in
mission control called out, "Touchdown, we have touchdown!" A chorus
of cheers rose for the event completed 19 minutes earlier on Mars. "We have
several indications of touchdown." Mars local time was 4:13:12 p.m. when
Viking I landed on the surface.
Jim Martin, who had been watching the descent curve on his monitor,
stood up abruptly. He shook hands with William H. Pickering, former
director of JPL, and exchanged congratulations with his teammates who

xiii
ON MARS
rushed into his office. But then he paused for a moment to take another look
at the televised data, wanting to be very sure that it had actually happened.
A critical event in the life of the Viking project had come to a successful
conclusion. Controllers and support personnel who had been quietly doing
their tasks let loose with a burst of backslapping, embracing, and hand-
shaking. In the auditorium, a newly opened bottle of cold duck was passed
around as NASA public affairs officers and news people shared ceremonial
sips. Viking 1 was safely down on Mars.3
Nick Panagakos, public affairs officer from NASA Headquarters who
had for weeks been answering questions for the press, smiled and shook his
head. Like many of his colleagues, he had been telling people that Viking
would land safely. But now that it had actually happened, he found it hard
to believe. As the team in the control room settled back down to prepare for
the reception of the first pictures of the Martian landscape, many persons
around the Jet Propulsion Laboratory reflected on Viking's amazing
odyssey.

When NASA planetary investigators began planning the exploration

of Earth's closest neighbor, basic elements in their strategy were dictated by
common sense. The space agency planners proposed to visit the nearest
bodies first—the moon, Mars, and Venus. They planned to conduct simple
projects initially and progress to more complex ones. Flyby spacecraft
would be sent to take photographs and measurements and, after such basic
reconnaissance had been made, heavier and more sophisticated orbiting
craft would be sent to the target of investigation. After more detailed
evaluations of the environment had been completed, atmospheric probes—
either hard-landers (spacecraft that would crash-land) or soft-landers-
would be used for further study. Different bodies would require different
instrumentation. Photography, for instance, would not be suitable for
cloud-covered Venus; on Mars it would be an experiment with exciting
potential. During the past two decades, this strategy—flyby, orbiter,
lander—has become a formalized part of NASA's planetary exploration
program.
Mars, because it is reasonably close to Earth, has been the subject of
much scientific examination. The Viking project was begun by NASA in
the winter of 1968 to make landed scientific investigation of biological,
physical, and related phenomena in the atmosphere and on the surface of
Mars. The desire to explore for possible life forms on the Red Planet was
one of the earliest goals of scientists who became part of the United States
space science program, stretching Viking's roots back to the early 1960s.
While NASA's first attempts to land craft on Mars were successful, that
success did not come without a struggle. Chapter 1 examines the reasons

xiv
 INTRODUCTION

scientists wished to have a closeup look at Mars and describes the new
opportunities that opened with the coming of space travel. As Chapter 2
indicates, the dream was not transformed into reality until new and reliable
launch vehicles became available in the mid-1960s, but the scientific com-
munity began early to prepare for landed investigations of the planet.
Modest flyby probes such as Mariner 4, using less powerful rockets than the
later Viking's, provided new if discouraging information about Mars.
Despite initial photographic evidence that did not encourage the search for
life, a small group of biological scientists—who called themselves exo-
biologists—began to develop instrumentation that would serve as the proto-
types for life detectors on spacecraft that might fly in the future. These
activities are related in Chapter 3, while Chapter 4 deals with the plans for
NASA's first Mars lander project. Called Voyager* and conducted by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, this project was ambitious, perhaps too ambitious
for the times. Expansion of the war in Vietnam and demands for federal
funds for many sectors of the American economy began a period of budget
problems for NASA. Voyager died for a complex series of reasons in late
summer 1967.
While budgetary stringencies were to remain with NASA planners
from that time on, enthusiasm for a Mars lander project also continued.
The focus of that spirit shifted from JPL to the Langley Research Center.
The aggressive team at the Virginia center entered the Mars game just in
time to see Voyager terminated. Chapter 5 chronicles the Langley entry into
the planetary spacecraft business. Chapter 6 tells the story of the Viking
orbiter within the context of advanced Mariner Mars spacecraft. Jim Martin
and his colleagues, realizing that the JPL people had mastered the flyby and
orbiter trade, persuaded them to become part of the Viking team. As Chap-
ter 7 indicates, the Viking lander demanded inany new inventions. In
addition to new and complicated mechanical systems, it also required
closely knit managerial, technical, and scientific teams that could come
together in a cohesive organization during the data-gathering and analysis
phases of the mission.
Before collection of scientific information could begin, landing sites
for the craft had to be chosen. Data obtained from the 1971 Mariner orbiter
assisted the specialists in this task but, as Chapter 8 recounts, there was
considerable debate over the best places to land, given both scientific inter-
ests and engineering constraints. Despite the time and energy given to site
selection, Mars held some surprises for the Viking team. The first orbiter
photographs, which the team hoped would certify the suitability of the
preselected landing sites, showed extremely hazardous terrain. Site certifi-
cation, described in Chapter 9, became a renewed search for suitable and
safe areas on Mars. For nearly a month, the project members labored to find

*NASA used the name "Voyager" again later for another planetary program, in which two
spacecraft investigated Jupiter in 1979 flybys.

xv
 ON MARS
a safe haven for the lander. Finding a site for the second lander was an
equally time-consuming job.
In Viking, NASA's most complex unmanned space project to that date,
were many stories of great human effort and some of personal sacrifice. But
the scientific results were the payoff. To have proved the technological
capability to design, build, navigate, and land a spacecraft on Mars was not
enough. Chapters 10 and 11 outline the scientific results of the Viking
investigations and examine some of the unresolved questions. As so often is
true in new fields of inquiry, as many questions were raised as were ans-
wered. And as earlier investigations of Mars have shown, the latest hypothe-
sis can be upset by later, more detailed data. The Epilogue, therefore,
considers possible future explorations of the Red Planet within the context
of NASA's goals and other national priorities. One adventure was com-
pleted, but the exploration had just begun.
This book is just one of many possible histories that could be written
about the events surrounding the Viking project. It is the official history
because it was commissioned and paid for by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. The authors began work shortly before Viking was
scheduled to land on 4 July 1976, and they were present in Pasadena while
Jim Martin and his team searched for a landing site. Exposure to the site
selection process allowed us to see key project personnel at work and begin
to understand the many complexities of Viking. We decided very quickly
that we could not tell all the stories that participants might like to have told.
We also concluded that, to appreciate fully the accomplishments of the
project, readers should be exposed to the Mariner flights to Mars and to
other planned but unconsummated missions to send landers to another
planet. Thus our book evolved. In ignoring certain aspects or in describing
others only briefly, we have not intended to slight other important aspects
of the Viking effort. There are just too many stories and too many partici-
pants for them all to be included in this single volume.

xvi
 I

Why Mars?

Since the 16th century, learned men have recognized Mars for what it
is—a relatively nearby planet not so unlike our own. The fourth planet
from the sun and Earth's closest neighbor, Mars has been the subject of
modern scientists' careful scrutiny with powerful telescopes, deep space
probes, and orbiting spacecraft. In 1976, Earth-bound scientists were
brought significantly closer to their subject of investigation when two
Viking landers touched down on that red soil. The possibility of life on
Mars, clues to the evolution of the solar system, fascination with the
chemistry, geology, and meteorology of another planet—these were consid-
erations that led the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to
Mars. Project Viking's goal, after making a soft landing on Mars, was to
execute a set of scientific investigations that would not only provide data on
the physical nature of the planet but also make a first attempt at determin-
ing if detectable life forms were present.
Landing a payload of scientific instruments on the Red Planet had
been a major NASA goal for more than 15 years. Two related projects—
Mariner B and Voyager—preceded Viking's origin in 1968. Mariner B,
aimed at placing a capsule on Mars in 1964, and Voyager, which would
have landed a series of sophisticated spacecraft on the planet in the late
1960s, never got off the ground. But they did lead directly to Viking and
influenced that successful project in many ways.
When the space agency was established in 1958, planetary exploration
was but one of the many worthy projects called for by scientists, spacecraft
designers, and politicians. Among the conflicting demands made on the
NASA leadership during the early months were proposals for Earth-
orbiting satellites and lunar and planetary spacecraft. But man in space,
particularly under President John F. Kennedy's mandate to land an Ameri-
can on the moon before the end of the 1960s, took a more than generous
share of NASA's money and enthusiasm. Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar
Orbiter—spacecraft headed for the moon—grew in immediate significance
at NASA because they could contribute directly to the success of manned
Apollo operations. Proponents of planetary investigation were forced to be
content with relatively constrained budgets, limited personnel, and little
ON MARS
publicity. But by 1960 examining the closer planets with rocket-propelled
probes was technologically feasible, and this possibility kept enthusiasts
loyal to the cause of planetary exploration.
There is more to Viking's history than technological accomplishments
and scientific goals, however. Viking was an adventure of the human mind,
adventure shared at least in spirit by generations of star-gazers. While a
voyage to Mars had been the subject of considerable discussion in the
American aerospace community since the Soviet Union launched the first
Sputnik into orbit in 1957, man has long expressed his desire to journey to
new worlds. Technology, science, and the urge to explore were elements of
the interplanetary quest.

ATTRACTIVE TARGET FOR EXPLORATION

Discussion of interplanetary travel did not have a technological foun-
dation until after World War II, when liquid-fueled rockets began to show
promise as a transportation system. Once rockets reached escape velocities,
scientists began proposing experiments for them to carry, and Mars was an
early target for interplanetary travel.
Mars fell into that class of stars the Greeks called planetes, or "wander-
ers." Not only did it move, but upon close observation it appeared to move
irregularly. The early Greek astronomer Hipparchus (160-125 B.C.) recog-
nized that Mars did not always move from west to east when seen against the
constellations of fixed stars. Occasionally, the planet moved in the opposite
direction. This phenomenon perplexed all astronomers who believed Earth
to be the center of the universe, and it was not until Johannes Kepler
provided a mathematical explanation for the Copernican conclusion that
early scientists realized that Earth, too, was a wanderer. The apparent
motion of Mars was then seen to be a consequence of the relative motions of
the two planets. By the time Kepler published Astronomia nova (New
astronomy), subtitled De motibusstellae Martis (On the motion of Mars), in
1609, Galileo was preparing his first report on his observations with the
telescope— Sidereus nuncius (Messenger of the stars), 1610. (See Biblio-
graphic Essay for a bibliography of basic materials related to Mars pub-
lished through 1958.)
From 1659, when Christiaan Huyghens made the first telescopic draw-
ing of Mars to show a definite surface feature, the planet has fascinated
observers because its surface appears to change. The polar caps wax and
wane. Under close scrutiny with powerful telescopes, astronomers watch
Mars darken with a periodicity that parallels seasonal changes. In the 1870s
and 1880s during Martian oppositions with Earth,'* Giovanni Virginio
Schiaparelli, director of the observatory at Milan, saw a network of fine
lines on the planet's surface. These canali, Italian for channels or grooves,
quickly became canals in the popular and scientific media. Canals would be
`Appendix A describes some of the orbital relationships between Earth and Mars.
 East
_ 7 Direct
___ -------
motion
— _—_----- --_----____-3-- 6 Retrograde
7 _— — — — — — — — motion
5 — ---- —_— = r =_---- — 5
4
_2
Sun 3 __ ------------
1 2 — - Direct
_ motion

Earth 1
orbit Mars
orbit
West

The apparent motion of Mars. When Earth and Mars are close to opposition, Mars,
viewed from Earth, appears to reverse its motion relative to fixed stars. Above, the
simultaneous positions of Earth and Mars are shown in their orbits around the sun
at successive times. The apparent position of Mars as seen from Earth is the point
where the line passing through the position of both appears to intersect the
background of fixed stars. These points are represented at the right. Below are
shown the locations of Mars in thesky before and after the 1965 opposition. Samuel
Glasstone, The Book of Mars, NASA SP-179 (1968).

1 Apr.
9 Mar. 1965
1 Mar. 1965 22 Apr.
1965 1965
(Opposition) 1 Dec.
1964 1 May
1 Feb. 1965
1965 1 Jan.
1965 1 June
1965

evidence of intelligent life on Mars. The French astronomer Camille

Flammarion published in 1892 a 608-page compilation of his observations
under the provocative title La Planete Mars, et ses conditions d'habitabilite
(The planet Mars and its conditions of habitability). In America, Percival
Lowell, in an 1895 volume titled simply Mars, took the leap and postulated
that an intelligent race of Martians had unified politically to build irriga-
tion canals to transport their dwindling water supply. Acting coopera-
tively, the beings on Mars were battling bravely against the progressive
desiccation of an aging world. Thus created, the Martians grew and pros-
pered, assisted by that popular genre science fiction. Percy Greg's hero in
Across the Zodiac made probably the first interplanetary trip to Mars in
1880 in a spaceship equipped with a hydroponic system and walls nearly a
meter thick. Other early travelers followed him into the solar system in A
Plunge into Space (1890) by Robert Cromie, A Journey to Other Worlds
(1894) by John Jacob Astor, Auf zwei Planeten (On two planets, 1897) by
 I _-

2't^11111Gt`a^^x^om1»^^^^^c^

These drawings of Mars by Francesco Fontana were the f irst done by an astronomer
using a telescope. Willy Ley commented, "Unfortunately, Fontana's telescope
must have been a very poor instrument, for the Martian features which appear in
his drawings—the darkish circle and the dark central spot which he called `a very
black pill'—obviously originated inside his telescope." The drawing at left was
made in 1636, the one at right on 24 August 1638. Wernher von Braun and Willy
Ley, The Exploration of Mars (New York, Viking Press, 1956); Camille Flammar-
ion, La Planete Mars et ses conditions d'habitabilite (1892).

Kurd Lasswitz, H. G. Wells's well-known War of the Worlds (1898), and

astronomer Garrett P. Serviss's Edison's Conquest of Mars (1898). 1 In
"Intelligence on Mars" (1896), Wells discussed his theories on the origins
and evolution of life there, concluding, "No phase of anthropomorphism is
more naive than the supposition of men on Mars." 2 Scientists and novelists
alike, however, continued to consider the ability of Mars to support life in
some form.
Until the 1950s, investigations of Mars were limited to what scientists
could observe through telescopes, but this did not stop their dreaming of a
trip through space to visit the planets firsthand. Willy Ley in The Conquest
of Space determined to awaken public interest in space adventure in the

Christiaan Huyghen's first drawing of Mars (at left below), dated 28 November
1659, shows surface features he observed through his telescope. Of two later
sketches, one of the planet as observed on 13 August 1672 at 10:30 a.m. (center
below) .shows the polar cap. At right below is Mars as observed on 17 May 1683 at
10:30 a.m. Flammarion, La Planete Mars.

^^ ^- Y::
Nathaniel E. Green observed changes in the southern Martian polar cap during
opposition. The first sketch, at top, shows the polar cap on 1 September 1877, and
the second, the cap seven days later. Flammarion, La Planete Mars.

postwar era. His book was an updated primer to spaceflight that reflected
Germany's wartime developments in rocketry. Ley even took his readers on
a voyage to the moon. Considering the planets, he noted, "More has been
written about Mars than about any other planet, more than about all the
other planets together," because Mars was indeed "something to think
about and something to be interested in." Alfred Russel Wallace's devastat-
ing critique (1907) of Percival Lowell's theories about life and canals did
not alter Ley's belief in life on that planet. "As of 1949: the canals on Mars
do exist," Ley said. "What they are will not be decided until astronomy has
entered its next era" (meaning manned exploration).'
Ley's long-time friend and fellow proponent of interplanetary travel,
Wernher von Braun, presented one of the earliest technical discussions
describing how Earthlings might travel to Mars. During the "desert years"
5
Giovanni Schiaparell7:'s map of Mars, com piled over the perio d 1877-1886, used names ba ed on cia sica l geography or
were simp ly descriptive terms; for examp le, Mare australe ( outhern Sea). Mo t of these place names are stiLL in u e today .
Flammarion, La Plan ele Mars.
 WHY MARS?

of the late 1940s when he and his fellow specialists from the German rocket
program worked for the U.S. Army at Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands
Proving Ground, New Mexico, testing improved versions of the V-2 mis-
sile, von Braun wrote a lengthy essay outlining a manned Mars exploration
program. Published first in 1952 as "Das Marsprojekt; Studie einer inter-
planetarischen Expedition" in a special issue of the journal Weltraum-
fahrt, von Braun's ideas were made available in America the following
year.4
Believing that nearly anything was technologically possible given
adequate resources and enthusiasm, von Braun noted in The Mars Project
that the mission he proposed would be large and expensive, "but neither the
scale nor the expense would seem out of proportion to the capabilities of the
expedition or to the results anticipated." Von Braun thought it was feasible
to consider reaching Mars using conventional chemical propellants, nitric
acid and hydrazine. One of his major fears was that spaceflight would be
delayed until more advanced fuels became available, and he was reluctant to
wait for cryogenic propellants or nuclear propulsion systems to be devel-
oped. He believed that existing technology was sufficient to build the launch
vehicles and spacecraft needed for a voyage to Mars in his lifetime.
According to von Braun's early proposal, "a flotilla of ten space vessels
manned by not less than 70 men" would be necessary for the expedition.
Each ship would be assembled in Earth orbit from materials shuttled there
by special ferry craft. This ferrying operation would last eight months and
require 950 flights. The flight plan called for an elliptical orbit around the
sun. At the point where that ellipse was tangent to the path of Mars, the
spacecraft would be attracted to the planet by its gravitational field. Von
Braun proposed to attach wings to three of the ships while they were in
Mars orbit so they could make glider entries into the thin Martian
atmosphere.*
The three landers would be capable of placing a payload of 149 metric
tons on the planet, including "rations, vehicles, inflatable rubber housing,
combustibles, motor fuels, research equipment, and the like." Since the
ships would land in uncharted regions, the first ship would be equipped
with skis or runners so that it could land on the smooth surfaces of the
frost-covered polar regions. With tractors and trailers equipped with cater-
pillar tracks, "the crew of the first landing boat would proceed to the
Martian equator [5000 kilometers away] and there ... prepare a suitable
strip for the wheeled landing gears of the remaining two boats." After 400
days of reconnaissance, the 50-man landing party would return to the seven
vessels orbiting Mars and journey back to Earth.5
One item missing from von Braun's Mars voyage was a launch date.
While he concluded that such a venture was possible, he did not say when he
• Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level is 1013 millibars. From calculations made by A. Dollfus
of the Paris Observatory in the 1950s, the mean Martian atmospheric pressure was determined to be
about 85 millibars. The actual figure as determined by Viking measurements is 75 millibars.
ON MARS

expected it to take place. A launch vehicle specialist, von Braun was more
concerned with the development of basic flight capability and techniques
that could be adapted subsequently for flights to the moon or the planets.
"For any expedition to be successful, it is essential that the first phase of
space travel, the development of a reliable ferry vessel which can carry
personnel into [Earth orbit], be successfully completed. 116 Thus, von
Braun's flight to Mars would begin with the building of reusable launch
vehicles and orbiting space stations. He and his fellow spaceflight promo-
ters discussed such a program at the first annual symposium on space travel
held at the Hayden Planetarium in October 1951, in a series of articles in
Collier's in March 1952, and in Across the Space Frontier, a book published
in 1952.' Two years later, however, von Braun concluded publicly that a
major manned voyage to Mars was a project for the more distant future. As
pointed out in an article en t i tied "Can We Get to Mars?":

The difficulties of a trip to Mars are formidable. The outbound

journey, following a huge arc [568 million kilometers], will take eight
months—even with rocket ships that travel many thousands of miles per
hour. For more than a year, the explorers will have to live on the great red
planet, waiting for it to swing into a favorable position for the return trip.
Another eight months will pass before the 70 members of the pioneer
expedition set foot on earth again.'

Von Braun feared that it might "be a century or more" before man was ready
to explore Mars.9
But five years later von Braun's response to an inquiry from the House
Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration indicated that his
thinking had changed again. Gathering ideas for possible space activities,
the House committee solicited opinions from the aerospace community
and published its findings in The Next Ten Years in Space, 1959-1969.
Von Braun considered "manned flight around the Moon ... possible
within the next 8 to 10 years, and a 2-way flight to the Moon, including
landing, a few years thereafter." He believed it "unlikely that either Soviet
or American technology wi 11 be far enough advanced in the next 10 years to
permit man's reaching the planets, although instrumented probes to the
nearer planets (Mars or Venus) are a certainty. "10
A number of important technological and political events were
instrumental in changing the rocket expert's thinking about American
goals for space. Rocket technology had advanced considerably, as evidenced
in the development of both American and Soviet intercontinental ballistic
missiles. Soviet progress was forcefully impressed on the American con-
sciousness by the orbital flights of Sputnik I and Sputnik 2 in the fall of
1957. Even as the Soviet Union stole a march on the Americans, von Braun
and many others were busy defining and planning appropriate space proj-
ects for the United States.
8
 WHY MARS%

Von Braun and his colleagues at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in
Huntsville, Alabama, had lost out to the Navy in September 1955 in the
competition to launch an Earth satellite and had failed in their bid against
the Air Force in November 1956 to be responsible for the development of
intermediate range ballistic missiles. These setbacks prompted the manag-
ers of the agency to seek new justifications for the large launch vehicles they
wanted to develop. Creating boosters that could be used for space explora-
tion was the obvious answer. This goal was consistent with von Braun's
long-time wish to see spaceflight a reality. In April 1957, Army Ballistic
Missile Agency planners began to review United States missile programs in
the light of known Soviet spaceflight capabilities and proposed a develop-
ment strategy. The first edition of their sales pitch, "A National Integrated
Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program," was issued on 10
December 1957. It reflected the post-Sputnik crisis:
The need for an integrated missile and space program within the United
States is accentuated by the recent Soviet satellite accomplishments and
the resulting psychological intimidation of the West.... we are bordering
on the era of space travel.... A review and revision of our scientific and
military efforts planned for the next ten years will insure that provisions
for space exploration and warfare are incorporated into the overall
development program."
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was also
moving quickly in the wake of Sputnik. In an effort to define its role in the
dawning space age, NACA's Committee on Aerodynamics resolved in
November 1957 that the agency would embark upon "an aggressive pro-
gram ... for increased NACA participation in upper atmosphere space
flight research." Subsequently, a Special Committee on Space Research
under the direction of H. Guyford Stever, a physicist and dean at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was established "to survey the
whole problem of space technology from the point of view of needed
research and development and advise the National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics with respect to actions which the NACA should take. "12
On 18 July 1958, the Working Group on Vehicular Program'* of the
Stever committee presented to NACA a revised edition of the Huntsville
report on missile and space vehicle development. That document proposed
an expanded list of possible goals for the American space program based on
a phased approach to the development of successively more powerful
launch vehicles. Those vehicles were divided into five generations:
First Generation—Based on SRBM boosters [short range]
Second Generation—Based on IRBM boosters [intermediate range]
"Members of the Working Group on Vehicular Program were W. von Braun, Chairman; S. K.
Hoffman; N. C. Appold; A. Hyatt; L. N. Ridenour; A. Silverstein; K. A. Ehricke; M. W. Hunter; C. C.
Ross; H. J. Stewart; G. S. Trimble. Jr.; and W. H. Woodward. Secretary.
ON MARS
Third Generation—Based on ICBM boosters [intercontinental]
Fourth Generation—Based ou 1.5 million-pound-thrust [6.8-rnillion-
newton] boosters
Fifth Generation—Based on 3 to 5 million-pound-thrust [13- to
22-newton] boosters.13

The planets, of course, were desirable targets for space exploration, but the
realities of the emerging space race with the Soviet Union made the moon a
more attractive goal politically for the late 1960s. In 1958, Stever's group did
not think it would be possible to send a 2250-kilogram probe to Mars for at
least a decade; it would be that long before the fourth-generation launch
vehicle necessary for such a payload was ready. A manned mission to Mars
or Venus was not projected to occur before 1977.
Implicit in the working group's timetable (table 1) was a gradual
approach to space exploration. The proposed program was still ambitious,
but it was increasingly apparent that scientific investigations in space
would have to await new launch vehicles tailored to specific projects. It was
technologically feasible to go to the moon and the planets, but the transla-
tion of feasibility into reality would require a national program and a new
government agency to manage such activities.14

OBJECTIVES IN SPACE
When the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the new civilian space agency that superseded the National Advisory Com-
mittee for Aeronautics, officially opened its doors for business on 1 October
1958, a considerable body of knowledge could be grouped under the rubric
space science, and many opinions were expressed about which aspects of
space science should be given precedence for government monies. Scientists
had been studying outer space for centuries, but observations made above
Earth's filtering, obscuring atmosphere were a new step. Among the many
disciplines that would benefit from using rockets in space were atmospheric
research and meteorology, solar physics, cosmic ray study, astronomy, and
eventually lunar and planetary investigation.
During most of the first half of the 20th century, professors had actively
discouraged students from embarking on careers that would focus on the
astronomy of the solar system, because most of the important information
obtainable with existing equipment had been collected, digested, and pub-
lished. Astronomy was described as "moribund"; it had "grown old from a
lack of new data." Observations from space promised to change all that.
Before Sputnik, there were fewer than 1000 astronomers in the United
States. 15 Budgets were tight, and research facilities were few. Until 1950,
only 13 optical observatories with telescopes at least 914 millimeters in
diameter had been built in the United States and, of these, 6 had been

10
 WHY MARS?

Table 1
Milestones of the Recommended U.S. Spaceflight Program,
July 1958

Item Date Event Vehicle Generation

1 Jan. 1958 First 20-1b [9-kg] satellite (ABMA; JPL) I

2 Aug. 1958 First 30-1b [14-kg] lunar probe
(Douglas/RW/Aerojet) II
3 Nov. 1958 First recoverable 300-1b [140-kg] satellite
(Douglas/Bel I/Lockheed) II
4 May 1959 First 1500-]b [680-kg] satellite II
5 Jun. 1959 First powered flight with X-15
6 Jul. 1959 First recoverable 2100-1b [950-kg] satellite II and/or III
7 Nov. 1959 First 400-1b [180-kg] lunar probe II and/or III
8 Dec. 1959 First 100-1b [45-kg] lunar soft landing II and/or III
9 Jan. 1960 First 300-1b [135-kg] lunar satellite II and/or III
10 Jul. 1960 First wingless manned orbital return flight II and/or III
II Dec. 1960 First 10 000-lb [4500-kg] orbital capability III
12 Feb. 1961 First 2800/600-1b [1300/270] lunar hard or soft
landing III
13 Apr. 1961 First 2500-1b [1100-kg] planetary or solar probe III
14 Sept. 1961 First flight with 1.5-million-lb
[6.7-million-newton] thrust IV
15 Aug. 1962 First winged orbital return flight III
16 Nov. 1962 Four-man experimental space station III
17 Jan. 1963 First 30 000-lb [13 800-kg] orbital capability IV
18 Feb. 1963 First 3500-1b [1590-kg] unmanned lunar
circumnavigation and return IV
19 Apr. 1963 First 5500-1b [2500-kg] soft lunar landing IV
20 Jul. 1964 First 3500-1b [1590-kg] manned lunar
circumnavigation and return IV
21 Sept. 1964 Establishment of a 20-man space station IV
22 Jul. 1965 Final assembly of first 1000-ton [900-metric-ton]
lunar landing vehicle (emergency manned
lunar landing capability) IV
23 Aug. 1966 Final assembly of second 1000-ton
[900-metric-ton] landing vehicle and first
expedition to moon IV
24 Jan. 1967 First 5000-]b [2300-kg] Martian probe IV
25 May 1967 First 5000-1b [2300-kg] Venus probe IV
26 Sept. 1967 Completion of 50-man, 500-ton
[450-metric-ton] permanent space station IV

27 1972 Large scientific moon expedition V
28 1973/1974 Establishment of permanent moon base V
29 1977 First manned expedition to a planet V
30 1980 Second manned expedition to a planet V

SOURCE: NACA, Special Committee on Space Technology, Working Group on Vehicular Program, "A
National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program," 18 July 1958, p. 6.

II
ON MARS
constructed before 1920 and 3 before 1900; in the 1950s another 6 were
erected. But a boom occurred in the 1960s, when 28 new optical facilities
were opened. Before the mid-1950s, only a handful of astronomers had more
than very limited access to the large telescopes. One observer noted, "Not
long ago, the study of the universe was the prerogative of a small group of
men largely isolated from the rest of science, who were supported for the
most part by private funds and were comfortable with projects that spanned
decades. " 16 Furthermore, astronomy had always been purely observational
science with limited instrumentation. "Astronomers did not design experi-
ments as physicists might; nor did they manipulate samples as chemists
do." Faced with three major constraints—tight budget, lack of facilities,
and the ever-present atmosphere through which they were forced to ob-
serve—astronomers saw few reasons for abandoning their 19th century
ways. With World War II, change came to the field.
The war spawned radio astronomy and smaller, more sensitive instru-
ments. Astronomers and their colleagues in other disciplines with whom
they began to collaborate could detect, measure, and analyze wavelengths in
the electromagnetic spectrum outside the visible range to which they had
been limited. While radio astronomers probed the depths of the universe,
finding among other phenomena radio galaxies more than a million times
brighter than our own, a group of astronomers with highly sensitive
equipment began to measure radiations and emissions from planetary
atmospheres more accurately. In addition, the rocket, which could boost
satellites and probes into space, promised to be another technological
element that would open the way to a renaissance in astronomical
research.I I
In astronomical circles, the impact of the high-altitude rocket shots of
the late 1940s was significant. Reacting to the first far ultraviolet spectra
taken by 17 -2 rocket-borne instruments in October 1946, Henry Norris
Russell, one of the most eminent astronomers of that generation, wrote,
"My first look at one [rocket spectrum] gives me a sense that I [am] seeing
something that no astronomer could expect to see unless he was good and
went to heaven!"" Before the late 1950s, less than two percent of the
astronomical community had been working in planetary studies. But
experiments on board rockets and discussion of travel toward the moon,
Mars, and Venus revived interest in the planets. Two "almost moribund
fields—celestial mechanics and geodesy (the study of the size and shape of
the earth)—were among the first to benefit from space explorations. ­ 19
American scientists were able to participate in this rocket-borne renais-
sance during the International Geophysical Year, 1 July 1957 through 31
December 1958, first suggested in 1950 by geophysicist Lloyd V. Berkner,
head of the Brookhaven National Laboratory and president of the Interna-
tional Council of Scientific Unions. Originally Berkner saw this as a
re-creation of the International Polar Years (1882, 1932), during which
scientists from many nations had studied cooperatively a common topic-
12
 WHY MARS?

the nature of the polar regions. The study proposed by Berkner would
coincide with a period of maximum solar-spot activity, during which new
instruments and rockets would be put to work to investigate widely many
aspects of Earth science. Berkner's idea grew rapidly.
The National Academy of Sciences, a congressionally chartered but
private advisory body to the federal government that attracted many of the
nation's leading scientists, established the U.S. National Committee for the
International Geophysical Year through its National Research Council.
S. Fred Singer of the Applied Physics Laboratory, a member of the Council,
had a strong interest in cosmic ray and magnetic field research, which led to
his belief in using satellites as geophysical research platforms. 20 Singer
proposed MOUSE—a Minimum Orbital Unmanned Satellite of the
Earth—at the Fourth International Congress on Astronautics in Zurich in
August 1953. A year later, at the urging of both Berkner and Singer, the
International Scientific Radio Union adopted a resolution underscoring
the value of instrumented satellites for observing Earth and the sun. Later
that same month, September 1954, the International Union of Geodesy and
Geophysics adopted an even more affirmative resolution. With momentum
already established, the satellite proposal was presented to a Comite speci-
ale de 1'annee geophysique internationale (CSAGI) planning meeting in
Rome. After some maneuvering, the committee on 4 October 1954 adopted
the following resolution:

In view of the great importance of observations during extended periods

of time of extra-terrestrial radiations and geophysical phenomena in the
upper atmosphere, and in view of the advanced state of present rocket
techniques, CSAGI recommends that thought be given to the launching
of small satellite vehicles, to their scientific instrumentation, and to the
new problems associated with satellite experiments, such as power
supply, telemetering, and orientation of the vehicle.21

Two nations had the wealth and technology to respond to this challenge,
the United States and the Soviet Union. During the next three years, the
world scientific community watched the first leg of the space race, which
culminated in the orbiting of Sputnik 1 by the Soviets on 4 October 1957.22
After Sputnik's first success, it became increasingly clear that such a
large-scale, cooperative scientific enterprise as the International Geophysi-
cal Year should not be allowed to die after only 18 months. Scientists from
67 nations had looked into a wide variety of problems related to Earth and
the sun. To maintain the momentum behind those studies, Hugh Odishaw,
executive director of the U.S. National International Geophysical Year
Committee, and Detlev Bronk, president of the National Academy of Scien-
ces, organized the Space Science Board in 1958. With many of the same
members and staff that had worked on the international committee, the
board was established to "stimulate and aid research, to evaluate proposed
research, to recommend relative priorities for the use of space vehicles for
13
ON MARS
scientific purposes, to give scientific aid to the proposed National Aeronau-
tics and Space Agency, the National Science Foundation and the Depart-
ment of Defense, and to represent the Academy in international cooperation
in space research. " 23 The Space Science Board had already held two meet-
ings when NASA opened shop in the fall of 1958.
One of NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan's first tasks was to pull
together the many space-science-related activities that were scattered
throughout the government. Launch vehicle development was managed by
the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense. The
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and the Army Ballistic
Missi Ic Agency worked on the Explorer satellite project. Vanguard, another
satellite venture, was directed by the Naval Research Laboratory. Many
organizations, military and private, were already absorbed in the business
of space exploitation. Besides carrying out existing projects and attending
to the details of organization, NASA expanded its headquarters staff, ac-
quired new field facilities, selected contractors, and sorted out its relation-
ships with the Department of Defense and other government agencies. One
participant in organizing the new agency's space science program recalled,
"If anything stood out at the time, it was that everything seemed to be
happening at once." 24 Within this context, scientists' proposals to send
probes to Venus and Mars appeared to be very ambitious and certainly
premature.
In April 1958 Abe Silverstein, a NACA veteran and associate director of
the Lewis Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland, went to Washington to
participate in pre-NASA planning sessions and stayed on in a key position,
director of the Office of Space Flight Development. Homer E. Newell, Jr.,
from the Naval Research Laboratory where he had been in upper-
atmosphere research as superintendent of the Atmosphere and Astrophysics
Division and science program coordinator for Project Vanguard, joined
NASA on 18 October 1958, becoming Silverstein's assistant director for
space sciences. Robert Jastrow, a Naval Research Lab physicist, and Ger-
hardt Schilling, a National Academy of Sciences staff member, were
assigned to Newell's office. Jastrow immediately became immersed in plans
for the future course of the space science program, and Schilling began
studying ideas for lunar and planetary exploration.
America's space program was essentially two-sided; man-in-space was
one dimension, space science the other. In the late 1950s, NACA's sounding
rocket program and the Navy's Vanguard Project were the country's prime
science activities, and those ventures were primarily "sky science," an
examination of Earth-oriented phenomena from space. The only deep-
space project in the works was the Air Force's yet-to-be-successful Pioneer
probe. Since Administrator Glennan wanted to keep the growth of NASA's
programs under control, Newell and his space science colleagues sought a
gradual, rational expansion of existing science projects. Investigating the
moon with unmanned spacecraft would obviously be more complicated
14
 WHY MARS?

and costly than near-Earth missions, so there was hesitancy to pursue a

serious commitment to lunar science. Planetary studies seemed even further
out of reach. According to Newell, Glenman was reluctant even to discuss
planetary missions except in the framework of future planning.25
But the future came quickly. "Before Glennan left office NASA was
engaged in space science projects that took in not only the earth and its
environs, but also the moon and the planets, the sun, and even the distant
stars," Newell remembered. Glennan, with some pride, turned over to his
successor, James E. Webb, in 1961 "a well rounded program well under
way." 26 Pressures for a broader space science program had come from
several quarters—organized scientists (the Space Science Board), individual
scientists (Harold C. Urey), and within the NASA fold (the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory).
The Space Science Board's participation in planetary exploration dis-
cussions began in the summer of 1958 when Hugh Dryden, NACA's direc-
tor, sought advice. The Air Force and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory had
been promoting independently a planetary probe to Venus for 1959. Venus
and Earth would be in their most favorable positions for such a mission,
and it would be another 200 years before this particularly ideal opportunity
came again. At the second meeting of the Space Science Board, 19 July 1958,
Dryden asked the members to consider the wisdom of such an ambitious
project. He feared that the mission as proposed was impractical because of
limited time and a shortage of adequate tracking equipment for communi-
cations. Implicit in Dryden's hesitancy was the intent of NACA and the
Eisenhower Administration to keep expansion of the space program in
check.27
In response to Dryden's request for advice, Board Chairman Berkner
established an ad hoc Committee on Interplanetary Probes and Space
Stations. This group—chaired by Donald F. Hornig, professor of chemis-
try at Princeton University—considered two specific proposals for space
projects, the first from Space Technology Laboratories of the Ramo-
Wooldridge Corporation. Engineers proposed using a variant of the All'
Force Thor intermediate range ballistic missile with an Able upper stage*
(this two-stage launch vehicle had flown successfully in July 1958). Space
Technology Lab's representatives advanced a concept for a 23-kilogram
Venus probe plus the necessary tracking and communications equipment.
The second suggestion came from Krafft Ehricke of the Astronautics Divi-
sion of General Dynamics', who proposed a considerably more complex
mission. He wanted to use a yet-to-be-developed high-energy second stage
with the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile, which would be capable of
delivering a 450-kilogram payload to the vicinity of Mars.28
`The Thor IRBM was developed by the Douglas Aircraft Company under contract (signed 27
December 1955) to the Defense Department, and the first strategic missile squadron was equipped with
this IRBM on I January 1958. Douglas and STLcollaborated to produce the Able second stage, based on
components of the Vanguard launch vehicle.
'The Astronautics Division grew out of the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (Convair).
15
ON MARS

Hornig's committee concluded that both proposals were technically

feasible and furthermore believed that the time had come for action. The
committee recommended unanimously to the Space Science Board that it
was "urgently necessary to begin the exploration of space within the solar
system with any means at our disposal if a continuing USA program of
space science and exploration is to proceed at an optimum rate." Essential
areas for study included:
1) The accurate determination of the astronomical unit [the distance
between Earth and the sun].
2) Studies of the radiation environment
a) High energy particles
b) Low energy particles
c) Gamma-rays
d) X-rays
e) LJltraviolet radiation
f) Low frequency radiation
3) Measurements of electric and magnetic fields.
4) Study of radio propagation characteristics of outer space.
5) Study of the meteorite environment.
6) Study of the density, composition and physical properties of matter in
space.
Some of these studies could be conducted with telescopes and spectrographs
carried aloft by balloons, but most required close approaches or orbiting
probes. The committee speculated that probes could possibly provide evi-
dence of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Once an Atlas missile and a
high-performance second stage were available, photographic or other view-
ing devices should be focused on the planets. The Hornig panel believed
that "the most exciting experiments on both Venus and Mars seem to
involve viewing devices, at least until it becomes possible to descend into
their atmospheres." Since communications and tracking systems for such
flights would require considerable development, the committee urged an
early start on a planetary program.29
Hugh Odishaw—speaking for the Space Science Board in a special
report to Glennan, Director Alan T. Waterman of the National Science
Foundation, and Director Roy W. Johnson of the Advanced Research
Projects Agency—underscored the committee's message. Since Thor-Able
would be capable of transporting probes to the near planets, the board
recommended "that a program aimed at launching a Mars probe during the
1961 conjunction [the time M the orbits of Earth and Mars when Mars
disappears from Earth's view behind the sun] be immediately initiated."
Odishaw also urged an early start on a high-performance second stage for
Atlas "in order to provide a payload sufficient to carry out a more scientifi-
cally satisfying set of experiments on the planets Venus and Mars. "30
Instead of "resisting pressures" for early planetary exploration as requested
16
 WHY MARS?

by Hugh Dryden six months earlier, the Space Science Board strongly
espoused such exploration in December 1958.
Individual scientists were also urging a broader space science program,
and one of the most influential spokesmen for lunar and planetary studies
was Harold Urey. Winner of the 1934 Nobel Prize in chemistry, Urey had a
long, distinguished career behind him when in the early 1950s he turned his
attentions to the origin of the solar system. In 1952, Yale University pub-
lished his seminal book, The Planets: Their Origin and Development. In
November 1958, Robert Jastrow traveled to the University of California in
La Jolla to talk with this elder statesman of the space science community
about the directions that NASA's space science program might take. Jas-
trow was converted to Urey's belief that the moon was a key element in
unlocking the secrets of the universe, particularly for providing clues to the
origin of the planets. Fascinated, Jastrow invited him to NASA Headquar-
ters, where the scientist also convinced Homer Newell that a series of lunar
projects should be undertaken. Newell noted years later that "the Ranger
Project [a series of lunar probes] was in effect born on [that] day." As
Jastrow set to work organizing an ad hoc Working Group on Lunar
Exploration,* lunar enthusiasts had their foot in the door, and planetary
advocates were not far behind.31
Within NASA, a major impetus for a larger space science program
came from the staff of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Established in
the summer of 1940 by the California Institute of Technology with contract
funds provided by the U.S. Army Air Corps, JPL had over the years devel-
oped expertise in the fields of rocketry, instrumentation, telemetry, and
tracking. After Sputnik, JPL joined the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in a
successful partnership that launched Explorer 1, the first American satel-
lite, on 31 January 1958 as part of the U.S. contribution to the International
Geophysical Year. William H. Pickering, JPL director from 1954 to 1976
and a strong supporter of the American space program, wanted the United
States, in the wake of Sputnik, to sponsor a space project that would
outdistance the Soviet Union. His first proposal, "Red Socks," was for a
seven-kilogram lunar payload. A major space first, according to Pickering,
would be better for U.S. prestige than being the second nation to launch a
satellite. While Red Socks nevercame about, the proposal was indicative of
JPL's interest in projects other than Earth satellites.
Pickering had other aspirations as well. In a July 1958 letter to James
R. Killian, presidential adviser for science and technology, the JPL director
called for a significant role for his laboratory in the new space agency.
Pickering urged that NASA "accept the concept of JPL as the national
space laboratory. If this is not done, then NASA will flounder around for so
long that there is a good chance that the entire program will be carried by
the military." Instead of the space agency's being relegated to a position of

*Chaired by Jastrow, the working group included H. C. Urey, J. Arnold, F. Press, and H. Brown.

17
ON MARS

supporting research and developing scientific payloads, Pickering believed

it could with JPL's guidance establish a realistic space program and main-
tain the civilian character that Eisenhower desired. "As you well know, one
of the problems in the present space program is the multiplicity of commit-
tees and groups which are planning programs," Pickering reminded Kil-
lian. He believed that it was "essential for some competent group to be
given a clear cut responsibility and told to draw up a realistic long term
program which they can successfully complete on schedule." Only "if JPL
does become the national space laboratory ... does a complete experienced
laboratory knowledgeable in all phases of the problem become the key asset
of NASA. "32
There was, however, a division of opinion at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. Many of Pickering's colleagues believed that planetary investi-
gation deserved more immediate attention than lunar goals. Whereas there
were monthly opportunities for launching rockets to the moon, there were
fewer such windows for trips to the planets. In 1958, the next launch
opportunity for Mars would be October 1960 and the next practical chance
for a Venus shot, December 1960-January 1961. Given these considerations,
the JPL team after Explorer 1's success began to look into possible plane-
tary probe missions. One early example, undertaken at Pickering's request,
was a design study for a 158-kilogram spacecraft that could be sent to Mars
by a variant of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency's Jupiter intermediate
range ballistic missile with two liquid-fueled upper stages. It quickly
became apparent to the entire space science community that a more com-
prehensive study of possible planetary missions was needed.33
The space agency did want JPL to become a NASA field facility and
began negotiations with the California Institute of Technology. But even
before the contract between Cal Tech and NASA was signed, JPL staff
members were discussing a long-range space program for the agency. A
Silverstein memo suggesting that it begin thinking about future space
projects had prompted the lab's actions. In Pasadena, the suggestion had
been interpreted as a mandate—"a commission for JPL to plan a long range
space program for NASA."34
John E. Froehlich, satellite project director at the lab, noted in the
minutes of a 28 October 1958 meeting at JPL that he and his colleagues
expected their study to "result in NASA's major space program but would
not incorporate the entire national program." JPL, working jointly with
the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, anticipated that this would be the
working plan for the next five years, not just another proposal. The Cali-
fornia team determined that NASA should concentrate on "putting up
`large payloads' for interplanetary research," not Earth-orbiting satellites.35
Froehlich also recorded that the program must be "a compromise between
a very conservative approach [and] a very wild, extravagant plan. 1136
A week later, JPL submitted to Silverstein a proposal to prepare a
"Space Flight Program Study," the exact nature of which had been defined
18
 WHY MARS?

by Froehlich, Homer J. Stewart of Cal Tech, and Silverstein at NASA

Headquarters. Once Glennan and Pickering concurred on JPL's interest in
lunar and planetary studies, NASA agreed to the JPL study outline. On 18
November, the NASA Program Study Committee, composed of seven work-
ing group chairmen, began their task in earnest. 31 By executive order,
President Eisenhower had the functions and facilities of JPL transferred
from the Department of the Army to NASA on 3 December 1958.
Implicit in the Program Study Committee's work was a desire to
influence launch vehicle and spacecraft development. At the end of the first
five years, the necessary space vehicles had to be available for further work
in space. "If this is not done, we will be entering the second five-year period
doing what we are doing now—trying to fit available, but not entirely
adequate, equipment to our program," Froehlich predicted. As a conse-
quence, the study group and JPL's senior staff decided that the laboratory
should concentrate its major energies on planetary goals while supervising
others in the operation of lunar missions. As indicated in table 2, in which
JPL launches are marked with asterisks, JPL planners considered two to
three launches a year to be a comfortable maximum and Froehlich con-
sidered even that ambitious.
At a meeting with Homer Newell, John F. Clark, and Raymond
Zavasky from headquarters, Director Pickering raised the issue of dividing
planetary and lunar studies into two distinct fields. Newell saw two possi-
bilities: JPL could "plan on doing the lunar work first and then later
moving into deep space probes or go into deep space probes now with
NASA finding some other agency or agencies to take on the lunar projects."
Clark argued against any separation of lunar and planetary missions,
stressing the similarities in guidance and communications requirements.
Proposed near-misses (or flybys as they came to be called) of the moon and
the planets would have analogous guidance requirements and should
"accordingly be logical parts of a common program, while deep space
probes would not necessarily have strict guidance requirements, and could
themselves be a separate collection of projects." Although Pickering agreed
to discuss these points while working on the laboratory's five-year plan,
differences of opinion between JPL and NASA Headquarters were
obvious.sa
A 12 January 1959 meeting in Pasadena illustrated this growing diver-
gence. Invited to discuss the progress of the evolving JPL-NASA study, the
visitors from Washington included Abe Silverstein, Milton W. Rosen,
Homer Newell, and Homer Stewart, who had been recruited from Cal Tech
to Headquarters to direct the Office of Program Planning and Evaluation.
After a few introductory remarks, Albert R. Hibbs of JPL described the
missions portion of the study. The latest proposed lineup of flights (table 3)
included a 1960 circumlunar mission and an escape toward Mars for a flyby
of that planet. In 1961, JPL wanted to attempt a flight toward Venus, an
escape out of the ecliptic (the plane about the sun in which all the planets
19
ON MARS

Table 2
Proposed Lunar and Deep Space Program, 1958

Payload Payload Launch

Date Mission Weight (kg) Weight (kg) Vehicle
Required Available

1960
• Aug. Circumlunar 159 230 Titan
• Oct. Two Mars flybys 122 135 Titan
1961
• Jan. Two Venus flybys 122 135 Titan
May Circumlunar 159 230 Titan
July Lunar rough landing 233 230 Titan
• Sept. Escape from Earth gravity 120 135 Titan
Nov. Lunar satellite 233 230 Titan
1962
Feb. Lunar rough landing 233 230 Titan
Apr. Lunar satellite 233 230 Titan
• Aug. Two Venus entries 980 1360 Juno V
• Nov. Two Venus flybys 161 135 Titan
1963
Mar. Lunar soft landing 1810 2300 Juno V
• June Lunar soft landing 1810 2300 Juno V
Circumlunar with animal
Aug. Lunar soft landing 1810 2300 Juno V
• Oct. Two Jupiter and two Mercury
controlled flybys 910 1360 Juno V

*JPL launches.
SOURCE: J. D. McKenney, "Minutes of the Meeting of the NASA Program Study Committee. . . ," 15
Dec. 1958.

revolve), and a launch toward the moon that would produce a near-miss.
Launches in 1962 would include orbiting lunar and Venus satellites, or
perhaps a Venus entry probe and a Mars flyby. Lunar missions would
occupy the following year with a circumlunar-return flight and a soft
landing. Tentative goals for 1964 and 1965 were landings on Venus, another
circumlunar-return, and a journey to Mars (1965). A]I these flights were by
definition complete scientific exercises aimed at studying interplanetary
space.
Pickering believed JPL's ambitious program was a sound one and
would capture the interest and support of the scientific community. Since
the recommended number of missions was limited to three to five a year, the
director wanted each payload to be as advanced as possible. Toward that
end, he wished to increase the laboratory's staff by 25 per cent. He also
20

WHY MARS?
N N v „ 0 0
G 0 C ri vi r- r. W sue. C • fC • cd
u u v
E O O
_ _ O _ O O O
v F
a O ^ OO
'O -O 7 '7 vi 'CS +' xA. Q•
a vi y O O O O
U v v
^i vi O 7 yp 'O 'O `-+
' y v
o ;° m c N bcbr,
v O v O v O v O a.+ v • R v v v'; v v v
bn G m C be N __
c u ro o o o o N c ' an ^= c f a°= ac ac a. ° ° C' o v o
Q N y N N by N bp O 'O u v v v
v `m Q, 0 0. 0 a 0 a 0
^- s O ococvcu a v a ca
z a a a a E EEcEcEEEEv vv m ca
...^ C^ ¢ Q Q Q A cn cn ^ ^ ^ ^
v CC
^ -° ^ o .n .n .n .n .n o 0 0 .n .r, o 0 0 0
04 cry
cry cn cry cli an an cn en O O O n. n O n.
Y. T . R ^bP r ^. .-. r .-. C V on an cn
^- i r r CA CV N N
aQ3
A
Iz cn
.n D co cc D
o
a
cn o 0 0o000
0000
0 0
.n 0 n0
o 0 0
° >, Q b!' ... r r r .-. CV n. r r
on co CD on
N N co CV CSI CV Vn
u - -
.^ ro Y^
.-^ r r c^
r r w C^ cn o c
cu a o
o0 0o r ... o
n C 's cu o o n o
cn cn o00
n
L v
c c
N N ^ c
N N ^ '^ ^" y v
c c a ' bn do ^-
>> ub ti c c
c o 0 o v 4a,' c c M bq CZ R
c^C c^a cs'c 'cra O r r r '' ^: c.° c c r. N
^ c^C ro ., O «s d

0 0 0 00 R m m n ? a o ro
N N N ^ T ^.. N N
n
u
a a a a a
cd u Q u w
f6
c
N
O O
N ^•^ ^+
G 7 N
F. N
.^ u u
F.
cC
C
it
cC
c
N N E E
O O '^
uU
U W W W W W .l > > > V U
O C O CV CV CV CV N on cn cn V. ' IV d" u^
CO (O CO CD CD CD CD CO cD (D (D cD CD CO CO CO C() CD
D7 ^ ^ a7 ^ Cn Cn Q1 C11 Q) ^ Q)
rCn r Cn
CJ^ O) CSC O7
^ r n r r .-- r r r r r r r r r r r
v u c c `p bn q v c ro g C
A Qd
o cu n o cli o cn oo -- o
-- cli cu on cn cli CA
C v
^^
p
— CV cn 1- 0) cc n oo CP
r r r ., r r .-. r r
O N cn •d^ .n cp n 00
az
v
E
L cv
21
ON MARS
contended that JPL should do nothing during 1959 that did not contribute
directly to the development of deep space probes. In particular, it would be
impossible to take on the direct technical supervision of NASA contracts in
fields related to JPL projects. However, the JPL staff did expect to partici-
pate in NASA Headquarters committee activities and the like.
Abe Silverstein had in mind a different set of priorities when he looked
at the rugged job NASA had ahead of it—managing an affordable but
worthwhile national space program. He wanted JPL to be a part of NASA,
to participate from the inside. He accepted the need for long-range plan-
ning, but NASA had to concentrate on the short run, on the creation of
missions that would build congressional confidence so that legislators
would support more ambitious projects for the years ahead. As a result,
Silverstein was concerned with a different timetable, a launch and planning
schedule for 1959. Long-range planning at this juncture could serve only as
a guide. NASA did need to know where it was going, but Silverstein feared
that JPL's five-year plan might take longer than five years to consummate
and lock the agency on an unchangeable course.39
Obviously, NASA and JPL were looking at the future of spaceflight
with different perspectives. NASA was still concerned with establishing its
day-to-day activities and its short-term future. Working in Washington,
Silverstein and his associates felt the often conflicting pressures from the
White House, Capitol Hill, and the news media for a national space
program that would at once surpass the Soviet Union's and be scientifically
respectable without unbalancing the budget. Those pressures did not seem
as important on the West Coast.ao
JPL's plans were not only ambitious, they also reflected a difference in
approach from that taken by Newell's space science office. Not unlike the
von Braun team in Huntsville, Pickering's group thought of space probes
in terms of their goals—the moon, Venus, Mars—while Newell's staff
reflected the scientific community's concern with such topics as atmos-
pheres; ionospheres; gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields; energetic
particles; astronomy; biology; and environment. Likewise, Newell's sug-
gestions to JPL for potential experiments for future missions reflected the
disciplinary approach to space science taken during the International Geo-
physical Year." JPL's goal-oriented study represented an engineer's way of
looking at things. Neither view was better, both were necessary, but each
had to accommodate the other, and that learning process would take years.
NASA Long-Range Plans for Space Exploration
Not long after the meeting at JPL, NASA, spurred by pressure from
Congress and the Space Science Board, was forced to do some long-range
thinking of its own about the planetary exploration program. Two weeks
into the new year of 1959 found Homer Stewart's Office of Program Plan-
ning and Evaluation working on a number of long-term questions. Besides
looking into plans for the next year or two, Administrator Glennan wanted
possible guidelines for the next 5 to 10 years.92
22
 WHY MARS%

Table 4
Influences on the Ten-Year Plan, 1960

JPI_ Proposed Schedulc Goett Committee-Proposed Objectivest)

Aug. 1960 Lunar miss (Vega) 1. Man in space soonest—Project

Oct. 1960 Mars flyby (Vega) Mercury.
Jan. 1961 Venus flyby 2. Ballistic probes.
June 1961 Lunar rough landing (Vega) 3. Environmental satellite.
Sept. 1961 Lunar orbiter (Vega) 4. Maneuverable manned satellite.
Aug. 1962 Venus orbiter (Vega) 5. Manned spaceflight laboratory.
Aug. 1962 Venus entry (Vega) 6. Lunar reconnaissance satellite.
Nov. 1962 Mars orbiter (Saturn 1) 7. Lunar landing.
Nov. 1962 Mars entry (Vega) 8. Mars-Venus reconnaissance.
Feb. 1963 Lunar orbit and return (Saturn 1) 9. Mars-Venus landing.
June 1963 Lunar soft landing (Saturn 1)
Mar. 1964 Venus soft landing (Saturn 1)

Ten-Year Plan`

1960: First launching of meteorological satellite.

First launching of passive-reflector communica-
tions satellite.
First launching of Scout vehicle.
First launching of Thor-Delta vehicle.
First launching of Atlas-Agena B (DoD).
First suborbital flight by astronaut.
1961: First launching of lunar impact vehicle.
First launching of Atlas-Centaur vehicle.
Attainment of orbital manned spaceflight, Project
Mercury.
1962: First launching of probe to vicinity of Venus or
Mars.
1963: First launching of 2-stage Saturn.
1963-1964: First launching of unmanned vehicle for controlled
landing on moon.
First launching of orbiting astronomical and radio
astronomical laboratory.
1964: First launching of unmanned circumlunar vehicle
and return to Earth.
First reconnaissance of Mars or Venus, or both, by
unmanned vehicle.
1965-1967: First launching in program leading to manned cir-
cumlunar flight and to permanent near-Earth
space station.
Beyond 1970: Manned lunar landing and return.

"JPL, Exploration of the Moon, the Planets, and Interplanetary Space, ed. Albert R. Hibbs, JPL report
30-1 (Pasadena, 1959), pp. 95-114.
"NASA Hq., "Minutes of Meeting of Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight," 25-26
May 1959, p. 8.
`NASA Hq., Off. of Program Planningand Evaluation, "The Ten Year Plan of the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration," 18 Dec. 1959, p. 10.
ON MARS

Stewart, one of the persons responsible for getting JPL's 5-year study
tinder way, was charged with developing a 10-year master plan (1960-1970)
for the agency. His recommendations, completed in December 1959, were
influenced by two groups that were doing advanced planning at the time—
the JPL NASA Study Program Committee and the Research Steering
Committee on Manned Space Flight, chaired by Harry J. Goett of NASA's
Ames Research Center. Stewart, borrowing from both these committees,
secured balance among three important components of the space pro-
gram—satellites, probes, and man-in-space. 43 The 10-year plan formalized
the agency's goals for the 1960s (table 4).
The NASA Ten-Year Plan, presented by Associate Administrator
Richard E. Horner, the number three official at NASA, to the House
Committee on Science and Astronautics on 28 January 1960, established
planetary missions as one of the firm goals of the space agency. The 1962
date for a probe to Venus or Mars and the 1964 photo-reconnaissance
mission to Mars or Venus gave the JPL team something toward which to
work. Many events would conspire to delay those flights, but exploration of
the planets was securely part of the American space program.

24
 2
The Cart before the Horse:
Mariner Spacecraft and Launch Vehicles

By August 1960 when Clarence R. Gates and his colleagues at Jet

Propulsion Laboratory began studying plans for an interplanetary space-
craft called Mariner B, NASA's lunar and planetary program was taking the
basic form it would have for a decade. Mariner B, designed to explore Mars
and Venus and the space between, competed for both financial and man-
power resources with several other space science projects. Lunar space-
craft—Pioneer, Ranger, Surveyor, and Prospector—were the main attrac-
tion, while Mariner and Voyager with their planetary objectives took
second billing.*' Lunar and planetary missions were arranged sequentially
so that planners and scientists could progress from simple to complex tasks.
Designers and engineers would likewise work on increasingly sophisticated
spacecraft around a common chassis, or "bus," that could take successively
more complex experiment packages into space. To meet these goals, NASA
planned for the structured growth and development of several basic kinds of
spacecraft. But spacecraft were only half the story.2
Reliable launch vehicles were essential to space exploration, and their
lack had bedeviled the American space endeavor from the beginning. Reli-
ability and payload capacity of the boosters (both proposed and in exist-
ence) defined the dimensions and possible use of each kind of spacecraft.
While this relationship between launch vehicle and spacecraft was appar-
ent in any space project, it had an especially negative effect on Mariner B.

EVOLUTION OF UNMANNED SPACE EXPLORATION TO 1960

Pioneer and Troublesome Launch vehicles
Lunar exploration project Pioneer, America's bid in the early space
competition, was approved in March 1958 under the initial direction of the
Advanced Research Projects Agency, which assigned hardware develop-
`Lunar projects were given names related to terrestrial exploration activities; interplanetary projects
were given nautical-sounding names that conveyed the impression of travel over great distances to
remote lands.

25
ON MARS
ment to both the Air Force and the Army. But the two services each had a
distinct approach to Pioneer, and the differences plagued the project from
the start. On their first try, the Air Force team produced an unplanned
pyrotechnic display when a Thor-Able launch vehicle exploded 77 seconds
after liftoff from Cape Canaveral on 17 August 1958. Pioneer 1, launched on
I I October that year, was another disappointment, an early shutdown of the
second stage prevented its attaining a velocity sufficient to escape Earth's
gravity. After a 115 000-kilometer trip toward the moon and 43 hours in
space, the probe burned up when it reentered Earth's atmosphere. The next
month, Pioneer 2's third stage failed to ignite; this spacecraft was also
incinerated as it fell back to Earth. Meanwhile, the Army Ballistic Missile
Agency and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were working on a Pioneer
lunar probe to be launched by a combination vehicle called Juno II, a
Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missile with upper stages developed by
JPL. A 6 December 1958 attempt to launch this four-stage rocket to the
moon failed when the Jupiter first stage cut off prematurely. Pioneer 3
reentered after a 38-hour flight.
Pioneer 4, the last of the series initiated by the Advanced Research
Projects Agency, rose on its Juno II launch vehicle on 3 March 1959 and
traveled without incident to the moon and beyond into an orbit around the
sun, but without passing close enough to the moon for the lunar-scanning
instruments to function. The U.S. attempt to beat the Soviet Union to the
moon had already failed: Luna 1, launched 2 January, had flown by its
target on 4 January. Luna 2 next became the first spacecraft to land on
another body in the solar system, crashing into the moon on 13 September
1959. Luna 3, launched 4 October, returned the first photographs of the
moon's far side.
The U.S. effort continued to be less than successful. A sixth Pioneer
lunar probe, a NASA-monitored Air Force launch, was destroyed when the
payload shroud broke away 45 seconds after launch in November 1959. In
1960, two more NASA Pioneers failed, and the project died.* America's next
entry was Ranger, NASA's first full-scale Innar project.'

Ranger: Atlas-Vega versus Atlas-Agena

The Ranger spacecraft—designed to strike the moon's surface after
transmitting television pictures and gamma ray spectrometry data during
descent—was one of the payloads planned for the Atlas-Vega launch vehi-
cle. Atlas, an Air Force intercontinental ballistic missile developed by
General Dynamics-Astronautics, had been selected by Abe Silverstein's
Office of Space Flight Development for early manned orbital missions and
deep space probes, and the decision had been based on several sound
premises. If Atlas could be so adapted and if Thor and other intermediate-
*In 1965, NASA revived Project Pioneer with a new objective: to complement interplanetary data
acquired by Mariner probes.

26
 CART BEFORE HORSE
range ballistic missiles could be used for lightweight Earth satellites, then
most of the funds NASA had earmarked for launch-vehicle development
could be used for the development of a family of much larger liquid-
propellant rockets for manned lunar missions. The space agency could
purchase Atlas missiles from the Air Force and provide upper stages tailor-
made for any particular mission, whether science in deep space or manned
Mercury missions near Earth.
As defined in December 1958, three basic elements composed Atlas-
Vega: (1) the Atlas missile, with its so-called stage and a half; (2) a modified
Vanguard engine for the second stage; and (3) Vega, a new third stage under
development at JPL. Vanguard was produced by General Electric. JPL's
Vega would provide the extra thrust to reach the velocities necessary for
planetary flights. According to the estimates, the combination would be
able to place 2250 kilograms in a 480-kilometer Earth orbit or send approx-
imately 360 kilograms to the moon. The first Atlas-Vega flight was optimis-
tically scheduled for the fall of 1960.
On 17 December 1958 in Washington, representatives from NASA, the
Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Army, and the Air Force consid-
ered launch vehicle development and agreed that a series of versatile,
increasingly powerful launchers was a desirable goal. However, NASA
wanted its first new launch vehicle to be Atlas-Vega, while the Air Force
favored the smaller Atlas-Agena. Since neither vehicle could meet the
requirements of both organizations, NASA and the Air Force agreed to
pursue their separate courses. Both approved Atlas-Centaur, a higher-
energy rocket under development for future use, but only the space agency
projected a need for the much larger Saturn.
Vega was the first element in NASA's proposal for "A National Space
Vehicle Program," a document sent to President Eisenhower on 27 January
1959 specifying four principal launch vehicles—Atlas-Vega, Atlas-Centaur,
Saturn I, and Nova (subsequently replaced by Saturn V). NASA began its
hardware development program by contracting with General Dynamics,
General Electric, and JPL for the production of eight Vega launch vehicles,
being considered for Ranger flights to the moon and for a 1960 Mars
mission. To send a spacecraft to Mars "with sufficient guidance capability
and sufficient instrumentation to transmit information to the Earth, we
need at least a thousand pounds [450 kilograms] of payload," Milton W.
Rosen, chief of the NASA Rocket Vehicle Development Program, reminded
senators during April 1959 hearings on the agency's 1960 budget. Vega was
the first launcher in the NASA stable that had "such payload carrying
capacity."'
Atlas-Vega, however, was not destined to fly to either the moon or the
planets; a competitor blocked the way. The Air Force had been concealing a
significant fact—Lockheed Missiles 8e Space Company had been develop-
ing a much more powerful version of Agena, the B model. 5 The uprated
Atlas-Agena B was unveiled in May 1959, almost instantly killing Atlas-
27
An artist's concept of the
Vega Mars probe as seen
from the Martian moon
Deimos was presented to
the Senate Aeronautical and
Space Science Committee
on 7 April 1959.

Vega. NASA began investigating the similarities between the two that
spring, and in July the Civilian-Military Liaison Committee, established
earlier to work out problems of mutual concern to NASA and the Depart-
ment of Defense, ordered a review of the two systems. The committee's and
NASA's findings agreed: one of the projects should be canceled. Since
NASA was in no position to force the Air Force to terminate the somewhat
more flexible Agena B, the agency conceded. On 7 December, Glennan
telephoned JPL Director Pickering. All work on Vega would stop
immediately.s
Glennan and his staff at NASA Headquarters were discomfited by
Vega's cancellation. The duplicative project had not only cost them $17
million labeled for launch vehicle research, its cancellation had returned
them to dependence on new Air Force rockets. JPL's unhappiness over
losing Vega was compounded by dismay over NASA's new 10-year plan,
which was clearly geared toward lunar rather than planetary activities.'
Richard E. Horner, NASA associate administrator, wrote Pickering in
December 1959 about the management's post-Vega thinking, discussing the
recent transfer of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville, Ala-
bama, to NASA (a transfer sought by NASA since October 1958) and Vega's
cancellation. Although the cancellation was certainly "disturbing" and
would "necessitate a major reorientation of the Laboratory work pro-
gram," Horner believed that it would allow the entire NASA community to
advance toward the agency's long-term objectives. Each NASA center work-
ing directly in space experimentation had been assigned "a major func-
tional area of responsibility." The facility at Huntsville under the direction
of Wernher von Braun was responsible for the development of launch
vehicles and associated equipment. That organization would also control
all launch-related activities to the point of orbital injection or some similar
point in the trajectory of a probe. The Goddard Space Flight Center in
Maryland would oversee the development and operation of Earth satellites
and sounding-rocket payloads. Development and operation of spacecraft
28
 CART BEFORE HORSE
for lunar and interplanetary exploration was JPL's task. "It is pertinent to
note here that the Administrator has decided that our efforts for the present
... should be concentrated on lunar exploration as opposed to exploration
of the planets," Horner added in his letter to Pasadena.'
Along with these clearly defined field assignments, major changes were
taking place at NASA Headquarters. The former Office of Space Flight
Development was divided into two directorates—the Office of Launch
Vehicle Programs and the Office of Space Flight Programs.'* Abe Silver-
stein would direct spaceflight, with JPL and Goddard reporting directly to
him. Staff responsibility for launch vehicles would be directed by former
Advanced Research Projects Agency specialist Mal. Gen. Don R. Ostrander,
to whom the von Braun team would be accountable. These assignments
were designed to establish clearer lines of responsibility for both adminis-
trative and functional purposes. (See charts in appendix G.)9
Within this new framework JPL, in carrying out its task of planning
and executing lunar and planetary projects, would be in charge of mission
planning, spacecraft development, experiments, mission operations, analy-
sis of scientific data returned from space, and the publication of mission
results. Since these activities could not possibly be carried out by JPL alone,
headquarters "expected that a part of the developments will be contracted
with industry and the Laboratory will assume the responsibility of moni-
toring such contracts," Horner noted. Pickering continued to resist such a
role when he met with Silverstein a month later, but contracting for hard-
ware development was agency policy. NASA would also exercise control
over its field centers through annual program guidance documents written
at headquarters. The Pasadena laboratory's independence was being cur-
tailed as the men in Washington began to pull together a more centralized
management system, but the relationship between headquarters and JPL
was still not clearly defined.10
In December, going one step further in asserting headquarters' leader-
ship, Silverstein outlined for JPL the space agency's plans for lunar and
planetary missions for the next three years. Earlier that month the NASA
Lunar Science Group, chaired by Robert Jastrow, had met to discuss
proposals for lunar exploration. Harold Urey, Thomas Gold, Harrison
Brown, and other scientists had agreed that a hard lunar landing, which by
its crashing impact could help determine the nature of the moon's surface
structure, would be an important first step. High-resolution pictures of the
moon before impact would also be most important. Basing plans on the
advice of the lunar group and the change in launch vehicles, Silverstein
"The distinction between programs and projects was first made clear by G. F. Schilling. Office of
Space Science, late in 1959. Programs signified a related and continued series of undertakings geared
toward understanding a broad scientific or technical topic; programs (e.g., examining the solar system)
did not necessarily have foreseeable ends. Projects were the building blocks for programs and as such
had limited objectives, limited duration (e.g., Project Mariner, Project Viking). While the spacescience
personnel at NASA tended to maintain this distinction over the years, the concept was not as clearly
observed in manned spaceflight, where the Apollo project grew so large it became a program.

29
ON MARS

advised Pickering that seven flights were planned through 1962. The first
five would be launched by Atlas-Agena B for "lunar reconnaissance" in
1961-1962; two other spacecraft would be sent by Atlas-Centaur to Mars and
Venus in 1962. 11 As part of an integrated lunar exploration program, the
lunar spacecraft, Ranger, should also be capable of depositing an instru-
ment package on the moon.
In late December, Homer Newell, Newell Sanders, Joseph A. Crocker,
and Morton J. Stroller traveled to California to discuss how the projected
flights fitted into the agency's long-range plans. Crocker explained that
development should begin on four different spacecraft (designations in
brackets indicate projects that emerged from this planning):
a. A spacecraft for use with the Agena on lunar work [Ranger],
b. a spacecraft for use with Centaur for planetary and lunar orbit, with
perhaps a modification for soft landings [combination of Surveyor
and Lunar Orbiter and Mariner 131,
c. a spacecraft for use with Saturn on planetary work [Voyager] with
some modifications, perhaps for instrumented landings of lunar rover
vehicles [Prospector], and finally,
d. a spacecraft for use with the Saturn for unmanned circumlunar mis-
sions and return leading to perhaps some modifications for manned
circumlunar missions and return.
Rather than be developed independently, the spacecraft would evolve, with
more advanced spacecraft growing out of generation-to-generation experi-
ence. 12
Pickering was still not fully reconciled to the moon-first priority laid
down by Washington, believing that the limited opportunities for flights to
the planets made it absolutely imperative that work begin immediately on
planetary spacecraft. Newell and his colleagues relieved the director's anx-
ieties somewhat by assuring him that there would be planetary flights
"every time the near planets, Mars and Venus, were in optimum position."
The JPL group was reminded, however, that the planetary program would
be relying on the yet-to-be-developed Centaur launch vehicle for some time,
until the more advanced Saturn family was ready. 13
Surveyor, Mariner, and the Centaur
As headquarters directed, JPL personnel set about defining a lunar
impact mission, but Atlas-Centaur-boosted spacecraft of the future were
also an active concern. NASA hoped Surveyor, the first of these advanced
craft, would allow a "tremendous stride forward in lunar exploration,"
since it would land softly on the moon, carrying a number of experiments,*
*The term experiment, as NASA uses it, refers to any exercise whose purpose is to gather scientific or
engineering data (and also to the equipment used to perform an experiment). Few scientists would
apply the term to some NASA experiments, e.g., photography of Earth from orbit.

30
 CART BEFORE HORSE
including a surface sampler and an atmosphere analyzer. These instru-
ments would provide scientists and designers information they needed to
plan more sophisticated unmanned and manned landing missions. Mari-
ner, the second spacecraft family to be powered by Atlas-Centaur, would be
directed toward Venus and Mars. Two kinds of Mariner spacecraft were
planned: an A model that would simply fly by those planets and a B model
that could release a landing capsule toward Mars or Venus as the main bus
flew by. A 1962 Mariner was expected to be launched toward Venus to
measure the planet's surface temperature distribution, examine the atmos-
phere, and determine the extent of the magnetic field as it flew by.
Still later in the 1960s, two multipurpose spacecraft, Prospector and
Voyager, atop mighty Saturn launch vehicles were to extend the scope of
unmanned lunar and planetary exploration even further. Prospector was
being designed to roam about the 1 unar surface as directed from Earth and
examine the moon with a sophisticated array of instruments. Subsequent
lunar rovers were to be used as logistic vehicles to marshal supplies for
manned missions to the moon, or possibly as an early means of returning
experiment samples. Voyager, too, was being designed with growth in
mind. From the first missions in 1964 to either Venus or Mars with slightly
larger landed payloads than the Mariner B capsule, Voyager was to grow
larger and larger until a mechanized rover was sent to Mars or Venus.
Prospector and Voyager represented the very distant future, but by the
summer of 1960 JPL and NASA Headquarters were beginning to give
serious attention to Surveyor and Mariner. 11 Both of these craft were sched-
uled for launch by Atlas-Centaur—the number two vehicle in NASA's
plans—but development problems with the Centaur stage would seriously
affect the timetable.
CENTAUR: TROUBLESOME LAUNCH VEHICLE
One of the earliest plans for a U.S. probe to Mars was based on the
Atlas-Centam launch vehicle. 111 1956, Krafft Ehricke of General Dynamics
began to study high-energy second stages that might be used with the Atlas
missile. In examining oxygen-hydrogen rocket stages, he had three objec-
tives in mind—using the unexcelled thrust of Atlas, providing an upper
stage with a maximum energy output for its weight, and developing a
launch vehicle that could be used for several different kinds of mission.
Three specific "important mission classes" were considered for this new
vehicle:
High-altitude satellites in the 8-hour, 12-hour and 24-hour orbits for
the purpose of global surveillance, early warning, and global communi-
cation.
Launchings of instrumented space probes to the lunar surface and
into the inner solar system, primarily to Venus and Mars....
Establishment of a small manned orbital laboratory for a crew of
three to inaugurate systematic preparations for deep space missions of
manned spaceships.15
31
ON MARS
For several reasons, Ehricke and his associates settled on 13 500 kilo-
grams for the weight of their proposed high-energy stage. This was close to
the upper limit that the existing Atlas could boost, and a stage of this
approximate weight would have about the same diameter as Atlas and a
reasonable length. By October 1957, studies for the prototype Centaur were
complete, and Ehricke took his ideas to the Advanced Research Projects
Agency. The agency was intrigued and encouraged Ehricke's team to draw
up a plan for a launch vehicle stage that used two Pratt 8c Whitney pump-
fed engines rather than pressure-fed engines. On the basis of these discus-
sions, General Dynamics submitted a proposal for a Mars probe in August
1958.
Ehricke noted that this particular suggestion for a flight to the Red
Planet had been made because his team was "quite mission conscious and
[wanted] to emphasize the importance of gaining an early capability to send
probes to Venus and Mars in view of the infrequent intervals at which these
missions [could] be flown." Some years are more favorable for planetary
flights than others, and during advantageous years a rocket of given power
can carry a much larger payload. Propitious opportunities for travel to
Mars and Venus occur about every two years and generally last for about a
month (appendix A). Unless the launch vehicle is unusually powerful, the
geometry dictates a two-year delay once a launch window is missed. Separa-
tion between Mars and Earth at the time of closest approach varies from 55
million to 102 million kilometers over a cycle about 16 years long. (The
most favorable opposition between 1970 and 1975 was in 1971, when the
two planets were only 55.8 million kilometers apart.) Ehricke in 1958
looked toward a 1964 launch, to take a spacecraft past Mars in June 1965.
On 28 August 1958, the Advanced Research Projects Agency requested
the Air Force Research and Development Command to oversee a contract
with General Dynamics for the development of an upper stage for Atlas, to
be propelled by oxygen and hydrogen. That stage, which was to weigh
about 13 500 kilograms and have a diameter of about 3 meters, was to be
powered by two engines capable of 67 000 newtons (15 000 pounds) of
thrust each. Even though the effort required a major advance in the state of
the art, an oxygen-hydrogen-powered stage appeared feasible. The resul-
tant launch vehicle was intended to be a "space truck," bridging the gap
between the less powerful Atlas-Agena and the much larger boosters of the
future. Although a specific mission for the stage had not been defined, the
first test flight was scheduled for January 1961, only 26 months after the
contract with General Dynamics was signed.
Given the short development tirne, limited budget, and injunction
against impinging on the military Atlas program, the government was
expecting a great deal from General Dynamics, which was responsible for
vehicle development and overall project integration, and Pratt & Whitney,
which had a contract for building the oxygen-hydrogen engines. After
considerable negotiation, NASA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency,
32
 CART BEFORE HORSE
and the Air Force agreed in the summer of 1959 to a compromise system of
management. The Air Force named Lt. Col. John D. Seaberg Centaur
project director and assigned him to the Ballistic Missile Division's offices
at the Los Angeles Air Force Station. Seaberg had a strong background in
the missile field and intimate knowledge of the relatively new technology
surrounding liquid hydrogen, having worked on the Air Force's highly
secret Suntan Project, which had sought to tame liquid hydrogen for use as
an aircraft fuel. Seaberg reported directly to Milton Rosen, project director
at NASA Headquarters. This arrangement became official on 1 July 1959,
when responsibility for Centaur was shifted to the space agency.16
During the winter of 1959-1960, NASA established a Centaur Project
Technical Team of specialists from the field centers, to undertake a thor-
ough study of the project and recommend ways in which it might be best
conducted. 17 Centaur had grown in importance to NASA since the cancella-
tion of Vega and was rapidly becoming more than an austere research and
development experiment. It was a probable answer to launching specific
payloads. Centaur, with its much greater thrust and coast-restart capability,
promised a major technological improvement over existing vehicles.18
In early 1960, NASA Headquarters and JPL conducted a series of
studies to determine the most suitable launch vehicle for early Venus and
Mars flyby missions. On 8 July 1960, a team from JPL gave Administrator

Nose fairing
Payload Outlined at left are the major components of the pro-
Tank insulation ^f posed Atlas-Centaur two-stage launch vehicle for plane-
panels tary probe missions. Below, the Centaur upper stage is
Liquid hydrogen tank nearly 10 meters tall and about 3 meters in diameter.
Liquid oxygen tank
Vernier engines (4)
General Dynamics/Astronautics, A Primer of the Na-
Main engines (2) tional Aeronautics and Space Administration's Cen-
taur (San Diego, 1964).
Centaur

Atlas Launch Vehicle Dry weight: 1800 kilograms

First ignition gross weight: 17 000 kilograms ^— 3 meters—►{
Interstage
adapter I. I A
Equipment c(

Liquid oxygen tank

Liquid hydro(
RP-1 fuel tank

Vernier engines (2)

10 meters

Sustainer engine (1) Boost pump

Hydrogen pei
Liquid oxyge

Booster engine (2)

Main engines
ON MARS
Glennan a six-part brief ing on the subject. Lab spokesman Robert J. Parks
noted that the late 1960 Mars and early 1961 Venus launch windows would
have to be ignored as NASA was "in no position to take advantage of them,"
but before 1970 there remained "exactly five opportunities to fire at Venus
and four to fire at Mars." To make the best use of those, the proper order for
developing spacecraft appeared to be "first planetary flybys, then planetary
orbiters, and then the orbiter-landers, in which a part of the orbi t ing vehicle
is detached and caused to enter the atmosphere and land on the planet
relaying its information to the earth via the orbiter." Since Atlas-Centaur
could not boost planetary orbiters (retrorockets would add considerably to
the weight), JPL's 10-year flight schedule (see chart) called for using Cen-
taur for flyby missions through 1964. In 1965, Saturn was to be used for
planetary orbital experiments, leading to larger lander missions in 1967.19
The early flybys were important, since they would supply information
about atmospheric and topographical conditions—data that would affect
future landing craft. From the lab's point of view, the 1964 Venus and Mars
opportunities were the big ones, and at least "three spacecraft developmen-
tal firings [were] required prior to ... 1964." Repeating an increasingly
familiar refrain, Parks told Glennan that after the first five Ranger launches,
the planetary program would constitute "the major program activity of the
Laboratory. "20
Sending a spacecraft to either Venus or Mars depended on the availabil-
ity of both Atlas-Centaur and sufficient funds. Atlas-Centaur was a big
question mark, but nearly everyone was hopeful. Parks pointed out, how-
ever, that "FY61 fund limitations preclude developing and fabricating in
time for a 1962 launching" a spacecraft meeting all the relatively severe
requirements for a mission to Mars. Instead, JPL proposed a more modest
spacecraft based on Ranger for a 1962 flight to Venus.
Although the small Ranger-class spacecraft would not be a true proto-
type of the 1964 Mariner, it would still provide an excellent early test.
Assuming the availability of Atlas-Centaur in 1962, an 885-kilogram pay-
load could be sent to Venus; 585 kilograms could be flown to Mars. Ranger
weighed only 225 kilograms. Given the uncertain financial and launch
vehicle situation, the JPL team favored sending the smaller craft to Venus
in 1962, leaving the larger full-scale Mariner for the 1964 opportunity.21
Believing that Centaur would be ready on time, the Office of Space
Flight Development disregarded JPL's advice. Headquarters planners in
July 1960 proposed to launch a spacecraft designated Mariner A to Venus
with Atlas-Centaur in 1962 after one test flight. Following a 1963 trial, a
larger Mariner B, possibly with an instrumented lander, would be ready for
Mars and Venus missions in 1964. JPL's austere 1962 super-Ranger was
held in abeyance. Administrator Glennan approved the Mariner projects on
15 July 1960, just six days after he had approved three lunar Apollo feasibil-
ity studies.22

34
 PROPOSED PLANETARY EXPLORATION SCHEDULE

Ion & Electric Planetary orbit and/or landings

Saturn C-2 or Centaur electric
Propulsion
,-Venus n--Jupiter
Centaur Centaur (; Venus -r, r - - Venus
SNAP VIII electric n ^^
Scout
60 kw out of plane ii Mars-n , , i ^ n-- • Mars
ion propulsion
test of ecliptic ::Me-cur
uY„

61 1 62 1 63 1 64 1 65 66 1 67 68 69 70 71

Venus Venus Mars

—Mars
Centaur
fly-by Mars
Venus
High-
Centaur energy Saturn k Jupiter
probe planetary
Venus orbiter Venus
Centaur Mars
Mars Out of plane
of ecliptic
Mercury

Chemical Propulsion Venus

Planetary orbit and/or landings

Saturn C-2 or Centaur electric

A proposed 10-year programming chart was shown to NASA Administrator Glen-

nan at the 8 July 1960 planetary program briefing. The proposals for launch
vehicle upper stages above the timeline would use nonconventional—ion and
electric—propulsion. (SNAP stands for "system for nuclear auxiliary power";
SNAP VIII would produce 60 kilowatts of electrical power.) Proposals for upper
stagesshown below the timeline would use conventional—chemical—propulsion.

Planetary Mission Proposals

In August 1960, the Planetary Program Office at JPL began studying
Mariner B, examining the feasibility of building a spacecraft capable of a
variety of missions. Such a versatile craft using basic components with
scientific instruments packed in modules promised lower production costs.
A confidential "Mariner B Study Report" prepared in April 1961 concluded
that the Mariner B mission should involve a split capsule, in which the
main body of the spacecraft passes by the planet and a small, passive capsule
separates from the spacecraft and impacts the planet." Mariner B was
expected to be used to investigate Mars and Venus.

35


ON MARS
In reviewing possible missions, Clarence Gates of JPL's Systems Divi-
sion noted in JPL's study report that planners usually judged proposed
spacecraft-borne experiments by three criteria:
(a) The experiment should be conservative and should be based to the
maximum extent possible on previous experience, technology, and com-
ponents; (b) the experiment should, in its own right, be significant in the
contributions that it makes to technology and scientific knowledge; and
(c) the experiment should be daring and imaginative, should take a
substantial stride forward, and should bridge the gap between our present
state of knowledge and the more distant future.23
Gates went on to point out that it was "rare for these considerations not to
lead in diverse directions." In 1961, Mariner A typified a conservative
approach with a high chance of success. That craft was fully attitude-
stabilized, using the sun and Earth as references. Power was to be supplied
by sun-oriented solar panels, with backup batteries.While the propulsion
system could be operated for a midcourse correction maneuver, Mariner A
had neither an approach nor a terminal guidance system; thus, it could not
be expected to rendezvous reliably with specific celestial coordinates near
the target planet. Mariner B, the next step, would be more advanced techno-
logically, contributing to the design and development of the still more
ambitious Voyager.
Omnidirectional antenna
Ultraviolet recorder

Polarization tube

I `—Solar panels
Planet sensor I I 'Magnetomr r

IR scanner I 1 I l I High-gain antenna

Cold panels

Vidicon telescope ^`f

Radiometer antenna ^^^ Midcourse propulsion

/ Space radiators
Double hexagonal structure A ^

JPL proposal for a Centaur-powered inter-

planetary spacecraft as presented to Adminis-
trator Glennan on 8 July 1960 includes a televi-
sion camera (vidicon telescope) for capturing
images of the planets. Jet Propulsion Labora-
tory, "Planning Program Briefing," 8 July
1960. Electrostatic analyzer
 CART BEFORE HORSE
Plans for Voyager called for a 1080-kilogram spacecraft with a several-
hundred-kilogram capsule capable of surviving atmospheric entry and
descent to the planetary surface. Among the technological accomplish-
ments required before Voyager could fly in 1967 were: "(a) approach guid-
ance which will place the spacecraft in desired relation with respect to the
planet; (b) techniques for aerodynamic entry into a planetary atmosphere;
and (c) propulsion systems for the addition of the relatively large velocity
increments required by the planetary orbiters. "29 But between Mariner A
and Voyager lay the largely undefined Mariner B.
Gates and his associates looked at four basic missions to determine the
best way to bridge that technological gap. First was a proposal for a Mars fly-
by and return mission. While passing by the planet, the spacecraft would
collect photographs and other scientific information and then return to
Earth where a reentry package would be recovered, complete with developed
photographs. The Instrumentation Laboratory at the Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology had studied such a planetary mission for the Air
Force in 1958-1959, 25 and the Air Force had successfully recovered a 38-
kilogram data capsule from the Earth-orbiting Discoverer 13 on 10 August
1960, proving the recovery concept feasible. To the JPL planners, however,
such a mission was "unattractive"; the quality and quantity of data that
could be transmitted electronically to Earth from Mars was "entirely
adequate."
A second mission under consideration was a flyby with more instru-
mentation than on Mariner A. Since this project seemed repetitive, some-
thing had to be done to improve its appeal. An approach guidance system
would enable the craft to pass closer to Mars but would also increase the
demands placed on the communications and power capabilities, which in
turn would add unwanted weight. All additions to the weight of the basic
craft would subtract from the scientific payload, but tradeoffs between
different elements of the spacecraft became the norm.
A planetary orbiter was the third suggestion, but it would require a
major new element, a retromaneuver package. Once a spacecraft reaches that
point in its flight where the gravity of the target planet begins to attract it, a
retrorocket must be fired to slow its speed so that it can go into orbit. Even if
this equipment were available in time, its weight would probably increase
the total beyond the predicted capability of Atlas-Centaur. Guidance tech-
nology necessary for such an orbital mission was another uncertainty.
A lander mission, the fourth consideration, would also require
advanced propulsion and guidance technology that would not be ready by
the early 1960s. Two other problems with a lander mission were protecting
scientific instruments during entry into the Martian atmosphere and devel-
oping a communications link to operate from the Martian surface.
After studying the four missions, Gates and his colleagues made three
suggestions:
One might (a) place the main body of the spacecraft in orbit around the
planet and subsequently direct a small capsule to enter the atmosphere 37
ON MARS
and land upon the surface; (b) the main body of the spacecraft might be
directed to go by the planet and place a small capsule in orbit about the
planet; or (c) the main body of the spacecraft might be directed to fly by the
planet and send a small capsule to enter the atmosphere of the planet and
land upon its surface.
Of these, the JPL planners considered the flyby with capsule the most
promising. An orbiter-lander capsule mission was too ambitious techni-
cally, and a flyby with orbiting capsule would produce no data beyond that
obtained from a flyby. The split capsule concept was the most attractive
proposal, and it became the basis for the first missions that would employ
Mariner B spacecraft.26
While the staff at JPL had been studying Mariner B proposals,
Wernher von Braun's Army missile group based at Huntsville, Alabama,
had become part of NASA. Designated the George C. Marshall Space Flight
Center effective 1 July 1960, the new center was to oversee the development
of NASA's large launch vehicles. Colonel Seaberg subsequently reported
directly to Hans Hueter, director of the Light and Medium Vehicle Office,
as Centaur was also shifted from Air Force management to Marshall
control.
In midsummer 1960, there was considerable confidence within NASA
that Centaur could be made to work, and the Centaur Project Technical
Team requested the purchase of four more Centaur stages beyond the six
already on order. Later that year, however, Atlas-Centaur began giving the
NASA team problems. 27 During the first test of Centaur's dual engines at
Pratt & Whitney's Sycamore Canyon facility near San Diego in November, a
procedural error by test personnel led to the ignition of only one engine.
Unignited propellant from the second exploded, damaging both engines.28
Only after two more explosions in January 1961 was the cause of the faulty
ignition understood and the problem corrected.29
The explosions delayed the scheduled June test flight of Centaur until
December, and all NASA and Department of Defense projects tied to Atlas-
Centaur were also affected. The predicted payload capacity of the first
Centaur was lowered as well. On 17 January, Edgar M. Cortright, assistant
director for lunar and planetary programs, in response to the new limita-
tions, recommended that "Surveyor and Mariner B missions . . . be
reshaped to fit the expected Centaur performance but in such a way as to
have growth capability." While the design of the two spacecraft was being
scaled down to meet Centaur's reduced lift capacity, NASA Headquarters
and JPL, during the winter months of 1961, began to worry about the 1962
Mariner A mission to Venus. The revised Centaur launch schedule seemed
to rule out such a flight (table 5). Alternative missions would have to be
devised for 1962, but NASA still hoped to use Mariner A for Venus flights in
1964 and 1965, reserving Mariner B for Mars investigations.30
Meanwhile, NASA and Space Technology Laboratories examined
Able M, an Able upper stage that could be used with Atlas. Originally
38
 CART BEFORE HORSE
developed for lunar missions, Able was considered briefly in 1961 as a
backup for a Mariner A flight.
By the second week of August, it was generally recognized that Centaur
would not be ready in time for a 1962 launch to Venus. 31 Consequently,
Oran W. Nicks of headquarters and Daniel Schneiderman of JPL got
together to discuss their mutual problem. Nicks was fully informed on the
status of Centaur, and Schneiderman had a detailed knowledge of Ranger.
Together they became convinced that JPL's earlier proposal for an austere
spacecraft built on the Ranger chassis deserved another look. "As the result
of the optimism generated by Schneiderman during the discussion," Nicks
approved JPL's study of an Atlas-Agena for such a mission.32

Table 5
Centaur Launch Schedule as Modified in January 1961

Vehicle Date Mission Orbit Payload (kg)

1 Dec. 1961 Vehicle test — —

2 June 1962 Vehicle test — —
3 Oct. 1962 Vehicle test — —
4 Dec. 1962 Vehicle test 24-hr, 30° 45
5 Feb. 1963 Vehicle test 24-hr, 30° 113
6 Apr. 1963 Vehicle test 24-hr, 30° 113
7 June 1963 Vehicle test Escape Surveyor, 340
8 Aug. 1963 Vehicle test 24-hr, 30° Advent, 299
9 Sept. 1963 Spacecraft Escape Mariner, 544
10 Oct. 1963 Vehicle test 24-hr, 30° Advent, 299
11 Nov. 1963 Spacecraft Escape Surveyor, 340+
12 Dec. 1963 Vehicle test 24-hr, 30° Advent, 299
13 Feb. 1964 Mariner Venus 544
14 Feb. 1964 Mariner Venus 544
15 Mar. 1964 Advent 24-hr equatorial 227
16 Apr. 1964 Surveyor Lunar landing 952
17 May 1964 Advent 24-hr equatorial 227
18 June 1964 Surveyor Lunar landing 952
19 July 1964 Advent 24-hr equatorial 227
20 Aug. 1964 Surveyor Lunar landing 952
21 Sept. 1964 Advent 24-hr equatorial 227
22 Oct. 1964 Mariner Mars 635 (?)
23 Nov. 1964 Mariner Mars 635 (?)
24 Dec. 1964 Survevor Lunar orbit 726

As revised 17 Jan. 1961, the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle would have six test flights before a Surveyor
lunar landing was attempted in June 1963. That mission would have been followed by a DoD Advent
communications satellite launch and then a Mariner planetary flight. Planned as further tests of
Centaur, these missions would have carried scientific payloads.
SOURCE: Edgar M. Cortright to Thomas F. Dixon, "Recommendations on the Centaur Program," 17
Jan. 1961.

39
ON MARS
In its political desire to beat the Soviet Union to a planetary shot, the
United States wanted to launch probes to the planets in 1962 if at all
possible and chose Venus as the most likely target, since flights to Earth's
closest neighbor would require less powerful rockets. On 28 August 1961,
JPL proposed a 1962 Venus mission based on an Atlas-Agena launch
vehicle, using a hybrid spacecraft that combined features of JPL's lunar
Ranger and Mariner A. This proposed spacecraft, called Mariner R, could
carry about 11 kilograms of instruments. The 1962 project would not have a
significant influence on the schedule for lunar Rangers, but a reallocation
of launch vehicles would be required.33
A Successful Flyby Mission
On 30 August 1961, the NASA Office of Space Flight Development
took three actions: it approved Mariner R, canceled Mariner A, and di-
rected JPL to prepare Mariner B for a Centaur flight in 1964 to either Mars
or Venus. In less than 11 months, the lab personnel designed, developed,
procured, and modified components for, fabricated, tested, and launched
two Ranger-derived Mariner R spacecraft. Trajectory calculations, launch
operations, mission design, and ground support facilities also had to be
readied on a crash schedule as launches were set for 22 July and 27 August
1962. The first spacecraft was destroyed by the range safety officer less than
five minutes after launch when the Atlas stage became erratic. Quick
measures corrected the launch vehicle checkout procedures and the compu-
ter's guidance program, allowing the second attempt to proceed as planned.
On schedule at 2:53 a.m., Mariner R-2 rose from its pad at Cape Canaveral.
For a few moments, new guidance troubles with Atlas intimated yet another
failure, but the ground crew overcame the malfunction in time for the
separation of the Agena stage. Mariner 2 was off on a long and successful
journey to Venus.39
Success was sorely needed. The first three Ranger missions had been
outright failures, and Ranger 4 had crashed uncontrolled onto the far side
of the moon on 26 April 1962, returning no useful data. Mariner 2's
successful journey blunted the mounting criticism of the unmanned lunar
and planetary program and took some of the bite out of the NASA-JPL
investigation of Ranger shortcomings. At a 14 December Mariner 2 press
conference in Washington, the NASA administrator declared the flyby "an
outstanding first in space for this country and for the free world...."
Despite the space-race jargon, hc was correct: Mariner 2 was "the most
significant and perhaps the most spectacular of our scientific efforts to
da te. "35
Telemetered signals transmitted a large quantity of scientific and
engineering data from the Mariner spacecraft for 130 days. During that
time, the probe reported on the interplanetary environment, supplied data
on Venus as it flew past on 14 December, and relayed additional informa-
tion on outer space until radio contact was lost on 3 January. During its
40
 CART BEFORE HORSE
lifetime, Mariner provided intelligence almost continuously on magnetic
fields, cosmic dust, charged particles, and solar plasma. In addition, the
infrared radiometers scanned the surface of Venus for 42 minutes when the
spacecraft flew by at a distance of 35 000 kilometers, finding average
temperatures to be about 415°C. The extremely high temperatures and an
obscuring atmosphere did not make Venus a likely locale for extraterrestrial
life, and exobiologists began to consider the Red Planet a more desirable
target for their search.36
While Mariner 2 was readied for its flight to Venus, the Centaur team
continued to have difficulties that led to additional schedule slips. On 9
April 1962, NASA Headquarters once again revised Mariner plans. The B
mission with its soft-landing capsule was postponed until the 1964 Mars
launch opportunity, and the 1964 Venus mission became another Mariner
R flight.37
Scientific Organization and Payloads for Mars
Mariner B required the development of two kinds of experiments—
those that would be carried on the flyby bus and those that would be landed
on the planet's surface—but NASA had no general procedure for selecting
scientific experiments for its missions. In April 1960, the Space Sciences
Steering Committee was formed to bring together all the key people within
the agency who had an interest in the space sciences. Reporting directly to
Abe Silverstein, the committee, chaired by Homer Newell, recommended
which projects should be undertaken and established working relations
with outside scientists by forming a series of subcommittees. Headed by
NASA personnel, these subcommittees had members and consultants from
the scientific establishment, especially those associated with the Space
Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences. By February 1961, there
were seven discipline subcommittees—aeronomy, astronomy, bioscience,
ionospheric physics, lunar science, particles and fields, and planetary and
interplanetary science.38
Once the Space Sciences Steering Committee was in operation, Newell
had some control over the advice that was given the agency about the kinds
of missions it should fly. Thus, early in March 1961 he wrote Hugh
Odishaw of the Space Science Board asking for suggestions for Mariner B
experiments. Newell told Odishaw that present plans called for a planetary
flyby and a planetary entry capsule. The main craft would come within
11 000-16 000 kilometers of Mars. If the mission was flown without the
landing capsule, the probe could carry about 80 kilograms of scientific
instruments. If an entry package was flown, instruments weighing about 23
kilograms could be landed, but it was uncertain how much weight the flyby
half could support. Newell asked the Space Science Board to review "this
problem and suggest a list of appropriate experiments."39
Odishaw responded witli a report from several committees on 31
March. While the short notice prohibited an exhaustive reply, Odishaw
41
ON MARS
noted that Mars missions had two desirable objectives—the study of the
planet itself and the study of the interplanetary medium. Board scientists
gave priority to "photographing the planet, determining atmospheric
composition and conducting simple investigations of surface properties."
And spacecraft experiments at Hic° flyby distances should include study of
the Martian magnetic field, radiation, aurora, airglow, and the like. After
five days of briefings and discussions at JPL, the Space Science Board's
Planetary Atmospheres Study Group developed a specific list of experi-
ments for a lander mission:
Spacecraft flyby
Radiation package
Cosmic dust package
Photographic equipment (1-km resolution)
Magnetometer
Infrared spectrometer
Ultraviolet spectrometer
Capsule
Television
Temperature and pressure-measuring equipment operative dur-
ing descent
Radar altimeter
Mass spectrometer
Gas chromatograph
Odishaw added that it was "gratifying to note that the experiments planned
by JPL for the Mariner B mission followed closely those recommended in
the first interim report of the board's Committee on the Chemistry of Space
and Exploration of the Moon and Planets, which was provided to NASA on
February 1, 1959." The Space Science Board scientists, less enthusiastic
about a probe that would study only the space between Earth and Mars, did
recommend experiments for such a mission, but they clearly believed prior-
ity should be given the capsule-lander project.40
The summer of 1961 passed quickly, with planetary and unmanned
space exploration taking a backseat to the accelerated manned lunar project
Apollo. Yuri Gagarin's 12 April 1961 orbital mission galvanized American
determination as the Soviet Union once again took the lead in space. On 26
May 1961, President Kennedy urged a joint session of Congress to commit
the nation to landing and returning a manned expedition to the moon by
the end of the 1960s." Despite a sympathetic understanding of the plight of
42
 CART BEFORE HORSE
the space science community, Administrator James E. Webb, Glennan's
successor, ordered the space agency's priorities to reflect the new national
interest in reaching the moon. This change led to a reorganization of the
agency.92
In 1961, "momentous decisions on both program and administrative
matters [were] made in quick succession" at NASA, two of which left a
lasting mark on the agency, as one historian put it. "One was the decision to
strengthen NASA's general management by greatly strengthening the staff
of the Associate Administrator, the other was the decision to reorganize
NASA as a whole." The changes were effective 1 November 1961.93
Establishing an independent Office of Space Sciences under Homer
Newell's direction was the key change for the unmanned planetary pro-
gram (see chart in appendix G). Edgar Cortright became Newell's deputy,
while Oran Nicks was named director of lunar and planetary sciences.
Nick's organization included Charles P. Sonett, chief of lunar and plane-
tary sciences, and N. William Cunningham, Fred Kochendorfer, and Ben-
jamin Milwitsky, chiefs of Ranger, Mariner, and Surveyor offices. Orr E.
Reynolds became director of the Bioscience Program Office, with Freeman
H. Quimby serving as his chief of exobiology programs. Colonel D.H.
Heaton began directing the Launch Vehicle and Propulsion Programs
Office, with Commander W. Schubert and D. L. Forsythe as chiefs of the
Centaur and Agena launch vehicle offices. This team would guide the lunar
and planetary program until the next reorganization two years later.
During October and November 1961, Ford's Aeronutronic Division
began work on a preliminary design for a Mariner B landing capsule as
NASA personnel began examining tentative experiments for the spacecraft
and capsule. From 64 original proposals, 8 experiments were chosen for the
flyby bus and 10 for the capsule. 49 Changes in this payload were quick in
coming, however. On 19 February 1962, Sonett informed Nicks that a
cutback in Centaur payload weight, due to Defense Department changes
associated with its Advent satellite, forced his staff to review again the list of
proposed Mariner B experiments. Investigators had already been warned by
Newell that their proposed scientific payloads would be subject to limita-
tions placed on the overall payload by engineering constraints. "It now
appears that we will have to exercise our options to hold off some of these
people," Sonett wrote. "We intend to fund them, wherever possible, for
backup research so as not to put them out of the program entirely.""
On 4 May 1962, Newell wrote the investigators whose experiments
were being dropped. Power, telemetry, and weight considerations had
become "critical due to factors connected with booster capability and space-
craft design.... In view of these conditions, the successful entry of the
capsule into the Mars atmosphere hinges upon the restriction to very light,
simple instrumentation and direct transmission to Earth rather than by use
of a capsule-bus telemetry system." Most unfortunately, the limitations on
capsule performance would apparently confine the landed experiments "to
43
 Artist conceptions of Mariner space-
craft were shown on slides in early
1962 Office of Space Sciences brief-
ings on progress of the planetary
program. Fabrication of Mariner R
was scheduled for early 1962 com-
pletion and design of Mariner B for
mid-1962, with completed prototype
in mid-1963. Voyager design and
development was to begin in mid-
1962.

those intended to investigate the question of life and atmospheric composi-

tion." Nevertheless, NASA intended to develop a basic capsule design that
would be flexible enough to permit investigators to fly more sophisticated
experiments on subsequent missions to Mars.96
The uncertainty surrounding Centaur, both as to schedule and lift
capacity, threw plans for Mariner B into a tailspin. The 1963 Mariner B test
flight and 1964 Venus mission were canceled, and a 1964 test of the Mars
version was added:*47
P[robe]-37 Mariner R [Mariner 1 ] 1962 Venus Mission
P-38 Mariner R [Mariner 2] 1962 Venus Mission

*Because of some congressional confusion over the use of such terminology as Ranger A, Surveyor
B, Mariner R, and the like, Nicks suggested that all published NASA documents use a clearer system—
Ranger Lander, Mariner Mars (year), Surveyor Orbiter, etc. This nomenclature was adopted in mate-
rials intended for external use, but internally NASA continued to use the briefer alphabetical
designations.

44
 CART BEFORE HORSE
P-40 Mariner R 1964 Venus Mission
P-41 Mariner R 1964 Venus Mission
P-39 Mariner B 1st quarter 1964 test flight
P-70 Mariner B 1964 Mars Mission
P-71 Mariner B 1964 Mars Mission
P-72 Mariner B 2ndquarter 1965 test flight
P-73 Mariner B 1965 Venus Mission
P-74 Mariner B 1965 Venus Mission

Continued problems with Centaur forced additional adjustments to

the proposed Mariner timetable. 48 After 10 postponements of the first Atlas-
Centaur launch, NASA tried again on 8 May 1962. Fifty-six seconds after
liftoff, the vehicle exploded, and a week later the House Committee on
Science and Astronautics began hearings to examine this troubled launch
vehicle program. By late summer, the Office of Space Sciences—Nicks,
Cortright, and Newell—had decided not to rely on Centaur for a 1964
Mariner B flight to Mars. Instead, they planned to use Atlas-Centaur in 1965
to send a B-class spacecraft to Venus, if the launch vehicle was ready then.
The 1964 Mars B mission would be replaced by an Atlas-Agena-launched,
lightweight spacecraft called Mariner C.49
During the fall of 1962, NASA personnel tackled various launch vehi-
cle problems and studied their impact on the lunar and planetary probe
program. On 7 September, 28 representatives from NASA Headquarters,
Goddard Space Flight Center, and JPL met in Washington to take a new
look at the relative merits of the proposed missions for the exploration of
Mars during 1964. As they reviewed Mariners A, B, and R—their schedules,
plans, and difficulties —Oran Nicks pointed to the problems with Centaur
that had necessitated their using a spacecraft lighter than Mariner B. Wil-
liam G. Stroud, chief of the Aeronomy and Meteorology Division at God-
dard, outlined his center's proposal for a planetary mission with a 210-
kilogram spacecraft launched by an Atlas-Agena-Able. Stroud had in mind
a hard lander equipped to measure the temperature, pressure, and composi-
tion of the Martian atmosphere and to detect life. Goddard's plan called for
two launches in 1964 and three in 1965. In his turn, Robert Parks, now
JPL's planetary program director, reviewed the lab's 1964 Mars proposal to
send a 338-kilogram spacecraft launched by an Atlas-Agena on a flyby
photographic mission. Similar in concept to the Venus Mariner R mission,
the Mars flight would carry a television camera and an infrared spectrom-
eter designed to detect organ is molecules of the type produced by vegetation.
In the long sessions that followed these opening presentations, the
specialists reviewed a number of important issues. Some of the major
technical questions concerning the Goddard plan included: 1. Was it feasi-
ble to sterilize the capsule so that it would not contaminate the Martian
environment? 2. Was the single 64-meter antenna to be built at Goldstone,
45
ON MARS

California, sufficient for communications with a capsule on Mars? 3. Could

existing command and guidance systems provide the necessary accuracy
needed to land a capsule? 4. Would a single biological experiment provide
meaningful results? The JPL proposal also was scrutinized: 1. Was existing
tape recorder technology adequate for storing and relaying television pic-
ture signals to Earth? 2. Could the infrared detector and its related filters be
protected against long exposure to space environment? In studying these
questions, it became obvious that the detection of life, whether by a landed
detector or television pictures taken as the spacecraft flew past the planet,
was a predominant theme of both proposals."
Parks wrote to Nicks 13 days after their Washington meeting, "One
point about which we all seem to be sincerely convinced is the ... impor-
tance of the biology of Mars." This conviction had been reinforced from
many scientific quarters, including the 1962 Iowa Summer Study Group
sponsored by the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences.
This body enthusiastically supported the search for extraterrestrial life.
Parks noted:
Although the chances (1) that life does exist on Mars and (2) that import-
ing earth life forms would distort or contaminate the study of Mars life (if
it does exist) are both admittedly not great, it does appear quite important
that we not take undue chances in this regard. The cost of not taking this
chance is small. The only thing to be lost is a possible delay in obtaining
the information relative to t Ise basic physical information about the solar
system that can be obtained only, or most quickly, by landings on Mars.
The answers to a great many of these basic physics questions can be
learned by measurements in interplanetary space, by flyby and landing
measurements of Venus, and flyby measurements of Mars.51
Once having made clear his preference for an early flyby to Mars rather than
a lander, Parks, like others concerned over the Russian challenge, sug-
gested that NASA's Mars strategy would probably be influenced by the
competition from the USSR. He wondered if the Soviet Union was likely to
send a spacecraft to Mars that would contaminate the surface even though
the USSR had indicated that it also had plans for sterilization. If it did land
a spacecraft, was it likely to "scoop us in obtaining Mars biology data?"
Though Parks believed that the Soviet Union might well risk contaminat-
ing Mars, he (lid not believe that would j ustify NASA's taking such a chance
as well.' The state of the Soviet "scientific instruments and long range
communications is behind ours and gives us a definite advantage in making
these difficult and delicate measurements." Even if the United States did not
land an instrumented package on Mars until much later, Parks determined
that the U.S. could demonstrate its space exploration capabilities through
flybys until a safe and sufficiently large lander could be developed.
*The Soviet Union launched its first spacecraft to Mars on 1 November 1962, but after traveling
about 106 million kilometers the transmitters aboard Mars 1 fell silent.

46
 CART BEFORE HORSE
Some specific requirements had to be mct before NASA attempted
landing on Mars. In Park's view, total capSLale sterilization was the first
problem for designers at JPL. A second concern was for "well thought-out
and well-tested biological instruments (the present state of development of
biological sensing instruments for a planet is ... considerably behind the
requirement)." NASA would have to develop and thoroughly test an entry
and landing capsule capable of carrying a number of biological and atmos-
pheric experiments, in addition to the indispensable communications
equipment. An approach and guidance control system was a fourth consid-
eration. Also desirable was a communications link that used a flyby craft as
a relay. Parks clearly favored flyby spacecraft on the first mission, to help
find safe, biologically interesting landing sites for later missions. Many
technical difficulties had to be resolved before Landers could be sent to Mars
and Venus. The people at Goddard, he contended, either did not under-
stand the problem or were allowing enthusiasm to overshadow logic. 52 The
JPL-Goddard dispute would continue for months, reflecting both a differ-
ence in approach to planetary exploration and a JPL concern over the
Goddard staff's intrusion into what had been an exclusive preserve of the
California laboratory. The continued problems with Centaur ultimately
answered the flyby versus lander question.
Centaur was a genuine troublemaker for the Office of Space Sciences,
since its two major projects, Surveyor and Mariner, were structured around
it. The Centaur crisis came to a head at a mid-September 1962 meeting at the
Marshall Space Flight Center. From the very beginning, Wernher von
Braun and Marshall's top management had not favored Centaur and had
accepted the project only reluctantly. Saturn was their primary mission.
"Only a few crumbs which have fallen from the banquet table of thought
and effort at MSFC have been given to Agena and Centaur," wrote the
Agena program chief. 53 But beyond the problem of time and inadequate
resources was von Braun's basic disagreement with the design approach of
Centaur. Assigning Marshall the Centaur job had indeed been a serious
error.
In September 1962. von Braun told Newell that the best Iunar payload
he could expect with the existing Centaur design was 810 kilograms.
Projected Surveyor weights ranged from 1125 to 1260 kilograms, and sim-
ilar weight problems would exist for Mariner B. 54 Von Braun wanted to
cancel Centaur and use Saturn for Surveyor and Mariner and so recom-
mended to the Senior Council of the Office of Space Sciences in August
1962. Brian O. Sparks, JPL deputy director, presented a similar recommen-
dation to Newell on 13 September: "The performance schedule and fund-
ing problems associated with the Centaur program have finally reached the
point where it appears that the Centaur vehicle will not be able to meet the
requirements of the unmanned lunar and planetary programs of this coun-
try." 55 After reviewing all Centaur's technical faults, the team at JPL noted
that the formally approved Centaur program "is totally intolerable, as it
47
ON MARS
precludes any sensible Surveyor Project, completely obviates any timely
contribution by Surveyor to the Apollo program and forces Mariner to
continue indefinitely on Atlas-Agena with the attendant lack of confidence
to achieve even minimal objectives."
This trend toward minimum goals should be reversed, JPL urged.
"Rather than progressive reductions in spacecraft weight allowance during
the development stage, a clear margin for weight increase is needed."
Additional payload capacity could lead to enhanced spacecraft reliability
through the use of redundant systems (a lesson learned from Ranger) and
further hardware improvements, impossible with a smaller capacity launch
vehicle. Greater reliability might also reduce the total number of launches
required to achieve particular goals. Looking at all possible launch vehicle
combinations, JPL specialists concluded that the Saturn C-1 combined
with the Agena had several obvious advantages:
(a) The C-1 development program appears to be on a sound basis and reasonably
predictable. [The first Saturn C-1 test flight took place on 27 October 1961 (SA-1)
and the second (SA-2) on 25 April 1962.]
(b) Substantial performance margins above our minimum requirements can be
confidently expected.
(c) Substantial use of all stages is already programmed for other purposes.
(d) No new stage development is required.
(e) The resulting over-all funding requirements can be expected to be essentially
the same as those now expected for the Centaur-based program.56

JPL planners anticipated that a Saturn-Agena could boost an 810-

kilogram Mariner B, a significant increase over the 225-350 kilograms
proposed for Mariner C. That meant "many of the current physical and
weight constraints on these spacecraft [could] be relaxed, redundancy ...
added in key areas, and realistic mission flexibility ... incorporated" into
planetary space probes. Marshall could apparently ready the first planetary
Saturn-Agena for a 1965 launch of Mariner B to Venus; a Mariner B mission
to Mars on Saturn-Agena might also be feasible for 1966.57
NASA management in Washington—especially Homer Newell—
reacted negatively to the suggestion that Centaur be replaced with Saturn-
Agena. Instead, Newell concluded that Centaur needed a new home. At the
end of September, the project was transferred to the Lewis Research Center
in Cleveland, which had been under the direction of Abe Silverstein since
November 1961. 58 "Although the Centaur development has been fraught
with difficulties, many of them were of a management nature," Newell
suggested. He admitted that the arguments advanced in favor of Saturn
were attractive at face value, but "the development status of the Saturn was
presented with somewhat disproportionate optimism, compared to the
Centaur." Newell also believed that JPL critics were being overly optimistic
since they were counting on the successful adaptation of an untested Saturn
second stage and Agena stage "to provide an operationally suitable vehicle
on a competitive time scale with Centaur." Nor was NASA's director of
48
 CART BEFORE HORSE
space sciences convinced that Saturn would be as economical as it had been
portrayed. Newell and his associates were not ready to abandon Atlas-
Centaur for a new steed.59
A Review of Planetary Spacecraft for the 1960s
A] though Centaur's future looked brighter at Lewis where Silverstein's
enthusiasm was catching, the changes came too late for Mariner B, which
was in jeopardy by the end of 1962. The longer Centaur was delayed the less
likely it became that Mariner B would fly, especially since the next-
generation spacecraft, Voyager, was being more precisely defined with each
passing day. In December 1962, JPL informed headquarters that Mariner
B-Centaur could not be launched in 1965 and proposed launching the
mission in 1966 with Saturn-Agena. Oran Nicks wanted to continue the
spacecraft's development with Atlas-Centaur, but he, too, noted that this
would likely lead to technology that would not be used until the Voyager
program. Perhaps, he suggested, a variation of the Mariner B capsule might
be flown on the Voyager mission to Venus planned for 1967.60
More and more signs pointed to Mariner B's decline and Voyager's
ascendancy. Independent Mariner B and Voyager programs would cost too
much and, if Mariner B were flown, Voyager would surely be delayed,
something no one at NASA wanted to see. In late December 1962, when
Homer Newell asked Harry J. Goett, director of Goddard, for a plan for
developing Mariner B's capsule, he requested that his specialists also con-
sider possible Voyager applications for the hardware.61
At the outset of 1963, the proposed planetary science program consisted
of three kinds of spacecraft. The first was Mariner C, the pared-down craft
without a lander, which would be launched by Atlas-Agena, fly by Mars,
and make a series of measurements, relaying them along with television
images back to Earth. Uncertainty plagued Mariner B, the second space-
craft. It had been restructured and reoriented to take advantage of the 1966
Mars launch opportunity and, with a landing capsule, was to be launched
by either Atlas-Centaur or Saturn-Agena. Third was the more ambitious
Voyager, which was to send combination orbiter and lander spacecraft to
Venus and Mars. The most likely time for Voyager's first flight was the 1967
Venus launch window. But the planetary program was to take some twists
and turns that would alter the original plans. Mariner C, the 1964 Mars
mission, would take on a vitality and distinct direction of its own. Mariner
B would become a long-term project, transformed into a mission called
Mariner Mars 66, inextricably entwined in the evolution of Voyager. Above
all else, 1963 was to be the year in which Voyager, at least on paper, got off
the ground.62
NASA learned some valuable lessons from Mariner B. First, it had been
too ambitious for its time, representing too large a technological jump. The
1962 Venus flight and the revised 1964 mission to Mars made more sense, for
they built upon the lunar experiences of Ranger. Second, launch vehicles
49
ON MARS
would continue to make advanced planning a chancy business at best, and
launch scheduling would become nearly impossible. Atlas-Centaur would
fly successfully only near the end of 1963. Then six more flights would be
made before Centaur was considered operational and ready for the 30 May
1966 launch of Surveyor to the moon. No one within NASA had anticipated
such delays when planetary flights with Centaur were first proposed in the
early 1960s.63
Not all the Mariner B experiences had negative overtones, however.
Mariner B gave the space agency and prospective experimenters an oppor-
tunity to define the investigations that could and should be performed on
Mars, and variations of several of the experiments proposed in October 1961
would fly on later Mariners and ultimately on the Viking missions. Mariner
B also forced the early study of such basic questions as spacecraft steriliza-
tion and aerodynamic entry into planetary atmospheres. Looking toward a
1964 landing mission, NASA seriously examined these topics much earlier
than it might have otherwise, which was fortunate, because both entry and
sterilization were extremely complex. Finally, Mariner B sparked theoreti-
cal and practical design work on devices for the detection of extraterrestrial
life by scientists and engineers who were excited and challenged by the
prospective search for life on Mars.

50
 3
The Search for Martian Life Begins: 1959-1965

The search for extraterrestrial life was a direct by-product of 20th

century biochemists' quest for the origins of life on Earth. Instruments
proposed by scientists to determine if there were detectable life forms or the
organic matter necessary for such life forms to exist elsewhere in the solar
system were based on the assumption that the laws governing the evolu-
tion of life on Earth are universally applicable, as are the laws of physics.
When the Viking spacecraft was launched to Mars in 1975, they carried
three biological experiments and a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer,
instruments with an intellectual and technological history reaching back to
the early days of American space science. In fact, the development of
life-detecting devices predates the availability of both spacecraft and launch
vehicles.
As with many aspects of modern biology, the search for extraterrestrial
life begins with Charles Darwin. His classic work, On the Origin of Species
(1859), sparked considerable discussion of evolution, but it also led to
speculation over the original source of life. In the 1860s, Louis Pasteur
concluded that the spontaneous generation of microbes was not possible;
all life on Earth came from preexisting life. What was the origin of those 1 i fe
forms? The Darwinian theory led many scientists to believe that the multi-
plicity of plant and animal species had a common source. In an 1871 letter,
Darwin suggested that perhaps Earth's atmosphere, too, had evolved.
It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a
living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But
if (and oh! what a big if!) we would conceive in some warm little pond,
with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity,
etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to
undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would
be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case
before living creatures were formed.'
In his speculation, Darwin rejected the premise that Earth's environment
had always been static.

51
ON MARS
Most scientists disagreed with the theory that life on Earth had its
beginnings in a prebiotic environment, until the idea was simultaneously
revived in the 1920s by two biochemists, J. B. S. Haldane of Great Britain
and Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin of the Soviet Union. Haldane and Oparin
independently asserted that although it was very unlikely for life forms or
organic molecules to appear abiologically in an oxygen-rich atmosphere,
such compounds could have appeared millions of years ago in a very
different environment. They postulated that in a prebiotic, sterile era
organic compounds of ever-increasing complexity accumulated in the seas
and eventually by random combinations produced a living molecule. On
the nature of that prehistoric atmosphere, Haldane and Oparin disagreed.
Haldane favored a combination of ammonia, carbon dioxide, water
vapor, and little or no oxygen. Organic compounds were synthesized by
energy from ultraviolet light. Gradually the evolutionary process produced
more complex molecules capable of self-duplication. Oparin's primordial
atmosphere consisted of methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen.
According to his theory, an abundance of organic compounds in the seas,
given enough time, would permit the formation of organic molecules that
would be the foundation for yet more complex life forms. Despite their
work, most other biochemists through the 1940s insisted on attempting to
synthesize organic compounds M oxygen-rich environments. In the 1950s,
the focus shifted to the production of amino acids.
As with improved astronomical instruments, new biochemical tech-
niques, such as paper chromatography,* opened new doors. One door led to
the study of amino acids, the building blocks of protein. Biochemists
believed that amino acids might hold clues to the origin of life, since
primeval forms of life were assumedly protein-centered. Melvin Calvin
commented on the logic behind these early studies: "We had every reason to
suppose that the primitive Earth had on its surface organic molecules." If
one went further and postulated a "reducing," or oxygen-poor atmos-
phere, "most of the carbon was very largely in the form of methane or
carbon monoxide, ... the nitrogen was mostly in the form of ammonia,
there was lots of hydrogen, and oxygen was all ... in the form of water."
Given these simple molecules, was it possible to create more complex ones
in the laboratory? Calvin and several other scientists began to experiment
with reduced atmospheres containing primarily carbon compounds.'
Stanley L. Miller, while pursuing his doctoral studies at the University
of Chicago, was the first to produce amino acids in a reducing atmosphere.
Working under Harold Urey, he developed a closed-system apparatus into
which he introduced a mixture of methane, ammonia, water, and hydro-
gen. When subjected to a high-frequency spark for a week, milligram-
quantities of glycine, alanine, and alpha-amino-n-butyric acid were pro-

'The process of separating a solution of closely related compounds by allowing a solution to seep
through an absorbent paper so that each compound becomes absorbed in a separate zone.

52
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
duced. Apparently, he was on the right track. Miller reported his early
results in Science magazine in May 1953. 3 Norman Horowitz, a biologist
from the California Institute of Technology, commented: "This experi-
ment on organic synthesis in simulated primitive earth atmosphere is the
most convincing of all the experiments that have been done in this field."'
Six years later Miller and Urey reported further on the implications of
their research. The absence of hydrogen in Earth's present atmosphere was
a clue. They had begun their study assuming that cosmic dust clouds, from
which presumably the planets had been formed, contained a great excess of
hydrogen. "The planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are known
to have atmospheres of methane and ammonia," they noted, similar to
primitive Earth's atmosphere. Given the lower temperatures and higher
gravitational fields of these outer planets, time had not been sufficient for
the excess hydrogen to escape. Miller and Urey held that Earth and the inner
planets had "also started out with reducing atmospheres and that these
atmospheres became oxydizing, due to the escape of hydrogen." Their
production of amino acids in the Iaboratory indicated that before the
development of an oxygen-rich atmosphere (the result of biological activ-
ity), the primitive environment was conducive to the formation of many
different complex organic compounds. As soon as oxygen began to replace
the hydrogen, experiments indicated that the spontaneous production of
those compounds (amino acids) ceased.5
Miller's experience in the laboratory spurred further research, and with
it speculation reappeared about the presence of life on other planets. As
Miller and Urey pointed out in 1959, living matter does not require oxygen
to grow and flourish; it was "possible for life to exist on the earth and grow
actively at temperatures ranging from 0°C, or perhaps a little lower, to
about 70°C.... Only Mars, Earth, and Venus conform to the general
requirements so far as temperatures are concerned. "6 Because of the opacity
of the heavy clouds on Venus, little could be deduced about the planet.
Mars, on the other hand, had a clear atmosphere. Seasonal changes observed
on the Martian surface suggested the possibility of vegetation.
The Red Planet became very important to the scientists searching for
the origins of earthly forms of life. "If we find life on Mars, for example, and
if we find that it is very similar to life on earth yet arose independently of
terrestrial life, then we will be more convinced that our theories are right."
Miller went on to argue:
The atmosphere of Mars would have been reducing when this planet
was first formed, and the same organic compounds would have been
synthesized in its atmosphere. Provided there were sufficient time and
appropriate conditions of temperature, it seems likely that life arose on
this planet. This is one of the important reasons for the tremendous
interest in finding out if living organisms are on Mars and why most of all
we want to examine these organisms. We want to examine them in
biochemical detail, and this would involve bringing a sample back to the
53
ON MARS
earth. What are the basic components of these organisms? Do they have
proteins, nucleic acids, sugar? If they are completely different, then our
theories about the primitive earth and the results of this experiment seem
not at all convincing. If Martian organisms are identical to the earth's
organisms in basic components, then there seems to be the possibility that
some cross-contamination occurred between the earth and Mars. But, if
Martian organisms have small but significant differences, then it would
seem that theirs was probably an independent evolution, under the kind
of conditions that we envision as those of the primitive earth.'

hit 1959, Miller and Urey concluded, "Surely one of the most marvelous feats
of the 20th-century would be the firm proof that life exists on another
planet." They could have been addressing NASA when they added, "All the
projected space flights and the high costs of such developments would be
fully justified if they were able to establish the existence of life on either
Mars or Venus. "8
Especially significant for the search for extraterrestrial life were devel-
opments in the field of comparative biochemistry. Nobel-Prize-winning
geneticist Joshua Lederberg told a Stockholm audience in the spring of
1959 that "comparative biochemistry has consummated the unification of
biology revitalized by Darwin one hundred years ago." For many years,
Lederberg noted, there had been a "pedagogic cleavage of academic biology
from medical education." Lederberg cited two other specialists in the field
in making his point: "Since Pasteur's startling discoveries of the important
role played by microbes in human affairs, microbiology as a science has
always suffered from its eminent practical applications. By far the majority
of the microbiological studies were undertaken to answer questions con-
nected with the well-being of mankind." By the late 1950s, however,
research into the chemical and genetic aspects of the microbiological world
led medical and biological investigators to realize that their work had much
in common. "Throughout the living world we see a common set of struc-
tural units—amino acids, coenzymes, nucleins, carbohydrates and so forth—
from which every organism builds itself. The same holds for the fundamen-
tal processes of biosynthesis and of energy metabolism. " 9 This global
perspective on the underlying unity of life on Earth, together with the
common chemical origin of the planets, made it not unreasonable to
Post elate the possibility of life on other bodies in the solar system. Further-
more, the discovery of life elsewhere would give biological theory a long-
sought universality. The origin of life studies and the work in comparative
biochemistry formed the intellectual foundation that permitted respectable
scientists to discuss the possible existence of extraterrestrial life.

THE RISE OF EXOBIOLOGY AS A DISCIPLINE

As earth-bound biologists began to consider the existence—past or
present—of life forms on other planets, two themes developed, detection

54
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
and protection. How do you detect something whose nature and existence
are unknown? How do you protect one planet from contamination by the
biota of another? Detection and protection of life in the solar system were
the subjects of considerable debate and investigation during the decade
(1959-1968) that preceded the selection of biology experiments for Viking.
Concern about possible contamination of other bodies by terrestrial orga-
nisms that might stow away aboard space probes got an impetus with the
launch of Sputnik in 1957.
Planetary Protection
Josh Lederberg was one of the first scientists to express publicly his
worries about improperly sterilized spacecraft being the source of cosmic
pollution. In 1961, he noted, "a corollary of interplanetary communication
is the artificial dissemination of terrestrial life to new habitats. " 10 His
interest in planetary protection went back three years to the orbiting of
Sputnik 1.
On his way back to the United States from a year as a Fulbright lecturer
in Melbourne, Australia, Lederberg stopped to visit for a few days with
Haldane, who was teaching in Calcutta. Lederberg recorded his recolIec-
tions of a dinner party given on 6 November 1957, an evening on which
another Soviet space spectacular seemed likely in celebration of the 40th
anniversary of the Russian Revolution.
The night of our arrival was the occasion of a lunar eclipse which was
regarded as an important religious festival in Calcutta. It was also the
occasion for a good deal of dinner table conversation.... Many members
of the group were quite strongly pro-Soviet in their inclinations and they
were almost gleeful at the prospect that the Soviet Union would follow up
its October 9t h triumph with another launch, perhaps even directed at the
moon during the lunar eclipse. So, [we] even stayed up to see if there
would be such a demonstration although we were well aware of the
physical difficulties of arranging for something that could be visible from
earth.* That occasion led me to think very sharply about the extent to
which political motives would outweigh scientific ones in the further
development of the space program .... 11
When he returned to the Univeristy of Wisconsin where he was chair-
man of the medical genetics department, Lederberg circulated among the
scientific community several editions of a memorandum expressing his
concern over lunar and planetary contamination. His thoughts were subse-
quently formulated in a paper presented in May 1958 at the Satellite-Life
Sciences Symposium, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences,-the

*Lonically, Jet Propulsion Laboratory proposed detonation of an atomic bomb on the lunar
surface in response to the orbiting of Sputnik. William H. Pickering to Lee A. buBridge, with summary
of Red Socks proposal, 25 Oct. 1957, JPLHF 2-581.

55
ON MARS
American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the National Science Foun-
dation, and in an article for Science.12
At the National Academy of Sciences, Lederberg's interest further
stimulated concern over possible biological contamination in outer space.
The Academy noted that improperly sterilized spacecraft might "com-
promise and make impossible forever after critical scientific experiments."
Resolutions adopted in February 1958 by the Academy Council urged
scientists "to plan lunar and planetary studies with great care" and called
for the International Council of Scientific Unions "to encourage and assist
the evaluation of such contamination and the development of means for its
prevention." The Academy further intended to participate in the planning
of "lunar or planetary experiments ... so as to prevent contamination of
celestial objects in a way that would impair the unique ... scientific
opportunities. "13
An ad hoc Committee on Contamination by Extraterrestrial Explora-
tion, formed by the International Council of Scientific Unions, met in May
1958 to draw up a code of conduct that would permit lunar and planetary
exploration but at the same time prevent contamination. After being circu-
lated throughout the scientific community, the proposed standards were
adopted in October 1958. During the remaining months of 1958 and
throughout 1959, the International Council of Scientific Unions' Commit-
tee on Space Research (COSPAR) and the U.S. Space Science Board con-
tinued to develop guidelines for the sterilization of space probes.14
The Space Science Board also expanded its activities into the field of
life sciences in 1959 as the board members became interested in experiments
that would investigate "the viability of terrestrial life forms under extrater-
restrial conditions" and the implications of contamination.]-, The group's
ad hoc committee on the subject, chaired by Lederberg, concluded that
sterilization was technically feasible and that effective procedures could be
developed, provided sufficient emphasis was given the problem. Toward
that end, the Space Science Board sent suggestions to NASA and the
Advanced Research Projects Agency on 14 September 1959. NASA Adminis-
trator Glennan assured the Space Science Board that the space agency had
"adopted the general policy of sterilizing, to the extent technically feasible,
all space probes intended to pass in the near vicinity of or impact upon the
moon or planets." 16 Moveover, Abe Silverstein requested that JPL, God-
dard Space Flight Center, and Space Technology Laboratories begin coor-
dinated work on sterilization techniques.
While NASA Headquarters, its field centers, and contractors worked
toward protecting the moon and planets from terrestrial microorganisms,
the agency was studying more closely its participation in the life sciences."
To determine NASA's role in that field, Glennan established an ad hoc
Bioscience Advisory Committee in July 1959. Chaired by Seymour S. Kety
of the Public Health Service, the advisory board* reported 25 January 1960
*other members included W. o. Fenn, D. R. Goddard, D. G. Marquis, R. S. Morison, C. T. Randt,
and C. A. Tobias.
56
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
that life sciences had and would continue to have an important place in the
American space program. The objectives of space research in this area were
twofold—"(1) investigations of the effects of extraterrestrial environments
on living organisms including the search for extraterrestrial life; (2) scien-
tific and technologic advances related to manned space flight and explora-
tion." 18 Kety and his colleagues also noted that existing space-related life-
science activities were predominantly in applied medicine and applied
biology. These activities were important, but support of more basic
research in the biological, medical, and behavioral sciences was more
crucial.
Besides supporting an Office of Life Sciences at NASA and arguing
vigorously for the complete independence of life-science research from the
military, the committee urged the space agency to search for extraterrestrial
life on Mars. Kety and his colleagues recognized that a basic study of
extraterrestrial environments would further man's understanding of the
fundamental laws of nature. The origin of life and the possibility of its
presence elsewhere in the universe were indeed challenging issues.
For the first time in history, partial answers to these questions are within
reach. Limited knowledge acquired over the past century concerning
atmospheric and climatic conditions on other planets, the topographical
and seasonal variety in color of the surface of Mars, the spectroscopic
similarities ... have suggested the presence of extraterrestrial environ-
ments suitable for life and permitted the formulation of hypotheses for the
existence there of some forms of life at present or in the past.
The Kety committee believed that within the foreseeable future these
hypotheses might be tested, indirectly at first by astronomical observations
and by samplings taken mechanically from other planets, and finally by direct
human exploration. The discovery of extraterrestrial life, or its absence,
"will have important implications toward an ultimate understanding of
biological phenomena." 19 Although these specialists believed that biologi-
cal studies would "not be complete until the scientist himself is able to
make meticulous investigations on the spot," they realized that manned
missions to Mars belonged to the distant future.
As NASA went about establishing its Office of Life Sciences in the
spring of 1960, the agency found itself with a 10-year plan that called for
planetary missions in 1962 and 1964 and a recommendation from the
Bioscience Advisory Committee to search for life. Given the scientific
interest in Mars and the apparent feasibility of sending probes to that planet
by the mid-1960s, it would have been difficult to argue against the idea. In
August 1960, NASA authorized JPL to study spacecraft concepts for a
mission to the Red Planet, a mission that would land a capsule on the
surface and initiate the search for life beyond Earth. Although the Kety
committee in 1959 and the Space Science Board's summer study at Iowa
State University in 1962 both called for the biological investigation of Mars,
a 1964 summer study sponsored by NASA and the Space Science Board was a
57
ON MARS

further step in articulating the essential issues for exobiology as a field of

inquiry.
1964 Summer Study
Professional biological interest in the search for life elsewhere in the
universe had been growing for at least half a dozen years before the 1964
Summer Study gave exobiology the intellectual respectability needed to
draw bright young scientists to the field. The 'old-tirners"—Lederberg,
Colin Pittendrigh, and Wolf Vishmac, in their 30s and 40s—all had sub-
stantial and estimable careers in biology behind them before they launched
into their quest for biota on Mars. Commenting on his early years in
exobiology, Lederberg noted that his Nobel Prize for work on the genetics
of bacteria had given him professional stability, which made it possible for
him "to stay in a non-reputable game. Not disreputable, mind you, but
non-reputable. It might have been very, very difficult otherwise and it
would [have been] very hard for a capable young scientist who's had a lot of
risks to take in his career to hitch it to something as uncertain as exobiol-
ogy." 20 Gerald A. Soffen's experience is an example of the personal t urmoil
that could result from wishing to pursue the field of exobiology.
Jerry Soffen had begun his scientific career as a biologist. After earning
a zoology undergraduate degree at the University of California in 1949,
Soffen went on to study biology at the University of Southern California.
Two books influenced the course of his subsequent career. One was A. I.
Oparin's The Origin of Life. Soffen believed that Oparin was addressing
himself to genesis—the origins of life, "the origins of me." Oparin's book
started Soffen thinking about the beginnings of life, but Harold F. Blum's
Time's Arrow and Evolution was even more influential. Blum's concept
was simple and elegant—evolution conformed to the second law of ther-
modynamics. The universe's supply of energy is slowly diminishing, and
all biological forms must adapt to lower, less satisfactory energy sources.
Simple organisms present in a more primitive age when the oceans
supplied them with a very rich nutrient broth had to develop more special-
ized and complex mechanisms for gathering energy (nutrients) as the ocean
environment became less rich. Evolution is not a random process, since
organisms must make orderly changes to survive in a changing world. This
process leads to more complex, not simpler, organisms. Furthermore,
organic evolution on Earth must be viewed as but a small part of the
evolution of the entire universe.21
Soffen was so overwhelmed by the philosophical implications of
Blum's work that he went to Princeton to do his doctoral work under Blum.
During his doctoral studies, Soffen heard Stanley Miller summarize his
investigations into the origins of life on Earth. As were many of his con-
temporaries, Soffen was taken by the brilliance and simplicity of Miller's
theory. But the crucial factor for Soffen was the dawn of the era of space-
flight. Men could now reasonably talk of exploring the planets, and the

58
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
search for life on other worlds was no longer just a dream. Soffen's interest
in space exploration and the search for life on Mars brought him to another
crossroads in his career while he was doing postdoctoral work at the New
York State University School of Medicine in 1960.
Would Soffen pursue a safe, respectable career in biology studying
mollusks, or would he gamble and undertake the study of exobiology, a new
field not accepted as legitimate by many scientists? Soffen did not have fame
or a Nobel Prize, as did Josh Lederberg, to give him academic security, and
many professionals warned him against entering the new discipline. One
physicist, Leo Szilard, told Soffen he was the wrong person from whom to
seek advice. Instead, Soffen must ask himself what he wanted from life; no
one else could decide the best course for him to follow. Soffen made Ills
choice in 1961 when he joined the staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
and he spent the next eight years managing the development of biological
instruments, including exobiological detectors for spacecraft. 22 A wish to
counter some of the professional risks associated with committing a career
to exobiology was one of the reasons NASA convened the 1964 Summer
Study at Stanford University.
After the usual staff work by Orr Reynold's Bioscience Programs
Division, NASA got the summer study proposal moving by sending, in
February 1964 over Homer Newell's signature, a letter to Chairman Harry
Hess of the Space Science Board. Newell reminded Hess that "one of the
prime assignments" of the space agency was "the search for extraterrestrial
life," and he noted that the report of the Iowa City Summer Study of 1962
also described this undertaking as "the most exciting, challenging, and
profound issue not only of the century but of the whole naturalistic move-
ment." 23 There were those within and without the space science community
who would question that priority, but even the most skeptical admitted that
the discovery of life on a distant planet would have scientific, sociological,
and theological implications of the first magnitude.24
Newell's letter set in motion a series of meetings between NASA and
Space Science Board staff members. By mid-April, the board had readied its
proposal for a summer study. Dean Colin Pittendrigh, professor of biology
at Princeton, and Joshua Lederberg were appointed cochairmen of the
study, and a distinguished group of scientists were named to the steering
committee and the working group of participants for the June discussions
(of the 37 persons who made up the core of the 1964 Summer Study, 9 would
become key figures in the Viking Project). The summer meetings provided
a much-needed forum where scientists could advise NASA as to what
research they wanted the agency to support.
Some, Lederberg among them, had begun to worry about relations
between the Space Science Board and NASA. Such sessions as the one in
1964 at Stanford were important decision-making exercises. But who would
participate in such studies other than the interested and the enthusiastic, he
mused? Thus, he viewed their reports as basically reputable, authoritative,

59
ON MARS
and responsible endorsements, but also biased. While the views expressed
that summer were generally those of proponents, the fact that they had been
made publicly did achieve at least two things. First, the thinking of the
participants who proposed a search for life on Mars had been sharpened,
since their ideas were to be exposed to the critical evaluation of the larger
scientific community. That is, those ideas became explicit targets for critical
discussion. Second, the proposals had to be advanced in language that
would permit broad discussion by legislators and laymen, as well. The
study permitted NASA to discover how much scientific interest and support
existed for the search for Martian life and to obtain the endorsement of the
specialists for what the agency's advance planners wanted to do. Once a
report with the Space Science Board-National Academy of Sciences impri-
matur appeared, the space agency could move ahead.25
Those who participated in the 1964 Summer Study were believers and
enthusiasts. Basic to their inquiries was a wish to know if life on Earth was
unique. They could not prejudge the likelihood of life on other planets.
While a speculation that it might exist was a relatively reasonable one, the
biological community had no firm basis for assuming that other planets
would be either fertile or barren. According to the 1964 summer conferees,
"At stake in this uncertainty is nothing less than knowledge of our place in
nature. It is the major reason why the sudden opportunity to explore a
neighboring planet for life is so immensely important. 26
Mars was a scientifically likely abode for life, the most Earthlike of all
the planets. Although the Martian year was 687 days, the length of the day
was "curiously similar to that of Earth, a fact that to a considerable degree
ameliorates an otherwise very severe environment." The Red Planet had
retained a tenuous atmosphere with surface pressures variously estimated
from 10 to 80 millibars; the gaseous composition of that atmosphere was
still a mystery in 1964. But scientists had concluded that oxygen was
virtually nonexistent: "Oxygen has been sought but not detected; the sensi-
tivity of measurement implies a proportion not greater than 0.1 per cent by
volume." Water was also scarce. Water vapor had been measured spectro-
scopically with only traces detected in the atmosphere.
Table 6
Physical Properties, Mars and Earth (1 964)

Property Earth Mars

Atmospheric pressure: 1000 millibars 10-80 millibars

Gaseous composition: oxygen 20.00% <00, I %
carbon dioxide .03% 5-30%
nitrogen 78.00% 60-95%
Water vapor: 3 g cm' 2x 10-Y g cm ='

60
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
On Mars, surface temperatures overlapped the range on Earth. At some
latitudes, daily highs of +30°C had been measured, and ranges of 100°
within a 24-hour period were not unknown .21
But knowledge of the Martian surface had not progressed much beyond
Lowell's observations at the beginning of the century. There was general
agreement that the polar caps were frozen, but whether it was water or
carbon dioxide was still a matter "of some controversy." Nor was there any
understanding of a transport mechanism that could account for the sea-
sonal alterations of the poles. "Our knowledge of what lies between the
polar caps is limited to the distinction between the so-called `dark' and
`bright' areas and their seasonal changes." The bright areas were generally
believed to be deserts, with their "orange-ochre," or buff, appearance. The
green color attributed to the darker regions was likely an optical illusion
due to the contrast with the bright regions. Of biological interest were the
seasonal changes in the dark areas. As was noted in the 1964 summer session
report:
In several respects they exhibit the kind of seasonal change one would
expect were they due to the presence of organisms absent in the "bright"
(desert) areas. In spring, the recession of the ice cap is accomplished by
development of a dark collar at its border, and as the spring advances a
wave of darkening proceeds through the dark areas toward the equator
and, in fact, overshoots it 20° into the opposite hemisphere.28
The authors of Biology and the Exploration of Mars were quick to point
out that the seasonal changes did not require the presence of living orga-
nisms. "Indeed. the question is whether the Martian environment could
support life at all; and further, whether its history would have permitted the
indigenous origin of life." Those were clearly two different questions.
One of the "more rewarding exercises" the summer study participants
engaged in was the "challenge to construct a Martian ecology assuming the
most adverse conditions indicated by present knowledge." That task posed
no insuperable problems. Life forms could be conceived to exist with little
or no oxygen. Some terrestrial organisms can survive freeze-thaw cycles of
+30°C to -70°C. Others cope well with very low humidity, deriving their
water supply metabolically. The intense ultraviolet radiation at the surface
of Mars did not seem to be an insurmountable problem either, as some
members of the study believed that organisms might exploit that radiation
as an energy source. "The history of our own planet provides plenty of
evidence that, once attained, living organization is capable of evolving
adjustments to very extreme environments."29
Does life in fact exist on Mars?—this was a question of a different sort.
That life forms could subsist on the planet was no kind of proof that life had
actually emerged there. But the members of the study held that, "Given all
the evidence presently available, we believe it entirely reasonable that Mars

61
ON MARS
is inhabited with living organisms and that life independently originated
t here. However, it should be clearly recognized that our conclusion that the
biological exploration of Mars will be a rewarding venture does not depend
upon the hypothesis of Martian life." Two essential scientific questions
should not be prejudged:

a. Is terrestrial life unique? The discovery of Martian life, whether extant

or extinct, would provide an unequivocal answer.
b. What is the geochemical (and geophysical) history of an Earth-like
planet undisturbed by living organisms? If we discover that Mars is sterile
we may.find answers to this alternative and highly significant question.30

Scientific Aims of Martian Exploration

Having established that Mars was a worthy object of study, the summer
study scholars addressed the precise aims of an investigation. "We approach
the prospect of Martian exploration as evolutionary biologists." Whereas
the emergence of organisms "was a chapter in the natural history of the
Earth's surface," these scientists sought to test the generalized hypothesis
that the evolution of life "is a probable event in the evolution of all
planetary crusts that resemble" the Earth. Thus, they conceived the overal I
exploration of Mars "as a systematic study of the evolution of the Martian
surface and atmosphere [italics in original text throughout unless noted
otherwise]." Their aims in the summary were:

(1) determination of the physical and chemical conditions of the Martian

surface as a potential environment for life,
(2) determination whether life is or has been present on Mars,
(3) determination of the characteristics of that life, if present, and
(4) investigation of the pattern of chemical evolution without life.3'

As biologists, they had as "much interest as the planetary astronomers in a

thorough study of the meteorology, geochemistry, geophysics and topog-
raphy of Mars." Whatever the ultimate outcome of the search for life, its full
meaning would be understood only within the broader context.
Four basic avenues of approach were suggested for the exploration of
Mars, with the first three tasks ultimately leading to the fourth:
(a) laboratory work needed to develop techniques for planetary investiga-
tions and the knowledge needed to interpret their findings;
(b) Earth-bound astronomical studies of Mars;
(c) the use of spacecraft for the remote investigation of Mars; and
(d) a direct study of the Martian surface by landing missions.12

62
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS

But by 1964, especially with the difficulties in planning Mariner B, it was

apparent to all that defining lander payloads was a "complex and demand-
ing task."
The planners needed more information about the structure of the Red
Planet's atmosphere. Would parachutes work? Would retrorockets be
necessary? They hoped Mariner 3 and 4, scheduled for launch in November
1964, would provide some answers on which spacecraft designers could base
their plans. But even if complete knowledge for safely landing an instru-
mented package existed, the "principal design difficulty would remain: it
concerns the problem of life detection. What minimal set of assays will
permit us to detect Martian life if it does exist? A debate on this question for
the past several years has yielded a variety of competing approaches." Each
alternative was directed to monitoring some manifestation of life according
to cues taken from terrestrial biology. An examination of life-detection
concepts as they had evolved by 1964 provides an understanding of the
problems facing the exobiologists, as well as the implied "Earth chauvin-
isms "33 (a term popularized by Carl Sagan to describe the tendency to
assume that living beings anywhere would be similar to those on Earth).
The very first grant NASA made in the area of biological science was to
Wolf Vishniac for $4485 to develop "a prototype instrument for the remote
detection of microorganisms on other planets." This money, awarded in
March 1959 for work on what became known as Wolf Trap, initiated
research in the field of life detection. Vishniac and his colleagues realized
immediately that they faced a difficult task.34
Wolf Vladimir Vishniac was one of the pioneers in the search for
extraterrestrial life. Born in Berlin in 1922, the son of Latvian parents who
had fled the chaos of the Russian civil war, he was an associate professor of
microbiology at the Yale University School of Medicine when he joined 18
other scientists'* 19-20 December 1958 at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology to discuss the problems of detecting life on other planets and
the possibility of contaminating those distant environments. The group,
which took the name Panel on Extraterrestrial Life (or EASTEX, to distin-
guish it from a West Coast group led by Lederberg and called WESTEX,
which met during 1959 and 1960 at Stanford University and JPL), was
jointly sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research
Council and the Armed Forces Committee on Bioastronautics. Melvin
Calvin, professor of chemistry at the University of California at Berkeley,
and Vishniac served as chairman and vice-chairman of EASTEX through
1961. At that first meeting in December 1958, one of the basic questions
*Dean Cowie, Carnegie Institute of Washington; Richard Davies, JPL; George A. Derbyshire,
Space Science Board; Paul M. Doty, Thomas Gold, W. R. Sistrom, and Fred L. Whipple, Harvard; H.
Keffer Hartline, Rockefeller Institute; Martin Kamen, University of California, San Diego; Cyrus
Levinthal, Bruno B. Rossi, and A. Luria, MIT; E. F. MacNichol, Johns Hopkins; Stanley Miller,
Columbia; John W. Townsend, Jr., NASA; Bruce H. Billings, Baird-Atomic, Inc.; Herbert Freeman,
Servo-Mechanisms Laboratory; and Richard S. Young, Army Ordnance Missile Command.

63
ON MARS
addressed by the physicists and biologists was what kinds of life forms they
might reasonably expect to find away from their own planet.35
Four basic hypotheses were advanced as to the nature of that life. One
might find (1) living things that were essentially the same as those found on
Earth; (2) life forms with the same chemistry but with peculiarities result-
ing from evolution in a different environment—both at the present and in
the past—(3) organisms with a chemical base other than carbon (for exam-
ple silicon, however unlikely that appeared in the "carbon chauvinistic"
understanding of chemistry); or (4) very primitive life forms representing
the initial steps along the evolutionary path. Two other distinct possibili-
ties also existed—that life had evolved only on Earth and all the other
planets were sterile, or that life had once flourished, or at least begun, on
other planets only to succumb to environmental factors that precluded
successful adaptation and evolution. In December 1958, few of the scientists
gathered in Cambridge would have fervently backed one of these six possi-
bilities over any other.
How does a scientist detect that which he is uncertain exists and whose
form he is unsure of? Vishniac and his colleagues had to make some basic
assumptions, and one of them was that life elsewhere would have a carbon
base. Early in the 1960s, Vishniac in an interview said that scientists were
"not acquainted with any forms of life except those that are carbon-based. It
may be that carbon is indeed the only useful element that provides the
structural basis for life, because of its chemical versatility." There was the
possibility that other elements or combinations of elements might take oil
similar functions. "For instance, silicon-based life has been suggested—but
silicon will not make as large and as stable compounds as will carbon.
Compounds must be stable enough to ... serve as structural units and to
preserve some kind of continuity from generation to generation." Further-
more, a life-base compound must be reactive enough to permit metabolism
to take place. "Carbon is particularly suited for that because it combines
with itself, and with many other elements, perhaps to a greater extent than
does any other element." Vishniac and others concluded that the simplest
assumption was to say that life "always will be based on carbon. It may turn
out that we are deluding ourselves—that we are simply limited in our
imagination because of our limited experience." That was the constant
intriguing possibility inherent in space research.36
Accepting the assumption regarding carbon, the exobiologists were
still faced with defining life forms. What is life? What is a living thing?
Three NASA authors who sought to analyze the life-detection problem
wrote:
The difficulties associated with assigning an unequivocal definition to
the phenomenon of life lead one to utilize various approaches to a better
understanding of the living state. From the standpoint of the problem of
the detection of life on extraterrestrial bodies, it may be pertinent to list
and scrutinize closely the criteria most commonly attributed to living
64
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
systems. Thus the initial task of the exobiologist is to describe life in such
a manner that tests can be devised that can demonstrate, unequivocally,
the existence of extraterrestrial life.37

These three scientists suggested five accepted manifestations of life: growth,

movement, irritability, reproduction, and metabolism. Taken together,
they provided an indication of living organisms, but the early students of
exobiology had to determine which of these manifestations were primary to
their search for living forms on other planets, "especially if those forms are
exclusively microbes, as is suspected by some to be the case for Mars." A
second factor to consider was the kind of detectors that might be sent to the
planets. Given weight and size limitations, detectors that would test for the
existence of microbiological life forms seemed more realistic than bulkier
hardware created to locate larger organisms.38
When the exobiologists began developing life detectors, they built on
the foundation provided by modern genetic theory, especially that relating
to the cell as a living system. During the 1950s had emerged the revolution-
ary concept that the storage and transfer of basic biological information
took place within the cell. A cell was "visualized as a society of macromol-
ecules, bound together by a complex system of communication regulating
both their synthesis and their activity." 39 If the cell could store and transmit
biological information, it had to be able to reproduce and metabolize.
Reproduction is the process which maintains biological information by its
constant renewal. Metabolism has been characterized as "the fire that
genetic material keeps going outside itself, to get the other material to work
for it, in the service of its own distinctive goal: its own survival and
replication. " 10 Therefore, the minimum requirements of life can be repre-
sented as an interdependence among macromolecules, metabolism, and
reproduction.
The exobiologists examined each of the three attributes to determine
its relevance to the problem of detecting life. Many scientists working with
Earth-bound experiments assigned top priority to reproduction. While there
was certainly no argument that 1 ife could not exist very long without it, the
exobiologist found it a difficult phenomenon on which to base an extrater-
restrial experiment. It is a discontinuous process and "the reproductive rate
varies enormously from species to species and, depending on environmen-
tal conditions, often within the species." Even at the macromolecular level,
reproduction (replication) is often discontinuous in many life forms. With
all the factors known to complicate observations of the reproduction of life
on Earth, the detection of reproduction of life "in an exotic situation could
be extremely difficult.""
Lederberg and others had proposed visual observations on Mars and
Venus for microscopic and macroscopic life. But as with observations of
reproduction, a living organism might not provide the scientist with
motion or other visible clues during the short life span of an extraterrestrial
experiment. The authors of the summer study report concluded that, as
65
ON MARS
attractive as the idea of visual observation was, "we can easily imagine
circumstances in which this type of observation would be inconclusive. ­ 12
A more reliable basis was needed.
Metabolism appeared the most promising attribute on which to base
life-detection experiments, primarily because it was a continuous process.
"Even life forms that are considered to be in a highly inactive state (e.g.,
bacterial spores and plant seeds) carry on measurable, albeit extremely low,
rates of metabolism." Metabolism also could be measured in several ways
(changes in pH or temperature, the evolution of gases). But after "lengthy
discussions and deep deliberation," the exobiological community agreed
that "a truly meaningful life detection program must be based on [several]
fundamental atu ibutes of life. 1143 Scientists would not be convinced by
negative answers from any single life detector. They wanted some direct
visual inspection by television and a program that would land an auto-
mated biological laboratory (ABL). While not fully defined in 1964, the
ABL would permit a number of chemical analyses and a variety of biologi-
cal experiments. Plans included an onboard computer by which a variety of
programmed assay sequences could be initiated, contingent on results of
prior steps, and a sustained discourse between the computer and investiga-
tors on Earth. By remote control of their mechanical surrogate, t11e scien-
tists on Earth could carry out investigations much as they would in their
terrestrial laboratories. It was "in short an ambitious concept," but "realiz-
able with current technology. "44
Mechanisms for Detecting Life on Mars
There was no shortage of life-detection concepts.'-' Speaking to this
point at the beginning of the summer study on 15 June 1964, Lederberg
compared the Mars life-search to the work that he and his colleagues
normally did in their laboratories. In their everyday biochemical experi-
ments, they were limited by approaches and hardware. Similarly, in the
proposed exobiological studies, they needed to focus on the target and think
about the best collective experiments for some years hence. The basic
problem would come to deciding which instruments to develop. Scientists
could quickly think of many experiments that might be done. 46 Once the
redundant ideas were eliminated, a reasonable number of practical-looking
concepts remained, among which were several that NASA had supported
over the past several years. But translation of concepts into hardware was a
challenge. In May 1963, NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,
California, had been assigned the task of evaluating the many exobiology
experiments. Ames had been serving as NASA's "in-house" life science
research laboratory since the arrival of Richard S. Young in 1960, and in
1962 an Exobiology Division was established there. Hence, scientists at
Ames were familiar with the issues the exobiologists were addressing their
experiments to.97

66
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS

Mars Surface Television. "The first thing man generally does in a new
and strange environment is to look around." That was exactly what scien-
tists wanted to do through one of the large Voyager-class landers, using
television to view the topography immediately surrounding the craft.
"There may be both geologic and biological surprises in the land-
scape...." Television pictures would also permit the mission team to
check out and monitor the condition of the lander. And not to be overlooked
was the public-relations value of pictures as scientists and laymen alike
shared a closeup view of Martian scenery .18
Vidicon Microscopes. A more sophisticated use of television cameras
was the proposed microscope-television combination. Based on the sugges-
tion of Joshua Lederberg, this idea was being pursued at his Instrument
Research Laboratory at Stanford and in Gerald Soffen's facility at the Jet
Propulsion Lab. "The detection of life by looking for it sounds elementary;
however, this seemingly simple technique is extremely complex and
involves numerous technical problems." Stanford and JPL scientists and
instrument-makers were confronted by the difficulty and uncertainty in
recognition and identification of microorganisms by microscope. 49 Be-
yond that, the large information return required to produce pictures of
suitable quality appeared to be beyond computer capabilities projected for
Mariner 1966. Although the Ames life-detection experiments team rejected
the vidicon microscope for the Mariner flight, members of the
summer study believed it had sufficient merit to be considered for a 1971
mission like Voyager.50
Wolf Trap. Wolf Vishniac originally developed this device in 1958-
1960 to demonstrate the feasibility of automatic remote detection of the
growth of microorganisms. He wanted to prove that such an instrument
could be built, and having once committed himself to the experiment he
seemed unable to set it aside for other ideas that might have been more
fruitful. Defending this first exobiological instrument became part of
Vishniac's promotional work on behalf of the Mars biology program.51
In a 1960 issue of Aerospace Medicine, Vishniac explained that
microorganisms "are responsible for the major amount of turnover of
matter on earth and ... life of the higher plants and animals is inconceiv-
able in [their] absence. 1152 The object of Wolf Trap was the growth of
Martian microbes, if they existed and could be trapped. At the heart of the in-
strument was a growth chamber with an acidity (pH) detector and light
sensor; the former would sense the changes in acidity that almost inevitably
accompany the growth of microorganisms, while the latter would measure
the changes in the amount of light passing through the growth chamber.
Microorganisms, such as bacteria, turn a clear culture medium cloudy
(turbid) as they grow, and the light sensor would detect such changes. The
pH measurement would complement the turbidity measurement, provid-
ing an independent check on growth and metabolism.

67
Fy ` q ^ rl

Aerosol
A vidicon microscope, January 1965,
In
being considered for future use in
•T'
seeking extraterrestrial life had no
moving parts. An aerosol for carry-
ing particles was injected into the
instrument and onto the impaction
plate through a nozzle in the con-
denser lens. The objective lens and
lamp were fixed in relation to the
plane of focus. The sample was col-
lected through a gas-operated aero-
sol aspirator.

By mid-1963 Vishmac, with the assistance of C. R. Wilson and others,

had progressed from a simple feasibility model to a more complex bread-
board* design. A contract with Ball Brothers Research Corporation for the
development of the second-generation instrument was let by the University
of Rochester in 1961. Late in 1963, the Ames life-detection experiments
team report noted several problems still unresolved, notably the likelihood
of false signs of growth resulting from the sampling technique, and said the
experiment probably could not be ready for 1966 but might be a 1969
candidate.53
Multivator. Conceived by Joshua Lederberg and worked out in proto-
type form by Elliott Levinthal and his assistants in the Instrumentation
Research Laboratory at the Stanford School of Medicine, multivator was
intended to be a miniature multipurpose biochemical laboratory in which a
*An assembly of parts used to prove the workability of a device or principle without regard to the
final configuration or packaging of the parts.

High-pressure gas Solenoid-operated

reservoir for sample gas valve
collector I Pressure
/ regulator

Model of Wolf Trap life High-pressure line

detection device with cover I to sample collector

removed.
PH probes

Electronics
are housed
i n a 5x7.6,12.2-cm Pickup
box beneath
arm
the gas
supply

Media reservoir and

culture chamber
kill 1
Housing for growth High-pressure bypass
chambers, optics, to agitate dust
and sensors
r
Housing for i ^t
venturi throat Dust shroud—sample
- nozzle is within
the shroud
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
series of simple measurements could be made on samples of atmospheric
dust. A variety of measurements was studied, and they all included testing a
small sample of dust with a fluid reagent and reading out a simple optical
or electrometric measurement. Lederberg and his associates originally
hoped to cultivate Martian microorganisms in a defined culture medium, as
in Wolf Trap, but they concluded that the brief communication times
between a Mars lander and Earth monitoring stations would limit the
opportunities of observing changes based on growth. Enzymatic activity
might be a more realistic behavior to study. Thus, they began to concentrate
on detecting the action of enzymatic phosphatase on phosphate containing
chemicals that become fluorescent following removal of the phosphate
grout. When enzymatic activity took place, the resulting glow would be
determined by a detector, perhaps photoelectrically. 59 The Ames team eval-
uating the multivator in August 1963 decided that the instrument was
maturing rapidly but that the experiments it would house would require "a
great deal more effort" before they would be ready to be sent off on a mission
to Mars.55
Minivator. A variant on the multivator concept, devised by Jerry L.
Stuart of JPL, minivator had an improved sample-collection device. Driven
by gas-powered turbine, the sample collector separated large and small
particles by centrifugal action. Again, the instrument development was
ahead of work on the experiments it would house. The Ames team assumed
that the best features of the multivator and minivator would be combined. 56
Gulliver. Named after Jonathan Swift's fictional traveler to strange
places, the Gulliver instrument was the work of Gilbert V. Levin. After
many years in the public health field, where he sought better methods for
detecting bacterial contaminants in polluted water, Levin asked T. Keith
Glennan, NASA's first administrator, if the agency would be interested in
developing life-detection instruments for use on space probes. A contract
for the work was let in 1961.57
Gulliver consisted of a culture chamber into which a sample of soil
could be introduced. In the chamber was a broth whose organic nutrients
were labeled with radioactive carbon. If microorganisms were put into the
broth, they would metabolize the organic compounds, releasing radioactive
carbon dioxide that could be trapped on a chemically coated film at the
window of a Geiger counter. The radioactivity readings would be relayed to
Earth by the spacecraft's radio transmitter. Gulliver had the virtue of being
able to detect growth, as well as metabolism, since the rate of carbon dioxide
production would increase exponentially with growing cultures.
Sample acquisition was the early Gulliver's unique feature. The
instrument had a mechanism consisting of two 7.5-meter lengths of kite
line wound around small projectiles in the manner of harpoon lines to
prevent snagging. The string was coated with a sterile silicone grease to
make it sticky. After the lander arrived on Mars, the projectiles would be

69
Multivator Chambers

Ele

Reaction
assembly

1. Motor and impeller

2. Light source
3. Valve stem and piston
4. Injector-seal unit housing
5. Solvent chamber
6. Bellows motor
7. Photomultiplier tube
8. Window
9. Reaction chamber
10. Reaction chamber unit block

Multivator, above in January

1965, was a miniature laboratory
for biochemical experiments on
Mars. Gulliver 111, at left, also in
January, carried sticky strings
and projectiles to be fired and
retrieved with dust and loose par-
ticles to be tested for production
of carbon dioxide indicating life.
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
fired in mortar fashion and then reeled in together with adhering soil
particles. After the lines were retrieved, Gulliver would be sealed and an
ampule broken, releasing the sterile radioactive nutrients onto the samples.
The Ames life-detection experiments team gave Gulliver high marks
because, unlike other experiments of the time, it had a sampling mechan-
ism. But they also raised questions about the nature of the technique, since
samples delivered to the growth and control chambers would not be identi-
cal. The chambers would contain a metabolic poison to serve as a check on
chemically produced radioactive carbon that might otherwise be inter-
preted as signs of metabolism, and experimental control to prevent false
results required a common sampling source. The Ames team concluded
that sample acquisition might be a problem. It further noted that Gulliver
was the most advanced experiment in terms of hardware development and
the only one likely to be ready for flight in 1966.58 Other life-detection
concepts are listed in table 7.
Given the conclusion that no single life detector would be sufficiently
accurate and conclusive in its results, an automated biological laboratory
containing several experiments was the prudent choice. But before such
sophisticated, expensive hardware was landed on Mars, a successful orbiter
program was necessary; scientists and engineers needed more data regard-
ing the planet's atmosphere (density and chemical composition) and sur-
face. An orbiter's sustained seasonal observations would permit thorough
evaluation of features considered suggestive of life and a better informed
selection of landing sites for the laboratory.

^' ^Samole h000er Flow

Pyrolysis
oven

Carrier
gastank

Sample
injector

w of a

ograph,
JaiiaaIy 1iv,".
 Table 7
Ames Life-Detection Team Evaluation of Proposed Biology Instruments
Development Status, 1963

Manpower Monetary
Experiment Status Date Available Support Support
to Meet to Meet
1966 Date 1966 Date

Vidicon Science— ? ? ?
microscope conceptual.
Device—none.
Wolf trap Lab feasibility April 1963 Univ. of Roches- Double present
model. Engi- ter will need 1 funding.
neering is con- Ph.D. & 4 techs.
ceptual. Subcontractor
requirements
unknown.
Multivator Science—funs- ? Sufficient Sufficient
tional feasibility. available. available.
Device—con- 1 Sept. 1963 Sufficient $10 000 for de-
ceptual. available. velopment of
Mark II.
$200 000 for
flight hardware.
Minivator Science—none. — — —
Device—flight- Now 3 engineers. $200 000 for
sized bread- 4 technicians. flight prototype.
board. $40 000 for test
& evaluation.
Gulliver Advanced bread- With proper 10 persons re- Between $250 000
board demon- funding and in- quired in engi- and $350 000,
strated. Ready to terface defini- neering area depending on
start work on tion, 1 yr from required experi-
prototype. contract award. ment configura-
tion
Optical Some functional 14 mos from — $274652
rotation feasibility dem- contract start.
onstrated.
band Science—func- I Aug. 1963. 2 scientists. $100000
tional feasibility. 4 technicians.
Device—con- I Aug. 1964 for 8-10 persons 1 $300000-
ceptual. flight prototype. yr. 400 000
Gas Feasibility Nov. 1964. Additional: 4 $425000
chromatograph breadboard. engineers and 5
technicians.
Mass Conceptual. May be ready 2 assistants for $350000
spectrometer 1966 launch Dr. Biemann
date. and services of
Consolidated
Systems Corp.

72
 Table 7
Ames Life-Detection Team Evaluation of Proposed Biology Instruments—
Development Status, 1963, Continued

Power Steri-
Comments Weight Volume Required Possible lizable
(kg) (cu cm) (av/peak, Lifetime by 150°C
watts) for 24 hrs

Data rate requirements demand power Not Not 10 Not Yes

available only with much larger defined defined defined
boosters. Development of sample han-
dling, methods for discrimination of
1.1-2.3 2460- 0.25/1 10-hr Yes
biologicals requires more work.
3280 mini-
mum

Depends on stability of phosphatase 1.4 1558 0.5/3-5 Days- Yes

assay substrate. week
Can accomodate wide variety of bio-
chemical experiments including some
already proposed.

Science input lacking; accommodation 2.3 Not 1-2/5-10 2 wks Yes

similar to Multivator. defined

3.2-5.4 4920- 2-3/4-5 Not Yes

9840 defined

2.4 2132 0.5/1.1 Not Yes

defined
Sample acquisition and handling de- Not Not 2-3/10 Weeks Yes
velopment not begun. defined defined

3.04 3280 ?/ 14.5 Not Yes

defined

Support requirements appear to be — — — — —

underestimated by experimenter.

SOURCE: Based on data presented in NASA, Ames Research Center, Life-Detection Experiments Team,
"A Survey of Life-Detection Experiments for Mars," Aug. 1963, pp. 70-71.

73
ON MARS
When looking into automated biological laboratories, the summer
study group had to consider how such advanced landers would be scheduled
in relation to Mariner flights. Mariner flyby spacecraft were slated for
launch in November 1964 by Atlas-Agena. Replacing the ill-fated Mariner
B, Mariners E and F, approved in December 1963 for combination flyby and
probe missions, were planned for 1966 (as Mariner 1966) if Atlas-Centaur
were operational by that time. Thus, the members of the 1964 Summer
Study preferred "a gradual istic approach" to the ultimate goals of landing a
large automated laboratory on Mars and eventually returning samples for
study. The scientific community favored exhausting all avenues of research,
Earth-based observations and nonlanding missions, before committing
itself to that big step.
However, the summer study members saw several "constraints to pro-
ceeding in a completely unhurried step-by-step fashion." Those included a
"combination of celestial mechanics and the operational realities of space
research." Preparation for flight required years of experimental design and
spacecraft development and the coordination of effort among large
numbers of persons in a wide range of disciplines. As individual scientists,
accustomed to following their own idiosyncratic process of trial and error
in designing laboratory experiments, they found the world of space research
filled with tightly controlled schedules and very specific dos and don'ts.
They noted further that the scientist was "plagued by the prospect of
investing years of work only to encounter a mission failure or cancellation
in which it is all lost—at least until a new opportunity arises, perhaps years
hence." While the scientists might "chafe under these circumstances," it
was the nature of the enterprise.
Added to the technological and scientific limitations was the small
number of launch opportunities for flights to Mars. The "attempt to
develop a systematic and gradualistic program is thus constrained to some
extent by the fact that, while favorable opportunities occur in the 1969-1973
period, they will not return before 1984-1985." Therefore the summer study
members argued for "a substantial program" that would exploit the Saturn
launch vehicles during the 1969-1973 launch window. Explicit in their
recommendations was concentration on activities that would lead to land-
ings. "The first landing mission should be scheduled no later than 1973,
and by 1971 if possible. "59

THE RESULTS OF MARINER 4

Whereas 1964 was a year of optimism for the burgeoning field of
exobiology, 1965 was one of external criticism and reappraisal. New scien-
tific information provided by the Mariner 4 flyby mission altered percep-
tions of the Red Planet and raised serious questions about the search for life
there. Criticism of NASA's exobiology program came from two quarters,

74
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
members of the Mariner 4 science team and scientists who were critical of
the space program in general terms.
Variously known during its developmental phase as Mariner C,
Mariner M, and Mariner 1964, Mariner 4 was one of two spacecraft
launched for Mars in 1964. Conceived in mid-1962 when NASA's advanced
planners realized that the Centaur stage would not be ready for a 1964
mission, Mariner C was planned as a lighter Agena-sized spacecraft capable
of a mission to Mars. As Mariner 2 to Venus in 1962 had been a scaled-down
Mariner A, the 1964 Mars craft was a revision of Mariner B without the
lander. 60 Although smaller than either NASA or the scientists would have
preferred, it would provide the first photographs of Mars, an exciting
prospect. From November 1962 when the Project Approval Document was
signed to liftoff of the two craft in November 1964, this first Mars mission
was a challenging exercise. Constant battles against growing payload
weights and difficulties with perfecting scientific instruments added a
hectic air to preparations for the 1964 flights.61
As the launch date approached, trouble seemed to be the key word.
Mariner 3 was launched toward Mars about midday on 5 November. After a
short delay while Agana circuits and relays were retested, the launch went
normally, but an hour later telemetry indicated that while the scientific
instruments were on there was no indication of power from the solar panels.
Quickly the launch team determined that the cylindrical fiberglass nose
fairing designed to protect the spacecraft during its initial ascent had failed
to separate from it. Efforts to break the spacecraft free "ere frustrated wherr
its circuits went dead after the batteries were drained. As Mariner 3 blindly
headed out into space, destined to enter solar orbit, NASA and con-
tractor personnel searched for the cause of the problem and a quick solu-
tion before the 25th, the scheduled date for the second launch.62
Working arouucl the clock for 17 days, a composite team from Lewis
Research Center, Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, and JPL modified
the nose fairing and produced a flawless launch of the second spacecraft on
28 November. 63 Everything went according to plan with Mariner 4. The
Agena D separated from the Atlas at an altitude of 185 kilometers and went
into a parking orbit. After coasting for more than 30 minutes, the Agena
engine fired again and Mariner was on (lie path to Mars. With only 45
minutes elapsed since liftoff from Cape Canaveral, Mariner 4 separated
from Agena and continued its journey through space alone.
It took seven and a half months to travel the 525 million kilometers to
Earth's neighbor. The 260-kilogram spacecraft began its brief encounter
with the planet on 1 I July 1965. Among other measurements, the vidicon
television system during a 25-minute sequence took 21 full pictures and a
fraction of a 22d of the Martian surface at distances of 10 000 to 17 000
kilometers. After being stored overnight on a tape recorder, the images were
transmitted to Earth the next day. For eight and a half hours, JPL received

75
Mariner 4, above, is prepared for a center-of-
gravity lest at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. At
right, the spacecraft starts on its way from Ken-
nedy Space Center on 28 November 1964.

bits of electronic data that would be reconstructed into visual images. The
pictures revealed a heavily cratered Marsha
What could one learn from 21%2 pictures of 1 percent of the Martian
surface taken from an average distance of 13 000 kilometers? For Mariner 4,
expectations helped color perceptions. On 11 January 1965, Robert B.
Leighton, principal investigator for the television experiment and profes-
sor of physics at thc California Institute of Technology, had written Glenn A.
Reiff, Mariner project manager, commenting that the Mariner 4 pictures
would "be of enormous interest to the scientific community and the public
at large," but proper interpretation of those pictures was as important as
their initial acquisition. 65 From the outset, NASA and JPLofficials had carefully
informed the public that Mariner would not produce pictures of sufficient
resolution to detect plant or animal life, but while reporters told their
audiences that "the pictures are not expected to resolve the mystery of life on
Mars," they would usually add such phrases as "but may answer long
standing questions about the `canals' of the red planet," hinting that
Mariner 4's photography might indeed be spectacular .66

76
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
Before and during the flight, scores of articles about Mariner 4, the 1964
Summer Study, exobiology, Voyager, and other aspects of the exploration
of Mars appeared in the American press. 67 Most carried the caveat that the
20-some photos would be equivalent to the best telescopic views of the
moon from Earth and that "even the broadest earth river would not be
visible at such a distance," but writers argued that it might still be possible
to view the irrigated bands along the canals if any existed on Mars.68
Mariner 4 would not necessarily detect life, but the scientific community
hoped it would provide additional insights into the likelihood of Martian
biology. David Hoffman of the New York Herald Tribune commented on
this dichotomy in an article on 14 July, the day the pictures were taken: "Iu
what almost amounts to a non sequitur, NASA says the photo mission is
not designed to answer `the question of life on Mars.' But only to `shed light
on the possibility of extraterrestrial life. "169
For believers in Martian canals and for scientists dedicated to the
extraterrestrial life search, the pictures were disappointing. In a 29 July
1965 statement, the Mars television team led by Leighton summarized their
first thoughts on the significance of the photographs: "Man's first close-up
look at Mars had revealed the scientifically startling fact that at least part of
its surface is covered with large craters. Although the existence of Martian
craters is clearly demonstrated beyond question, their meaning and signifi-
cance is, of course, a matter of interpretation." Their opinion was that the
craters led "to far-reaching fundamental inferences concerning the evolu-
tionary history of Mars and further enhances the uniqueness of Earth
within the solar system." Seventy craters were clearly visible in photos 5
through 15, and they ranged in diameter from 4.8 to 120 kilometers. NASA
specialists noted that it seemed likely that there were both larger and smaller
craters in addition to those discerned in the photos. The rims of the craters
appeared to rise as much as 100 meters above the surface, and the interiors
seemed to descend to several hundred meters. The number of large craters
was closely comparable to the densely cratered upland areas of the moon.
They added that no Earth-like features, such as mountain chains, great
valleys, ocean basins, or continental plates, were identifiable in the small
region sampled by Mariner 4. And certainly no canals were seen.
From the pictures, the TV team thought some fundamental inferences
could be drawn:
1. In terms of its evolutionary history, Mars is more Moon-like than
Earth-like. Nonetheless, because it has an atmosphere, Mars may shed
much light on early phases of Earth's history.
2. Reasoning by analogy with the Moon, much of the heavily cratered
surface of Mars must be very ancient—perhaps two to five billion years old.
3. The remarkable state of preservation of such an ancient surface leads us
to the inference that no atmosphere significantly denser than the present
very thin one had characterized the planet since that surface was formed.
77
 I

Mariner 4 revealed a heavily cratered Mars,

more like the moon than like Earth. Photos
taken 14 July 1965, just before the closest
approach of 9700 kilometers, were radioed
back as digital data. At top left, Mare Sire-
num, bordering on Atlantis. Above, Atlantis
between Mare Sirenum and Mare Cimme-
rium. At left, bright region, northwestern
Phaethontis. Below at the White House 31
July 1964, JPL Director William Pickering
shows Ranger 8 photo of the moon to Presi-
dent Johnson. NASA Associate Administra-
tor for Space Science and Applications
Homer E. Newell is with him. Behind the
president are Dr. Donald F. Hornig, special
assistant to the president for science and
technology, and Dr. Edward C. Welsh, ex-
ecutive secretary, National Aeronautics and
Space Council.

Vile,
p .F

^I
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
Similarly, it is difficult to believe that free water in quantities sufficient to
form streams or to fill oceans could have existed anywhere on Mars since
that time. The presence of such amounts of water (and consequent atmos-
phere) would have caused severe erosion over the entire surface.
4. The principal topographic features of Mars photographed by Mariner
have not been produced by stress and deformation originating within the
planet, in distinction to the case of the Earth. Earth is internally dynaniic
giving rise to mountains, continents, and other such features, while
evidently Mars has long been inactive. The lack of internal activity is also
consistent with the absence of a significant magnetic field on Mars as was
determined by the Mariner magnetometer experiment.
5. As we had anticipated, Mariner photos neither demonstrate nor pre-
clude t he possible existence of life on Mars. The search for a fossil record
does appear less promising if Martian oceans never existed. On the other
hand, if the Martian surface is truly in its primitive form, the surface may
prove to be the best—perhaps the only—place in the solar system still
preserving clues to original organic development, traces of which have
long since disappeared from Earth.70

The fifth point notwithstanding, the findings of the TV team were a

genuine blow to the exobiologists. Leighton, Cal Tech astronomers Bruce
C. Murray and Robert C. Sharp, and JPL television experts Richard K.
Sloan and J. Denton Allen presented an official report in the 6 August 1965
issue of Science, restating the same basic conclusions. The apparent absence
of water over hundreds of millions of years, the very thin atmosphere, and
extremely low temperatures were strong arguments against the hypothesis
for life put forward during the 1964 Summer Study. New tabular data for
the physical properties of Mars are shown in table 8.

Table 8
Physical Properties of Mars: Mariner 4 Findings

Earth Mars Mars 1 Mars 2 Mars 3

(1964 Summer Study) (alternative Mariner 4 figures)

Atmospheric
pressure 1000 millibars 10 -30 millibars 4.1-5.7 4.1-6.2 5.0-7.0
Gaseous
composition
of atmosphere:
oxygen 20% <0. I% — — —
carbon 0.03% 5 -30% 100% 80% 50%
nitrogen 78% 60-95% — 20%•' —
argon trace trace — — 50%
Temperature 580C to +300C -930C -980C -1030C
range -88°C ±500C ±200C ±250 C ±20°C

Nitrogen plus argon.

SOURCE: NASA, Mariner-Mars 1964: Final Project Report, NASA SP-139 (Washington, 1967), pp.
321-22.
ON MARS
No matter which of the alternative atmospheric estimates from Mariner 4
readings one chose, the possibility for life, past or present, seemed
diminished.71
External Criticism of the Search for Life on Mars
Criticism of the American space program, latent for several years, burst
forth in 1963-1965. The two most prominent fault-finders were Barry
Commoner, a microbiologist at Washington University, St. Louis, and
critic-at-large-of-scientific priorities; and Philip H. Abelson, a physicist
and the editor of Science. Both scientists, long-time critics of Apollo's lunar
goals, extended their remarks to the exploration of Mars.
Commoner attacked the search for extraterrestrial life in June 1963 on
the eve of Abelson's appearance before the Senate Astronautical and Space
Science Committee. The committee was seeking "Scientists' Testimony on
Space Goals," and Commoner noted that Abelson was the only witness
expected to express reservations about the nation's priorities in space
research. Of the 10 who were scheduled to testify, all but Abelson had a
direct financial interest in the space program.* While Abelson attacked
Apollo specifically, Commoner was upset by the argument that the
extraterrestrial life search was "the most exciting, challenging and profound
issue... that has characterized the history of Western thought for 300
years." Believing the possibility of life on other planets was extraordinarily
low, he thought that such rhetoric was "a weak prop for the serious decision
given its profound economic and social consequences. ­ 72
Scientists Commoner and Abelson did not agree with NASA's scien-
tific goals. Simply put, they would have preferred to spend Apollo and
Mariner-Voyager dollars on other investigations. They were also worried
about the "social consequences" of space research in a world that was
underfed and potentially revolutionary. In a September 1963 speech to the
American Psychological Association, Abelson said there were no predictable
economic advantages to be derived from the exploration of the moon or
Mars, arguing that "the half of the world that is undernourished could
scarcely be expected to place a higher value on landing on the moon than on
filling their stomachs."73
The exobiologists were accustomed to defending their work on scien-
tific grounds, but they were understandably perplexed when they were
criticized in a manner that combined scientific disagreements and differ-
ences in opinion over social and economic priorities. Lederberg and others
were reasonably certain of Commoner's political motivations. but they
were not sure of his scientific views, as he diverged from the origin-of-life
hypothesis that underpinned the search for extraterrestrial life. Was it

*The other nine were S. Ramo, H. C. Urey, P. Kursh, C. S. Pittendrigh, F. Seitz, L. V. Berkner, L. A.
Du Bridge, M. Schwarzchild, and H. H. Hess.
80
 SEARCH FOR LIFE BEGINS
scientist Commoner or social-critic Commoner who opposed the extrater-
restrial search?79
Abelson was even more difficult to understand. He was a long-time
student of the extraterrestrial life question. In 1960, he had advised NASA
that of all i he near planets only Mars was a likely abode for life, but that the
risk of contaminating the planet with Earth life-forms precluded our going
there. By the next year, however, he was arguing persuasively that no place
in our solar system other than Earth could support life as we know it. Thus,
his editorial in the 2 February 1965 issue of Science, "the voice of American
science," was particularly telling: "In looking for life on Mars we could
establish for ourselves the reputation of being the greatest Simple Simons of
all time. "75 Using the latest scientific information from Mariner 4, Abelson
built a case against future expeditures of tax dollars to look for life on Mars;
he was convinced life did not exist there. For a mixture of scientific and
political motives, lie effectively used Science as a forum for the scientifically
based denunciations of NASA's goals.76
1964 Summer Study Revisited; or "Postscript: October 1965"
Against this background of scientific and political criticism, the dis-
couraging new information provided by Mariner 4 posed serious questions
for those who believed that there might be life on Mars and that continua-
tion of the search was respectable and worthwhile. Joshua Lederberg later
looked back on October 1965 as a bleak time for exobiology. With most.of
the scientific community in agreement with a New York Times editorial
saying that "Mars is probably a dead plannet," only a few "diehards"
(Lederberg's decription of his associates of the 1964 Summer Study) refused
to give up and accept Mars as a barren world. 77 In a postscript to Biology
and the Exploration of Mars, those diehards held that, "during the interval
between publication in March 1965 of the Summary and Conclusions of our
Study and the appearance of this volume, our knowledge of Mars has been
raised to an entirely new level by the success of the Mariner IV mission."78
Lederberg and 25 other "desperate" persons met in Iate October 1965 to
discuss the impact of Mariner 4 on their proposed search for life: "The
essence of our position was, and still is, the immense scientific importance
of evaluating the uniqueness of life on Earth; of discovering facts that will
permit more valid inference of its abundance in the Universe; and the fact
that the new space technology allows us to obtain empirical evidence on the
frequency with which living organization and its precursors emerge in the
evolutionary history of planets." Even with the new Mariner data in hand,
the scientists still thought "that life, even in essentially terrestrial form,
could very well have originated on Mars and have survived in sonic of its
contemporary micro-environments." While finding life clinging to the side
of an inactive volcano or at the edge of some warm spring on Mars would be
difficult, it was not totally unreasonable to expect.79
There was another justification for going to the Red Planet. The
summer study participants believed it was "important to re-emphasize ...
81
ON MARS
a major aspect of our position that critics have unaccountably missed; we
sought to emphasize `that our conclusion that the biological exploration of
Mars will be a rewarding venture does not depend upon the hypothesis of
Martlaii life."' Throughout their deliberations, they had cast their ques-
tions in the broad context of the general evolutionary process in nature.
"Our position is ... fully justified even if life has not emerged there; but we
will again be misunderstood if that emphasis is taken to mean we believe
the chance of discovering fully fledged life is negligible. "80
At the end of 1965, the scientists who believed that looking for life on
Mars was a respectable enterprise faced those who were equally devoted to
the proposition that such an exercise was foolishness of the gravest order.
Voyager, with its goal of placing automated biology laboratories on Mars,
would become the focus of the two groups' debate. Voyager would be
scrutinized because of costs and general disenchantment with the space
program, but the central issue would continue to be the validity of search-
ing for life on the Red Planet. To that issue, scientists could bring only
informed speculations. Mariner 4 had provided only clues. No one could yet
say with certainty that Mars was lifeless. And the search continued.

82
 4

Voyager: Perils of Advanced Planning,

1960-1967

Voyager was an advanced mission concept first considered in the

spring of 1960 when the NASA staff was beginning to define its long-range
plans for lunar and planetary missions.' In their semiannual (1 April-30
September 1960) report to Congress, the agency managers reported that
preliminary mission studies were under way for a second planetary series.
The Voyager orbiters were to be designed to orbit Venus and Mars and were
to be "phased in time and capabilities with the Saturn launch vehicle."
Orbits of the planets for long periods would make possible excellent inves-
tigations of their environments, and landing capsules would be able to
provide information on the lower atmospheres and surfaces. 2 In designing
the Voyager spacecraft, NASA engineers and scientists hoped to use new
data gleaned from the Mariner flights—information that would help them
design Voyager's scientific instruments to answer the proper questions and
solve technological problems posed by Voyager's large size.
Unfortunately, the real world of politics, with too many projects
competing for too few federal dollars, is seldom as neat as planners hope.
For the Voyager proponents, the real world was an unhappy one. Delays on
the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle during the early 1960s prompted many
changes in the Mariner project, which in turn delayed the acquisition of
information about the Martian environment essential to the designers of
Voyager. But Kennedy's decision to mount a full-scale assault on the moon
was an even bigger blow for the supporters of unmanned space exploration.
Once the manned Apollo decision had been made, the Marshall Space
Flight Center and its industrial contractors concentrated on the preparation
and production of Saturns for the lunar missions. Launch vehicles for space
science projects would become available only after the top-priority goal had
been met. From the start, Voyager was by definition a second-class project.
As Congress became restive over the increased expenditures for Apollo,
monies originally marked for space science and Voyager were reallocated to
lielp pay for the moon program. Added to this were a costly war in Vietnam
and the domestic troubles of the late 1960s. All post-Apollo missions pro-
posed by the space agency faced reduced appropriations, which put
83
One of the first conceptual views of Voyager, above, was published
in the NASA-Industry Plans Conference, July 28-29, 1960. The
artist concept below was described by Edgar M. Cortright during
March 1961 NASA hearings before Congress: "This spacecraft,
weighing about 2,400 pounds[]090 kilograms], would be designed
to orbit the target planet and to inject a several-hundred-pound
capsule capable of surviving atmospheric entry and descent....
Thus the orbiting spacecraft would observe the planet and its
atmosphere ..., while the landing capsule would make detailed
measurements during descent and on the ground.... Numerous
... developments are required to accomplish this difficult but
fascinating and distinctly realistic mission, which may well
include among its rewards the discovery of extraterrestrial life."
Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA
Scientific and Technical Programs, hearings, 87th Cong.,1st sess.,
28 Feb., 1 Mar. 1961.
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
Voyager in deep fiscal trouble by summer 1967. A request in August from
the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston for proposals to study manned
missions to Mars was the last bit of bad luck. Congress rebelled and termi-
nated all Voyager work.
At first glance, it would appear that the Voyager project of the 1960s,
like Mariner B and Mariner 66, was just another project that never pro-
gressed beyond the drafting table, but it was more than that. Voyager, with
thousands of man-hours of work behind it, performed by dozens of special-
ists and costing many mil lions of dollars, helped to refine an understanding
of the best approaches for a combination orbiter-lander investigation of
Mars. Upon the solid foundations laid by Voyager personnel, the Viking
team that followed them could construct a successful mission. The story of
Voyager's troubles is essential to an understanding of Viking's accom-
plishments.

ORIGINS OF VOYAGER
For the duration of the Voyager project, there were two distinct
perspectives of the enterprise—one view from NASA Headquarters and
another from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. As with Ranger
and Mariner, Voyager was initially a JPL undertaking, with nearly all the
early study and design done in the California lab. In contrast, JPL had
contracted out to industry for the design and development of Surveyor, the
lunar sof t-lander. This difference may have been indicative of the Pasadena team's
bias for planetary missions but, for whatever reason, the team had a partic-
ular attachment to Voyager. JPL staffers had very specific ideas about how
Voyager should be developed (orbiters first, with the addition of landers
much later) and managed (loosely knit organization of delegates from
various laboratory divisions). Furthermore, JPL wanted to conduct the
total project within the walls of the laboratory. The West Coast planners
favored small "manageable" undertakings, while NASA Headquarters
called for centralized management under one responsible individual, with
centers assuming a supervisory role over industrial contractors. As Voyager
became a pet project with headquarters managers, the differences between
JPL and Washington became obvious. In Pasadena, JPL personnel mut-
tered about pencil-pushers who had no understanding of the problems of
engineering the nuts and bolts of a Mars-bound spacecraft, and not
uncommon in the nation's capital were exasperated remarks about the
single-mindedness and independence found at JPL. While these differences
were not responsible for the cancellation of the project, they made the work
of Donald P. Hearth, responsible for Voyager at headquarters, and Donald
P. Burcham, Voyager manager at JPL, more difficult. From the beginning,
even Voyager's most optimistic supporters saw trouble ahead for the plane-
tary spacecraft.
JPL planners began to study Voyager-class missions in 1961 to deter-
i ine more clearly what flights with what size spacecraft would be a reason-
85
ON MARS
able step beyond Mariner B. In May 1962, the laboratory's Planetary Pro-
gram Office commissioned a study of advanced missions and spacecraft. In
addition to Voyager with flights to Venus and Mars, a second kind of
advanced spacecraft was examined—Navigator, which would explore the
sun, comets, Mercury, and Jupiter and require sti 11 more powerful launch
vechicles. Under the direction of Philip K. Eckman, the advanced planetary
spacecraft study group, with representatives from all the technical divi-
sions of JPL, examined large orbiter missions for Voyager because it
believed that too little was known about the Martian and Venusian atmos-
pheres to permit the development of spacecraft landing systems for either
planet. One of the most important results of this initial phase of the
advanced study was the determination of "the maximum orbiter-spacecraft
payload." One member recalled that the group had been "hard pressed to
come up with an in-orbit payload in excess of 500 pounds [230 kilograms] of
instruments" for the "ideal" payload. 3 The group's work was the subject of
three days of discussions by JPL and NASA representatives in early
November 1962 (table 9).
Five men participated in the November Voyager review: Donald
Hearth and Andrew Edwards, Jr., from headquarters; and Peter N. Haur-
lan, manager of the JPL Voyager study, Philip Eckman, and Robert J.
Parks from JPL. Hearth, with NASA since 1962, was chief of Advanced
Programs in the Lunar and Planetary Program Office and the key head-
quarters representative at the winter meeting. He had been an aeronautical
research engineer at the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory (of NACA) in
Cleveland in the 1950s and a project engineer for Marquardt Corporation,
where he had managed research related to hypersonic ramjets and similar
advanced power plants. Hearth believed that fiscal 1963 activities were
"proceeding along logical lines" and that JPL was doing a good job.
However, he was disturbed by the postponement of work on landers, as
preliminary research was necessary for comparison studies of alternative
missions. Hearth preferred to push ahead with a total mission study, refin-
ing the details as new information about the planets became available.
A more pressing concern, according to Hearth, was the work load the
Pasadena laboratory was assuming. "It appears to me that JPL is planning
on doing too much in-house starting in 1964. Their plans for bringing in
contractors next year looks good; however, I question the relative in-house
and out-of-house level." Providing some overlap (with the JPL effort) from
contractors appeared advisable, and Hearth expanded his thoughts on the
subject in a memorandum to Oran Nicks:
1.) JPL (Haurlan) did not have complete information on Voyager expen-
ditures thus far in FY63.
2.) JPL should have conducted mission capability comparisons (even on
just a preliminary basis) earlier in the committee activity.

86
 Table 9
Highlights of Advanced Planetary Spacecraft
Group Investigations, 1962

Missions Considered
Flyby—very short duration.
Planetary orbiter—longer duration but does not permit examination of planetary
surface.
Direct landing—"most exciting" mission, but technological requirements for such a
mission are quite severe.
Other—sample return, flyby or orbiter with landing capsule, flyby with multiple cap-
sules, etc.
Conclusion— Advanced orbiter appears most feasible in period under study, 1966-1973.
General Mission Objectives
Acquire sufficient environmental information to permit confident design of large land-
ing vehicle, both manned and unmanned.
Permit biological examination of the near planets.
Investigate planetary atmospheres.
Study planetary geology.
Major Technological Problem Areas
Launch facility limitations—not enough launch pads for quick turnaround required
by launch window schedule.
Tracking system limitations—deep space network too limited to permit communication
with multiple spacecraft.
Spacecraft power limitations—need to improve both solar-cell and radioisotope- ther-
moelectric-generator technology.
Sterilization—need to develop techniques for sterilization and develop hardware that
can survive sterilization process.
Flexibility—need to develop capability to incorporate new knowledge from one mis-
sion into the next, even with short interval between planetary opportunities.

SOCR(.E: JPL, "Advanced Planetary Spacecraft StudN Report," col. I, EPD -139, 28 Dec. 1962, pp. 11-1 to
II-8, V-1 to V-2.

3.) Haurlan and [Eckman] did not have definite schedules for committee
activities ... [and] schedule charts were not available. Between the three of
us, we made up such a chart during my visit.
4.) JPL is thinking of doing more of the Voyager job in future years
in-house than is reasonable.

Trying to maintain greater control over the progress of Voyager, Hearth

asked the study group to provide NASA with monthly reports, quarterly

87
ON MARS
project reviews, and all back minutes of advanced planetary spacecraft
study group meetings. Hearth made a final point that would have discom-
fitted the team in Pasadena. From "the current situation," it appeared likely
that JPL could manage Voyager in future years, but there was the chance
that NASA Headquarters might decide otherwise. "If another NASA Center
or if a strong industry contractor [was] to manage the project," Hearth
thought that "they should be brought into the project now because the
studies being conducted this year will establish the system design concept to
be followed in future years."'
NASA had been considering broader industry participation in the
Voyager project since early 1962, 5 and eight companies had active, inter-
nally sponsored concept studies in progress:
Continuous study during the AVCO
last 9-12 months General Electric
Study during the last few months Douglas, Santa Monica
Convair, San Diego
Convair, Fort Worth
Study just starting Lockheed, Sunnyvale
North American Aviation,
Space and Information
Systems Div.
Space Technology Laboratories
In addition to the JPL exercise that would cost $700 000, Hearth recom-
mended to Nicks that headquarters fund two industrial contractors ($75 000
each) to conduct mission and predesign studies. From their findings, two
systems would be selected for further study.
Industrial participation would have four advantages according to
Hearth. First, "it would provide a `check' on the JPL results. This is
important since a decision will, presumably, be made this year which will
determine the approach to a system involving many millions of dollars."
Second, NASA would have a wider base of "funded Voyager studies" in the
event that Voyager management did not go to JPL. Third, by investing
$150 000, NASA "would provide encouragement to the management" of
numerous companies by demonstrating that NASA was "serious about
Voyager" and that a substantial part of the task would be assigned to
industry. Finally, contracts with industry would allow NASA to direct the
studies "along lines desired" by the agency, and Hearth had no doubt that
considerably more than $75 000 would be expended by each company in its
studies. "In addition, the agency would gain an "early insight into the
firm's capability for Voyager. "6
Whereas Hearth had planned to contract with AVCO or General
Electric for this short-term study, with a more elaborate preliminary design
project in fiscal 1964, the lure of money brought a number of other contrac-
88
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING

tors onto the scene. ? The original plan for a six-month contract starting 1
January was replaced by a 5 March 1963 competitive request for proposals
for a formal design study. $ With an eye on a 1967 launch to Venus, Hearth
decided that he could not afford to sacrifice six or seven months on a
preliminary exercise. He told the NASA senior management at a February
briefing for Administrator Webb that it would be difficult to meet the next
Venus launch opportunity less than four and a half years away, but the
undesirable alternative was to wait six years to launch the first planetary
spacecraft (Mars 1969) "having the mission capability and scientific return
possible with Voyager." Hearth believed strongly that they should set June
1967 as their goal.9
Request for Proposals—Voyager
Aiming for 1967 and 1969 launches to Venus and Mars, the NASA
Headquarters staff decided to spend about $200 000 in 1964 on two contracts
to examine mission and predesign aspects of a Voyager flight. 10 "Request
for Proposal No. 10-929, Voyager Design Studies" was sent to 21 companies
5 March 1963. Potential contractors were to summarize their cost and
scientific proposals—based on NASA's statement of work defining the
projected studies—for developing an advanced spacecraft to perform "orbi-
ter/lander missions to Mars and Venus from 1967 through 1975. "11 This
Voyager-class spacecraft, launched by a Saturn booster, would be capable of
more difficult missions than Mariner, carry more scientific instrumenta-
tion, collect and return more data, and have a longer operational lifetime.
Two contractors would be given six months to recommend their design
concepts. Their proposals would consider both the orbiter and the lander
and evaluate landers that could be released both before and after achieve-
ment of planetary orbit. Flight weight was set at 2700 to 3175 kilograms, the
planetary payload for the Saturn IB booster, but smaller craft (1800
kilograms) would also be examined in case the Air Force Titan IIIC launch
vehicle were employed instead. Growth of subsequent Voyager craft to
weights as great as 27 000 kilograms was another area of study. Spacecraft in
the heaviest class could be sized to fit the Saturn V, called the Advanced
Saturn. Don Hearth was the technical director for this phase of the Voyager
investigations. 12
A total of 37 industrial organizations was represented at the Voyager
preproposal briefing at NASA Headquarters on 11 March 1963, where
delegates had the opportunity to ask questions before they finalized their
proposals, due on the 25th. 13 Of the 13 companies submitting proposals, 10
were judged acceptable. A technical evaluation team' s met on 27 March to
begin the selection process. Using an elaborate formula, the team decided
that the Missile and Space Vehicle Division of General Electric, Valley
• D. Hearth, chairman, B. C. Lam, A. Edwards, E. A. Gaugler, F. D. Kochendorfer, P. N. Haurlan,
and L. E. Richtmyer.

89
c.o Table 10
o R anking oj Contractors Bidding on 1963 Voyager Study

ContraclOr Overa ll Composi te Score To ta l Es tima ted Fee Overh ead Ma n G&A· Compu ter
Ra nk (o f possib le 600) Co t (co t ra nk ) Requ ested Ra te Hou rs Ra te Time

Mis il e a nd Space Di .,
Genera l EI ctr ic 524.5 125000 (6) 8. 0% 120% 6 100 10.5% 9000
Resea rch a nd Advanced
Deve lopment Div ., AVCO 2 443 .4 144 546 (7) 7.0 105 9 13 1 8.0 13200
Missi les & Space Co.,
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. 3 406.5 1223 15(5) 7.0 80 8530 6.5 3500
Space Technology
La boralOri e 4 358.6 169 189 (8) 8.5 ]03 10850 9.9
Space a nd Informa ti o n
Sys tem Di v., orth
Amer ica n Av ia ti o n Inc. 5 337.8
Aeronu tronics Div.,
Ford MOlOr Co. 6 334.4 96 109 ( 1) 0.0 13 1 4 284 0.0
Martin Mar ietta Corp. 7 332.6 186505 (9) 7.0 102 19 184 16.9
Aero pace Div., Boein g Co. 8 301.9
McDonnell Aircraft Corp. 9 276.4 98939 (3) 12.0 80 7080 6.6
Astronau ti cs D iv .,
Ge n era l D na mi cs Corp. 10 265.7 99944 (4) 7.0 47 7335 7. 17
Internationa l Te lephon e
& T elegraph II 979 16 (2) 0.0 125 9480 12.9

..... = dalanOl ava il ab le.

"Genera l and admin iSlra li ve; expe nses such as execulive sa lari es.
Ol ' RCE: Donald (( eanh a nd AndreI\' Edwards LO Car l M. Grey , "Techni a l Eva lualion of Pr posa ls Rece ived in Re ponse LO RFP 0. 10·929," 2 Ap r.
1963; H earth. nOLI" of co nversa li on wilh Grey a nd R. \\I . Lorcl, 4 Apr. 1963; a nd Grey, "Techni a l Eva lualion of Pro po a ls."" Apr. 1963.
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
Forge Space Technology Center, Pennsylvania, was the clear first choice.
While other companies were competitive from a cost standpoint, only
AVCO Corporation,* Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, and Space
Technology Laboratories, Inc., had submitted technically acceptable
proposals. After careful scrutiny, the evaluation team favored awarding the
second contract to AVCO. Although AVCO's "proposal was not as smooth
and as well organized as the Lockheed proposal, it did demonstrate a better
understanding of the scope of the technical study." 14 The two contractors
were notified of their selection in early April.
Contractor Proposals
Despite public and congressional scrutiny of Voyager, the contractor
studies were conducted as planned during the summer months of 1963.15
General Electric secured the services of 20 distinguished scientists to review
the company's progress and "suggest modifications which would increase
the overall scientific value of the program." Several familiar names were on
the list—Melvin Calvin, Joshua Lederberg, Wolf Vishniac, Carl Sagan,
Harold Urey. 16 Scientific community and industry were working together
for their mutual benefit.
A host of technical questions were being examined by the contractors,
as the following list sent to the Voyager project managers at AVCO and
General Electric indicates:
1. What can Voyager do scientifically that Mariner B cannot do?
2. How large a Mars lander is required for long lifetime (one month or
more)?
3. If a relay orbiter is employed, what is the trade-off between lander data
rate, science payload weight, and lifetime?
4. How does Martian lander performance (data rate, science payload, and
lifetime) and weight compare with and without a relay orbiter?
5. What are the problems associated with the use of a high-gain direction-
al antenna on the Martian surface?
6. Can such an antenna be designed and developed for a '69 mission
(without undue risk) based upon what we currently know and expect to
learn about the planetary surface in the near future?
7. If the answer to question 6 i no, what type of additional scientific data
is required?
8. Will a Voyager lander and relay plus science orbiter system be capable
of obtaining the type of data indicated by the answer to question 7?
9. Once these data are obtained, how much time will be required for the
design and development of a high-gain antenna (for landers) for use in a
flight mission?
*Reentry research was a strong point with AVCO, since it had worked with the Air Force in 1956
and 1957 to develop the heat-sink reentry vehicle.

91
ON MARS

10. How heavy must a Martian lander be if it is to use a high-gain

antenna?
11. Is an orbiter really necessary? For science? For communications relay?
If an orbiter is necessary, must it be used simultaneously with a lander?
Can basic orbiter spacecraft be designed to be modified efficiently from a
science plus relay orbiter to a pure relay orbiter?
12. What is the trade-off between orbiter science weight and lander
science weight?
13. What is the minimum weight of a pure relay orbiter as a function of
data rate? Of a pure science orbiter?
14. How does the weight of a science plus relay orbiter compare to a relay
orbiter?
15. Can an orbiter be designed (with or without minor modifications) to
perform both Mars and Venus missions? How much of a weight penalty
results from designing an orbiter for both Mars and Venus compared to an
orbiter for only Mars?
16. What are the critical technology problems associated with Voyager?
What is the development time and cost? What will flight units cost? On
what experience is this based?
17. Starting with the 1969 opportunity, what type of Voyager program for
Mars is possible with the changing energy requirements between 1969 and
1975 ?1'

Before any hardware could be developed for Voyager missions to the near
planets, all these many complex technical issues had to be resolved by
NASA and its contractors. Time, however, was an issue of equal impor-
tance. By early fall 1963, no one at the space agency still considered a 1967
launch to Venus practical, and a mission to Mars in 1969 seemed even less
likely."
Growing friction between Hearth's office at headquarters and JPL's
Advanced Planetary Spacecraft Study Group was another negative factor.
The study group continued to stress the orbital portion of Voyager's mis-
sion and exclude the Lander from its research. During the second phase of its
study, which paralleled the AVCO and General Electric contracts, the team
in Pasadena turned its attention to orbiter missions in the 2700- to 3175-
kilogram class and during a third phase examined the technical aspects of
joining and later separating an orbiter and Lander. However, the work did
not include studies of the lander itself. In fact, the engineers at JPL were
growing increasingly skeptical about the desirability of an orbiter-lander
spacecraft.19
Since NASA Headquarters had assumed control of Voyager, the labor-
atory managers had become resentful over the allocation of Voyager work
and responsibility among the NASA centers. A memorandum for internal
use only at JPL recorded that the laboratory had been directed by NASA
92
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING

Headquarters to terminate its Advanced Planetary Spacecraft Study (APSS)

as of September 1963. Later analysts explained JPL's perceptions of the
controversy:

Many factors probably played a role in this decision; one of these was the
reporting of recent Mars observations, indicating that the surface pressure
was much less than had been previously estimated, making the problem of
successful entry and descent more difficult. Another reason appears to be
budgetary considerations. A third reason, though never publicly ex-
pressed, may have been related to certain political questions related to the
future of the Laboratory and whether or not it was to be directly involved
in planetary landing missions. The fourth and most pressing reason was
the initiation of the Mariner 1966 project and the lack of available man-
power to support APSS work concurrently.20

Early in 1963, three JPL scientists—Lewis D. Kaplan, Guido Munch,

and Hyron Spinrad—had revealed new data about Mars that had serious
implications for proposed Mars landing studies. The new estimate for the
surface level atmospheric pressure was 10-40 millibars, or one-third the
previously estimated pressure. 21 Homer Newell called a special colloquium
for 1 October 1963 to discuss the subject. As Newell later told members of the
Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, a dozen or so
planetary astronomers could not agree on the best figure, and their esti-
mates ranged from 10 to 115 millibars. While Mariner 4 would resolve this
issue in the summer of 1965, the uncertainty did cause concerns—though
not insurmountable ones—for the Voyager team in the interim. AVCO and
General Electric were given an extra month to examine the implications of
the lower pressure for their proposed landers.22
The JPL budget was not an inconsiderable issue. The space science
budget was tied to the shuffling of the Mariner flights during 1963. As Oran
Nicks pointed out to the Administrator in a 1963 year-end review, several
flights planned for 1964 had been eliminated, including the Venus missions
that would have duplicated the successful Mariner 2. Turning to the Mars
aspect of the planetary program, Nicks told Webb that the two Mariner B
flights planned for 1966 had been scrapped because of "recent budget
problems for Fiscal Years 1964 and 1965." Mariner B with its small, biologi-
cally oriented landing capsule had begun to compete for Voyager dollars.
Instead, a reincarnation of Mariner B—Mariner 1966—with a lighterand less
expensive capsule had been scheduled for two Centaur-powered flights in
1966 to determine the constituents of the Martian atmosphere and obtain
more accurate measurements of the surface pressure. While there was still
time to prepare for a Venus mission in 1967, the fiscal 1965 budget crunch
seemed to preclude such a flight. If Voyager funds were cut back or dropped
entirely from the 1965 budget, a planetary mission would not be possible
before 1971.23
93
ON MARS

JPL's contention that the lab's future was inextricably bound to NASA
politics over what center would manage the agency's planetary projects, had
a hollow sound to it, as did claims about manpower shortage. Hearth and
his associates in the headquarters Advanced Programs and Technology
Office were the first to acknowledge the crucial and central role that JPL
had played in the NASA planetary program, but in a late summer memo
Hearth told Nicks that JPL was using Voyager as a hostage to induce the
agency to increase its manpower levels. "As you know, JPL has been going
through a detailed evaluation of their personnel assignments as a result of
their current man-power ceiling." It appeared to Hearth that JPL would
not be submitting a proposed project development plan for Voyager or the
cost and schedule information that headquarters needed. Apparently, the
lab would "dissolve the Advanced Planetary Spacecraft Study Committee
which essentially [would] terminate the current Voyager activity at JPL. ­ 24
Simply put, the managers in Pasadena had decided not to work on Voyager
during 1964. This did not quite agree with JPL's position that the labora-
tory had been "directed to terminate its APSS work."
Hearth was sure it would mean trouble for the project if JPL were to
use Voyager to garner more job slots, but he argued that without Pasadena's
assistance his office would be crippled. "In addition, we cannot propose a
program without a center ready and willing to accept project manage-
ment." Although he could delay his Voyager recommendations to the
NASA managers for six months while his team selected another center or for
one year while they waited for JPL, either of those delays would "jeopardize
the chance for a 1969 Voyager launch." Hearth frankly felt that JPL was
being "short-sighted" and would be left "without significant programs in
another 2 to 3 years without Voyager." But he also had an inkling that some
people at NASA Headquarters also wanted to delay Voyager. "Obviously,
NASA management may decide to defer Voyager indefinitely," but he did
not want that to happen without their having "all the technical and
scientific facts available. "25
Hearth presented the Voyager case at a December 1963 planetary pro-
gram briefing for Administrator Webb. Summarizing first the Mariner
program to date, he noted that the revised figures for the Mars atmospheric
pressure, coupled with budget problems, had led to the termination of
Mariner B. To survive a hard landing, a capsule would have to weigh at
least 360 kilograms, and Atlas-Centaur could not be expected to deliver
more than about 225 kilograms. The new Mariner 1966 would use a chassis
like Mariner 9's to transport a small atmosphere probe to Mars. Turning to
Voyager, Hearth discussed the JPL, AVCO, and General Electric concepts
as they had emerged during the April to October study .16
Engineers for AVCO and GE had studied Mars and Venus missions,
with AVCO giving Venus greater attention, but it was obvious to both
contractors that Mars was NASA's primary target. General Electric recom-
mended two identical landers carried aboard a single orbiter bus. Primary
94
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
communications from the landers to Earth would be via a relay in the
orbiter, with secondary links directly from the landers. Solar cells and
batteries would be used to power the orbiter, while radioisotope thermo-
electric generators would provide both electricity and heat for the lander.
Having concentrated basically on Mars missions, the General Electric
engineers emphasized "biological and geophysical-geological experi-
ments," recommending Syrtis Major (10°N., 285° long.) as a landi ng site for
one lander and Pandorae Fretum (24°S, 310° long.) for the second. These
were two of the more interesting areas for biological exploration. The
appearance of Syrtis Major did not change much with the seasons. Its
boundaries "are sharp and stable, and it is one of the darkest areas of the
planet." Pandorae Fretum did change with the seasons, the dark color
developing in spring, deepening with summer, and becoming light in the
fall for the duration of winter. While the choice of these sites would
eliminate close examination of the polar regions and the "darkening
wave," they considered their choices the best ones "in view of the high
priority of the life detection [experiments] and the eventual requirements
for choosing sites for manned landing missions. " 27 GE would wait until
after the first successful landings to define future sites, but AVCO made the
proposals in table 11.211
General Electric proposed a rather ambitious series of scientific inves-
tigations, considering the weight limits on instrumentation for both the
orbiter (98 kilograms) and the lander (70 kg). Biological instruments would
easily constitute a third of the payload projected for the lander. AVCO
Corporation's landed science payload was greater (91 kg), but the proposed
orbital instrumentation was less (61 kg). In either case, the weight was
substantially more than the 23 kg of experiments that could have been
landed with a Mariner B-class capsule. During more favorable Mars launch

Table 11
AVCO Proposals for Missions to Mars, 1963

Launch Opportunity Lander Landing Site Latitude Longitude

1969 1 Solis Lacus 28 0S 900

2 Syrtis Major 15°N 2860
1971 1 South Polar Cap 83 0S 300
2 Mare Cimmerium 18 0S 2350
3 Lunae Palus 15 0N 650
4 Aurorae Sinus 15 0S 500
1973 1 Propontis 45 0N 1850
2 Elysium 250N 2100
1975 1 North Polar Cap 78°N 2200
2 Nepenthes-Thoth 25°N 2250

95
ON MARS
opportunities-1971 and 1973—larger scientific packages could be landed
using the same orbiter and launch vehicles.
Besides the weights of the landers (GE, 657; AVCO, 762), the major
difference between the two contractors' approaches was the number of
landers; one for AVCO and two for GE. AVCO's lander was encapsulated
before launch for sterility and for protection during the descent. The blunt
body of the aeroshell would protect the lander during entry and slow the
descent. A parachute, deployed when the aeroshell and heatshield were
discarded, would slow the craft further. At impact, the lander would be
protected by aluminum crush-up pads (touchdown velocity 12 meters per
second). After a relatively hard landing, the craft would roll and tumble
until it came to a stop, and six petals, which when closed protected the
internal parts, would open and erect the lander and raise it off the ground.
AVCO also planned to use radioisotope thermoelectric generators to pro-
vide electricity. General Electric's capsules by comparison were much
simpler. They consisted of "moderately blunt sphere cones," which entered
point downward instead of blunt end down as with the AVCO approach.
General Electric proposed to use rockets, tip bars, and explosive anchors to
orient the cone once it was on the surface.
Hearth told Webb at the December briefing that "the areas of agree-
ment were quite significant even though the studies were conducted inde-
pendently and separately of one another." Both contractors called for
similar scientific capabilities, and "they agreed quite well on cost and what
the prime technical problems and development problems" were. But would
NASA underwrite Voyager missions to the planets beginning in 1969?29
Mariner 1966 and Advanced Mariner
Hearth's attempt to sell the NASA management on a 1969 Mars
Voyager was unsuccessful. The administrator decided that the resources
required—manpower and dollars—made it too ambitious for a 1969 mis-
sion. He preferred to defer the first Voyager launch until 1971. With the first
manned lunar landings accomplished, the space agency would be under
less political and financial pressure, and Voyager could proceed. To fill the
gap between the 1964 Mariner C flyby and the 1971 Voyager orbiter-lander,
NASA's planetary program staff proposed to add a 1968-1969 Advanced
Mariner to the schedule to supplement a Mariner 1966 Mars atmospheric
capsule mission.30
A Mariner 1966 mission would "make maximum use" of Mariner 1964
technology. 31 Plans called for a nonsurviving atmospheric capsule that
would crash onto the Martian surface after it had relayed its scientific data.
But not everyone favored the concept, since it added new technological
problems in several areas—planetary atmosphere entry dynamics, com-
munication links between a flyby craft and capsule, and sterilization. NASA
planners began discussing a 1966 capsule in January 1964, and it quickly
became apparent that JPL did not favor the idea.32
96
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
Table 12
Voyager System Weights from 1963 Contractor Studies

System General Electric AVCO

(kg) (kg)

Orbiter
Structure 190 147 (includes thermal
Harnessing 48 ---- control)
Power supply 99 209
Guidance and control 103 84
Communications 131 128
Thermal control 40 ---
Propulsion (dry) 212 209
Diagnostic instrumentation 13 ---
Payload (scientific) 98 61
934 838
Lander 2landers l lander
Heatshield .11 204 (includes structure)
Structure 181 95 (adapter sterile can)
Retardation 72
Thermal control 41
Power supply 51 136
Orientation 26
Communications 65 91
Payload deployment 145 (touchdown and
and installation 25 deployment)
Spin and separation 19
Retrorocket 45
Adapter and radiator 21
Payload (scientific) 70 91
657 each 762
657
Fuel
Orbit insertion and midcourse 939 1361
TOTAL 3187 2961

SOURCE: General Electric Co., Missile and Space Div., Valley Forge Space Center, "Voyager Design
Study," vol. 1, "Design Summary," 15 Oct. 1963; and AVCO Corp., Research and Advanced Develop-
ment Div., "Voyager Design Studies," vol. 1, "Summary," 15 Oct. 1963, p. 1 11. All metric conversions
are to the nearest kilogram.
By mid-March, Hearth told Oran Nicks that he was compelled to
recommend eliminating the capsule from the proposed Mariner 1966 mis-
sion. JPL, understaffed and unenthusiastic, would not support the project
if it included a capsule, and it was too late to assign the "entry probe" to
another center. Considering the technical risks of the capsule, Hearth had to
yield in face of the laboratory's intransigence.
NASA's fiscal 1965 budget would not support the Mariner 1966 project
either. The $5.25 billion approved by Congress was $195 million less than

97
ON MARS
Table 13
Experiments Recommended for Voyager 1969 in 1963 Contractor Studies

General Electric AVCO

Orbiter Orbiter
Biological Biological
Television survey Infrared spectra of surface
Infrared spectrum survey
Geophysical-geological Geophysical-geological
Stereo-television mapping Television mapping
Magnetic field survey Magnetic field survey
Charged particle flux survey Radio absorption (lander to orbiter)
Spectral albedo.
Atmospheric Atmospheric
Ionosphere profile Infrared radiometry of surface
Infrared emission
Space environment
Micrometeoroids
Magnetic fields
Landers (2) Lander (1)
Biological Biological
Growth Biological detection
Metabolic activity Microscopic examination of soil
Existence of organic molecules Chemical structure of soil
Existence of photoautotroph
Turbidity and pH changes
Microscopic characteristics (TV)
Organic gases
Macroscopic forms (TV)
Surface gravity
Geophysical-geological Geophysical-geological
Surface penetrability Television mapping
Soil moisture Magnetic field
Seismic activity Solar optical absorption
Surface gravity
Atmospheric Atmospheric
Temperature Temperature
Pressure Pressure
Density Density
Composition Composition
Altitude Wind velocity
Light level
Electron density

SOURCE: General Electric Co., Missile and Space Div., Valley Forge Space Center, "Voyager Design
Study," vol. I, "Design Summary," 15 Oct. 1963, p. 2-2; and AVCO Corp., Research and Advanced
Development Div., "Voyager Design Studies," vol. 1, "Summary," 15 Oct. 1963, p. 9.

98
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING

the agency had requested. Administrator Webb announced that NASA

would maintain the momentum and direction of its programs despite the
loss of anticipated funds, while meeting its lunar goals. Although the
decision did not "involve the transfer to manned space flight of funds from
space science," those programs would "require some adjustments." Mari-
ner 1966, however, was doomed. According to the news release issued at
NASA Headquarters, "the combination of a heavy workload at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, the short lead time available, and the importance
of applying our resources to a major advance beyond the limited Mariner"
made it "unwise" to undertake a Mars mission in 1966 with the current
Mariner spacecraft. Development of a spacecraft "with much greater scien-
tific promise for launch to Mars in 1969" was being initiated.33
Canceling the 1966 capsule called for changes in Mariner 1964 and
the Advanced Mariner (Mariner 1969). Hearth recommended flying the
1964 Mariner on an occultation trajectory—the spacecraft would fly behind
Mars as viewed from Earth. A radio signal would be transmitted as the craft
approached the planet, and that signal would be blocked as the craft passed
behind it. Analysis of the behavior of the radio signal could determine more
precisely the composition and density of the Martian atmosphere."
At the loss of the 1966 Mars mission in July 1964, Hearth called for an
immediate study of the capsule for the 1969 Mariner. Early study was
essential if Nicks' Lunar and Planetary Programs Division was to coordi-
nate its plans effectively with Orr Reynolds' Bioscience Programs Division,
which was working toward a 1 August 1964 deadline for a proposal for a
"minimum acceptable" biological lander payload for 1969. Hearth believed
that should sufficient information be "obtained over the next three years on
the Martian atmosphere.... a survivable biological lander is possible in
1969." He also thought that a lander mission was "preferable over an
orbiter mission although the orbiter will be given careful study. "31 Hearth
explained this in detail for Nicks because he did not believe that JPL could
handle the entire Advanced Mariner mission, even if industrial contractors
were used. The problem as Hearth saw it was choosing a NASA center to
assist JPL. To assign Mariner 1969 to one organization and Voyager to

• 'If all other factors producing apparent motion of the spacecraft were accounted for (e.g., the actual
motion of the spacecraft, the motion of the deep space stations on the rotating Earth, the lengtheningof
the transit time of the signal, and the refractivity of the Earth's lower atmosphere), the remaining
unexplained changes in the radio signal could be attributed to refraction by the atmosphere of Mars.
(Fora successful experiment, it was necessary toaccount for the total change in frequency orphase of the
signal due to all causes other than refraction by the Martian atmosphere to an accuracy of at least one
part in 10 11 .) Since the geometry obtained from the estimated trajectory is known, the measured changes
could be used to estimate the spatial characteristics of the index of refraction (or refractivity) in the
electrically neutral atmosphere and electrically charged ionosphere of Mars. Thus, by measuring and
then analyzing the changes in the characteristics (frequency, phase, and amplitude) of the radio signals
from the spacecraft, it was hoped to learn more about the composition, density, and scale height of the
Martian atmosphere." NASA, Mariner-Mans 1964: Final Project Report, NASA SP-139 (Washington,
1967), pp. 316-17.

99
ON MARS

another would be unwise, because "the missions and spacecraft are too
closely related." For Hearth, the only solution was to assign another center
the responsibility for some portion of either Mariner 1969 or Voyager. "It is
logical that this be the capsule. There is no question that such an arrange-
ment will be difficult, to say the least," but he could see no alternative.
Three centers could possibly assist JPL with its planetary work—Goddard,
Langley, or Ames. Because of their earlier interest in the landing capsule for
Mariner 1966, Hearth recommended the Ames Research Center team at
Moffett Field, California.36

MISFORTUNES OF VOYAGER

During the financial belt-tightening related to the fiscal 1965 budget,

there was growing pressure from Congress, the Bureau of the Budget, and
the White House to hold down costs. Congressional concerns became
particularly strong following the failure of Ranger 6 to transmit any of its
prescribed 3000 pictures of the lunar surface before it crashed into the moon
on 2 February 1964. The representatives on Capitol Hill told Webb and his
associates that no more failures would be tolerated.
Phased Project Planning
Joseph Karth, acting chairman of the House Subcommittee on NASA
Oversight, was particularly bothered by the apparent weakness of the
managerial chain between NASA Headquarters and Jet Propulsion Labor-
atory. Karth and other congressmen were rightly worried, since JPL was
responsible for several key projects in addition to Ranger—Lunar Surveyor
and the planetary Mariners, with Voyager likely to be the lab's next big
project. Over the years, Karth and his staff had seen instances of JPL
management resistance or reluctance to accept organizational and proce-
dural changes recommended by NASA Headquarters. The Ranger 6 failure
gave everyone—congressmen, NASA managers, JPL staffers—the oppor-
tunity to reflect on the need for better program management in general and
closer liaison between NASA managers and the California Institute of
Technology-JPL team in particular." One of the tools Administrator
Webb chose to strengthen his managerial control over all new projects was
Phased Project Planning.* This scheme played an especially important
role in the subsequent life and death of Voyager.
In mid-July 1964, Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr.,
advised that all "new projects should be planned on a phased basis with
successful contracts for advanced studies, program definition, prototype
design, and flight hardware and operations." Phased development would
*It has been noted that Phased Project Planning bears remarkable resemblance to the Air Force
approach to systems management—conceptual phase, definition phase, acquisition phase, operation
phase—asset forth in the Air Force Systems Command's 375 manual series. Arnold A. Levine, Manag-
ing NASA in the Apollo Era, NASA SP-4102 (Washington, 1983).

100
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING

permit projects to "evolve in an orderly manner with maximum realism. "38

Voyager was one of about half a dozen new projects on which the headquar-
ters staff experimented with the new procedure months before the official
guidelines were promulgated in October 1965.
After nearly three years of advanced Voyager studies by JPL and others,
the NASA managers took the initial steps in December 1964 to place the
planetary project on the phased track to a 1971 mission to Mars. The
decision came after four months of hectic conferences in Washington,
during which Mariner-Mars 69 was approved (12 August), agonized over
(September through October), and terminated (20 November). The pro-
longed debate was the result of Homer Newell's belief that a 1969 mission
was necessary to satisfy the scientific community and Congress but, know-
ing that fiscal year 1966 funds for both Mariner-Mars 1969 and Voyager 1971
were not likely to be appropriated, NASA finally canceled Mariner-Mars 69
in an attempt to preserve Voyager. No one was happy with the compro-
mise. 39 Donald F. Hornig, President Johnson's special assistant for science
and technology, was dismayed over the loss of yet another Mars launch
window in 1969. Seamans assured him that, if at all possible, some kind of
flight, perhaps a Mars flyby that would test the basic 1971 Voyager without
a lander, would be attempted in 1969. Still, the associate administrator
noted that the money for Voyager was going to be tight. Four flights, two in
1971 and two in 1973, were expected to cost $1.25 billion. With that kind of
price tag, a 1969 mission might have to be dropped in favor of less expensive
test flights.4'
While various persons continued to express unhappiness about the
loss of another Mars opportunity, Seamans signed the project approval
document for Voyager on 16 December 1964. During that same week, Don
Hearth, slated to become Voyager project manager at headquarters, submit-
ted his suggestions for the Voyager office in Washington. 91 Voyager was
officially on its way. The first external step was the announcement on 15
January 1965 of requests for proposals from industrial contractors to work
under JPL's direction on the preliminary design, phase IA of the phased
program.a2
The 22 January proposers conference at JPL was attended by 113
representatives from 28 companies. Three months later, after an elaborate
source selection process, three firms were selected to make 90-day prelimi-
nary design studies: the Aerospace Division of the Boeing Company, Seat-
tle; the Missile and Space Division of General Electric, Valley Forge; and
TRW Space Technology Laboratories, Redondo Beach, California." As
the contractors began their work, Seamans, Newell, and other top NASA
managers went to the Congress to explain Phased Project Planning, their
hopes for Voyager, and their projections for its cost. The fiscal 1966 appro-
priations hearings proved as difficult as those of the preceding year.
President Johnson on 25 January 1965 recommended a $7.114-billion
space budget for fiscal 1966. Of this amount, NASA would receive $5.26
101
ON MARS
billion, the Department of Defense $1.6 billion, the Atomic Energy Com-
mission $236 million, the Weather Bureau $33 million, and the National
Science Foundation $3 million. Of the NASA request, $43 million was
earmarked for Voyager. Associate Administrator Seamans labeled the
budget austere, but he said that the chances of landing Apollo's first crew on
the moon on schedule were still good. He said that the $43 million, to be
spent on further defining the Voyager orbiter and lander, would allow the
agency to meet its milestones—a Mars 11\ by test of the spacecraft in 1969
and complete missions in 1971 and 1973.44
In testimony before Congress, Seamans, Newell, and Cortright ex-
plained phased planning and its applications to Voyager. Such planning
gave design engineers the chance to refine project details incrementally,
while the agency's managers maintained the big picture with all its critical
milestones clearly delineated. Implicit in phased project planning was the
assumption that the process would allow choice of the best technological
alternatives. But phased planning was a double-edged management tool.
By clearly delineating important decision points, it could be used to force
the redirection or termination of a project. For Voyager it did both .41
As the contractors worked on the first phase (3 May to 30 July), several
factors came to the attention of NASA managers that affected the execution
of phase IB, an in-depth study of the lander. Once again, the agency was
called on to tighten its programmatic belts; the budget request for $5.26
billion yielded an appropriation of $5.175 billion for fiscal year 1966.
Table 14
NASA Budget Summary, Fiscal 1963 to 1966
(in billions)
Budget
Year Authorization Appropriation
Request

1963 $3.7873 $3.7441 $3.6741

1964 5.7120 5.3508 5.1000
1965' 5.4450 5.2275 5.2500
1966 5.2600 5.190.1 5.1750

SOURCE: NASA, "Back-up Book—FY 1976, Hearings," sec. 6.

"Includes $141 million supplemental request; the appropriation includes a supplement of $74.5
million.
Voyager, as a new start, was vulnerable, but other projects such as the
adaptation of the Centaur to the Saturn IB were also at risk, since such
development diverted money away from the completion of the Saturn V,
Apollo's powerful booster.
The unfavorable budget was trouble enough without the additional
bad news brought by the radio occultation experiment aboard Mariner 4.46
The Martian atmosphere was much less dense than previously estimated.

102
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
All proposals for Ianding capsules had to be thrown out as new aerody-
namic analyses were performed based on the much lower pressure range
(4-7 millibars, rather than the earlier estimates of 10-30 millibars).
The latest Mariner findings also jeopardized use of the Saturn IB
launch vehicle, on technical grounds, adding to its financial difficulties.
Given the 3000-kilogram weight limit for the spacecraft, much of the
scientific payload would have to be sacrificed to provide the lander with
additional means for slowing its descent through the thin Martian atmos-
phere. No matter which approach to the problem was taken—larger aero-
shell, braking rockets, larger parachutes—it would mean too much weight
for the Saturn IB. The larger Saturn V could provide the extra booster
power, but it was seemingly too powerful and too costly to be realistic.
Voyager Capsule Advisory Group
As early as March 1965, Oran Nicks and the Lunar and Planetary
Program Office had begun plans for a Voyager Capsule Coordination
Group to control studies being conducted at JPL and at the Ames and
Langley Research Centers. 47 After preliminary meetings at which the cen-
ters exchanged information on their capsule activities, Homer Newell set
up a panel of experts* to advise Don Hearth, Nicks, and the space science
office on two basic questions:
1. Is the Martian atmosphere and surface sufficiently well known at this
time to permit the design of a survivable capsule to be included in the 1971
operational Voyager mission, or will the design of such a capsule have to
be based upon the results of a non-survivable atmospheric probe and/or
other measurements to be made during the 1969 opportunity?
2. If the Voyager Program is to proceed on the basis of a survivable
capsule in 1971, what general size and type of capsule should be selectedj98
The concern at NASA Headquarters over the safe landing of Mars
capsules was not totally spontaneous. For a number of months, this topic
had been discussed throughout the U.S. space community. During the
American Astronautical Society Symposium on Unmanned Exploration of
the Solar System in early February 1965, the disagreements over priorities in
Mars exploration bubbled to the surface. Some of the symposium partici-
pants wanted the 1969 atmospheric probe reinstated. Alvin Seiff, chief of the
Ames Vehicle Environment Branch, was the leading proponent of an
11-kilogram Mars atmospheric probe. Others thought that 1971 was too
early for a landing.
Implicit in this disagreement was a difference of opinion about the
kinds of landers to be used and the best time to land the first life detectors.
Whereas Seiff and his colleagues at Ames favored hard-landers, or "crash-
'J. E. Naugle, chairman, P. Tarver, E. Levinthal,U. Liddle, J. Hall, O. Reynolds, C. Goodman, R.
F. Fellows, F. Johnson, H. M. Schurmeier, C. F. Capen, L. Lees, and G. Munch.

103
ON MARS
ers," Langley designers wanted soft-landers. Between them were men like
Gil Levin, who wanted to get on with biological investigations at the very
earliest opportunity, and Temple W. Neumann, program engineer for the
NASA-sponsored automated biology laboratory being developed at the
Aeronutronics Division of Philco. Neumann told the symposium partici-
pants that a biology laboratory could be hard-landed as part of a 1971
Voyager mission without prior detailed mapping of the Martian surface.49
He, too, was ready to proceed.
Bruce Murray, a planetary astronomer at the California Institute of Tech-
nology and chairman of the Cal Tech-JPL planetary exploration study group,
argued for a more evolutionary approach. At the Denver sympo-
sium, Murray remarked on the need for large-scale photographic mapping
of Mars before landers could be safely deposited on the surface. Finding a
satisfactory site, landing a craft there, and interpreting the biological
instrument results would require a great deal of work and several hundred
times more photographs than the 20 or so expected from Mariner 4.50
Gil Levin, the father of the biological sampler Gulliver, put his finger
on another recurring concern when he noted that the Soviet Union would
probably beat the United States to a Mars landing. In addition to capturing
yet another first in the international space sweepstakes, Levin feared that
the Soviet Union would contaminate the Martian surface. He reported that
the Soviet Academy of Sciences did not appear to have an interest in
completely sterilizing its spacecraft, putting the American program in an
awkward position. The NASA team wanted to reach Mars ahead of the
USSR so it could be certain of examining an undisturbed, uncontaminated
planet, but NASA needed more time to develop its own sterilization
techniques.
Levin's remarks were sparked by Homer Newell's statement that only
rugged experiments and small capsules that could withstand existing steri-
lization procedures would be flown at first. Initial studies had indicated that
the larger and the more complicated the lander, the greater the technical
difficulties of sterilization. Components and assemblies had to be developed
that could withstand sterilization temperatures (135°-150°C) and still per-
form satisfactorily after months in the cold void of space. By early 1965, the
Josh Lederberg-Elliott Levinthal team at Stanford was realizing that the
biggest problem facing the multivator life detector was the creation of
chemical compounds that would not be rendered useless when heated to
such extreme temperatures. On the other hand, the radioisotopes used in
Gulliver were not heat-labile (subject to breaking down when heated).
Levin was ready to send a Gulliver to Mars, but other experimenters needed
more times'
Amid the controversy over the timing and nature of Mars capsules and
landers, the formation of the Voyager capsule advisory group was a prudent
act, as the initial scientific results from Mariner 4 confirmed. Turning to the

104
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
questions posed by Newell when he established the panel, group chairman
John Naugle reported at the end of August that new observations, including
the Mariner occultation experiment, indicated that the lower limit for the
surface pressure was in the region of 10 millibars. Furthermore, "in view of
the agreement between the ground based and occultation studies, it
appeared to the group that ... the information that could be obtained from
a 1969 atmospheric probe would not warrant its inclusion in the Voyager
program." The 1969 atmospheric mission was eliminated once and for all.52
The new atmospheric data raised questions of equal significance about
the possibilities of safely landing a capsule in 1971. At NASA Headquarters,
Newell and his associates decided to postpone the scheduled request for
proposals on the preliminary design of landing capsules until "the impli-
cations of the apparent low Martian surface pressure are determined.1153
While delaying the next step of the phased project plan gave the NASA
managers time to think, it also helped to blunt the momentum necessary to
the survival of such projects.
Saturn IB-Centaur vs. Saturn V
After several weeks of study, accompanied by many leaks to the news
media, NASA Headquarters officials announced in mid-October 1965 that
development of the Saturn IB-Centaur would be terminated and that
Voyager would be launched with the 33 360-kilonewton (7.5-million-
pound-thrust) Saturn V booster. 59 The decision had a number of cascading
results. First, since Saturn V was not scheduled to fly until 1967 and the
early production was assigned to Apollo, there would be no 1969 Voyager
test flight. The 1971 lander mission would have to be delayed until 1973,
and the 1971 flight opportunity would be dedicated to an orbiter mission
without a lander. Second, morale suffered. Within NASA and contractor
circles, people were discouraged by another two-year postponement. Con-
gressional and press reactions were equally gloomy. But more telling was
the effect Saturn V had on the space science budget. Total costs for a
rescheduled project based on the large Saturn soared, and some estimates
ran as high as $2 billion. Greater costs in a period of tightening agency
budgets did not argue well for the survival of Voyager.55
Since Voyager planners had resisted the use of the Saturn V launch
vehicle for several years, the switch came as an unpleasant shock to many.
During 1964, JPL had commissioned General Electric to study the possible
use of the Air Force Titan IIIC or NASA's Saturn V in place of the Saturn
IB-Centaur. 56 In evaluating these and other studies, Ed Cortright con-
cluded that the Titan IIIC-Centaur launch vehicle would not be powerful
enough. Whereas Saturn IB-Centaur could boost a 2700-kilogram payload,
Titan-Centaur could lift only 1270 kilograms. NASA planners were also
hesitant to use the Titan because it was an Air Force booster. In addition to
pursuing the basic principle of not becoming involved with too many

105
ON MARS
different launch vehicles, Webb, Dryden, and Seamans—after their expe-
riences with Atlas-Centaur—wished to stay clear of military boosters. And,
although using the Titan IIIC would have saved about $10 million per
Voyager launch, the dollars spent on Titan would have diverted money
from the development of the Saturn family while purchasing an inadequate
launch vehicle for Voyager.57
Whereas the Titan IIIC-Centaur combination was not powerful
enough for Voyager, Saturn V was too powerful. In February 1963, Don
Hearth had told Webb that the 18 000-kilogram payload capacity of Saturn
V was 6.6 times that needed for first Voyager flights. "In addition," he
noted, "we recognize that Apollo will place heavy demands on the
Advanced Saturn launch vehicle during the time period of interest for
Voyager. " 58 By mid-1965, Saturn V was still too big for Voyager, unless two
were flown at the same time, but the desire to keep that launch vehicle in
production beyond the first lunar missions made it appear more practical
for use in the planetary program.
The Saturn IB-Centaur combination was considered a diversionary
project by many managers, diverting monies that could be used for the
larger booster. Seamans wrote White House officials in late 1965 to that
effect: " ... the development cost of combining Centaur with Saturn IB
would peak in FY 1966, 1967, 1968, while relatively little vehicle develop-
ment effort is required to use Saturn V." Although the first flight of the
advanced launch vehicle was still two years away, Seamans noted that "the
projected cost of one additional Saturn V for 1971 and later Voyager flights
is probably about equal to two Saturn IB Centaurs." As the year ended, the
NASA managers believed that Saturn V was "a technically feasible and
economic vehicle for Voyager [launching two spacecraft on one vehicle],
with as great a probabi 1 i ty of mission success as separate launches of smaller
vehicles. "59
Management's acceptance of Saturn V was not enthusiastically re-
ceived throughout the agency. Newell's "space science people were sort-of
horrified at the thought of using Saturn Vs." 60 There was no absolute
certainty that two spacecraft could be launched by one of the big boosters at
about the same cost as two Saturn IB-Centaur combinations. There was
surely less flexibility. If budgets tightened further, at least one flight could
be made at each opportunity with the smaller vehicle. With Saturn V, two
very large spacecraft were required for each launch.
At JPL and elsewhere, the launch vehicle switch was viewed with some
suspicion. JPL staffers "felt Headquarters used the finding of [new data on
the Martian atmosphere] as a rationalization for concepts they were already
`enamored of such as out-of-orbit landing and mammoth scientific pay-
loads, without adequately considering either the feasibility of some reason-
able alternatives or the effects at the project level." There was also the belief
that Webb had decided to force Saturn V on Voyager to maintain the Saturn
production line and keep the Marshall Space Flight Center team "happy
I06
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
and working." Many persons at the project working level were afraid that
headquarters did not understand how disruptive the decision could be for
Voyager.61
Angered and dismayed because it had not been properly consulted
about the decision, the JPL team believed there were several explicit reasons
for not using Saturn V. Although launch vehicle cost was usually a small
part of a planetary mission cost, the team feared use of the Saturn V would
make the program too costly because increased payload capability would
"escalate the cost of the spacecraft. " It also would be too big a technological
leap over the Mariners. And it might lead to a program "too big for JPL to
handle alone or perhaps even to oversee."62
If the change from Saturn IB-Centaur to Saturn V was bad news in
Pasadena, the cancellation of the 1971 Voyager mission was worse. On 22
December 1965, a little more than two months after the October launch
vehicle decision, Homer Newell's office notified JPL that there would be no
1971 mission. On the 22d, NASA announced publicly that Voyager would
not fly until 1973. To replace the 1971 orbital Voyager, the agency planned a
1967 flight to Venus using the Mariner 4 backup spacecraft modified for this
new purpose. In 1969, a pair of heavier Mariner-class craft would be
launched by Atlas-Centaur boosters. In 1973, after passing up the 1971
opportunity, two identical Voyager craft would be launched to Mars by a
single huge Saturn. According to this plan, both spacecraft would orbit
Mars and release large landing capsules that would search for evidence of
Martian life. Under the revised phased plan, capsule procurement would
begin in late 1966 or early 1967.63
The 22 December 1965 decision was more than just another delay; it
was the death knell for Voyager. In a published interview, Hearth admitted
that work on Voyager spacecraft would "go on a low back burner basis for
the next year and a half to two years before [it was picked] up again." 64 JPL
would continue design work on landing capsules with support from Lang-
ley and Ames, but the next phase of the procurement cycle would be delayed
"for some time."
The immediate reason for canceling the 1971 flight was a lack of funds.
NASA had hoped to obtain $150 million in the 1967 budget with which to
start hardware development for Voyager, but the Bureau of the Budget
slashed the $5.6-billion overall request to $5.012 before it went to Capitol
Hill. Since Apollo and Surveyor were reaching critical periods in their
maturation, the planetary program took the greatest cuts. Voyager was
allocated only $10 million. As Webb subsequently informed Sen. Clinton P.
Anderson, chairman of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
"The President specifically rejected the initiation of the Voyager program
in the FY 1967 budget. In his consideration of the requirements of the space
program for FY 1967, the President specifically included limited funds to
permit continued study of the Voyager system aimed toward a 1973 Mars
landing mission."
107
ON MARS
Looking back, Homer Newell concluded that NASA could not have
managed two large programs simultaneously—there was just not enough
money for the moon and the planets.65
For the next 22 months, Voyager continued at a reduced pace. The
paperwork multiplied for all concerned, but the avalanche of correspon-
dence and reports was misleading, for the agency's money and enthusiasm
went elsewhere. Some dollars were reprogrammed to begin work on the
1967 Mariner Venus flyby and the twin 1969 Mariner Mars flybys. NASA
could finally fall back on Mariner missions launched by Atlas-Centaur,
since that vehicle was approaching flight readiness. To all concerned, it was
apparent that in times of tight budgets it was easier to rely on existing and
proved hardware, like Mariners, than to take the step up to more advanced
technology.66
Mission Guidelines and Management Assignments
From January through September 1966, the JPL Voyager team under
Don Burcham's direction prepared more than a dozen Voyager project
estimates. Each of these lengthy documents detailed alternative missions
and the technological and scientific tradeoffs required to execute a planned
series of four Voyager flights for 1973, 1975, 1977, and 1979. These estimates
were gigen to the JPL managers, the Voyager capsule advisory group, and
the space science office team during a series of reviews from July through
October. In mid-September, Voyager Project Estimate-14 was presented to
Newell and his staff. This document, called a "feedback VPE" because it
included many space science office recommendations, was approved in a
revised set of Voyager project guidelines sent to JPL by Newell on 5
October. But some of the modifications of the plan upset JPL. The big
change was that headquarters wanted the lab to examine the pros and cons
of launching two orbiter-lander combinations that carried different—rather
than identical—experiment payloads, with the possibility of a direct-entry
landing instead of delivering the lander from an orbiting bus.61
In an attempt to secure approval for the development of the capsule
systems (phase B of the procurement plan), JPL managers made their
VPE-14 presentation to Associate Administrator Seamans on 17 October
1966. 68 But before any action was taken on phase B, considerable discussion
on the best management arrangement for Voyager had to take place during
the winter months. When finally signed on 27 January 1967, the project
approval document for phase B called for a Voyager Program Management
Office to parallel the Lunar and Planetary Program Office within Newell's
Office of Space Science and Applications. Like Apollo, the Mars project
had grown enough in size, duration, and cost to be called a program .69
Other changes proposed in the approval document were more signifi-
cant, and from the JPL point of view revolutionary. Von Braun's Marshall
Space Flight Center would be established as the management organization
for both the Voyager spacecraft and the Saturn V launch vehicle. JPL and
108
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
Langley would work together on the development of lander systems and
report to Marshall. This plan was never executed because a disaster in the
Apollo program diverted NASA's attention from planetary missions. On 27
January, the day the project approval document was signed, a flash fire
killed three astronauts during a test of the Apollo 204 spacecraft. The
uagecly profoundly unsettled the American space program. As the agency
investigated the awesome fire, Webb decided in early February to delay
assigning responsibility for Voyager to Huntsville. In the interim, the
administrator approved the creation of a Voyager Program Office in
Newell's organization and a Voyager Interim Project Office in Pasadena.
Oran Nicks would be program director and Hearth his deputy and acting
project manager. The California office would be abolished once the project
was assigned to another center.70
In discussing these changes with Webb and Seamans, Newell remarked
that the transfer of project management from JPL to the Interim Project
Office had been made because the next nine months were critical in prepar-
ing Voyager for its 1973 launch date. He also noted that they must "con-
tinue to draw heavily upon the existing project management team in JPL
during the transition." Hearth's team of 77 persons began operation in a
downtown Pasadena bank building on 20 March 1967.71
In Washington, meanwhile, Seamans, Newell, Cortright, and Nicks
were explaining the agency's Voyager decisions to Congress. After the
Apollo fire, the congressmen tended to be even sharper in their questioning,
and they no longer accepted as readily the rationale of a race with the Soviet
Union for first place on Mars. Representative Karth questioned the wisdom
of assigning Voyager tasks to different organizations. Pursuing rumors that
JPL was being deprived of Voyager management so that Marshall would be
certain I() have an adequate workload in the post-Apollo period, Karth
asked if the split in responsibility had come about "as a result of certain"
NASA centers running out of work for the future. He did not really expect
the NASA officials to answer such a question in the affirmative, but he
confessed that the new arrangement appeared suspect after "some 5 or 6
years of experience with the Voyager program." Ed Cortright responded
that it would not be in the government's interest to enlarge JPL, a contrac-
tor, at a time when the agency's centers were likely to be cut back, especially
when Marshall had personnel available from a phased-down Saturn pro-
gram and Langley had pertinent, valuable skills developed from its Inan-
agement of Lunar Orbiter.72
Several years later, a Harvard Graduate School of Business Administra-
tion team studied the Voyager management shift and, while reflecting
something of a JPL bias, questioned NASA's judgment:
... as of the middle of 1967, the Voyager Program had an unusual and
complex management structure. Much of the actual work was still being
done at JPL, which was techn](Aly a cont ractor associated with OSSA
[Office of Space Science and Applications], even though its official role
109
 9
ANGLE OF

A( ATTACK
TURNS

O
^7 ;0(6

PROPULSION
SEPARATION
1 TO 3 hn

5
DEORBIT

AV = 275 mps

\ CANISTER
SEPARATION
(ALT SEP
PRIOR TO CAPSULE
ORBIT)
TURNS

CAPSULE
SEPARATION 4
LOW RATE RELAY
B watts
400 me
BA bps ^
BATTERY
-1600 W -hr 3

The September 1966 JPL Voyager Project Estimate-14 briefinggave a profile of the
planned orbital operations of the Voyager spacecraft. 1—The Voyager craft
approaches the point of insertion into orbit of Mars. 2—After orientation of the
orbiter (capsule), the lander in its aeroshell (canister) separates from the orbiter.
3—The orbiter and lander continue around the planet. 4, 6, 9—The orbiter is
turned to achieve the attitude for communications with Earth. 5—A retrorocket
impulse alters the velocity of the lander by 275 meters per second, causing it to
deorbit. 7, 8—One to three hours after deorbit, the propulsion unit on the lander
canister is released and the canister is oriented for final approach to the Mars
surface. VPE-14 Project Study, September 1966.

was much reduced. Two [Office of Advanced Research and Technology]

centers, Ames and Langley, were involved in capsule work with Langley
being given responsibility for the capsule bus system. Kennedy and Mar-
shall, two [Office of Manned Space Flight] centers, were also on board....
On top of this structure was the [Voyager Interim Project Office] an arm of
OSSA but staffed from the centers, and of course there was the program
office at Headquarters in Washington.73
Voyager Terminated
The viability of the new management arrangement became a topic
only for conjecture because Voyager was canceled in 1967 (see appendix B
1 10
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING

for a summary of Voyager project highlights, 1966-1967). The cancellation

was only one of a series of interlocking circumstances, which taken together
remind us that 1967 was an unhappy year for the United States at home and
abroad. Foremost among the problems facing the nation was the war in
Southeast Asia. More than a half million Americans were on military duty
in Vietnam. By 1967, nearly 25 000 had died in a conflict that was costing
taxpayers at home $2 billion monthly. With each new expenditure in
Vietnam, the Johnson administration was faced with a growing budgetary
deficit, which forced the president to reduce nondefense expenditures and
raise taxes. If no other factors had conspired to undermine the planetary
projects NASA wanted to pursue, the cost of the Vietnam war alone would
have diminished the chances for a big Mars mission. But other factors did
also conspire against Voyager.
JPL engineers also outlined their plan for landing Voyager. At about 6100 meters,
the craft would be traveling 140-335 meters per second, depending on the density of
the Martian atmosphere. To slow the lander canister, braking rockets would f ire. At
about the same time, the inertial guidance system and the radar altimeter would be
activated to control the final approach. At a slant range of 610 meters, the lander
would be pyrotechnically separated from the aeroshell. By this time, the craft
would have slowed to 45-105 meters per second. At 25 meters from the surface, it
would stabilize at 1.5 meters per second by firing the terminal descent engines. The
engines would shut down at 3 meters to prevent undue alteration of the terrain. At
touchdown, the lander would be traveling 3-8 meters per second. VPE-14 Project
Study, September 1966.

c .

i
t SLANT RANGE MARK 20,000 ft
ALT 1), 000-20, 000 It
VEL 450-1100 fps
(MACH 0.5 TO I. 20)
SLANT RANGE = 2000 ft IGNITION
SEP AEROSHELL INERTIAL ATT. STAB.
VEL 150-350 fps RADVS ACQUIRE
DEPLOY LEGS SWITCH TO RADVS

ALT = 80 ft
BEGIN 5 fps
DESCENT

'^ t

ALT = 10 It
CUT-OFF
VEL +• 5 Fps

ww^ TOUCHDOWN
VEL a 10-25 fps
CONTINUE LOW RATE RELAY
FOR ABOUT 5 MIN
 Panoramic TV camera
Relay antenna Passive air sampler

Chemical processing
Sample proces.
Instruments
Augur sampler
Data handling Battery
and communicate Sample processing
Chemical proces:

Direct link ante

Long-range sarr

Backup antenna
Command antenna
Boom sampler
RTG and radiator (2)

Primary
energy
Landing Descent propulsion engine (3)
Entry ve

Foot pa
RADVS Propellant tank (2)
Guidance and control
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Scale-inches
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING

There were the growing costs of Apollo, escalated further by the fire. As
one reporter deduced, "The explosive spacecraft fire that killed three
Apollo astronauts ... may seriously delay unmanned spacecraft space
projects as well as those involving man." The Apollo setbacks would cost
more money—money that had been earmarked for Voyager and other
planetary projects. The Office of Space Science and Applications had asked for
$695 million for 1968 (an increase of $88 million over 1967) to provide funds
for Voyager ($71.5 million). Now, noting that the orbiter-lander project had
been "on NASA's back burner for about three years as a result of one
budgetary crisis after another," the newspapers reported that the proposed
1973 landing date was "no longer realistic in view of the added costs likely
to be imposed as a result of the Apollo accident. "79
A secondary budget problem for Voyager was growing cost projections
within the program itself. In House and Senate hearings, NASA representa-
tives were questioned about the total estimated cost for Voyager. Sen.
Margaret Chase Smith of Maine asked Webb for his best total cost figure. He
responded with $2.2 billion for research and development through fiscal
1977. On top of that were "administrative operations costs—that is the
salaries of our civil service personnel," as well as $40 million for facilities
and $55 million for two additional 64-meter radar tracking antennas for the
Deep Space Network, which could be used for other projects, too. 75 Voyager's
growing price tag and the general record of NASA's cost predictions
prompted Representative Karth to lecture the space agency's managers,
noting that over the years, when project failures and budget overruns had
occurred, NASA had used a by now too familiar excuse—youth and inexpe-
rience. Karth believed that the committee had been very understanding, but
i t would not excuse or accept any more mistakes. "We have grown up now."
He added that the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications would
"pay particular attention" to Voyager. "If it is authorized and moneys are
appropriated by the Congress, I would hope that we will set a different
standard by which to gauge ourselves and to which we testify before com-
mittees that are responsible for raising the money for the program. "76
When Congress considered the NASA authorization bill in June 1967,
the House and Senate committees both made deep cuts in the agency's
requests (table 16). While sustaining the pace of the Apollo program, the
House reduced the Voyager budget by $21.5 million and the nuclear rocket

The Voyager Lander proposed in September 1966 for 1977-1979 landings on

Mars was quite similar to the Viking lander that would reach the Red Planet
in 1976. Similar elements included the tripod landing gear, large direct-link
high-gain antenna, smaller relay antenna, and radioisotope thermoelectric
generators. The 1966 design already had a boom soil sampler and a television
camera, but the scientific experiments would need more definition for a
biological mission. The span across the legs of the proposed Voyager lander
was nearly twice that of the Viking. Proposed weight was about twice that of
Viking. VPE-14 Project Study.
113
 ON MARS
development program by $24 million. An additional $75 million was cut
from Apollo Applications, which had been established to provide follow-
up activities in the manned program once the first lunar expeditions had
been achieved. The Senate denied NASA its entire Voyager request and cut
$120 million from Apollo Applications, but authorized the entire amount for
NERVA (nuclear engine for rocket vehicle application). Senator Anderson and
his colleagues on the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Commit-
tee believed that Voyager should be further postponed because the project
would use too much of the space science budget. Whereas 21 space science
missions were planned for 1967, the number would decrease to 13 in 1970
and to only 2—the Voyagers—in 1973. "It is clear, therefore, that to have a
varied mission space flight program in the early 1970's comparable to that
now existing in OSSA there would have to be a substantive increase in
funding for that Office. "77 Additional dollars would not be forthcoming,
and NASA would have to reevaluate its space science activities. In late June,
a joint House-Senate Conference Committee worked out a compromise
budget that restored $42 million to Voyager for 1968. Excluded from
NASA's budget altogether were funds for the proposed Mariner 1971 with
the atmospheric probe.78

An automated biological laboratory

was developed by Philco Aeronutronic
Company to study the possibility of a
hard-landing entry probe to make sim-
ple assays of the Martian environment.
One of several studies for Voyager in
the mid-1960s, it grouped science in-
struments that could be programmed
for numerous experiments. None of
the projects was flown, but they pro-
vided understanding of extraterrestrial
biology detectors.
 MARINER IV

VOYAGER ORBITER

LUNAR ORBITER

J
ZZ p
w:y
ORBITING GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY

VOYAGER PLANETARY VEHICLE

az SURVEYOR 0J
VOYAGER CAPSULE
APOLLO
LUNAR
MODULE

The Voyager spacecraft—orbiter and lander-

was built on technology evolved from several
NASA programs. And, though never flown, Voy-
ager orbiter and lander designs provided a sub-
stantial foundation for the Viking teams.

Though far from lavish, the funds suggested for Voyager would have
been sufficient to begin basic development of the orbiter for a 1973 flight,
but this was just the authorization. The appropriation still had to be moved
through Congress. Between June and August 1967, while the NASA appro-
priations were being finalized, riots or violent demonstrations associated
with the civil rights movement occurred in 67 American cities. Combined
with the unpopular, costly war in Vietnam, the summer of disorder—the
third since the burning of Watts in 1965—forced congressional attention to
concerns more pressing than sending spacecraft to Mars. 79 At the end of
July, as Webb was resolutely refusing to choose between Apollo Applica-
tions or Voyager, a Harris survey indicated that the American public no

115
 Table 15
Voyager Projected Costs
(in millions)

Date of Estimate Missions Projected Cost

8 Mar. 1963 Four flights with SIB-Centaur $ 700

7 Aug. 1964 Two flights with SIB-Centaur 450
Dec. 1964 1969 test flights, and orbiter-
landing capsule mission in both
1971 and 1973 with SIB-Centaur 946
14 Dec. 1964 Four flights with SIB-Centaur 1250
Project Operating 1969 test flights, and orbiter-
Plan 65-1 landing capsule missions in both
1971 and 1973 with SIB-Centaur
(JPL estimate) 1107
Mar.-Apr. 1965 Above missions reviewed by Office
of Space Science and Applications;
kept earlier estimate pending
completion of project definition 946
10 May 1965 Above missions 946
Sept.-Oct. 1965 1969 test flights deleted, 1971
landing changed to capsule test,
one 1973 mission, and launch vehicle
changed to Saturn V (headquarters) 1000
POP-65-4 JPL estimate for one 1973 flight
and 1971 capsule test 1300
Dec. 1965 Landing capsule flights deferred
until 1973 and 1975:
JPL estimate 1578
Hearth estimate 1200
End of Jan. 1966 1973 and 1975 Voyager estimate
(Office of Space Science) 1800
25 Oct. 1966 1973 and 1975 lander missions;
cost for spacecraft and lander
without launch vehicle 1429
18 Apr. 1967 1973 and 1975 lander missions with
cost of launch vehicles ($400
million); does not include
operations costs or $40 million for
facilities or $55 million for
additions to Deep Space Network 2200
SoURCF_: House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1964 NASA Authorization, hearings before
Subcommittee on Space Sciences and Advanced Research and Technology, 88/1, pt. 3(a), Mar.-May
1963, p. 1621; Donald P. Hearth, "Voyager Cost Estimates," memo for record, 7 Aug. 1964; Robert C.
Seamans, Jr., to Donald F. Hornig, 14 Dec. 1964; Hearth to Oran W. Nicks, "FY67 Funding Require-
ment for Voyager," 10 May 1965; Hearth, "History of Voyager Cost Estimates," memo for record, 15 Feb.
1966; and Hearth, "Estimates of Voyager System Contractors Cost," memo for record, 25 Oct. 1966;
Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1968,
hearings, 90/1, pt. 1, Apr. 1967, p. 30.
 VOYAGER: PERILS OF ADVANCED PLANNING
Table 16
NASA Fiscal 1968 Budget
(in millions)

Authorization
Program House Senate Confer- Appropriation
ence

Apollo Applications (Skylab)

Requested $ 454.7 $ 454.7
Approved 379.7 334.7 $ 347.7 $ 315.5
Voyager
Requested 71.5 71.5
Approved 50.0 0.0 42.0 0.0
Nuclear rockets program
Requested 74.0 74.0
Approved 50.0 74.0 73.0 46.5
Total NASA budget
Requested 5100.0 5100.0
Approved 479.7 4851.0 4865.8 4588.9

SOURCE: NASA. Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967: Chronology on Science, Technology, and Policy,
NASA SP -4008 (Washington, 1968), pp. 17-18, 192, 194-95, 237, 320; and NASA, "Chronological
History, Fiscal Year 1968 Budget Submission," 8 Nov. 1967.

longer supported large expenditures on space. Detroit Mayor Jerome P.

Cavanagh voiced the public's concern: "What will it profit this country if
we ... put our man on the moon by 1970 and at the same time you can't
walk down Woodward Avenue in this city without some fear of violence."
Cavanagh and others thought "our priorities in this country [were] all out
of balance. "80
Considering the political climate, Voyager still might have survived,
but only if NASA were very careful about how it promoted its planetary
program. Unfortunately, the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston chose
the first week of August 1967 to send 28 prospective contractors a request for
proposals to study a manned mission to Venus and Mars. 81 While not the
first such investigation to be suggested, in the summer of 1967 proposing a
"Planetary Surface Sample Return Probe Study for Manned Mars/Venus
Reconnaissance/Retrieval Missions" for 1975-1982 was a grave mistake.82
The request infuriated Congressman Karth, who had been fighting an
uphill battle to preserve Voyager. He told one reporter that he was "abso-
lutely astounded," especially in view of repeated congressional warnings
against "new starts. Very bluntly, a manned mission to Mars or Venus by
1975 or 1977 is now and always has been out of the question—and anyone
who persists in this kind of misallocation of resources at this time is going
to be stopped. " 83 While such advanced study proposals were commonplace

117
ON MARS

among most government agencies, the timing of Houston's request could

not have been worse, since previous exercises of this kind sponsored by the
Office of Manned Space Flight canters in Houston and Huntsville had
been billed as logical extensions of the Voyager missions. This cast Voyager
in the role of a "foot in the door" for manned flights to the planets—flights
that would cost billions of dollars.
The Manned Spacecraft Center's request for proposals may have been
the proverbial last straw, because on 16 August the committee voted down
all monies for Voyager and the Houston study. On the 22d, the House
approved a $4588.9 million budget for NASA, $511 million less than the
agency's request. President Johnson did not care to fight the reduction:
"Under other circumstances I would have opposed such a cut. However,
conditions have greatly changed since I submitted my January budget
request." While Johnson went on to say that "these [budget] reductions do
not signal a lack of confidence in our space venture," they did signal the end
of Voyager.84
Despite last minute attempts in October in both the Senate and the
House to save Voyager, the program died in the final deliberations of the
appropriations conference committee (see table 17 for 1968 budget). 85 After
seven years of work, the planetary project had been killed, leaving NASA
with no program for the exploration of the solar system. The 1969 Mars
Mariner was the last approved flight, since the 1971 Mariner had been cut
with Voyager. Much of the responsibility for planning a reduced and
revised space science program fell on John E. Naugle, who succeeded
Newell as associate administrator for space science and applications.
Newell had been appointed in late August to the number three position,
NASA associate administrator (see organization chart in appendix G), and
Searnans had become deputy administrator on 28 January 1966, having
occupied that office in an acting capacity since Hugh Dryden's death the
previous December.
When asked what he would do in his new job, Newell responded, "My
first assignment will be to develop an orderly, routine planning approach
for the agency." The major problem he saw was "defining the major new
objectives of the space program." While Newell and his colleagues publicly
held out hope for a resurrection of Voyager—"My only hope is that we've
sold Voyager and that we're just experiencing a delay because of war and
problems on the homefront"—privately they knew that future planetary
projects would have to be on a smaller scale, in both physical size and
budget. 86 NASA was embarked on a new era—one of ever-tightening
budgets and closer congressional scrutiny.

118
 VOYAGER: PERT I.S OF ADVANCED PLANNING

Table 17
Final NASA Budget, Fiscal 1968
(in millions)

Program Request Authorization Appropriation

Apollo $2546.5 $2521.5 $2496.0

Apollo Applications 454.7 347.7 315.5
Advanced missions 8.0 2.5 0
Physics and astronomy 147.5 145.5 130.0
Lunar and planetary 142.0 131.9 125.0
Voyager 71.5 42.0 0
Bioscience 44.3 41.8 40.0
Space applications 104.2 99.5 88.0
Launch vehicles 165.1 157.7 145.0
Space vehicles 37.0 36.0 35.0
Electronics 40.2 39.2 35.0
Human factors 21.0 21.0 21.0
Basic research 23.5 21.5 20.0
Space power 45.0 44.0 44.0
Nuclear rockets 74.0 73.0 46.5
Chemical propulsion 38.0 41.0 35.0
Aeronautics 66.8 66.8 65.0
Tracking Sc data aquisition 297.7 290.0 270.0
University program 20.0 20.0 10.0
Technology utilization 5.0 5.0 4.0
Research & development
total $4352.0 $4147.6 $3925.0
Construction $ 76.7 $ 69.9 $ 35.9
Administrative operations 671.3 J__§4 8.2 $ 628.0
TOTAL $5100.0 $4865.8 $4588.9

SOURCE: Space Business Daily, 27 Oct. 1967

119
Page intentionally left blank
 5
Reorganization and the Creation of Viking

The cancellation of Voyager wiped clean NASA's slate of proposed

planetary missions. An unthinkable turn of events, it gave the space agency
a unique opportunity to redefine its planetary goals and evaluate the
wisdom of earlier projected activities. But, unlike the early 1960s when
Voyager was conceived, NASA planners by the end of 1967 had a technolog-
ical and scientific base on which to build. The nearby planets were not as
much a mystery as they had been at the beginning of the decade. And the
agency had several proven launch vehicles from which to choose. But more
significant, NASA engineers and scientists better understood the technol-
ogy of spacecraft designed to explore deep space.
An eager group at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia was
anxious to seek alternative missions to replace the Voyager series, and at the
top of their list of possibilities was a Mars landing craft. Having partici-
pated on the fringes of the agency's Mars activities for several years, the
Langley group created its own new series of proposals, from which the
Viking spacecraft evolved. As with many other aspects of NASA's planetary
program, Viking's heritage was tied to the many projects—both successful
and unsuccessful—that preceded it. At Langley, Viking's roots extended
back to 1964, three years before Voyager was canceled.

LANGLEY ENTERS THE MARS BUSINESS

By early 1964, it was widely recognized within NASA that Mars was the
next likely major target for exploration following Apollo's expeditions to
the moon. Leonard Roberts, head of the Mathematical Physics Branch in
the Dynamics Load Division at the Langley Research Center, became
interested in the technological problems associated with vehicles passing
through the Martian atmosphere.' Langley, by virtue of its extended
research into the behavior of airplanes and spacecraft operating in Earth's
atmosphere, was generally recognized as the leading NASA center for the
study of the aerodynamic and heat-load aspects of the entry design of such
vehicles. Pursuing the Langley tradition of researcher-generated study proj-
ects, Roberts brought together an informal group of center personnel to

121
ON MARS
examine the possible application of its expertise to the problems associated
with landing vehicles on Mars. From that group, he selected William D.
Mace, Flight Instrumentation Division; Roger A. Anderson, Structures
Research Division; and Edwin C. Kilgore, chief of the Flight Vehicle
Systems Division, for a team* that would determine how Langley personnel
could best contribute their talents to the investigations of the Red Planet.
Starting from "near zero in knowledge pertaining to ... interplanetary
missions," the Roberts group decided to concentrate on the area in which
Langley had talent—vehicle entry aerodynamics. It would work on devis-
ing the optimum entry vehicle for landing payloads on Mars. The decision
had been influenced by an early look at what other NASA organizations
were doing. In Pasadena, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was the lead
"center" for planetary missions. Both Ames Research Center and Goddard
Space Flight Center were studying probes that would obtain informa-
tion about the Martian environment. Langley would examine the specific
class of problems related to a vehicle from the time it was released by its
transporting craft (orbiter or flyby) until it came to rest on the planet's
surface.
After a few weeks of study during which they exchanged telephone
calls, cryptic notes, and other informal communications, Roberts and his
specialists chose to focus their efforts on the design of a basic, or "baseline,"
entry vehicle. About two and a half meters in diameter (to fit the Mariner
launch shroud), it would weigh 136 kilograms (compatible with Atlas-
Centaur capacities). The Langley Mars probe would contain instruments
that would make direct measurements of the Martian atmosphere while the
vehicle was descending on a parachute deployed from the protective heat-
shield. About 20 persons in scattered locations at Langley participated in
this preliminary planning activity, with the engineering office of the Flight
Vehicles and Systems Division becoming the focal point for coordinating
all the work. Finding volunteers for the project was no problem, since the
Langley people realized that they might be getting in on the "ground floor"
of something big. As James McNulty subsequently recorded, during the
early period "no sophisticated analyses were made, designs were broad
based, and most work was done on scratch paper. ­ 2 Primarily, the Langley
team wanted to get a feel for ideas; "a lot of work and concepts were turned
out, analyzed, modified, or discarded...." Langley researchers were taking
the same kind of initial course that their counterparts at JPL had followed
with Mariner B and Voyager.
Two major problems considered by the Roberts group were optimum
designs of a heatshield and a descent television experiment. Descent televi-
sion was considered useful and a "glamorous" idea, but it was scrapped
because of weight and the long time lag for transmission and processing of
video images. The heatshield also raised the issue of weight allowances.
`James F. McNulty and Clarence T. Brown, Jr., were also in the team's early meetings.

122
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
Roberts' team looked at heatshields for several different landers—from a
simple spherical probe (hard-landing) that would enter the atmosphere at
an angle and travel a long tangential path to the surface, to a series of much
larger, complex craft (soft-landing). But hard or soft, the landers would
need a heatshield to overcome aerodynamic heating and assist in slowing
down the craft before touchdown. Writing in the fall of 1964, Roberts noted
that during the past decade considerable research had been applied to the
design of ICBM and manned entry vehicles for use in Earth's atmosphere,
and much of that technology could be adapted for planetary exploration.
However, there were some significant differences, "primarily because we
face different planetary atmospheres and higher entry velocities."
Although it became obvious that existing heatshield technology would
not meet payload weight limitations for the large landers, a solution did
appear to exist for the smaller probes. Roger Anderson's Structures
Research Division at Langley was working on a new heatshield—a "ten-
sion shell" with a peaked cap—in which the payload would be placed
below the main ring of the heatshield structure. The membrane, stretched
between the payload and the ring, ,would deflect the entry heat pulse and
provide the necessary drag. For the thin Martian atmosphere, this new
shield promised to be more efficient than those used for Earth reentry.3
Concurrently, Langeey researchers under William Mace examined the
problems posed by sterilizing hardware using intense heat over long peri-
ods of time.
In the summer of 1964, Roberts asked the center management to fund a
$500 000 industry study of a Mars probe with a tension-shell heatshield.
After a vigorous selling job by Roberts, NASA Headquarters allocated the
requested funds, half from the Office of Advanced Research and Technol-
ogy and half from the Office of Space Sciences and Applications. It was
December before the request for proposals (RFP) was released, and the six
months gave the Virginia team time to define the contractor's tasks.
Preparing a statement of work for the contract proved a challenge. In
Langley's first plunge into the interplanetary realm, Roberts and his col-
leagues discovered it was a difficult task to define on paper exactly what
needed to be done. In addition to the probe, NASA Headquarters was
urging Langley to examine the lander in more detail. Since the lander had
been considered thus far only as it affected the design of the heatshield, this
study gave the men at Langley new opportunities. Despite the extra work
required, the team was enthusiastic about working on a new lander, since it
enlarged the scope and importance of the study. It also gave Langley a
chance to enter a domain previously dominated by JPL. A shift away from
the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle to the Saturn IB-Centaur permitted a
more realistic examination of larger landing craft. As McNulty said, "... it
was a new and bigger project—and it was Langley's responsibility."
As it finally evolved, the Langley statement of work for the contractor
study contained some familiar ideas and some new ones. While planning in
123
ON MARS

detail for a 1971 probe mission, the contractors would also examine larger,
more complex landers for 1973 and 1975. Unlike earlier proposals, Lang-
ley's proposal recommended separating the landing probe from the space-
craft before the spacecraft's encounter with Mars. The main part of the craft
would subsequently fly by the planet after relaying a short transmission
from the probe.' Released in December 1964, the request for proposals
generated eight responses from industry, which were evaluated in March
1965. A contract was awarded to the Research and Advanced Development
Division of AVCO.
This $600 000, seven-month examination was one of three Mars-
related studies being funded by NASA in the summer of 1965. First—and
foremost—was the Voyager phase IA tinder the direction of JPL, with
Boeing, General Electric, and TRW as contractors. Second, Ames Research
Center had contracted with AVCO for a six-month, $300 000 study of a
lightweight (11-kilogram), nonsurviving probe. And third was Langley's
new contract with AVCO to develop an entry system and survivable lander.5
The three contracts, two of them managed by Office of Advanced Research
and Technology (DART) centers—Langley and Ames—raised many issues
that had to be resolved at NASA Headquarters.
Basic to all other concerns was a management problem—how to inte-
grate the Office of Advanced Research and Technology centers into the
activities of the Office of Space Sciences and Applications. Langley had no
Voyager office as such at this time, but with the increased tempo of Mars
activities the Virginia center set up a Planetary Mission Technology Steer-
ing Committee, chaired by Leonard Roberts. Through this committee, the
center's staff could bring members of Langley into planetary activities
without taking them away from their primary responsibilities in their
technical divisions. Charles J. Donlan, Langley deputy director, outlined
three tasks for the steering committee—guiding the AVCO study, begin-
ning a Langley research program in support of Voyager, and preparing a
working agreement defining relations between JPL and Langley.
In the process of overseeing AVCO's work, the steering committee
discarded one of its pet ideas, the tension-shell heatshield. The concept had
given Langley a foot in the door, but the heatshield had failed to prove out
in the wind-tunnel tests. The Apollo and blunt-body heatshields were its
equal in performance without some of its structural weaknesses. As one
participant noted, "Thus, one of Langley's main selling points—its unique
knowledge of tension shell technology—was quietly discarded without
notice. "6 Langley's attention shifted to a blunt cone for entry, because it was
easier to package than the bigger Apollo heatshield.
In defining the research program, the Langley team demonstrated its
bias toward research and technology development rather than the conduct
of flight projects. Since the creation of its first facilities shortly before World
War I, Langley had been dedicated to applied research. In the NASA era,
flight projects were viewed as status symbols, good for public relations and
124
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
as a source of funding, but the center's managers sought a careful mix of
missions and research and strove to keep flight projects subordinate to the
research program. At Langley, Voyager-related research in 1965 cal led fora
wind-tunnel test program ($330 000), capsule-heatshield development
($400 000), and parachute development ($865 000). Parachute technology
was an important area to be studied, because no parachute then in existence
would survive deployment at the extremely high speeds (mach 1.2) needed
for a Mars mission.?
Defining Langley-JPL working relations was no simple task, because
of JPL's unique position in the NASA organization. 8 In July 1965, when
the California laboratory was selected as the capsule system manager for
Voyager, Homer Newell told JPL Director William Pickering that Langley
would act "in a capsule technical support role relating to design, develop-
ment and testing of the entry system." 9 With management charter in hand,
12 representatives from JPL visited Langley to work out the details of
Langley's support, and it was quickly apparent, according to McNulty, that
JPL and Langley had some diverse views as to Langley's role. From the
Tidewater perspective, it appeared that "JPL was interested in getting
Langley out of the `systems' area which JPL wanted to control and into
narrow specific technology tasks (i.e., type of heat shield material) which
would support its mission concept." The Langley people, on the other
hand, took a broader view. To them, support in the area of entry technology
included entry concepts, design, methodology, materials testing, and the
like. JPL, in addition, was miffed over the AVCO probe contract with
Langley, believing that it might lead to "preferential treatment [of] AVCO
in subsequent Voyager capsule procurement. ­ 10 McNulty later wrote that
there was much "free discussion but few agreements" between Langley and
JPL. Headquarters would have to help define the roles the centers played."
The specialists in Virginia spent the late summer months of 1966
working with the AVCO study and making occasional trips to Voyager
capsule advisory group meetings. Like everyone else, the Langley group
was surprised at the October shift to the Saturn V launch vehicle. AVCO
was redirected to consider the implications of the adoption of the giant
booster. 12 More significant, Langley Deputy Director Donlan told the
Planetary Mission Technology Steering Committee that the center man-
agemen t wanted to use Voyager as a focus for its research programs, since it
was the only major approved NASA activity after Apollo. In addition to
seeing Voyager as a source of post-Apollo work, the Langley management
could not fail to appreciate the fact that a "real" NASA center might be
assigned the Voyager management role instead of the "contractor" labora-
tory in Pasadena.13
AVCO delivered its final report on 1 March 1966, with the following
proposed mission highlights:
Experiments
• 3-camera television system
125
ON MARS
• 4 penetrometers to measure surface hardness
• instruments to determine atmospheric composition
Entry capsule
• 4.6-meter-diameter cone
• 925-kg weight
Only technological problem area
• development of parachute for low dynamic pressures.14
Delivery of AVCO's results came just a week before the cancellation of the
1969 probe mission and the 1971 Voyager flight. The Langley team
embarked on an in-house study of alternative approaches to Voyager Land-
ers and landings, giving special attention to out-of-orbit entry versus direct
entry from a flyby.
On 2 June 1966, JPL's Centaur-powered Surveyor 1 became the first
American spacecraft to soft-land on the moon. While the landing demon-
strated the feasibility of terminal retrorockets, there was some question
about the application of other Surveyor mission elements to a Mars flight.
Direct entry to the lunar surface was relatively easy, given the detailed
knowledge of the moon's motion and the reasonably good views of landing
areas from Earth. Mars was a much less well defined target. The absence of
any lunar atmosphere also obviated the need for a heatshield and parachute.
After the success of the soft-landing rocket system, the Langley team consid-
ered using a retropropulsion unit in conjunction with a heatshield and
parachute for Mars landers. On 14 August, Lunar Orbiter 1 orbited the
moon, the first American vehicle to do so. Besides mapping the lunar
surface in detail for Apollo landing site selection, this Boeing-built,
Langley-managed spacecraft demonstrated the center's ability to supervise
a major project with a reasonably small staff. Langley also had fewer cost
increases and schedule slips with the orbiter project than JPL had with the
lander. That fall, successful tests of parachutes similar to those that would
be needed for a landing on Mars also spoke for Langley's technical and
managerial capabilities.
In August 1966, the results of an in-house study were presented to the
Langley Planetary Missions Technology Steering Committee. Reflecting
an increasingly complex series of planetary missions for the 1970s, the study
made several recommendations regarding Mars landers: employment of a
5.8-meter conical heatshield, the maximum diameter compatible with the
Saturn V launch shroud, to provide the fullest aerodynamic braking; devel-
opment of a standard cone sized to the largest landers so that only one entry
vehicle would have to be developed and flight-qualified; and use of the
parachute for additional braking after the heatshield had been discarded
and before the retrorockets had been fired. This study report, approved by
the steering committee, was a rough outline of how Langley planned to
land Voyager on Mars.15

126
 RFORGANI7.ATION AND VIKING

As a result of Langley's work, Edgar M. Cortright, deputy director of

the NASA Headquarters Office of Space Science and Applications, called a
meeting for 26 September to discuss that center's role in the Voyager
mission.* Earlier that month, a JPL group had described a different
approach to landing a spacecraft on Mars. Retrorockets would be actuated
at about 6100 meters, continuing to fire through ports in the heatshield
until the lander was separated from a protective aeroshell at about 610
meters. Final descent would be slowed by firing the lander engines from 24
to 3 meters. This approach had three major problems: it would be difficult
to design ports that would not reduce the effectiveness of the heatshield; the
lander and its experiments would have to be protected during separation
from the effects of the retrorockets; and, given the unknown density of the
Martian atmosphere, the engines would have to have a complicated elec-
tronic throttle and carry enough fuel to permit maximum thrust if the
density of the atmosphere was at the lower end of the calculated range.
Leonard Roberts described for headquarters Langley's proposed land-
ing techniques, stressing the role of the parachute. The Langley approach
had been carefully thought out and analyzed. It was simpler than JPL's
approach, more realistic, and practical. Langley's Mars team won their
center a major role in the Voyager project—the development of the entry
system, or capsule bus as it was called in space engineering jargon.16
Langley Research Center personnel took part in three kinds of Voyager
activities during 1967. Twenty Flight Vehicle Systems Division engineers
under Ed Kilgore worked on design aspects of the capsule bus. Nine engi-
neers under David G. Stone, who had replaced Roberts as the focal figure for
Voyager after Roberts had transferred to NASA's Ames Research Center,
coordinated all project details. Another 60 research engineers were engaged
in developing new technology. Both Stone and Kilgore sat on the NASA-
wide Voyager Management Committee, but Stone's job brought him into
more frequent contact with the other centers.

Jim Martin Joins the Mars Team

On 23 June 1967, Langley Director Floyd Thompson announced the
appointment of James S. Martin, Jr., as manager of the capsule bus system,
thereby forming a project management organization to control all Voyager-
related activities at Langley.
Martin had joined the Langley staff in September 1964 after 22 years
with the Republic Aviation Corporation. His experiences as assistant chief
technical engineer, chief research engineer, and manager of space systems
requirements at Republic, as well as his reputation for troubleshooting and
no-nonsense management, had been the major reasons Langley Director

*Oran Nicks and Hearth represented OSSA; Mac C. Adams, DART; Kilgore and McNulty,
Langley; and William H. Pickering and senior Voyager staff members, JPL.

127
ON MARS

Thompson had recruited him for the Lunar Orbiter assistant project man-
ager job. During the nearly three years he had been on the Orbiter team,
Martin had further demonstrated his ability to get contractors to meet the
schedule and budgetary requirements of Langley's first major space project.
By summer 1967, only one Lunar Orbiter'* flight remained, and Martin and
his teammates could turn their attention to new projects. The Voyager
capsule bus system was their high priority item."
Martin and five engineers set up the Voyager Capsule Bus Manager's
Office in June 1967. Plans called for the remaining Lunar Orbiter staff,
about 25 more engineers, to join them in September after their last flight.
Martin's approach to managing the capsule bus was structured around his
people, who would handle project implementation. Ed Kilgore's team
would act as consultants and advisers, tutoring Martin's managers. Stone's
work on entry systems was controlled by Martin's use of the budget. Dollars
would be allocated for only the activities that he thought were germane to
the tasks at hand, and all requests for funds had to be justified to the
Management Office."
Cancellation
Martin had been at his new tasks for only two months when Voyager
was denied further funding by Congress. In the wake of this blow, the
Langley Planetary Missions Technology Steering Committee convened a
"what-do-we-do-next" meeting on 6 September. Eugene C. Draley, assist-
ant director for flight projects, and former supervisor of Lunar Orbiter in
the director's office at Langley, told the nearly 50 persons at the meeting
something of the background of Voyager's demise. The Office of Space
Science and Applications in Washington had been informed by congres-
sional staff members that NASA's budget cuts had been primarily the result
of other higher priority programs, not simply disapproval of Voyager. As a
result, headquarters requested JPL, Ames, Langley, and Lewis to help
define a more modest planetary program. Draley told his audience that
Langley's goal was to have a project concept ready for submission by 1
November 1967, and he asked the Planetary Missions Technology Steering
Committee to investigate and recommend scientific objectives for such a
new project.19
Eugene S. Love, chairman of the steering committee, presented a
preliminary list of candidate missions. He believed that Mars should con-
tinue to be the focus of the agency's interest. "Venus is not nearly so
interesting when we consider long term NASA objectives such as ultimately
placing men on the surface. In looking at possible unmanned Mars explo-
ration in the 1971-1973 time period at costs much lower than the Voyager
concept, a number of approaches are possible." He listed seven of them at
the early September meeting:
*The first four Lunar Orbiters had returned several hundred detailed photographs of the lunar
surface, which would be used in Apollo landing site selection.

128
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
a) Direct entry probe, no fly-by spacecraft.
b) Fly -by spacecraft only.
c) Fly-by spacecraft with entry probe.
d) Short period orbiter, no entry probe.
e) Short period orbiter with entry probe.
f) Long period orbiter, no entry probe.
g) Long period orbiter, with entry probe.20
All of these alternatives had been considered at one time or another in
the course of formulating Mariner and Voyager proposals. In Love's opin-
ion, only the last choice deserved further investigation. "A long period
orbiter (a goal covering one complete Martian year) capable of providing
color photo mapping of most of the planet's surface over an entire seasonal
cycle would provide information of immense and lasting value." The
pictures taken during such an orbital mission could be used to compile an
atlas that would be of "great value to astronauts in future missions." Scien-
tists would find the images of "inestimable value in assessing past hypothe-
ses and generating new knowledge of the planet." Whereas "color photo
mapping of Mars over a seasonal cycle should in itself justify the mission,
and should be the primary objective," correlation of the photographs with
infrared and radar mapping would yield even greater insights into the
nature of the planet.
But orbital photography and scientific measurements, according to
Love, were only half the story. "Adequate information on the structure of
the Martian atmosphere cannot be obtained from orbit." The addition of a
simple entry probe, however, could provide the means for examining the
atmosphere and obtaining data essential for refined engineering design of
future Martian entry vehicles.
Getting the orbiter and its probe to Mars was still the major problem.
Love recommended that "the examination of candidate launch vehicles
should be limited to those that are available or will be unquestionably
flight proven considerably before the mission time period." He further
suggested that the candidate boosters be few.

The initial study activity should progress as follows: (1) definition of Ole
payload capability fora Mars mission for the candidate launch vehicles,
(2) choice of the launch vehicle that gives the best overall capability
provided costs are reasonably competitive, (3) definition of the fraction
of the payload capability that must go into the orbiter, (4) definition of
weight remaining that can be allotted to an envy probe, if any.'

At the 6 September 1967 gathering of the steering committee, Chair-

man Love appointed a subcommittee to recommend a list of scientific
129
ON MARS
objectives for Mars and Venus missions. While the subcommittee deliber-
ated and the committee adjourned for five days, Jim Martin traveled to
Pasadena for the sixth meeting of the Voyager Management Committee.
Donald P. Hearth told the attendees that the Voyager Interim Project Office
would be closed out in early October. To make the best use of the informa-
tion generated by Voyager, Hearth laid down an orderly plan for terminat-
ing existing work and preparing for a new project.22
On 11 September, the Langley Planetary Missions Technology Steer-
ing Committee met again to discuss the science recommendations. In a
fashion reminiscent of earlier JPL reports, the subcommittee emphasized
orbiter and probe experiments rather than lander investigations (tables 18
and 19). There was considerable discussion as to the merits of orbiters,
probes, and "minimum semi hard- landers," and Clifford Nelson requested
that a lander not be "locked out" for a 1973 mission. The other attendees
agreed, although there was little enthusiasm for sending life-detection
experiments to Mars that early. To carry out further study toward a Novem-
ber recommendation to headquarters, Nelson headed a Langley ad hoc
study group of 80 engineers divided into 13 working groups.23

Table 18
Sample Areas of Scientific Interest

1. Orbits 7. Atmosphere
Constituents
2. Rotation Scale height
3. Size Density
Mean diameter Meteorology
Shape Clouds, winds, temperature
Temporal changes
4. Mass
Mean density 8. Surface structure
Topography
Distribution
Relief, morphology
5. Fields and particles Cartography
Gravitational Temporal changes
Magnetic 9. Surface composition, properties
Electric Constituents
Trapped radiation Temperature
Micrometeoroids Texture
6. Ionosphere Radiation
Existence Albedo and color
Strength Temporal changes
Temporal changes 10. Internal structure
Constituents
Volcanism
Seismicity

130
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING

Table 19
Specific Objectives of an Early Mars Orbiter Probe

To obtain maximum coverage of the planet's topography with sufficient resolution to

identify major geological structures and features, including distinguishing characteristics,
or different planetary areas during seasonal changes.
To obtain topographical data over limited areas with sufficient resolution to provide
morphological patterns, evidence of vegetation and volcanic activity, and terrain features of
geological interest.
To determine the structure, composition, and temporal changes in the atmosphere.
To obtain information on the gravitational and magnetic fields and radiation and micro-
meteoroid environments.
To obtain information on the extent and nature of clouds.
To observe diurnal and seasonal changes ill temperature.

Alternatives for Planetary Investigation

That fall, NASA Headquarters, Langley, and JPL planetary project
planners pursued possible alternatives to Voyager for Mars and Venus
missions. In Washington, Cortright and Oran Nicks outlined four plane-
tary options for Administrator James E. Webb, Deputy Administrator
Robert C. Seamans, and Associate Administrator for Space Science and
Applications Homer E. Newell in late September. Nicks later told Jim
Martin that the lack of any comments from the managers at headquarters
regarding the briefing indicated to him that Webb was still feeling the
pressure of the White House's cost-cutting drive.
At a 9 October presentation for Administrator Webb, space science and
applications representatives outlined five possible options they believed
would help answer the general question: Should NASA plan any flight
missions for planetary exploration in the 1970s? As they saw it, the alterna-
tives included (1) providing no funds for fiscal 1968 and 1969; (2) pro-
viding the planetary program with a sufficient budget to "maintain tech-
nology and pools of scientific, technical and managerial talent to support"
subsequent development of planetary missions after Mariner 1969;
(3) establishing two 1972 Mariner flights to Venus and two 1973 Mariner
flights to Mars; (4) planning for Voyager flight in 1975 if money was made
available in fiscal 1970; or (5) initiating the Voyager program in fiscal 1968
or 1969 with a very small budget aimed at producing an orbital flight in
1973 and a lander mission in 1975 (table 20). 29 The space science staff at
NASA Headquarters* favored an extension of the Mariner flights (option 3)
*Effective 1 October 1967, Newell became associate administrator. In October, John E. Naugle
became head of the Office of Space Science and Applications and Cortright became deputy associate
administrator for manned spaceflight. Nicks filled Cortright's old position as deputy associate adminis-
trator for space science and applications, and Hearth became director of lunar and planetary programs.

131
ON MARS
G)
} \ \ }
\ b § ƒ\\
/f 2
/
0/
\/ j \\ /\\\
@ 2
\ \
7
. 2 ( — \« /± \ _
) R c
« § / / 2 \ ^00
e G S § $ .± .\
^ ( \ _ \ \ ;_gz
\/ ^/ g$sa
!=2 7/J .-d5
\
} \
— -\ 7 \ \
w ^ g —
E3
§g \
n^ 6 =
\\\ k\//
~ \ \ \ ^ \ ( \\
®w ±. ^ /
./ }
ƒ^ / / G t^
\ /
g \ % § \ \ \ %
^ƒ ./0
\ / \ \ \ \ .g
§ 7= g\//
/^ ( \ ( ( / \
\ } \ \ \ \ \ ƒ
3 R p & R 3 p
2 3 5 5 5 3 5 2
.. \p
/ ƒ ^
\ \ { / / k .( \
Q }}
to .§E§
/2 \v \\§
\ G— G= §-a
§\ §= \%t
=e =^
k /\ &g F)•§
/ \ \
132
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
x
a
O
n
v
Z,
cr
ti
T
O
O
6G
i
C UL.
v T Q^ ,_..,
,u C U Ex
.b+
L
X ^
o U H n
W
a
^-.. It ^. ^- a
11 G
C 3 ^ 7 ^ .0 k+ ^ cD O y, c
C-
n
u ^
GL z h
-+ 6i CS cli L C
Q o
a',a
'd o
ca C° C ^" C ^a
c v w cz
xo c
xy
Q^
z^ o bn ., o as
y ^ ¢ i a^ ^ H a
y U Qd (L' v
^: o
VI 7 L '^ U H L L
ft m ^ T
rL ^^rr rr ^^^L++
L Y Q
`^ O -^ GV cn yr 7
t` t` n t` t` n t` X
'• O O ^ 01 T O a O
r^ :C 'p
CJ C
C ^
1 O
^ L
Rcj
S -
u
W iu.
O
^U
:^ L1
o
O^
G
^x
133
ON MARS
with plans for work on a mission like Voyager (option 4) to begin in 1970.
No budget, or a very small one for 1968 and 1969 (options 1 and 2), would
seriously affect the continuation of JPL's work for the space agency. In fact,
the first option would have reportedly required "the phase out of JPL after
Mariner 69, the loss of the scientific support presently being provided to the
planetary program, termination of all contractor efforts and the reassign-
ment of all in-house personnel to other agency programs." Choice number
5 was equally unsatisfactory because the projected costs were too high. But a
combination of options 3 and 4 might "provide for continuation of the
planetary exploration (without a Voyager commitment) at a reduced level
and more effectively use the scientists, engineers, and administrative per-
sonnel by focusing their activities at specific missions which incorporate
the technologies required for future detailed exploration of the planets. ­25
Combined options 3 and 4 became known as "Plan 5," or the Planetary
Extension program. While there were no commitments to specific flights
beyond Mariner 69, the managers did have a "wish list" ready if more
money became available. Plan 5 was an attempt to keep the planetary team
intact by focusing "new technologies (flyby, orbiter, probe and lander)
activities toward classes of missions (Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Mercury)
and various launch vehicles." This proposal would give the agency a
flexibility in choosing future missions, provide a realistic environment for
engineers carrying out mission studies, and build a planetary program
data bank of mission concepts, technology, and scientific experimental
techniques within the limits of current budgets. The agency would use its
"supporting research and technology" (SR&T) monies to underwrite tech-
nical studies that would permit centers to undertake new projects at some
later date without wasting time or talents. Use of SR&T funds would not
constitute a new programmatic start, which Congress had banned.26
By early November 1967, less than two weeks after Congress had
canceled Voyager, Administrator Webb was ready to propose a revised
planetary program. His opportunity came during congressional hearings
on NASA's proposed operating plan for fiscal 1968. He responded to the
inevitable question from Sen. Margaret Chase Smith regarding what the
agency planned to do in the field of planetary investigation. The Office of
Space Science and Applications was proposing five new Mariner missions
(1971-1976), a Voyager-style flight to Mars with two orbiters and two small
probes for 1973, and a more ambitious soft-lander expedition for 1975. The
1971 Mariner flight, launched by an Atlas-Centaur, would be a long-term
orbiter to make extensive observations of Mars. It would replace the 1971
Mariner proposed earlier by NASA, a flyby craft with a small atmospheric
probe. Without the expense of developing that probe, NASA planners
expected that the new 1971 Mariner mission would be more economical;
they also would use equipment left over from the 1969 Mariner project. The
other Mariner flights Webb specifically mentioned to Congress were to
Venus in 1972 and 1973 using the Air Force Titan IIIC launch vehicle. The
134
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
revised Voyager for 1973 had been scaled down so that it could be launched
by Titan, as well, rather than by Saturn V, which would cost 10 times as
much. However, the 1975 Voyager-style mission was still geared to Saturn.
Webb told the senators that "the conclusion of Mariner V, Lunar
Orbiter, Surveyor and deferral of Voyager ... all occur at the same time—
the end of this year." He noted that the decision on the 1969 budget would
determine if "these teams, representing an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 man-
years of experience, are to be disbanded. Together they have launched 16
spacecraft toward the moon and the planets. It cost over $700 million to do
the work represented by their competence." While NASA could use SR&T
funds during 1968 "to hold a limited portion of this competence together,"
Webb stressed that "the President's decision on the 1969 budget and further
consultations with this and other committees of Congress will guide our
reprogramming action. "27
Webb's "bold" step toward maintaining NASA's planetary program
was influenced by several factors. The principal sources for financing any
new planetary efforts were funds that could not be spent on the Apollo
Applications Program (AAP). Conceived as a means of exploiting Apollo-
developed technology for various manned earth-orbital and extended
lunar-based missions, the Apollo Applications Program had also been cut
by Congress during the 1968 budget deliberations—from a request of $454.7
mil lion to an appropriation of $315.5 million. Since the number of Apollo
applications flights had been sharply reduced and no flights were scheduled
before 1970, Webb could argue for more planetary missions without neces-
sarily seeking an overall increase in NASA funds. This proposed alteration
of planetary priorities would require overcoming resistance at the White
House and the Bureau of the Budget and on Capitol Hill. But Webb
believed that space science was a timely and worthwhile cause for which the
agency should fight. 18
As Webb and his headquarters managers prepared for the fiscal 1969
budget process, the centers began to work on plans for executing new
planetary missions should the money be made available. 29 JPL was
assigned management responsibility for the two Mariner Mars 1971 orbi-
ters, and Langley was directed to manage the Titan Voyager Orbiter 1973
project, which became known as Titan Mars 1973 Orbiter and Lander. On
29 January 1968, President Johnson assured these projects their survival
when he said in his budget address to Congress, "We will not abandon the
field of planetary exploration." He recommended the "development of a
new spacecraft for launch in 1973 to orbit and land on Mars." The new Mars
mission would cost "much less than half the Voyager Program included in
last year's Budget." Johnson went on: "Although the scientific results of
this new mission will be less than that of Voyager it will still provide
extremely valuable data and serve as a building block for planetary explora-
tion systems in the future." Although Webb still viewed this new planetary
activity as austere, he was glad to see it gain the support of the president.3o

135
ON MARS
In a press conference on the budget, John E. Naugle, the new associate
administrator for space science and applications, noted that this Mars
exploration program would cost about $500 million, rather than the $2400
million for Voyager. Further, "This program of four orbiters and two
landers ... is a minimum program consistent with the need to maintain
expenditures at a minimum. Nevertheless, when you compare it to the
automated lunar exploration program we have just completed, we think it
is an extremely good and sound program." When asked about experiments,
Naugle indicated that this topic was still under study. Landed television
pictures had a high priority, as did measuring atmospheric pressure and
meteorological changes Such as wind velocity. Don Hearth predicted a
90-day orbital lifetime for the 1971 orbiters and 180 days for the 1973 craft.
But he added, "Bear in mind that Mariner IV lasted for three years. So these
numbers could be very pessimistic." Hard-landers weighing 360 kilograms
were being contemplated for the later mission, which meant that about 10
kilograms of scientific instruments could be landed. This payload was
about half the projected instrumented payload for Mariner B in 1961.31
Though austere, Titan Mars 1973 might actually have the chance to fly
(tables 21 and 22).
Titan Mars 1973
Getting a start on a new series of planetary flights was just a first step
on a long road. To get Langley and JPL going, Naugle asked them on 9

Table 21
Estimated Costs for Mars Program
(January 1968, in trillions)

Total
FY 1968 FY 1969 FY 1970 All Years

Spacecraft:
Mariner Mars 69 $59.2 $30.0 $ 5.0 $125.0
Mariner Mars 71 — 18.0 40.0 86.0
Titan Mars 73 — 20.0 50.0 347.0
Launch Vehicle:
1969 (Atlas-Centaurs) 8.0 3.2 — 20.0
1971 (Atlas-Centaurs) — 3.4 13.0 20.0
1973 (Titan IIIC) — — — 38.4
Nonrecurring costs for "Titan III-Centaur ;zz S30.0

SOURCE: Donald P. Hearth, 30 Jan. 1968

136
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
Table 22
Mars Program
(January 1968)

Year Mission Spacecraft Weight

(kg)

1964 Mariner 4 Flyby (1) 260

1969 Mariner Mars 69 Flyby (2) 385

1971 Mariner Mars 71 Orbiter (2)" 410 (usefulb)

1973 Titan Mars 73 Orbiter (2)` — 455 (usefulb)

(Science instruments 75)
2 launches, each Lander (2) — 365 (total)
with 1 orbiter (Science instruments
and lander on surface 14)

Voyager (for comparison) Orbiter (2) 1800 (useful")

(Science instruments 230)
1 Saturn V launch Lander (2) 2700 (total)
(Science instruments
on surface 75)

Weight Summary

1971 Mariner Mars 71 Useful orbiter 410

Propulsion 455
Total gross weight at Mars 865
Atlas-Centaur capability 910

1973 Titan Mars 73 Useful orbiter 455

Lander 365
Propulsion (orbit
insertion) 725
Total gross weight 1545
Titan IIIC capability c.1130
Titan-Centaur capability c.4100
Titan IIIC—dual burn of
spacecraft propulsion c.2540
`' 1971 orbiter a modification of 1969 flyby.
b Spacecraft weight without propellant.

1973 orbiter same as 1971 except as modified to support landei

SOURCE: Donald P. Hearth, notes, 30 Jan. 1968.

137
ON MARS
February 1968 for a study of Titan III-class missions to Mars for 1973. "The
objective of this study is to evaluate the baseline mission submitted to the
Congress ... together with all promising alternatives, to permit a mission
definition for the 1973 opportunity." Langley's work in fiscal year 1968 was
"intended to advance the state of the art of such potential missions and will
not be directed at a specific flight project until such a project is authorized
by the administrator." The baseline mission included:
1. Two launches in 1973.
2. Launch vehicle to be either a Titan III [D] /Centaur or a Titan III with
multiburn spacecraft propulsion for interplanetary injection as well as
orbit insertion.
3. Each launch vehicle to carry a Mariner 71 class orbiter and a rough-
landing capsule. The capsule may ... enter the Mars atmosphere [either]
directly or from orbit.
4. The 1973 mission is constrained to a total program cost of $385 M[il-
lion], including launch vehicles. This is believed to be consistent with the
use of a minimum-modified Mariner 71 orbiter and an 800 pound [360-
kilogram] class rough lander... .
5. The science objectives should include the following:
A. Orbiter: Carry payload similar to Mariner 71.
B. Entry vehicle: Measure atmospheric temperature, pressure, compo-
sition, and 3 -axis acceleration.
C. Lander: Transmit limited imagery and measure atmospheric
temperature, pressure, wind, soil composition, and subsurface mois-
ture.
The science objectives of a Mars lander mission would have to be
tailored to fit physical and budgetary limitations. Naugle asked the people
at Langley to consider two alternative missions:
1. Hard-landers, with or without orbiters, direct entry, or out-of-orbit
en try.
2. Soft-landers, with or without orbiters, direct entry, or out-of-orbit
en try.
Project management was assigned to the Langley Research Center. JPL
would provide assistance in such areas as system management of the orbiter
or the lander.32
The 1973 Mars Mission Project Office under Jim Martin's direction
prepared statements of work and awarded study contracts to industry. These
studies concentrated on aspects of the "mission-mode" question. General
Electric examined the hard-lander possibility; McDonnell Douglas investi-
gated a soft-lander option; and Martin Marietta looked into the virtues of
direct versus out-of-orbit entry for the landers. Martin's staff worked with

138
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
JPL to ensure the laboratory's support of the orbiter portion of the Mars
mission.33

PROBLEMS—MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS AND BUDGETS

During the spring and summer of 1968, Don Hearth at NASA Head-
quarters and Jim Martin at Langley wrestled with two familiar problems—
project management and project budgets. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory
management still wanted to control such planetary missions as Titan Mars
73. And the 1968 debates over the fiscal year 1969 budget were threatening
the agency's Mars lander goals.
JPL Director Pickering began a high-level management debate in
April 1968 with a letter to Charles Donlan, the acting director at Langley.*
After cordial comments about the "excellent working relationships" being
established between JPL and Langley, Pickering went on to say that his
organization agreed with "the previous position taken by LaRC [Langley]
representatives relative to Voyager, namely that Project Management and
Orbiter System Management should be the responsibility of a single center
because the total mission design is so tightly coupled to the Orbiter System
functions of acquiring scientific data and transporting an entry-lander to
acceptable release conditions." To conform with this management concept,
Pickering thought it might be wise to assign "both Project management
and Orbiter System management responsibilities to JPL, particularly in
follow-up of the Mariner Mars 71 Project." A second alternative would
assign project and orbiter management to Langley, with JPL providing
"Project-level missions support and Entry-Lander System management."
With either approach, Pickering believed his team in Pasadena was the one
that should work with Langley in managing the 1973 Mars lander mis-
sion.34
Eugene Draley, Langley assistant director for flight projects, recorded
in a memo for the record that JPL seemed to prefer working on the lander
rather than on the orbiter, but Jim Martin's proposed management did
not agree with JPL's suggestions. Langley wanted to oversee the project
and the development of the lander with JPL supervising the work on the
orbiter, which would evolve from the 1971 Mariner orbiter. 35 While sympa-
thetic to the merits of JPL's alternatives, the Langley team wanted to pursue
its proposed management scheme for several specific reasons. First, an
anticipated tight budget for the 1973 mission required NASA to keep the
modifications of the Mariner 71 orbiter to a minimum. Since JPL was
responsible for that project, it seemed logical from the standpoint of conti-
nuity and cost-effectiveness that the Pasadena facility adapt the 1971 orbiter
*Former Langley Director Floyd Thompson had been appointed special assistant to Administrator
Webb to evaluate future manned space programs in February 1968. He was scheduled to retire at age 70
in November. Edgar M. Cortright became Langley director on 1 May. Donlan was acting director in the
interim.

139
ON MARS

for the 1973 flight. If Langley were to manage the orbiter, the technological
and fiscal risk would increase, since the essential experience and important
test equipment were at JPL. Additionally, Langley would have to hire more
personnel at an increased cost to the project. Second, the Langley managers
believed that their center had entry expertise and other technological expe-
rience that would permit them to carry out the lander part of the project
more successfully than JPL. Although the California laboratory could
claim abilities in this area based on experience with the Surveyor lunar
lander, Langley's planners insisted on managing both the overall project
and the lander.
Langley's people, having worked hard on planning for a mission to
Mars, believed they had won the right to manage the project. Development
of the lander was a technological challenge, and they wanted to meet it.
According to the planetary experts in Virginia, the lander was important
for a host of reasons:
• Landed science remaining pioneering task for Mars exploration.
• Entry science is a new frontier in the Mars exploration program.
• Lander science accorded high priority iu 73 mission by [President's
Science Advisory Committee] and [Bureau of the Budget] because M71
[Mariner 71 ] will have accomplished prime orbital science objectives.
• Lander objectives are forcing function in mission design and opera-
tions.
• Entry-Lander most challenging technical task of 73 mission.
• 2/3 of variable $ will be spent on lander.
In addition, three other considerations led the Langley people to believe
that they should manage the 1973 project. They believed they had a better
understanding of experiments that should be carried aboard a Mars Lander.
Equally important, they argued that Langley needed the management of a
major project for the prestige it would bring the center and for developing
their management skills.36
The management issue was resolved at a May meeting between repre-
sentatives of Langley and JPL, where aftera detailed discussion the labora-
tory participants agreed to the Langley proposal. In an attempt to improve
communications between the two teams, a Mission Design Steering Com-
mittee was established, with members from the project management office
and from the four major system areas—orbiter, lander, launch vehicle, and
tracking and data acquisition. Jim Martin was chairman, with Israel
Taback representing the lander system, J. L. Kramer of Lewis acting as
launch vehicle delegate, and JPL employees Charles W. Cole and Nicholas
A. Renzetti temporarily serving as orbiter and tracking and data acquisition
specialists. Walter Jakobowski represented the headquarters Office of Space
Science and Applications. 37 Concurrent wi t h the formation of the intercen-
140
 RFORGANI7.ATION AND VIKING

ter design committee, Cortright redesignated Langley's Lunar Orbiter Proj-

ect Office the Advanced Space Flight Projects Office. The director chose
this broad title as "a hedge against the Mars mission getting scrubbed."
As the Mission Design Steering Committee set up working groups to
address specific technical topics, renewed budgetary battles were being
fought in Washington during the fall of 1968. The Bureau of the Budget cut
NASA's initial request by about $1 billion before it vvcnt to Congress.
Compared to the preceding years, the lunar and planetary proposal was
lean, but then so was the total research and development figure—$3.677
billion for fiscal 1969, dropping from budget plans of $3.970 and $4.175
billion for fiscal 1968 and 1967.38
Table 23
Lunar and Planetary Exploration Budget Plan, FY 1969
(in thousands)

Budget Item FY 1967 FY 1968 FY 1969

Lunar and Planetary Exploration ................... $184 150 $141 500 $107 300
Supporting research and
technology/advanced studies ............... 22 350 19 800 30 000
Advanced planetary mission technology ........ — 12 000 6 700
Data analysis ................................... — 600 2 600
Survey or ........................................ 79 942 35 600 —
Lunar orbiter ................................... 26 000 9 500 —
Mariner IV and V ............................... 13 058 3 800 —
Mariner Mars 1969 .............................. 30 130 59 200 30 000
Mariner Mars 1971 .............................. — — 18 000
Titan Mars 1973 ................................ — — 20 000
Voyager ........................................ 12 670 1 000 —
SOURCE: NASA, "Background Material, NASA FY 1969 Budget Briefing," netts release, 29 Jan. 1968.

For whatever consolation it offered, NASA managers and engineers

knew that the space agency was not the only organization suffering budget
cutbacks. Federally funded science and technology faced bleak times gener-
ally. At the beginning of February 1968, the journal Science reported, "A
scientific community that is already in a state of alarm over a tightening of
federal funds in the current fiscal year will find scant cause for rejoicing in
the budget that President Johnson presented to the Congress this week."
The Johnson administration proposed a five percent increase over fiscal
1968, which would, given inflation and other factors, only keep programs
even with the preceding year's levels. The Science article concluded that the
lesson seemed clear—"there's a long and rocky road between proposing a
budget and actually rendering support to the scientist at the bench."
NASA's road looked particularly rough, since apparently only two-thirds
of the dollars requested for space activities would be appropriated.39

141
ON MARS
On 2 May, the House of Representatives accepted reductions recom-
mended by the Science and Astronautics Committee and made additional
cuts before voting 262 to 105 for the FY 1969 space authorization bill. The
approved amount, $4 031 423 000, was $1 billion less than NASA had
originally proposed to the Bureau of the Budget and about $370 million
below the budget submitted to Congress. On 21 May, the Senate Committee
on Aeronautical and Space Sciences lopped an additional $27.35 million
from NASA's request. The amount finally approved by conference commit-
tee in October 1968 was $3.7003 billion.40
While waiting for final action on their appropriations bill, NASA
officials worked up an interim operations plan based on anticipated reduc-
tions. Under the interim plan, work on Apollo, aeronautics, and space
applications would proceed at the authorized levels. Activity in other areas
would be adjusted, meaning there would be additional personnel cutbacks,
with civil service ranks being reduced by 1600 persons and support contrac-
tor numbers by at least 2000. Personnel reductions would hit new programs
the hardest, since agency leaders believed that Apollo and other ongoing
programs could not be pared any further if they were to be executed
successfully and on schedule.
Apollo Applications, Titan Mars 73, Saturn launch vehicle develop-
ment, and the nuclear propulsion program, NERVA, were among the
projects most affected by the budget crunch. The Apollo Applications
Program would receive about $140 million of the $440 million requested.
Only one Saturn IB Workshop would be flown, with an Apollo Telescope
Mount. With the exception of the backup launch vehicle and workshop,
production on Saturn IB and Saturn V boosters would be terminated. Only
15 giant Saturns would be produced instead of the projected 19. NERVA
was once again delayed, with only limited development approved. The
plans for a Mars 1973 mission were revised "to conform to sharply reduced
funding in FY 1969. The instrumentation to be landed on Mars and the
scientific return will be substantially less than in the program presented in
the FY 1969 budget." 41 As Don Hearth and his colleagues juggled the
various options so that money, limited as it was, could be made available for
the 1969, 1971, and 1973 missions, the space agency was mustering outside
support for these projects.42

SUPPORT FOR MARS EXPLORATION

Since the winter of 1967, Administrator Webb and others at NASA
Headquarters had been generating support for a post-Voyager planetary
program from two groups—the Space Science Board of the Academy of
Sciences; and the Lunar and Planetary Missions Board, an internal NASA
advisory board. The Space Science Board provided high-level endorsement
and advocacy for continued planetary exploration, and the Lunar and
Planetary Missions Board gave the agency more detailed scrutiny of its
planning, especially as it affected the selection of scientific experiments.
142
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING

From both, NASA managers sought support that would help counter the
budget-cutting proclivities of Congress.
Space Science Board, 1967-1968
Harry Hess, chairman of the Space Science Board, wrote Jim Webb in
November 1967 after a briefing on the planetary program by John Naugle:
the Space Science Board met last week and ... expressed its deep
concern over the weakness of the whole NASA science program and the
planetary program in particular." Reductions in the NASA budget had led
to greater cuts in money for space science, which in turn meant "a loss of
some 50 to 75 percent in terms of effective research results." Hess was
writing Webb at this particular time because the Space Science Board
wanted to have an influence on the agency's planning process. At a time
when NASA was cutting back its planetary launches, it was "fairly evident
that the Soviets [would] have flights to Mars and Venus at every opportun-
ity as they have had for the last few years." And as the 1967 Venera 4 mission
to Venus had demonstrated, "these are apt to be successes."*` The Soviet
Union had a "highly successful planetary lander" and, as Hess reminded
Webb, "we don't even have one planned in the period to 1975." Unmanned
planetary exploration was apparently going to be one of the major USSR
space endeavors, and "great discoveries in this area can only be made once.
Shall succeeding generations look back on the early 1970's as the great era of
Soviet achievement while we did not accept the challenge?" 43
Hess and his colleagues did not wish to see the U.S. fall behind the
Soviet Union. They recommended increased space science activities and a
reduction of manned projects like the orbital workshop of the Apollo
Applications Program. A planetary science program should take prece-
dence over other NASA activities. These themes were repeated in December
1967, with emphasis on the newly created Mariner and Titan-class Mars
spacecraft. While differing in details—the board favored more Venus
research—the Space Science Board proposals were basically supportive of
NASA's wishes to maintain a planetary exploration program.94
The Space Science Board pursued its recommendations with a week-
long summer study in June 1968 and published its findings under the title
Planetary Exploration 1968-1975 (see appendix D). 45 While helpful in that
they pushed for more planetary missions, the board's proposals were also

*Evaluations of Venera 4 were mixed. Entering the atmosphere of Venus early on the morning of 18
October 1967, the landing capsule touched down in a purported soft landing about two hours later.
According to Soviet scientists, the atmosphere as measured by the instruments was almost entirely COZ
with traces of oxygen, water vapor, and no nitrogen. The temperature range was from 40° to 280°C.
Atmospheric pressure was 18 times that on Earth. Venera 4 stopped transmitting data shortly after
landing. The Soviet information did not agree with evidence provided by Mariner 5 or Earth-based radio
astronomical measurements. Venera 4 probably stopped transmitting at an altitude of about 26 kilome-
ters, as the surface pressure is more on the order of 100 times that of Earth's and the temperature at the
surface is about 400°C. After a short time, the Soviets stopped claiming that their spacecraft had actually
landed on the Venusian surface.

143
ON MARS
somewhat detrimental, since they did not coincide exactly with the agency's
announced goals. In times of extreme congressional scrutiny, Webb and his
colleagues at NASA would prefer more closely orchestrated advice.
Another source of advice was the Lunar and Planetary Missions Board.

Lunar and Planetary Missions Board, 1968

To overcome the shortcomings of the President's Science Advisory
Committee and the Space Science Board, the Lunar and Planetary Missions
Board was established in 1967 to provide NASA with detailed critiques of its
proposed missions from a scientist's point of view. But even quasi-internal
criticism was sometimes difficult to accept. As the space agency was to learn.
scientists tended to be of an independent mind, and their comments often
cut more deeply than Webb and his associates would have liked. In fact, this
particular group had grown out of a need to resolve conflicts between the
space agency and outside scientists.
In January 1966, Webb had invited Norman F. Ramsey, professor of
physics at Harvard, to form a panel to investigate NASA's relations with the
larger scientific community. The administrator wanted advice on several
quite specific issues: evaluation of the Space Science Board's 1965 summer
study recommendations on an Automated Biological Laboratories Pro-
gram, suggestions for a post-Apollo lunar exploration program, and com-
ments on a National Space Astronomy Observatory. Webb was also inter-
ested in determining how he might increase scientific participation,
confidence, and support for the American space program. As he expressed it
to Ramsey, "We in NASA think it is essential that competent scientists at
academic institutions participate fully in the next generation of space
projects and we believe that we will need new policies and procedures and
perhaps new organizational arrangements iii order to enable them to
participate. "46
Ramsey's panel responded in August with a series of proposals that
would have profoundly altered the organizational structure of the space
agency. The scientists were particularly critical of what they saw as NASA's
emphasis on engineering at the expense of basic scientific research, citing
the "overriding priority of engineering problems associated with launch
schedules," which interfered with academic experimenters' control over
their payload design. More attention needed to be given to purely scientific
concerns: "The time is surely here when we must define maximum success
in terms not only of `getting there' but in terms of scientific accomplish-
ment." Now that the space program had "matured," Ramsey's panel
believed that major organizational changes were necessary. Reviving the
idea of a general advisory council of scientists to help formulate NASA
policy, the group also wanted to reorganize the field centers to give experi-
menters a greater voice and create a Planetary and Lunar Missions Board
that would advise NASA on future Apollo flights and post-Apollo goals .17

144
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
Jim Webb did not take kindly to most of these recommendations, and
at an oral presentation of their suggestions he asked the scientists if they
understood the real world of Washington politics. Did they realize that
NASA was just a part of a larger governmental, economic, social system and
as such could not yield to their demands? NASA's official response, drafted
by Homer Newell, was made public about a year later, in June 1967. In a
point-by-point critique of the Ramsey report, the agency rejected nearly all
of the proposals. A general advisory council was out of the question; certain
functions "must clearly ... remain the responsibility of the Administra-
tor." A permanent advisory body would "blur the lines of authority within
the agency." Only the missions board recommendation was accepted, and it
was diluted considerably.9e
Tentatively approved by NASA before the publication of the Ramsey
report, the missions board would, in Webb's mind, be a full-time working
organization rather than a part-time group of advisers. Each member would
be expected to fight for his ideas in a competitive arena instead of
pontificating from the cathedral. The term of membership would be
limited. By the spring of 1967, the Lunar and Planetary Missions Board,
with carefully delineated powers, was in operation. Acting in only an
advisory capacity, the board could make proposals to NASA, but the agency
reserved the right to reject or accept the advice. The associate administrator
for space science and applications, Newell and later Naugle, provided the
funds for the board's operations and drew up the questions it was to address
itself to. Quite clearly, the administration of NASA did not want the
missions board to grow into a general advisory council.
Within this restricted framework, the board had reasonable freedom.
NASA granted its members access to internal agency documents, a privilege
that the Space Science Board had been denied, and members were permitted
to attend major NASA reviews and coordination meetings related to lunar
and planetary exploration. Unlike earlier advisory bodies, the Lunar and
Planetary Missions Board was asked to evaluate both general and specific
objectives. Therefore, it would not only review the "general strategy for
manned and unmanned" missions as the President's Advisory Committee
and the Space Science Board had done, but also participate "in the formula-
tion of guidelines and specific recommendations for the design of missions
and for the scientific payloads to be carried on these missions. "49
Of the 18 original members* most were familiar faces to NASA's
planetary specialists. Twelve were members of the National Academy of
Sciences, five were on the Space Science Board, one served on the President's
Science Advisory Committee, and four had been on the Ramsey panel. Of
the academic scientists, all were full professors, and two were department

'J. W. Findlay, chairman, J. R. Arnold, A. F. Donovan, V. R. Eshleman, T. Gold, C. Goodman, J.

S. Hall, H. H. Hess, F. S. Johnson, J. Lederberg, L. Lees, G. J. F. MacDonald, G. C. Pimentel, C. S.
Pittendrigh, F. Press, E. M. Shoemaker, J. A. Van Allen, and W. V. Vishniac.

145
ON MARS

chairmen. Of the nonacademic, two were administrators of research insti-

tutes, and the third was vice president of an aerospace corporation. These
established professionals were charged with widening NASA's contacts with
the scientilic comnimiity.50
A I t hough the missions board never proposed a single comprehensive
plan for space exploration, its members did try to bring greater cohesion to
NASA's efforts. They wished to avoid a series of disconnected projects; their
goal was an orderly exploration of the solar system. They wanted to balance
lunar and planetary projects so that one mission would not be pursued or
funded at the expense of another. Achieving such goals was at best difficult.
As scientists, they favored projects that emphasized science, flexibility in
experiment planning, and year-to-year funding of research rather than
mission-to-mission budgeting. They also wanted a continuing voice in
experiment development, and they fought against one particular attitude
prevalent in NASA centers: " Tell us what the experiment is to do, and we
will build it, fly it, and deliver the data to the experimenter after it has been
collected." As a committee headed by Wolf Vishniac reported in July 1967,
"It must be recognized that a proposal of an experiment can no longer
remain a one-way street.... A continuing dialogue and profound involve-
ment of the scientist with NASA centers is required." According to the
scientists, engineers responsible for overseeing instrument development
must recognize that they must obtain the scientist's approval at each stage of
design, development, and fabrication and his consent for changes. 51 A
major recurring theme in the mission board's reports and recommenda-
tions was the primacy of purely scientific considerations. The board, in
insisting that its recommendations be followed without deviation, failed to
acknowledge the realities of the political context in which NASA operated:
scientists were but one of many constituents to whom the space agency had
to answer.
When President Johnson and Congress dropped their support of the
Voyager missions in 1967, the board was, of course, dismayed, but it sup-
ported NASA's attempts to pick up the pieces and create a new approach to
planetary exploration. 52 Unfortunately, the debate over what would replace
Voyager gave way to friction among the mission board members and
ultimately between the board and NASA. At the heart of the dispute was
Administrator Webb's rejection of the board's alternative planetary pro-
gram. Dollar, manpower, and facility limitations would just not permit it.
Several members of the board, Wolf Vishniac, Gordon J. F. MacDonald,
and Lester Lees among them, believed that their leader, John W. Findlay,
had yielded to pressure from NASA to water down their recommendations.
When the board's ideal, balanced, coherent planetary program clashed with
dollar realities, the dream was shattered and the cordial relationship with
the space agency was bruised. Many scientists regarded this affair as addi-
tional evidence that NASA still maintained its old attitude toward advisory
groups—accept only that advice that meets its needs.53
146
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING

Although additional conflicts would surely come up in the future, the

Lunar and Planetary Missions Board decided to resume normal operations
in early 1968. Five working groups were formed—the lunar, Mercury,
Venus, Mars, and Jupiter panels. George C. Pimentel, professor of chemis-
try at the University of California at Berkeley directed the Mars group.* A
series of comments was elicited from that group during a familiarization
briefing of Titan Mars 73 held at NASA Headquarters on 24 May 1968. All
members of the Mars panel agreed that the lander was more important than
the orbiter but that too much emphasis was being given to relaying televi-
sion pictures from the landed craft. The main value of "lander imagery"
was to define the landing site, geologically and topographically. Television
could tell them what the terrain looked like and how the lander was situated,
but it was a supportive activity rather than a prime experiment. The prime
experiment, of course, was life detection, but thus far NASA had not
included any biological or biochemical experiments in the science require-
ments for Titan Mars 73. Other lander experiments the panel suggested
included mass spectrometry for determining atmospheric composition,
x-ray fluorescent examination of soil composition, and determination of
subsurface water vapor. The scientists agreed that meteorological experi-
ments should also be examined, and Wolf Vishniac reported that light-
weight (one-half-kilogram) life-detection instruments were already availa-
ble but that they all had the common shortcoming of indadequate
sample-gathering capabilities. Of additional concern to the Mars panel, the
members considered the question of landing sites (preferably seasonally
active ones), the evolution of suitable orbiters, lander lifetime, and the
possibility that the Soviet Union would land a spacecraft on Mars in 1973
after sending an atmospheric probe in 1969.59
After studying the topic for the entire summer, the Mars panel de-
livered its report on the scientific objectives for a 1973 Mars mission.55
Building on the technical studies carried out at Langley and JPL, the panel
reaffirmed the importance of a lander for the 1973 flight large enough to
carry a meaningful complement of experiments. The group recommended
using the Titan I1ID-Centaur launch vehicle. Objectives of a lander-
oriented mission should include investigation of the Martian atmosphere
and surface, especially temperature and moisture variation and distribution
patterns and diurnal and seasonal changes in temperature and moisture,
since these factors would provide information that would affect the possi-
bility of life on the planet. Although the Mars panel favored including an
orbiter in the 1973 mission, a survivable lander was the more important
issue. A soft-lander was favored over a hard-lander if the problem of con-
taminating the landing site by retrorockets could be solved. A soft-lander
would permit selection from a wider range of experiments, not just the

G. C. Pimentel, chairman, J. S. Hall, W. Vishniac, M. B. McElroy, J. R. Arnold, and L. Lees made

up the panel.

147
ON MARS
choice of the most robust equipment. Foremost among experiments were
life-detection devices. "The larder should include an ensemble of comple-
menting experiments relevant to the possible existence of life on Mars, since
no single experiment is either completely definitive or unambiguous."
Coupled but dissimilar experiments would be one satisfactory approach,
such as a mass spectrometer that could detect carbon-containing com-
pounds and a life detector that could search for signs of growing organisms
with a carbon base.
In closing their report, the scientists noted that "the current plans of
the Langley team are in general harmony with [our] recommendations and
they have evolved in a manner evidently responsive to earlier suggestions"
by the panel and the missions board. Jim Martin and his Langley team had
worked closely with the scientific community and for the time being their
effort had paid off with strong support for their plans for the 1973 mission.
At the October 1968 meeting of the Lunar and Planetary Missions Board,
the Mars panel report was officially approved with only minor alterations.
The next big step was defining the mission mode—direct or out-of-orbit
entry; hard-lander or soft-lander.56

THE MISSION MODE DECISION

An intensive series of meetings was held at Langley in late October and
early November 1968. Part of the mission definition process, the two-week
session was under the leadership of Jim Martin. Besides Langley's Titan
Mars team, John Naugle, Ed Cortright, William Pickering, Don Hearth,
and other senior staff members from headquarters, Langley, and JPL were
there. The first week was set aside for contractors, as Hughes, McDonnell,
General Electric, Boeing, the Martin Company, and JPL presented their
reports and mission recommendations. 57 During the second week's internal
agency deliberations, the Mars 73 team summarized the contractor reports
and outlined the possible options:
Launch Vehicle (Titan III-C or Titan Centaur)
Support Module (Orbiter or Flyby)
Entry Mode (Direct or Orbital)
Lander (Hard or Soft. 3-Day Life or Extended Life)
Launch Mode if orbiter selected (Combined or Separate)"
Viewed dispassionately, it was generally agreed, all the alternatives were
technically feasible, but the real question centered on what NASA could
afford and realistically recommend to Congress.
Jim Martin's team presented two mission mode alternatives to the
NASA managers—(1) a Titan IIIC-powered direct-entry hard-lander with a
flyby module, or (2) a Titan-Centaur-boosted orbital-release soft-lander
148
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING

Table 24
20 Alternative Mission Modes Examined for Viking 73

Launch Vehicle Delivery Mode Lander Lifetime Support Module

Titan IIIC Out-of-Orbit Soft Extended Autonomous

Titan IIIC Direct Hard 3-day Flyby
Titan IIIC Direct Soft 3-day Flyby
Titan IIIC Direct Soft Extended Autonomous
Titan IIIC Direct Hard Extended Flyby
Titan IIIC Direct Hard 3-day Flyby (unfueled
Mars 71)
Titan IIIC Direct Soft Extended Flyby
Titan-Centaur Direct Hard 3-day Orbiter
Titan-Centaur Direct Soft 3-day Orbiter
Titan-Centaur Direct Hard Extended Orbiter
Titan-Centaur Out-of-Orbit Hard 3-day Orbiter
Titan-Centaur Out-of-Orbit Soft 3-day Orbiter
Titan-Centaur Direct Soft Extended Orbiter
Titan-Centaur Out-of-Orbit Hard Extended Orbiter
Titan-Centaur Out-of-Orbit Soft Extended Orbiter
Separate launches for Direct Hard 3-day Flyby
orbiters and landers Flyby
Direct Soft 3-day
with Titan IIIC
Direct Soft Extended Autonomous
Direct Hard Extended Flyby
Direct Soft Extendeel Flyby

SOURCE.: W. I. Watson, ''Viking Project Phase B Report," M73-110-0 [circa Nov. 1968], pp. 7 -8

with extended life and an orbiter with a science package. Given expecta-
tions at the start of the meeting, the first option was the mission Martin's
people expected to get; the second was the one they really wanted. All of the
possible mission configurations were debated in an executive session on 9
November. Don Hearth and Robert S. Kramer discussed the dollar implica-
tions of the different missions, and Hearth noted that the out-of-orbit
mission, at $39 million for fiscal 1970, would cost $10 million more that
first fiscal year than the direct-entry mission.
Cortright spoke on behalf of a soft landing since the hard-lander appar-
ently could not carry enough science for a realistic mission. He noted that
the Langley senior staff preferred the Titan IIIC direct mission, as it was
149
ON MAR.ti
Table 25
Viking Mission Modes
Examined at 8-9 November 1968 Briefing

Launch Support for Cruise Entry Delivery Lander

Vehicle and Relay System

Titan IIIC Flyby modules Direct: Spinning Hard: Limited life,

New Stabilized relay only
Spinner Lifting Limited life
Stabilized Nonlifting relay plus
Mars 71 (unfueled) direct link
Extended life
replay plus
direct link

Titan III- Orbiters Orbital: Spinning Soft: Limited life,

Centaur New Stabilized relay only
Spinner Limited life
Stabilized replay plus
Mars 71 direct link
Minor Extended life,
modification relay plus
Major direct link
modification
for orbital Other Autonomous
entry capsules

If no orbiter above is chosen:

Orbiter flown for Orbiter flown for orbital Separate launch
orbital science science and as relay for
lander
SOURCE: Langley Research Center, "Titan Mars 73 Mission Mode Briefing," 7-8 Nov. 1968, p. 16.

the most cost-effective and manageable approach and it met scientific needs.
With no orbiter to worry about, Langley could concentrate its efforts on the
lander. Although a Titan-Centaur orbiter-lander mission would benefit
from Mariner technology Cortright did not believe that the smaller lander
dispersions—offering more control over the area in which the lander would
touch down—promised from such a mission were a significant enough
advantage to merit the cost. The addition of an orbiter to the package would
not prove a face-saving element should the lander fail, since the lander
represented 80 to 90 percent of the project. While the orbiter-lander combi-
nation would provide the most scientific information, it was also the most
costly and the most complex alternative, both technically and organiza-
tionally. Looking at the amount of data that would be returned, Cortright
noted that Surveyor had provided over 10 000 photographs, but it had been
the first few that had provided the biggest payoff. Since the orbiter-lander
150
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
approach would cost about $70 million more than the direct entry mode,
Cortright believed that the agency should consider the relation between the
scientific return and the expenditure. He was not convinced that the extra
money would be well spent.
John Naugle's concerns lay in another direction: Which proposal
would be the easier to sell to Congress and the new administration? Jim
Webb had left NASA in October as a prelude to the end of President
Johnson's term, and Thomas O. Paine, Webb's deputy, had assumed the
reins of the organization as acting administrator. The significant question
was what policy toward space activities would the Nixon administration
pursue. With Richard M. Nixon elected to the presidency only four days
before the high-level agency meeting, Naugle said that the unknowns of a
new administration made it difficult to know what to do, especially in light
of the criticisms by some scientists that the planetary program had been too
conservative. Still, with all the uncertainties, Naugle favored the more
complex mission. He believed that the costs of a lander could be reduced
below current predictions and an orbiter with new science would enhance
the overall mission. The orbiter had two important functions: orbital
photography could be used in landing site selection, and the orbiter could
serve as an information relay link, significantly increasing the amount of
data returned from the Martian surface, The relay link would permit still
further exploitation of the growth potential of the soft-lander for landed
experiments. Naugle was willing to try to sell this orbiter-lander option to
Paine, to the new president, and to Congress.
After considerable discussion among the NASA representatives, Don
Hearth made the following summary of the mode they should recommend
to Acting Administrator Paine:
• Soft-lander with extended life and a flyby support module.
• Direct entry.
• Titan IIIC with advantages of Titan-Centaur to be studied.
• Separate launch of Mariner 71 orbiters to be examined by JPL and
the Planetary Programs Office.59
This proposal met with unanimous agreement, as did the name of the new
project—Viking. But on 4 December 1968, NASA announced that Paine and
Naugle had selected the more ambitious out-of-orbit option for Project Vik-
ing. After listening to the Langley briefing, Naugle believed that an extended-
life orbiter with new post-Mariner 1971 experiments was essential to Viking.
Looking back, Naugle recalled: "It is a little hard to recapture the mood of
the times ... but ... one of the things that figured in my mind was the fact that
we were in competition with the Russians. They had a good strong program of
landers, and I ... felt that we had to establish a good solid scientific mission."
If "the Russians landed successful Iv in '71 or '73, what we landed ... had to be

151
ON MARS
something that would stand up against what they had done." Acting Adminis-
trator Paine for his part was searching for a successful project for which he
could assume responsibility, as most people would consider the manned
lunar missions to be the work of NASA's second administrator, Jim Webb.
In the autumn of 1968 when Paine looked to the future of NASA's program,
he believed in the importance of unmanned plan tetary exploration and enthusias-
tically endorsed the Viking project in its most advanced form.60
NASA chose a soft-lander with a "surface lifetime goal of 90 days" for
the Mars project. A Mariner 1971-class orbiter would complement the
lander science by providing "wide-area surveillance," which could be corre-
lated with surface data from the landing site. The orbiter would also
increase the data returned from the surface by providing a relay link
between the lander and Earth. In 1968 NASA decided to employ the Titan
IIID-Centaur launch vehicle for planetary missions because of its improved
payload capacity. With the Titan IIID-Centaur, the lander and orbiter
could be boosted together. Once the two craft reached Mars and went into
orbit, the lander would be released. This approach to the mission would
permit greater accuracy in landing at a preferred site, lower entry velocities,
and more control over entry angles, three vital factors that affected lander
survival." The Titan IIID-Centaur would also permit the mission reasonable
payload weights:62
Titan IIIC Titan HID-Centaur
Total orbital weight 1136 kg 3400 kg
Lander 360 1000
Scientific experiments 10 30
This significantly improved pair of flights—an orbiter and an orbiter-
lander, launched about 10 days apart—would cost $415 million, up from
$385 million for the smaller, less productive mission discussed during the
fiscal 1969 hearings.63
After 17 years of promoting, planning, debate, enthusiasm, and des-
pair, NASA could finally get down to the task of designing and building
hardware. Although dollars for Viking would always be scarce, this Mars
lander would actually journey to the Red Planet. On 6 December 1968, Ed
Cortright announced the formation of an interim Viking Project Office at
Langley to replace the Advanced Space Project Office (Unmanned):
Effective this date, the following are reassigned to the interim Viking
Project Office in the capacities as indicated:
Project Manager James S. Martin, Jr.
Deputy Project Manager Israel Taback
Project Scientist Dr. G. A. Soffen
Operations Manager William J. Boyer
Engineering Manager Israel Taback

152
 REORGANIZATION AND VIKING
Executive Engineer Angelo Guastaferro
Space Vehicle Manager Robert L. Girouard
Test Manager William I. Watson
Spacecraft Manager Edmund A. Brummer
Asst. Spacecraft Managers Royce H. Sproull
Frank E. Mershon
Missions Analysis Manager Norman L. Crabi1164
Under the organizational framework set up by Martin and his col-
leagues, Lewis Research Center would oversee the launch vehicle for Vik-
ing, JPL had responsibility for designing and building the orbiter, and
Langley would supervise lander and system integration. Following the
pattern of Lunar Orbiter, an industrial prime contractor would be selected
to develop and build the lander, with Langley personnel members as techni-
cal managers. This scheme had been used successfully in numerous other
NASA programs, notably the manned spaceflight projects, Mercury,
Gemini, and Apollo.
Jim Martin opted for a reasonably simple management structure.
Responsibility for the project passed directly from the Office of Space
Science and Applications at headquarters through Langley's director to the
project manager. All other NASA concerns working on Viking reported to
Martin, who clearly established himself as the "boss." Three major tasks
would dominate the years before the Viking launch: developing and build-
ing the orbiter, developing and building the lander, and selecting and
building the scientific experiments. And Martin's team in Virginia would
make sure that the necessary work was done on schedule and within the
budget.

153
Page intentionally left blank
 6

Viking Orbiter and Its Mariner

Inheritance

During the closing days of 1968, the engineers at Langley, in consulta-

tion with specialists at JPL and NASA Headquarters, completed a Viking
spacecraft design. Viking would have two major systems—an orbiter and a
lander. While the lander would provide the means for safely delivering the
scientific instruments to the surface, house, and provide the necessary
power source and communications links for those experiments, the orbiter
had a series of equally important functions in the Viking mission. The
orbiter would transport the lander to Mars, provide a platform for the
Viking imaging system so that proposed landing sites could be surveyed
and certified, relay lander science information (pictures and other data in an
electronic format) to Earth, and conduct scientific observations in its own
right.
Despite early debates among NASA managers, it was only logical that
the design and development of the Viking orbiter system be carried out at
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where the engineering team already had an
expertise in the design of planetary spacecraft. After building the Ranger
lunar probes and the early Venus and Mars Mariner flyby spacecraft, the
California engineers had gone on to build the Mariner Mars 69 flyby craft
and were working on the Mariner Mars 71 orbiter when Viking was
initiated. The Viking orbiter would borrow heavily from Mariner technol-
ogy, with such specialized functions as the project demanded being added to
the basic chassis.
Early plans for the Viking orbiter called for only a few modifications of
the Mariner 71 craft. However, structural changes that permitted mating
the lander to the orbiter and enlarging the solar panels led to significant
alterations of the basic 1971 orbiter. During the long flight to Mars, the
orbiter would have to provide power to the lander, especially during the
periodic checkups on the lander's health and during occasional updates of
the lander's computerized memory. These additional energy requirements
made it necessary to increase significantly the solar panels, from 7.7 square
meters to 15.4.
155
ON MARS
The decision to build a large soft-landing craft instead of a small
hard-lander led to the requirement for a large orbiter. The orbiter would not
only have to transport the lander, it would also have to carry an increased
supply of propellant for longer engine firings during Mars orbit insertion,
longer than those planned for the 1971 Mariner mission. I And an upgraded
attitude control system with greater impulse, plus a larger supply of attitude
control propellant, would be required to control the combined spacecraft.
Table 26 categorizes the Viking orbiter subsystems as compared to Mariner
71, listing subsystems from Mariner requiring only minor changes, subsys-
tems from Mariner requiring extensive modifications, and completely new
subsystems designed for Viking.
Table 26
Sources of Viking Orbiter Subsystems

Mariner Mariner Adaptations New

Radio Structure Computer/command

X-band transmitter Attitude control Data storage
Pyro control Propulsion Relay link
Omni antenna Scan platform High-gain antenna
Temperature control Science instruments
Packaging
Data system

A brief review of the Mariner 69 and Mariner 71 spacecraft will provide a

better understanding of the technological relationships between the
Mariner and Viking projects.

MARINER MARS 69
Born in the winter of 1965, Mariner Mars 69 was supposed to be only a
modest improvement over Mariner 4. Early plans for a 1969 orbiter and
hard-lander mission had been scrapped, and in its place a flyby craft had
been substituted that would approach Mars at a distance of about 3200
kilometers, rather than the 13 800-kilometer pass made by Mariner 4 in
1965. 2 The 1969 spacecraft would also carry more weight (384 kilograms)
than earlier Mariners (Mariner 2 -203 kg, Mariner 4 -261 kg), because of the
performance capability of its Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle. (Detailed
information on the Mariner flights is given in appendix C.) Building on
Project Ranger and Project Mariner experience, JPL engineers borrowed a
number of fundamental mission and systems features for use with Mariner
Mars 69. The most important of these was three-axis stabilization (roll,
pitch, and yaw), provided by gyroscopes and celestial sensors, switching
amplifiers, and cold-gas jets. This attitude control system permitted orienta-

156
 VIKING ORBITER

tion of the solar panels and thermal shields, which provided temperature
control, relative to the sun. The high-gain communications antenna could
be aimed toward Earth to improve communications, and the scientific
instruments could be directed toward the objects of their study. The attitude
control system also permitted the craft to be maneuvered more precisely.3
Other characteristics of the Mariner spacecraft included an extensive
ground command capability and a large number of engineering and scien-
tific telemetry measurements. The ground command capability was used
primarily as a backup to the onboard central sequencer, a mini-computer
that also reacted to commands from Earth.
Mariner Mars 69 followed the general design pattern of Mariner 4. The
central body was octagonal with a magnesium framework (127-centimeter
diagonal, 46-centimeter depth), with electronic assemblies and onboard
propulsion system fitted into the equipment bays on all sides. Four hinged
solar panels radiated from the body. On the side of the spacecraft opposite
the solar panels was a platform for mounting the television camera, an
infrared radiometer, an ultraviolet spectrometer, and an infrared spec-
trometer. The omnidirectional antenna and the fixed, high-gain, reflector
antenna were attached on the side generally oriented toward the sun.
Ground stations could communicate with the spacecraft continuously for
tracking and the return of scientific data. Images would be stored by an
onboard tape recorder for relay to Earth at a reduced play-back rate, since
the cameras necessarily acquired imaging data at a rate much higher than
the telemetry channel could accommodate.
As they worked on early Mariner and Ranger spacecraft, specialists at
JPL had also evolved systems for tracking and controlling spacecraft from
Earth, recognizing the requirement for a highly sensitive, steerable antenna
(radio telescope) for communication with deep space probes. For continuous
long-range coverage, a network of three stations, about equidistant in
longitude, was normally sufficient. The first stations were at Goldstone,
California; Johannesburg, South Africa; and Woomera, Australia. By the
time Mariner 69 was ready to fly, there were eight 26-meter radio antennas
and one 64-meter antenna in the Deep Space Network. Signals from the
Space Flight Operations Facility at JPL were directed to the spacecraft by
the appropriate ground station.'
As first established, Mariner Mars 69 had three objectives. The primary
goal was to fly spacecraft by Mars to investigate that planet, establishing the
basis for future experiments, especially those related to the search for
extraterrestrial life. While exploiting existing technology, Mariner 69 engi-
neers also hoped to develop new technology necessary for future missions. A
tentatively approved objective to investigate certain aspects of the solar
system was dropped from consideration by NASA Headquarters managers in
April 1966. Mariner 69 would concentrate its efforts on Mars-related sci-
ence. Experiment proposals were solicited and received by the Space Science
Board, which acted as an advisory body to the NASA Office of Space Science
157
ON MARS

and Applications. As had been proposed several times before, an atmos-

pheric entry probe was suggested, but it was also rejected as before, because
it would have significantly increased both the time required to develop the
craft and the budget for the project. Scientific payload selection was
announced on 26 May 1966.
By mid-1966, the design of the mission and the spacecraft was well
under way. Money was the problem faced by N. William Cunningham,
program manager at headquarters, and Harris M. Schurmeier, project
manager at JPL, and their Mariner 69 team. Successive budget cuts each
fiscal year forced the team to defer delivery of certain parts and components,
which repeatedly required the engineers to reschedule the assembly and
testing of the spacecraft. The budget reductions also forced the deletion of
some spare parts and tests and led to several mission design changes.
Despite financial constraints, the Mariner project staff was able to expand
the scope and effectiveness of the spacecraft. An increase in mission science,
for example, affected the planetary encounter phase of the mission. JPL
specialists developed an improved telemetry transmission system that
would return information at a higher rate than previously possible, increas-
ing the overall volume of scientific return substantially. Since scientists
would be using their instruments more frequently, the central control
computer and sequencer through which ground controllers talked to the
science instruments and manipulated the instrument scan platform would
experience greater demand.
As early as September 1966 at the second project quarterly review, it
became apparent that the 1969 mission was going to be much more than
just a repeat of the Mariner 4 flight. The instrument scan platform alone
had grown in weight from 9 kilograms to 59. Throughout 1967 and 1968, as
work progressed on the spacecraft and Earth-based systems, Schurmeier
reported to NASA Headquarters that experimenters would be able to take
more pictures of the Martian surface with the Mariner 69 equipment than
previously anticipated. The accumulated improvements in telecommuni-
cations—increased telemetry data rates, expanded communications net-
work, and better computer processing—would lead to a rate of data trans-
mission 2000 times better than anything they had received before.-, For the
scientists associated with the television experiment, this was exciting news.
Instead of taking only 8 television pictures during the last day of the
spacecraft's approach to Mars, Robert B. Leighton and his colleagues on
the television experiment team could gather some 160 images, starting two
or three days before encounter with the planet. These approach pictures of
the entire planet would bridge the gap between photos taken from Earth
and closer images gathered by Mariner 69 craft as they passed by Mars .6
Engineers and technicians at JPL assembled components supplied by
about a dozen subcontractors into four spacecraft—a proof-test model
(PTM), two flight craft (M69-3 and M69-4), and one assembled set of spares
(M69-2). While the proof-test model would never fly, it was a very important
158
 VIKING ORBITER
part of the 1969 project because it had to endure simulated conditions worse
than any that were expected during the flight to Mars. The other three units
were tested more gently on the vibration table to rehearse the launch and in
the thermal-vacuum space-simulation chamber to practice the mission
through deep space.
Following several visits to the test bench and much rebuilding and
repairing, the craft were pronounced ready for their voyage. While the
proof-test model remained behind in Pasadena to continue its service as a
test article, the other three craft were sent to the Kennedy Space Center
during December 1968 and January 1969. All went well with the preflight
checks of Mariner F and Mariner G (preflight designations) until about 10
days before the scheduled launch. On 14 February while the Atlas-Centaur-
Mariner F vehicle was standing on the pad undergoing unfueled simula-
tion of launch, the Atlas began to collapse like a punctured tire. Most of the
structural strength of the Atlas is provided by the pressure in its fuel tanks.
While this balloon-like structure saves a great deal of weight, it means that
the pressure must be maintained at a constant level. On this day, a faulty
relay switch had opened the main valves, permitting the pressurizing gases
to escape. As the Atlas began to sag on its launch tower, two alert ground
crewmen sprinted to the scene and shut off manual valves inside the launch
vehicle. Pumps restored tank pressure, and the big rocket resumed its
original shape. The terrible scar in the thin stainless steel skin of the Atlas
made it clear, however, that another launch vehicle would have to be used in
its place.
The Centaur and Mariner components were unharmed, and on 18
February KSC personnel moved the Mariner F craft and the Centaur upper
stage to the Atlas originally scheduled for Mariner G. Six days later, 24
February, Mariner 6 began its journey to Mars. After being mated to a new
Atlas shipped from San Diego by General Dynamics/Convair, the second
Mariner 69 craft was launched on 27 March. ? As Mariner 6 and 7 were en
route, another group of JPL specialists was at work preparing for the next
mission to Mars.
MARINER MARS 71
The battle over NASA's budget during the summer of 1968 had caused
the agency's leadership to postpone beginning work on a Mariner Mars 71
project. NASA had begun the year by asking for $4.37 billion for fiscal 1969,
or $218 million less than appropriated the preceding year. After the budget
cycle was completed, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an appropria-
tion bill for $3.995 billion on 4 October 1968, the lowest since 1963. This
figure, more than half a billion dollars less than the fiscal 1968 budget, sent
NASA planners groaning back to their drawing boards.8
Despite the tight budget, $69 million was earmarked for the planetary
program, to support Mariner Mars 69's flight and preliminary study of
Mariner Mars 71 and Viking 73. Two and a half months after the project

159
ON MARS
approval document for the 1971 mission was signed, NASA Headquarters
announced on 14 November 1968 that Jet Propulsion Laboratory had been
authorized to begin work on the project. Dan Schneiderman was appointed
project manager at JPL, and Earl W. Glahn was named program manager
at NASA Headquarters.9
Mariner Mars 71 was described as part of a continuing program of
planetary exploration. Unlike the previous Mariner flights, however, the
1971 mission was designed to orbit the planet with two spacecraft for a
minimum of 90 days each. At a December 1968 meeting of the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Oran W. Nicks, deputy associate
administrator for space science and applications at NASA Headquarters,
spoke of the value of orbiter flights and future orbiter-lander missions for
the examination of Mars. He noted that Mariner 4, 6, and 7 had given
"snapshot views of the planet." The two 1971 orbiters would "provide
powerful new tools for our survey of dynamic Mars." They were scheduled
to "arrive at a time in the Mars cycle when the most striking seasonal
changes are evident in the southern hemisphere." A combination of differ-
ent orbits for the two 1971 craft would provide a complete survey of the
entire planet. "The life-times expected from these orbiters will allow obser-
vations of the dynamic changes in clouds and surface features over a period
of several months." 10 In addition to the improved observations, the two
orbiters would meet several other scientific objectives.

Mariner F and G spacecraft (below)—to be christened

Mariner 6 and 7 on launch—are tested in preparation for
their five-month journeys to Mars to investigate the planet's
atmosphere and surface. Solar arrays are not yet installed. At
left, an Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle thrusts Mariner 7
toward space from Cape Kennedy, Florida, on 27 March
1969, following the Mariner 6 launch in February.

F
T= r

.I

lo
 VIKING ORBI"TER
Scientists had four general objectives for the 1971 missions, including
the search for "exo-biological activity, or the presence of an environment
that could support exo-biological activity." They hoped to gather informa-
tion that might help answer nagging questions about the origin and
evolution of the solar system. A third goal was to collect "basic science data
related to the general study of planetary physics, geology, planetology, and
cosmology." The specialists were also interested in information that would
assist in planning and designing a Viking lander mission on Mars, espe-
cially data that would affect landing site selection.
Five specific investigations also demanded the attention of the plane-
tary scientists. The orbiter cameras would provide imagery that could
update topographic maps of the planet's surface. The television team, led
by Harold Masursky of the U.S. Geological Survey, anticipated photo-
graphs of a much higher quality (better resolution) than those taken by the
1964 and 1969 spacecraft. These images, and other orbiter sensors, would
also allow the scientists to examine time-variable surface features. Some
specialists thought the most obvious of these features—the "Wave of
Darkening"—was seasonal. Were the variations the results of moisture,
vegetation, or the movement of air-borne dust?" The long stay in orbit also
would permit study of the composition and distribution of the Martian at mos-
phere, to gain clues about the planet's weather. A fourth area of study
included temperature, composition, and thermal properties of the planet's
surface; scientists would be looking for warm spots where life forms might
have had a chance to survive. And the Mariner investigators wanted a closer
look at the seasonal waxing and waning of the polar caps. 12 Besides study-
ing these five areas, scientists would also be getting information on the
internal activity, mass distribution, and shape of the planet.
To meet the objectives, the Mariner Mars 71 mission plan called for two
spacecraft to perform separate but complementary missions. Mission A was
designed primarily as a 90-day reconnaissance. The orbital path would give
the spacecraft instruments a look at a large portion of the planet's surface.
Orbiting the planet every 12 hours, the flight path would permit communi-
cation with the Goldstone tracking station during a lengthy portion of
every alternate orbit. Mission B would study more closely the time-variable
features of the Martian atmosphere and surface for at least 90 days, moving
in a wide, looping orbit around the planet once every 32.8 hours. 13 Nicks
believed that the Mariner 71 orbit missions and the 1973 Viking orbiter-
lander flights would be powerful study tools, permitting man to gain at
least partial answers to several important questions: "Is there life else-
where? Has life existed on nearby planets and disappeared for any reason?
Can nearby planets be made suitable for life?" 14 But before they could begin
to look for answers, the NASA-contractor team had to build the hardware.
Engineers at JPL had a basic philosophy about incorporating changes
into each new generation of spacecraft: modifications would be included to
(1) adapt the previous design to unique requirements for the new
mission,
161
 ON MARS
(2) overcome difficulties demonstrated in the previous mission, and
(3) incorporate new technology when a major improvement would
provide a significant benefit in cost, weight, or reliability.15
The Mariner 71 spacecraft designers wanted to carry over as much of the
design of the early Mariner spacecraft and ground equipment as possible. As
they were quick to point out, the repeated use of experienced personnel,
procedures, documentation, and facilities was a benefit to the project (lur-
ing tests, launch, and flight operations. The Mariner 71 spacecraft grew in
size, weight, and complexity, however.
Table 27
Mariner 69 and 71 Spacecraft Comparisons

Spacecraft Feature Mariner 69 Mariner 71

Shape Octagonal magnesium Octagonal magnesium

frame frame
Size 127 cm diagonal; 138.4 cm diagonal;
45.7 cm depth 45.7 cm depth
Solar panels 112 cm x 90 cm (4); 215 cm x 90 cm (4);
4.0sgm 7.7sgm
Launch weight 412.8 kg 997.9 kg

Besides growing much larger than its predecessors, Mariner 71 was also
taking on a new major task, orbiting the planet Mars, not just passing by.
As a consequence, the propulsion subsystem had to be completely rede-
signed to provide the necessary propulsion capability—a 1600-meter-per-
second velocity change—to inject the spacecraft into Mars orbit. The 1971
design incorporated a 1335-newton (300-pound-thrust) engine, instead of
the 225-newton (51-pound thrust) engine on Mariner 69. Nearly all the
components needed for the 1971 propulsion subsystem (valves, regulators,
and the like) had been used on previous spacecraft, but they had not been
used in this particular combination. Although the propulsion subsystem
was a new design, some inheritance from earlier Mariner systems was
realized at the parts level by using flight-proven components.
Mariner 71's data storage subsystem was a completely new design, too.
This all-digital, reel-to-reel tape-recording unit was, however, derived from
earlier development activities at JPL. It incorporated selectable playback
speeds of 16, 8, 4, 2, and 1 kilobits* per second, with an eight-track capabil-
*Bit is the abbreviation for binary digit and stands for the smallest unit of computer-coded
information carried by a single digit of binary notation. This form of notation is a system of expressing
figures for use in computers that use only two digits, one and zero. A kilobit equals 1000 bits.

162
 VIKING ORBITER

ity using two tracks at a time. High-packing density for this electronic
information provided a total storage capability of 180 million bits on a
168-meter tape. Data could be recorded at 132 kilobits per second. In this
subsystem, there was little or no design-hardware carry-over from previous
programs.
Design of the central computer and sequencer was altered to increase
this onboard system's memory from 128 words to 512 words.' The modifica-
tion provided the operational flexibility required for orbital operations,
permitting repetitive sequences to be carried out. Other changes in the
central computer and sequencer led to improved operations between the
computer and the sequencer, better checks on stored information, and
generally improved control over the spacecraft.
Of the four Mariner 71 onboard science instruments—television,
infrared radiometer, ultraviolet spectrometer, and infrared interferometer
spectrometer—only one was new to the Mariner series. The infrared interfe-
rometer spectrometer (IRIS) had been flown on the Nimbus weather satel-
lites. It would provide information on the composition of the Martian
atmosphere—measuring water vapor, temperatures at the surface, and the
temperature profile of the atmosphere—and would examine the polar caps.
Although the instrument was an adaptation of a previous design, many
changes had to be made in it so that it worked on Mariner. To Mariner
systems engineers, IRIS was a new insu ument that they had to incorporate
into their spacecraft design.
Television was another subsystem that was extensively modified.
Installing two cameras on Mariner 71, the engineers could use circuitry,
optics, and vidicon components from other systems. But there were difficul-
ties. The Mariner 69 television equipment had developed background noise
problems; a considerable amount of processing had had to be done to both
analog and digital signals to convert them into usable video images. And
the 1969 system had less dynamic range and was not as adaptable as the
scientists needed for the orbiter tttission. The Mariner 71 team developed an
all-digital television system with eight selectable filters in the wide-angle
camera, automatic and commandable shutter speeds, and picture sequen-
cing. Another improvement reduced the effects on the optics of long expo-
sure to the harsh space environment. Relying on existing technology min-
imized development costs and risks and provided the Mariner 71 scientific
team a high-performance television system.
Major changes were made in the attitude control subsystem to adapt it
to the requirements of orbital flight. To accommodate a new autopilot and
computer logic changes, the Mariner 71 engineers designed new attitude
control electronics and redesigned the inertial reference unit (a device that
*A word in a computer memory is a binary number containing a specific number of bits and is used as
the unit of meaning.

163
 Mariner Mars 1964

Low-gain antenna

Magnetometer

High-gain antenna
Ion chamber

Cosmic dust detector Solar absorptivity
standards
Plasma probe Solar panel

Trapped radiation
instrument Sun sensors

Propulsion assembly

Thermal control
louvers

Solar pressure vane

 Mariner Mars 1969

Narrow-angle
television
Scan platform thermal
blanket deleted


Mariner Mars 1971

Low-gain antenna
Maneuver engine

Propulsion tank-2

Solar panel-4

High-gain antenna

Medium-gain antenna _
Canopus sensor
Cruise sun sensor Propulsion pressurization
tank-2
Temperature control
louvers

O
IR radiometer

Wide-angle TV
Acquisition UV spectrometer
sun sensors-4
Narrow-angle TV IR interferometer spectrometer

Acquisition sun sensor

Maneuver engine Attitude-control jets,

High-gain
antenna

Solar panel4

Cruise sun sensor

Medium-gain antenna
/ Canopus sensor
r ^^^ Temperature-control
louvers

IR radiometer
Wide-angle TV
UV spectrometer
Narrow-angle TV
IR interferometer spectrometer

Note: Propulsion module and scan plattorm insulation blankets not shown.
 VIKING ORBITER
gives continuous indication of position by integration of accelerations
from a starting point). They included an acceleration sensor (accelerome-
ter) that would control the firing duration of the propulsion-subsystem
rocket engine. To maintain spacecraft attitude stability, gyroscopes were
modified from Mariner 69 hardware. Sensors, both solar and star, which
help determine the spacecraft's location in space, were considerably altered
for the orbital flight. Mariner 71's attitude-control gas-jet system was similar
to the 1969 subsystem with only minor modifications.
The data automation subsystem was designed to contain a new logic
function to accommodate the requirements of the scientific instruments
and orbital flight. Integrated circuitry and packaging techniques were
directly borrowed from Mariner Venus 67 and the 1969 Mars craft. The
structural subsystem, or the basic chassis of the spacecraft, was a successful
adaptation of the 1969 octagonal frame. Electrical energy requirements
were provided by an adapted power subsystem, which used new nickel-
cadmium batteries and enlarged solar panels like those used in 1969. The
radio. subsystem, which borrowed technology from the Apollo program was
altered to eliminate earlier problems. Other systems requiring only minor
changes included command, telemetry, antennas, scan platform control.
infrared radiometer, and ultraviolet spectrometer. The Mariner 71 final
project report notes, "The design changes which were incorporated under-
went considerable review and debate prior to approval so that the maxi-
mum inheritance could be realized," keeping the total number of changes
the engineers had to make in the Mariner hardware to a minimum.16

FIRST PHASE OF VIKING ORBITER PLANNING

Working within this milieu that stressed building on proved techno-
logical concepts, the engineers at Langley and JPL also made maximum
use of earlier subsystems for the Viking orbiter. First considerations for a
design of a Titan-Mars 1973 orbiter mission had begun even before the 1971
Mariner or 1973 Viking flights had been approved. A Titan-Mars orbiter

s -
f

Assembly of Mariner 9 at Jet Pro-

pulsion Laboratory. The space-
craft's solar panels are spread.

t^
ON MARS
design team led by Casper F. Moh l was established at JPL in August 1968, with
Dalton D. Webb, Jr., as the group's Langley representative.
Casey Mohl was an advanced mission planner at the California lab. He
had worked on Ex p lorer 1 and on several lander capsule studies for Ranger.
During the Voyager effort, he had participated in the capsule systems
advanced development activities, part of JPL's hard-lander studies. When
the laboratory began to work with Langley's Advanced Spacecraft Project
Office on the 1973 mission, JPL Director Pickering assigned Mohl and a
group of his colleagues to the "pre-project effort," and the men began to
study the diameters and weights of possible 1973 orbiters. 17 As they worked,
they discovered that every time the Langley people "did something to the
lander, it ricocheted back to the orbiter, especially into the [propellant] tank
sizing."
Orbiter size was limited by the diameter of the Centaur launch shroud,
which was 3.65 meters. Weights considered during the fall of 1968 ranged
from 454 to 680 kilograms for the orbiter and 590 to 907 kilograms for the
lander. At this early stage in the planning, many suggestions for the
mission design were made, including one by JPL engineer Robert A.
Neilson that the 1973 flight be made using a 1971 orbiter without scientific
instruments or scan platform. Later, of course, such an idea would be
unthinkable, but during the mission definition period one of the alterna-
tives called for using the orbiter simply as a bus to deliver the Lander to
Mars. 18 The two JPL orbiter proposals presented to the Langley Research
Center Advanced Space Projects Office on 9 and 30 October did not include
any scientific instruments for the orbiting vehicle, as the JPL planners
wanted to consider initially only the minimum number of modifications in
the 1971 orbiter, just then beginning to take shape on the drawing board.19
By mid-November 1968, the JPL advanced planners had gone about as
far as they could with the design of an orbiter for 1973 without approval of
the project by Congress and the president. But at a 5 December meeting, a
very pleased Casper Mohl told the "out-of-orbit" design team that the
Titan-Mars 73 project had received the approval of the Bureau of the
Budget; t ley could proceed with the development of an orbiter design while
Langley worked on the Lander. Although the orbiter science payload would
not be defined until the Mariner 69 results were known, John Naugle said
that, for planning purposes, the candidate experiment hardware in de-
scending order of priority would include: Mariner 71-style television
camera, high-resolution infrared radiometer, infrared interferometer spec-
trometer, near-infrared mapper, x-ray spectrometer, three-channel ultravi-
olet photometer, and polarimeter. Projected weights for the orbiter at
launch were 1880 to 2130 kilograms, and the lander would weigh between
680 and 920 kilograms, with approximately 70 kilograms allocated for
orbital science instruments.20

168
 VIKING ORBITER
Between mid-November 1968 and mid-February 1969, JPL worked on
a "baseline orbiter conceptual design" for the Viking mission, while the
project office at Langley concentrated on staffing key management posi-
tions. In Pasadena 13-14 February, JPL hosted a review of its conceptual
design for the orbiter. The Viking spacecraft (orbiter and lander) was to be
launched by a Titan IIID-Improved Centaur, which could lift a combined
weight of 3330 kilograms (2513 kilograms for the orbiter and 817 kilograms
for the lander). The orbiter and lander would have a minimum life of 90 days
after touchdown on Mars. The lander would have communications links
directly with Earth stations and through the orbiter, which would serve as a
relay satellite.
A key element of the February presentation was the technology that
would be borrowed from Mariner 71. For electricity, the Viking orbiter
power subsystem was essentially the same as for Mariner 71, providing
lander power during transit and early orbital cruise periods. For 50 days of
solar occultation during the 1973 mission, the spacecraft would be without
the benefit of the sun's energy for one-half to three and one-half hours in
each orbit. The increased distance of Mars from the sun during the Viking
mission and the revised science instruments also led to some new require-
ments for the power system. New solar panels were designed, along with a
new battery and battery charger. Minor changes were made in the power
distribution circuitry, but the core of the entire system was borrowed from
Mariner design.21
Industry representatives would later write to James S. Martin, Viking
project manager at Langley, complaining about JPL's conservative orbiter
design. L. 1. Mirowitz, director of planetary systems at McDonnell Douglas
Astronautics Company in St. Louis, believed that "spacecraft performance
could be judiciously improved by considering" some newer components;
"for example, the [central computer and sequencer] has a 512 word
sequencer weighing [ 12.5 kilograms], the current state of the art permits use
of a lander computer and sequencer that has a 6000 word capacity and
weighs [11.3 kilograms]." 22 A. J. Kullas at the Denver Division of Martin
Marietta Corporation also believed that weights could be reduced and
performance improved by being less conservative than JPL had been in its
engineering. In one instance, Kullas suggested that newer kinds of electrical
cabling would permit a weight reduction from about 49 kilograms to 39, a
saving of 20 percent. 23 While there was no doubt that the JPL baseline
orbiter design could be improved, the conservative engineering was not
unreasonable in an era of stringent budgets and equally tight schedules.
Building on previously proved hardware concepts helped to ensure space-
craft reliability within the budget and on time. The specialists at JPL
evaluated alterations to the basic design, and the orbiter did change over
time, but conservative engineering prevailed.24

169
ON MARS
Organizing Orbiter Management
Early in April 1969, a formal Viking Orbiter Office was set up at JPL to
replace the ad hoc arrangements that had existed since the official initiation
of the 1973 landing project. Pickering announced the establishment of the
management office on the 17th and named Henry W. Norris Vikingorbiter
manager. Casey Mohl's team went out of business at about the same time,
and some of the members of that group joined Norris. A native Californian
and graduate of UCLA, Norris had worked in aviation and space activities
at General Precision Inc. before joining JPL at the age of 41 in 1963. During
the Mariner Mars 69 mission, Norris served as spacecraft systems manager.
Kermit S. Watkins, deputy to Norris, came to the Viking project from the
JPL Office of Flight Projects, having also been assistant program manager
for the Surveyor lunar landers.25
Other key personnel members appointed to the orbiter team by Direc-
tor Pickering included Allen E. Wolfe, spacecraft systems manager, and
Conway W. Snyder, Viking orbiter scientist. Wolfe had been spacecraft
systems manager for Project Rangerand for the Mariners Venus mission in
1967. A nuclear physicist by education, Snyder had worked at the California
Institute of Technology on Navy rocket research projects during World
War II. He joined the JPL physics staff in 1956 and was principal investiga-
tor on three space experiments that studied the solar wind, becoming
Mariner 5 project scientist. 26 While Norris, Watkins, Wolfe, and Snyder
were essential, highly visible members of the orbiter staff at JPL, they
represented only the top of a large pyramid. When the orbiter management
held its first weekly staff meeting on 1 April 1969, Norris told the partici-
pants that their sessions were not designed to resolve problems, but to
discuss them "in sufficient depth to understand and identify items for
separate action."27
One of the immediate concerns of the project managers was the grow-
ing cost of the orbiter as projected in periodic estimates. Early in February,
Charles W. Cole, manager of the Advanced Planetary Missions Technology
Office at JPL, informed Martin that the hardware for the total orbiter
system (two flight craft, spares, and test models) would cost nearly $147
million, while the total amount needed by the California laboratory to get
the orbiters ready for flight, with test equipment and facilities, would be
$161 million. Cole attributed the high figures to recent increases in hard-
ware requirements, accelerated delivery schedules, and more extensive test
procedures. The Viking orbiter would require several major pieces of new
hardware (table 28), and the designers at JPL had based their cost projec-
tions for this equipment on the master schedule given them by the Viking
Project Office. But the people in California did not believe that the schedule
was realistic. For example, the JPL engineers were convinced that such an
early delivery date for the engineering test model of the orbiter would
require a major acceleration of orbiter system and subsystem design plans,
which in turn would demand an earlier selection and design of scientific
170
 VIKING ORBITER
^ _. ° ur en
t- n n L Y 1
br _
Q ¢ 2:1 ^ C v ro
Q ¢ ti G^ i
ti w C4
Q E -a
Gil n ^
Q O u O v
U ^
O ¢ '^ y
vU vu .^
xr)
ozca
In
= a^
^ V
Q Fz ro Ou a c
0 CD
o ^'y
_ T E t
T O c N
bl
y O ro h
ti ro
= ^ p a;x 6n ^' o^
^ v ^
G. Q.^^o.
ro O
^ " EC's
N N '^ vv
U 6 C >, ro .0 U
0 A a ro a
E
O Eyy
v N°°
v CL v t y W p O
in.
N
a
U. v ro C7 O
E
y
O, ^. '^ u .LA y ro
Ey O
b U 7 by O ^' '^ ,^ v % cn
b v brJ c N Op b Ov ry U a_`
0 o-a•ti ^ c o o.c ° N ^' ^ ^U 3 M roc Q, U
0 c = o o °^° u cz o v cu Qc bN Nrn
O
u. v; U v E Q s z y
b1 C O _
a' ° w y p a; 'y v
cl' ro u y o^ w N v r., v y u v v +Z-•
y V >'
y ^, L v^c ro cc^a^
C c aU N° a^ E'
n ° ° N
a v y
v o
E en d q vcn v
voc0.0 Acs. c ca:
=,bF'
^ro ro o u Cu c
C .^ O y E O s- .^ is >,'B
C p
v v '^ C .iC v s,
a
m O O u O cvi •L
> • s . O. O C C E v. v Cro x O :x •b
o p roc ° n• a°o ^c 't y '^ ^ ^u orE^^
a Q,
a ^_^broE^°o
_ v c vU ^. oo:° c °^^ o^co ova ro°
^arc
n^jx
a Wn
a j v c ° 3 s.^
F" c b^ v o or v o x z v o v o ° L o
^- a ro v L ^yc
° aacsun oy ^ ^ ^c
v¢ > 3 lyrooa^°
o^ ^ °uoo C)
c °c^
h
b
bp
a
J ° o ca E
_ E y 0. a^^
y
Q, - _ _ 7z h
c v
cU
o^ c _
w
^'° cH ^, ^;`" "^
o
.ate a w x^
cw
O [-+ w c7;Caa
171
ON MARS
instruments and related equipment than JPL had planned. These schedule
changes would have to be translated into direct dollar increases. But even
extra dollars could do only so much toward relieving the problems imposed
by the increased tempo. Cole wrote to Martin, "In JPL's opinion, the
significant schedule risk ... is not further reducible by bringing additional
money and manpower to bear." What they would need was close coordina-
tion among the Viking Project Office at Langley, the lander contractor, and
the JPL orbiter team to minimize the risks if they were to build a program
that was "suitably balanced and mutually acceptable. "28
During the spring months of 1969, the orbiter schedules were revised by
the project office to give Pasadena teams some more time and the budget a
little breathing room. Rising expenditures, however, continued to be a
major concern of Vikingpersonnel on both coasts, although evaluating the
budget promised to become a more comprehensible, concrete process once
the agency selected an industrial contractor to design and build the lander.
Only then would they be able to determine a firm figure for the cost of the
entire project. 29 In late February 1969, NASA had issued a request for
proposals for the lander and, on 29 May, selected Martin Marietta Corpora-
tion from the three bidders for the contract. With this choice made (dis-
cussed in chapter 7), the Viking project entered a new phase.
Early in June when Jim Martin and his colleagues met with represen-
tatives from the new lander contractor and JPL, nine working groups were
established. Of these, one of the most important, from the perspective of the
budget and scheduling, was the spacecraft interface and integration work-
ing group. Formed as the "common ground" for discussion between the
Viking Project Office at Langley and the spacecraft builders at JPL and
Martin Marietta, this working group allowed the three organizations to
exchange information and ideas on spacecraft construction and hardware
interface. Donald H. Kindt at JPL was named the Viking orbiter/lander
capsule integration engineer. The interface-integration working group met
for the first time on 10 and 11 June and, after their sessions, representatives
from all three organizations took "action items'' home to consider before
they met again.30
Another aspect of the increased tempo was the further proliferation of
committees and working groups. By the end of June 1969, the amount of
paperwork reaching Henry Norris's desk at JPL was growing dramatically.
All managers in NASA programs, whether government or contractor
employees, had to become accustomed to reading thousands of letters,
memoranda, telexes, meeting minutes, reports, and other documents in the
course of a project. Besides the meetings of the orbiter design team, 28 other
conferences had been held by the end of June. The Viking orbiter project
staff had held 12 meetings by 2 July, and the Viking orbiter mission design
team started a new series of work sessions on 30 June. By the time the orbiter
was ready to fly, the personnel of the orbiter design team (and its successor,
the orbiter system design team), who oversaw the spacecraft's design and
172
 VIKING ORBITER

fabrication would meet formally more than 250 times. The mission plan-
ners who worked out the flight details for the orbiter—navigation and
tracking—met 143 times before the Viking launches.
Although Kermit Watkins noted as early as August 1969 that "we are
beginning to become inundated with documentation," all the meetings and
paper allowed Norris and his orbiter team to keep abreast of the myriad of
details that went into planning and building the spacecraft. At the Viking
Project Office in Hampton, Virginia, Jim Martin used similar tools to keep
tabs on the progress or lack of progress of the lander. Viking was not
brought to fruition by paperwork alone, but the mountain of documents
the teams left behind provides some clues to the enormous number of
man-hours that went into getting the project off the ground.31
During the remainder of 1969, the Viking orbiter personnel worked on
a number of key tasks in defining the design of the spacecraft and the nature
of its scientific payload. Norris participated in the first meetings of the
Viking Project Management Council; Norris, Watkins, and their col-
leagues worked out the second and third versions of the "Viking mission
definition" document; orbiter staff members received a briefing on the
preliminary science results of Mariner Mars 69; and the staff took part in the
first quarterly review of the whole project. These activities were typical of
activities during the next five years.
Viking Project Management Council
Jim Martin formed the Viking Project Management Council* in
March 1969. Since Viking was the first planetary project in which several
NASA centers and contractors would be participating in the design, devel-
opment, and operation of major spacecraft elements, the project manager
believed that a management council would "facilitate common under-
standing of the overall project objectives and provide a forum where techni-
cal and management problems can be freely discussed." At the first meeting,
18-19 August at the Martin Marietta factory outside Denver, each of the
systems managers gave a brief status report on his organization's work to
the 50 persons attending.
Henry Norris outlined the orbiter design, covering such topics as the
relationship between the orbiter and lander during the cruise phase of the
trip to Mars, the orbiter's weight budget, and communications equipment
for the Viking spacecraft. Noting that orbiter and lander weights were a
recurring concern, he told Martin and the other participants at the council
meeting that a system of weight bookkeeping must be established between
Langley and JPL. By this time, the entire spacecraft was projected to weigh

*Membership in the council included J. S. Martin—chairman, W. J. Boyer, H. E. Van Ness,

I. Taback, F. W. Bowen—secretary, and E. A. Brummer, Langley; R. H. Gray, Kennedy Space Center;
W. Jakobowski, NASA Headquarters; E. R. Jonash, Lewis Research Center; A. J. Kullas, Martin Marietta;
and H. W. Norris and N. A. Renzetti, JPL.

173
ON MARS
3316 kilograms, with the weight of the orbiter at 605 kilograms without
propellants. Jim Martin agreed; someone from the Viking Project Office
would be assigned to the problem. Norris also reported that procurement
had begun for the orbiter components and work was already under way on
tasks that would require a long lead-time. The spokesman from JPL noted
in summary that additional orbiter personnel at the laboratory would be
selected shortly, including some persons that were finished with their
Mariner 69 activities.32
Once all the systems managers gave their reports, 13 working group
chairmen presented information about their work. Norris later told his
colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the sessions "proved to be
very beneficial in helping to identify and clear the air on a number of
interface concerns." In particular, the two days of discussion helped to
clarify the roles and responsibilities of individuals and organ izations.33
Equally significant, it gave the managers from scattered geographic loca-
tions an opportunity to meet with one another. Face to face, they could take
the measure of their colleagues as they worked on problems of mutual
interest. This and subsequent meetings of the management council would
force the men to work with other human beings, not faceless signatures on
memos. The council was just one part of Jim Martin's strategy for forging a
team from a group of disparate individuals and organizations.

VIKING MISSION DEFINITION NO. 2

The Viking project definition document was another element in Jim
Martin's attempt to create a viable Mars exploration activity. Revised sev-
eral times, the document gave project participants a general description of
the Viking missions. By August 1969, the document had been updated five
times, the latest edition being called "Viking Project Mission Definition
No. 2." This 21-page paper was prepared by a group working under A.
Thomas Young, the science integration manager, at Langley. Three men
had to approve it before it was released 11 August 1969—Gerald Soffen,
project scientist; Israel Taback, engineering manager and deputy project
manager; and Jim Martin. "Viking Project Definition No. 2" contained a
more nearly complete description of the entry and lander science experi-
ments that would be included in the lander capsule and the lander. These
experiments had been defined through the work of the Science Steering
Group, chaired by Jerry Soffen.34
In August 1969, there were eight science instrument teams: orbiter
imaging, biology, molecular analysis, meteorology, entry science, radio
science, seismology, and ultraviolet photometry. Each of the lander exper-
iments was further described in the "Viking Lander Science Instrument
Teams Report," which served as an important reference on the state of
instrument design, the scientific rationale for the experiments, and for
studies that might lead to ways of increasing the scientific capability of the
instruments. The instrument team report and "Viking Project Definition
174
 VIKING ORBITER
No. 2" provided the basis for spacecraft design negotiations with Martin
Marietta and the starting point for "early Project activity including the
initiation of mission, spacecraft and operations design. " 35 Although the
mission definition was geared toward getting lander hardware design and
fabrication started, it also had significant impact on the orbiter design
team.
Henry Norris told his people at a 27 August staff meeting that the
mission definition had been distributed to all the JPL division representa-
tives. Since this was a controlling document for the project, Norris's team
would have to reconcile its "resources," or budget, with its baseline defini-
tion of the orbiter. Some differences existed, for example, between the
communications requirements as stated in the definition document and as
pursued by the JPL engineers. "The main requirement causing a signifi-
cant impact is that of the orbiter having the capability to communicate with
either lander." Norris asked division representatives "to flag any other areas
of disagreement. '136
As Norris and his staff worked on the orbiter design, the mission
definition continued to evolve. A number 3 edition would be ready in
January 1970 after the final selection of science investigators by NASA
Headquarters in December. The number 4 version would be prepared in the
early spring of 1971, reflecting any changes that came from the Viking
project critical design review. Finally, some time after June 1972, "Viking
Project Mission Definition No. 5" would be issued to reflect lessons learned
from the Mariner 71 mission. From October 1969 onward, the mission
definition documents would be used in conjuction with "project specifica-
tion" documents to monitor the effort. 37 Meanwhile, the science results
from Mariner 6 and 7 had to be incorporated into the Viking plans.

MARINER 69 SCIENCE RESULTS

Scientific investigators from the Mariner 69 team presented a series of
briefings and press conferences on their findings from the Mars flyby
missions. The first major briefing and press conference were held on 11
September 1969, the day the preproposal briefings for prospective Viking
science investigators were scheduled in Washington. While less tentative
than the results presented at a 7 August press meeting, John Naugle indi-
cated that the September briefings were really only progress reports. The
final meeting of the scientists was scheduled for spring 1970, and more
detailed accounts of individual experiments would be published in various
journals.
Robert Leighton described the results of the television experiment at
the September science briefing. "Before the space age, Mars was thought to
be like the Earth, polar caps, seasons, ... rotates in 24 hours, etc." This view
of the Red Planet "was largely the legacy of Percival Lowell who popular-
ized the idea of reclamation projects to get the water supposedly from the
polar caps down to the equator where the farmers were." Although scien-
175
ON MARS
tists had rejected the Lowell ideas of an inhabited Mars long before Mariner
4, they were not prepared for the stark, lunarlike images acquired during
that mission. Pictures from Mariner 6 and 7, according to Leighton, showed
that Mars was "like Mars," with its own characteristic features, "some of
them unknown and unrecognized elsewhere in the solar system. "31
Leighton noted during the press conference that areas to be photo-
graphed by the Mariner 69 missions had been chosen to "cover as many
different kinds of classically recognized features on Mars as possible, dark
and light areas, oases." Mariner 6's track traversed the equatorial zones and
crossed a great many light areas, such as the circular great desert of Hellas,
and dark areas, like the region called Hellespontus. Mariner 7 took a sweep
of pictures along a meridian (north to south) that included the south polar
cap. The 60-fold increase in the data transmission rate produced for the 1969
spacecraft yielded many more pictures than the scientists had originally
hoped.
Table 29
Pictures from Mariner Mars 69

Original Projection Pictures Returned

Mission Far Near Far Near Total
Encounter Encounter Encounter Encounter Useful
Pictures

Mariner 6 8 25 50 26 428
Mariner 7 8 25 93 33 749
Total 16 50 143 59 1177

Because of the large number of craters, the television team described

Mars as more moonlike than Earthlike. In the Mariner 6 near-encounter
frame 21, which covered a territory of 625 000 square kilometers, there were
156 craters ranging in diameter from 3 to 240 kilometers. There were many
hundreds more that were 500 meters across or smaller. The classical area
Nix Olympica (18°N, 133°) was identified as a very large, "white-rimmed"
crater some 500 kilometers in diameter, with a bright spot in the center.
Cratered terrain, the parts of the Martian surface on which craters are the
dominant topographic form, were widespread in the southern hemisphere.
Although knowledge of cratered terrain in the northern hemisphere was
limited, since fewer photographs were available, some cratered areas
appeared as far north as 20°. Two kinds of craters were seen in the pictures,
large and flat-bottomed and small and bowl-shaped. Flat-bottomed craters
were most evident in Mariner 6 frames 19 and 21, and their diameters ranged
from a few kilometers to a few hundred. Shallow, they had a diameter-to-
depth ratio of 100:1. The smaller, bowl-shaped craters, best seen in Mariner
176
 VIKING ORBITER

6 frames 20 and 22, resembled lunar primary impact craters, and some of
them had interior slopes steeper than 20 degrees. The flat-bottomed craters
were of interest to the Mariner 69 investigators because they were unlike
most craters discovered on the moon.
The chaotic terrain was a puzzle. Mariner 6 frames 6, 8, and 14 illus-
trated "two types of terrain—a relatively smooth cratered surface that gives
way abruptly to irregularly shaped, apparently lower areas of chaotically
jumbled ridges." A belt of the latter terrain lay within a-band 1000 kilome-
ters wide and 2000 long at about 20° south, between the dark areas Aurorae
Sinus and Margaritifer Sinus. Perplexing the scientists because it was
nearly craterless, this region of short ridges and depressions was unlike
anything on the moon.
Hellas, centered at about 40° south, was the best example of the so-
called featureless terrain. At the resolution limit of the 1969 cameras (the
cameras could not see objects smaller than 300 meters in diameter), this
desert area appeared devoid of craters. Leighton and his colleagues noted:
"No area of comparable size and smoothness is known on the moon. It may
be that all bright circular `deserts' of Mars have smooth floors; however, in
the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to define any significant
geographic relationship for featureless terrain."
Especially bothersome was the fact that pictures taken during the
Mariner 7 traverse showed that the dark area Hellespontus, west of Hellas,
was heavily cratered. "The 130- to 350-kilometer-wide transitional zone is
also well cratered and appears to slope gently downward to Hellas, inter-
rupted by short, en echelon scarps and ridges." Once the flat floor of Hellas
was reached, the craters disappeared. "Craters are observed within the
transitional zone but abruptly become obscured within the first 200 kilome-
ters toward the center of Hellas," The possibility of an obscuring haze was
rejected because in Mariner 7 frame 26 "the ridges of the Hellas-Helles-
pontus boundary are clearly visible, proving that the surface is seen;
yet there are virtually no craters within that frame. Thus the absence of
well-defined craters appears to be a real effect. "39
In seeking to explain the relationship of these various kinds of terrain
to the light and dark markings noted in telescopic observations, Leighton
and his colleagues had a number of thoughts. First, the contrast of light and
dark markings on Mars varied with wavelength, as had been known for
a long time from telescopic photography. In the violet range of light,
"bright" and "dark" areas were essentially indistinguishable since they
have approximately the same reflectivity. With increasing wavelength,
contrast was enhanced as redder areas became relatively brighter. The
distinction between bright and dark areas on the surface was usually more
obvious in far-encounter views than in near-encounter views. The clearest
structural relationship between a dark and a bright area was that of Helles-
pontus and Hellas. Chaotic terrain appeared lower in elevation and at the
same time more reflective than the adjacent cratered areas. Whether chaotic
177
Mariner 6 took near-encounter photos
of Mars on 31 July 1969. Frame 19
(above), 3613 kilometers from thesur-
face, shows flat-bottomed craters few
kilometers to a few hundred wide.
High-resolution frames 20 (left) and
22 (below) show smaller, bowl-shaped
craters, resembling primary impact
craters found on the moon.
 VIKING ORBITER
terrain was extensive enough to include previously identified bright areas
remained to be determined. Still, some of the areas traditionally thought of
as oases were being identified with large, dark-floored craters such as
Juventae Fons or with groups of craters such as Oxia Palus. In addition, at
least two classical "canals" (Cantabras and Gehon) coincided with the
quasi-linear alignment of several dark-floored craters. Other canals, show-
ing up as irregular dark patches, would probably on closer inspection be
associated with a variety of physiographic features. Leighton and his col-
leagues reported another correlation with earlier observations. Some draw-
ings and "maps" of Mars portrayed a circular bright area within the dark
region south of Syrtis Major and east of Sabaeus Sinus. In the Mariner 69
pictures, the investigators found a large crater in approximately the same
place. The experimenters hoped to devote many hours to a comparison of
these new Mariner pictures with earlier maps and photographs in an
attempt to identify topographical features.
Clues to Evolution of Mars
What did the Mariner 6 and 7pictures tell scientists about the evolution
of the planet's surface? The absence of Earthlike tectonic forms indicated
that in recent geologic time the crust of Mars had not been subjected to the
kinds of internal pressures that have modified and continue to modify the
surface of Earth. Since the larger craters probably had survived from a very
early time in the planet's history, the scientists inferred that Mars' interior
is, and probably has always been less active than Earth's. The TV experi-
menters noted that one theory argues that Earth's "dense, aqueous atmos-
phere may have been formed early, in a singular event associated" with the
creation of the planet and its core. Tectonic features, therefore, might be
related in origin to the formation of a dense atmosphere, and "their absence
on Mars independently suggests that Mars never had an Earthlike
atmosphere."
Building their case further for the unearthly nature of Mars, the televi-
sion specialists commented on the age of the cratered terrains, comparing
Martian surface features with similar features on the moon. Both bodies
showed heavily cratered and lightly cratered areas, evidently reflecting
regional differences in meteoroid bombardment, or response to it, over the
life-span of the surfaces. The thin atmosphere on Mars (contrasting with no
atmosphere on the moon) possibly had produced recognizable secondary
effects in crater form and size distribution. Also, the scientific community
generally accepted that the number of craters on the moon could not have
been produced in its 4.5 billion years at the estimated present rate of impacts.
An early era of high bombardment must have been followed by a long
period at a greatly reduced rate. A rate per unit area as much as 25 times that
on the moon was estimated for Mars. Since even the most heavily cratered
areas seemed to have aged relatively uniformly, "this again suggests an
early episodic history rather than a continuous history for cratered Martian
terrain, and increases the likelihood that cratered terrain is primordial."
179
ON MARS
The existence of primitive, undisturbed terrain on Mars would have a
number of important ramifications, especially for scientists looking for
extraterrestrial life:
If areas of primordial terrain do exist on Mars, an important conclusion
follows: these areas have never been subject to erosion by water. This in
turn reduces the likelihood that a dense, Earth-like atmosphere and large,
open bodies of water were ever present on the planet, because these would
almost surely have produced high rates of planet-wide erosion. On the
Earth, no topographic form survives as long as 108 [100 million] years
unless it is renewed by uplift or other tectonic activity.40
Extrapolating further from this line of reasoning, the scientists found that
the Martian environment apparently had not changed much during the life
of the planet; thus, there was little possibility of a dense atmosphere or
water that could have aided the evolution of primitive life forms.
Norman Horowitz, a biologist at Cal Tech and long-time participant
in NASA exobiology studies, thought nothing in the new data encouraged
the belief that Mars harbored life. 'But the results also don't exlude this
possibility." This was essentially what the exobiologists had expected,
since Martian life was almost certainly microbial if it existed and would not
be easily detected from flyby missions. "We have certainly seen no signs of
the noble race of beings that built the canals or launched the satellites of
Mars. I'm pretty sure they don't exist." Mariner 6 and 7 data did strengthen
the earlier conclusion that water was extremely scarce on Mars and that was
a seriously limiting factor for the search for life. While no clouds, frosts, or
fogs had been seen in the new pictures, minute amounts of water vapor had
been detected in the atmosphere. "Mars is a cold desert by terrestrial stand-
ards. If there is life on Mars, it must be a form of life that can utilize water in
the form of water vapor or ice." Horowitz added that it was possible that
"extensions of our own terrestrial life, evolutionary adaptations," could
live under such conditions. The exobiologist repeated what he had said
many times: "The search for life on Mars is not sustained by optimism
about the outcome. Anyone who is carrying on this work because he is sure he
is going to find life, I think, is making a mistake. The search is sustained by
the tremendous importance that a positive result would have, scientifically
and philosophically, and until then we are obliged to continue the search."
One of the major reasons they were exploring the Red Planet for life was to
test their current notions about the origin of life. "We don't want to fall into
the logical trap of using these notions to disprove in advance the possibility
of life on Mars. We want to get there and make a direct test. "41
Effects on Mariner 71 and Viking
Leighton, during the 11 September 1969 press conference, said that
each Mariner spacecraft had "in its turn revealed anew and unexpected, no
doubt significant kind of terrain.... Now I leave it to you to figure out how
many new surprises there are still waiting for us on Mars." While Mars

180
 VIKING ORBITER
spacecraft evolved from one mission to the next, Leighton believed that he
and his colleagues should not "fight the last war" with the Viking space-
craft. Instead, they must realize that they were still only in the initial stages
of exploring Mars. "Flexibility in design [and] adaptability in execution"
were incredibly important.42
The distinctive new terrain revealed in the Mariner 69 pictures
emphasized the importance of "an exploratory, adaptive strategy in 1971 as
opposed to a routine mapping of geographic features." Very early in the
first 90-day Mariner 71 mission, all of the planet should be examined with
the A-camera, and selected targets should be studied with the higher-
resolution B-camera, to correlate the extent and character of cratered,
chaotic, and featureless terrains, and any new kinds of terrain, with classical
light and dark areas, regional height data, and so on. Leighton and col-
leagues thought that a second objective should be the search for and exami-
nation of areas that indicated the possible presence of local water. The
complex structure found in the south polar cap called for close investiga-
tion, particularly to separate the more permanent features from those
varying daily or seasonally. A look at the north polar cap also promised to
be "exceedingly interesting."
"If the effects of the Mariner 6 and 7 results on Mariner'71 are substan-
tial, they at least do not require a change of instrumentation, only one of
mission strategy. This may not be true of the effects on Viking '73." The
Mariner 69 television specialists believed the discovery of so many new,
unexpected properties of the Martian surface and atmosphere added a new
dimension to selecting the most suitable landing site for Viking. Viking
might be even more dependent on the success of Mariner 71 than had been
supposed. From the improvement in the image resolution obtained by the
1969 B-cameras, scheduled also for use on Mariner 71, the team thought that
an improved system might profitably be included in the Viking orbiter,
designed to examine the fine-scale characteristics of terrains even more
closely before choosing a landing site.43
At its 11 September meeting, the Viking Science Steering Group agreed
that a joint meeting of Mariner 69, Mariner 71, and Viking 73 scientists
would be useful. Jerry Soffen suggested that such a session would permit a
more thorough examination of the Mariner 6 and 7 information. At the
same time, the science strategies for later flights to Mars could be more
widely discussed. Plans called for the joint meeting to be held in early 1970
after the final selection of Viking investigators. Generally, Viking interest
in the polar regions as a target for primary investigation diminished after
hearing the early Mariner 69 reports."
The Viking orbiter science briefing on 12 September concentrated
largely on the orbiter imaging system and its role in providing pictures that
would help find landing sites. Orbiter science objectives included:
• obtaining information for landing site selection for Viking,

181
ON MARS
• obtaining repeated coverage of landing sites during the lifetime of
landers on the surface,
• obtaining information for selecting landing sites for future
missions,
• making scientific investigations using the orbiter radio system,
and
• obtaining information for studying the dynamic characteristics of
the planet and its atmosphere.
Of the 57 kilograms alloted for orbiter science instruments, more than half
(32 kilograms) was set aside for the imaging system. For many months, the
specialists would discuss alternative approaches to the design of the camera
system, as technical and fiscal issues affected the final design of this impor-
tant piece of Viking hardware."

QUARTERLY REVIEW
As another step toward regularizing the management of the Viking
project, Jim Martin arranged for the first of a series of project-wide quar-
terly reviews at the end of the first week of October 1969. Each systems
manager was given 90 minutes to summarize progress in his area of respon-
sibility. Henry Norris noted that this process was less detailed than the
reports he had given in similar reviews at JPL in the past; instead his
presentation was "delivered in tutorial style." 46 What is the orbiter? What is
its function? How does it work? What is the progress to date? Are there any
problems? If so, do they affect other systems and what steps are being taken
to solve the difficulties? Over two days, many, many topics were covered.
The JPL presentations on the orbiter were typical of those given
during the quarterly review. Norris opened with a brief overview of the
schedule for the orbiter and his projected activities for the next three
months. Richard K. Case of the orbiter design team reported on the configu-
ration of the orbiter as it had evolved to date, summarizing telecommunica-
tions plans for the orbiter, lander, and Earth stations and briefing the group
on steps being taken to integrate scientific experiments. Peter T. Lyman
told his colleagues about the orbiter guidance and control propulsion
subsystem, a complex subject to master. Lyman, a new member of the
orbiter team, was the perfect man to tackle it. After 10 years at the University
of California at Berkely, he had worked on Mariner 64 and helped plan
hardware for the ill-fated Voyager. During Mariner 69, Lyman had been the
project engineer from the Engineering Mechanics Division, overseeing
much of the consu action of the two successful Mariner craft. G. P. Kautz, in
his turn, reviewed the manpower and funding JPL would need to develop
the orbiter, closing with a list of the problems it faced.47
182
 VIKING ORBITER

The quarterly review was followed up by two additional meetings in

October. Langley Director Edgar Cortright held a session for the other
center directors and key Viking project personnel, and Jim Martin con-
vened a Viking Project Management Council meeting. The consensus was
that the project was off and moving at a reasonable pace. Fewer problems
seemed to have surfaced than might have been expected at this stage. Harris
Schurmeier, the Mariner 69 project manager, noted that Viking was more
complex than earlier projects because so many more partners were in the
game. With all the different groups involved and with the limited dollars
available, he thought the participants needed to establish clearer channels
for handling problems.
Jerry Soffen also commented on the need for better communications.
Although the quarterly review had been held to secure the participation of
the many constituencies in the decision-making and reporting process,
many of the scientists had left the meeting before the second day's discus-
sions. Soffen's observation triggered a 45-minute session on how best to
integrate the scientists into the project. Nearly everyone agreed that the
investigators had to understand the fiscal and technical aspects of Viking so
that they could appreciate the relationships of their own activities to the
whole enterprise. The scientists would have to learn that their experiments
were only a part of a very large undertaking. 48 As the specialists returned to

Table 30
Viking Project Orbiter System:
Critical Schedule Activities, 1969

Activity Required
Date

Project spec approved 1 Dec. 1969

Orbiter investigators identified 15 Dec. 1969
Concepts approved and first drafts covering orbiter-lander interfaces I Nov. 1969
to
2 Jan. 1970
Orbiter system design concepts and general configuration established to 15 Jan. 1970
allow subsystem function and design requirements to be prepared
Critical problems
1. Many activities must start with preliminary data, requirements
2. Schedules must be achieved
3. Little or no recovery time
SOURCE: Martin Marietta Corp., Denver Div., "Viking Project Quarterly Review Held October 7 & 8,
1969 at Langley Research Center; Presentation Material," PM-3700005, Oct. 1969. Since events were to
alter the Viking's project's calendar, the systems management offices would be forced to revise their
plans many times. This is one early schedule.

183
ON MARS
Table 31
Viking Project Orbiter System: Baseline
Conceptual Design Changes, Expected Weights, 1969

Baseline Expected
Item Changed Weight Weight Cause
(kg) (kg)

Orbiter (less propulsion) 627 606 1. Design to "flight loads"

analysis
2. Use of lightweight solar cells
3. Reevaluation of expected
subsystem weights
Propulsion (inerts and residuals) 385 302 1. Substitution of helium for
nitrogen as pressurant
2. Reduction of required AV =
1575 mps to AV = 1420 mps
3. Increase in nozzle expansion
ratio from 40:1 to 60:1
Usable propellant 1420 1263 4. Use of selected injectors for
I,t, = 289 sec
Lander capsule adapter 22 21 1. Design to "flight loads"
analysis
Lander capsule 816 995
Spacecraft adapter (includes 149 130 1. Design to "flight loads"
destruct package and analysis
transition adapter)
Viking spacecraft launch weight 3419 3317
SOURCE: Martin Marietta Corp., Denver Div., "Viking Project Quarterly Review Held October 7 & 9,
1969 at Langley Research Center: Presentation Material," PM-3700005, Oct. 1969.

their various tasks after the saturating experience of the review at Langley,
storms began to gather on the project's horizon.
During the remainder of 1969, one of the questions that nagged NASA
managers who were looking for ways to pare the budget was, Is the orbiter
essential to the Viking mission? This was an especially difficult question
because eliminating the orbiters would obviously save a great amount of
money, $100-165 million. For project personnel at headquarters and Lang-
ley who thought that the direct- versus out-of-orbit delivery issue had been
settled nearly a year before, the revival of this question was disturbing.
On 13 September 1969, NASA's Lunar and Planetary Missions Board,
an advisory group, agreed that the orbiters should be preserved, as they
would give greater mission flexibility and a higher chance of mission
success. When released from orbit, the Landers could be expected to touch
down in an elliptical area (called a footprint) 180 by 530 kilometers; with a
direct entry that footprint would be increased to 500 by 900 kilometers. An
184
 VIKING ORBITER

orbiter-based mission would use the orbiter cameras to survey potential

landing sites, which although not guaranteeing success would permit the
Viking team to assess and eliminate obviously hazardous landing regions.
But most significant, an orbit relay link would allow two-thirds more
information to be sent to Earth than the lander alone could manage. With
these considerations, the Lunar and Planetary Missions Board drafted the
following resolution:
A balanced program to develop a deeper understanding of man's
neighborhood of the universe should remain a goal of NASA's lunar and
planetary program. After examining Mariner 6 and 7 results, the [Lunar
and Planetary Missions Board] emphasizes that landing of scientific
instruments on Mars in 1973 remains a task of major importance.
The cost of the Viking program now represents a substantial part of
the funds at present available to the planetary program. Nevertheless, the
[Lunar and Planetary Missions Board] considers the Viking program
should go forward as planned.
A Mercury-Venus flyby, the continued exploration of Venus, the
introduction of a small planetary orbiter program, and the initiation of a
major program to explore the outer planets are all essential to an orderly
exploration of the solar system. NASA should develop those programs as
required for this exploration.49
Although there would be several delays and unexpected twists and turns
along the way, this resolution described the basic strategy NASA's planetary
programmers would follow during the 1970s. Before it could be imple-
mented, however, Walt Jakobowski and his team in the Viking Program
Office at NASA Headquarters had to fight many battles just to preserve the
basic Mars orbiter-lander mission. All of their work would be affected by a
worsening budget crisis in Washington.
MONEY PROBLEMS AT NASA
The summer of 1969 was a time for triumph and despair. Apollo 11
landed on the moon in July, but at almost the same time NASA's budget
was cut severely. Despite being an enthusiastic supporter of the Viking
project and wanting to pursue an aggressive program of unmanned plane-
tary exploration, Thomas O. Paine, appointed administrator in March,
began to preach fiscal restraint to the Viking managers as early as June
1969. He told John Naugle, his associate administrator for space science
and applications, that Viking and the other advanced planetary projects
would have to be managed wisely because NASA was living in an era of
great pressures to reduce the budget. The space agency's expenditures were
being subjected to considerable public scrutiny and debate."'
Paine's worries were well founded. When the House Committee on
Appropriations reported 19 June on the NASA budget request, the pro-
jected fiscal 1970 funds were nearly $300 million less than the previous year.

185
ON MARS

Five days later, the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences
recommended a further reduction of $250 million. Late in July, Paine
talked with President Richard M. Nixon about the space program as they
flew to the Pacific splashdown site of Apollo 11. The president said that he
personally was very enthusiastic about American space activities, but his
administration could not direct large amounts of resources to the space
program until the war in Vietnam had been ended. Nixon was reflecting
the budget-cutting mood of Congress and the lack of public support for new
space initiatives. Reactions to the report of the president's Space Task
Group also affirmed the need for a fiscally responsible space program.51
To develop goals for the post-Apollo period, President Nixon had
appointed a special Space Task Group* in February 1969. Although
acknowledging that a new rationale for the American space program had to
be sought—competition with the Soviet Union was no longer a realistic
justification for NASA's activities—the task group rejected the idea that a
manned mission to Mars in the 1980s should be the next great challenge
accepted by the United States. The negative responses made on Capitol Hill
and in the press to the manned Mars goal reinforced the group's decision. A
July 1969 Gallup Poll, for instance, found 39 percent of 1517 persons polled
nationally favored attempts to land a man on Mars; 53 percent opposed. Of
the 21- to 29-year-olds, 54 percent favored the project and 41 percent
opposed, but 60 percent of those over 50 opposed.52
As delivered to President Nixon on 15 September, the Space Task
Group's report, The Post-Apollo Space Program: Directions for the Future,
had backed away from an early manned landing on the Red Planet. The
focus for the next decades in space was on the development of hardware and
systems that would ultimately support a manned mission to Mars at the
close of the 20th century. Af ter a presidential briefing on the report, Nixon's
press secretary said that the president agreed with the group's rejection of an
overly ambitious program aimed at an early landing on another planet but
also with its refusal to propose a program that would terminate all manned
space activities in the post-Apollo years." Six months were to pass before
President Nixon personally reacted to the task group's findings, and by that
time Congress, through the appropriation process, had shaped the imme-
diate future for NASA's programs by restricting the agency's budget even
further.
As the budget for fiscal 1970 went through successive parings and the
public enthusiasm for space projects continued to dwindle, Naugle and his
associates at NASA Headquarters grew more and more concerned about the
continuing increases in costs for Viking. On 26 August 1969, Naugle wrote
Ed Cortright and other top Viking managers to review his "personal
*The membership included Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, chairman; Secretary of the Air Force
Robert C. Seamans; Administrator Thomas o. Paine; Science Adviser to the President Lee A. Dubridge;
and, as advisers, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs U. Alexis Johnson, Atomic Energy
Commission Chairman Glenn T. Seaborg, and Bureau of the Budget Director Robert P. Mayo.

186
 VIKING ORBITER

philosophy" on the subject. Naugle told the Langley director that "current
indications of an increase over earlier estimates are of concern; particularly
in light of the need to minimize Federal expenditures." He was especially
worried about "cost overruns which in times of tight budgets, will inevita-
bly result in disruption to the Viking Project or to other projects." While
the associate administrator recognized the importance of the Mars mission
and while he did not care to "establish arbitrary or unrealistic cost ceilings"
that could also jeopardize the success of the effort, he did want everyone in
the Mars project to ensure "that Viking [was] tight, efficient, well-
engineered, and well-managed." Every effort had to be made to use existing
technology "to minimize development risks and associated costs." Naugle
recommended a very careful study of the proposed test program to determine
if any paring could be done in that area. "While we cannot omit necessary
development and tests, neither can we tolerate frills.""
But the costs for Viking continued to grow. When first presented to
Congress in March 1969, the Viking price tag had read $364.1 million, an
unsound estimate. At the time, the design of the spacecraft had not been
clearly defined. By August, the expected cost had risen to approximately
$606 million, with an additional $50 million for the launch vehicles. In
testimony before the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of
the House Committee on Science and Astronautics in October, Naugle
admitted that the total cost of Viking would run about $750 million.
Representative Charles A. Mosher of Ohio asked Naugle what he meant
when he said that the $750 million "included an allowance for a minimum
number of changes." The NASA spokesman responded that past experience
with planetary programs indicated that the agency could expect a 15 to 20
percent increase in the cost of a given project. "So, in the case of Viking, we
are including in this $750 million estimate about $100 million for manda-
tory changes or for trouble that we may get into in the project." NASA was
using $650 million as its target, but Naugle told the congressmen that "we
are only so wise and only so able to foresee into the future."
Representative Thomas N. Downing of Virginia expressed his concern
about these projections since they had already grown more than 30 percent
in little more than a year. Naugle noted that the figures presented in 1968
were based on a still poorly defined spacecraft. "What we have found ... is
that we underestimated the weight of both the orbiter and the lander." The
additional weight could be translated into more man-hours of labor, which
in turn could be translated into more dollars. On top of that, the cost of
those man-hours had also increased. All the congressmen were disturbed.
Joseph E. Karth, the subcommittee chairman, pointed out that his group
had to sel l these cost escalations on the House floor and it would not be easy.
Naugle's statements that everything was being done to keep costs in line
were not all that reassuring to Karth, who believed that NASA had "so far
failed miserably in that regard." After trying to convince the subcommittee
that the agency had "made a substantial effort to accurately determine
187
ON MARS

funding requirements before beginning hardware development," Naugle

and his staff renewed their attempts to control the project managers. Since
Congress would not suffer another project with a huge cost overrun, Don
Hearth and others working for Naugle sought to establish controls over
Viking that would prevent sudden and unexpected expenditures by the
engineers in the field.--
For all their concern and activity, the men at NASA Headquarters could
not prevent the budget crisis. When President Nixon signed the fiscal 1970
appropriations bill on 26 November, the total amount—$3.697 billion—
was $299 million less than appropriated the previous year. At the same time,
the Bureau of the Budget was already beginning to chip away at the dollars
the space agency was seeking for 1971. Robert P. Mayo, director of the
Bureau of the Budget, found himself in an awkward position; he had
promised President Nixon a balanced budget, but finding places where he
could reduce expenditures was very difficult. Throughout the fall of 1969, a
stiff debate ran between the space agency and the budget people, and some
of the meetings Paine, Mayo, and their staffs held were not pleasant.
In light of the Space Task Group's report, Paine reasoned that he could
not recommend a budget of less than $4.25 billion for NASA. He told Mayo
in a letter: "This is a difficult time. Please do not think me unfeeling toward
the many claimants for your scarce budgetary resources." But Paine
thought that inefficient agencies were being rewarded with increased
budgets while NASA was being penalized. "The people of NASA have
produced outstanding results ... while reducing costs and personnel more
than any other area of government.... Space offers the President now a
highly productive program and his greatest leadership opportunity."
Unfortunately, the dollars did not go to the successful.-"
For Viking, the budget cut was devastating. Before Congress had a
chance to consider the budget, Nixon's administration cut $20 million from
the amount requested for the Mars lander project for 1971. The picture was
unpleasant. With the decline in resources, aggravated by inflation, Admin-
istrator Paine had to reduce expenditures.-'
Table 32
NASA Appropriations, FY 1968-1971
(in billions)

Budget Item FY 1968 FY 1969 FY 1970 FY 1971

Total NASA budget $4.5889 $3.9952 $3.6967 $3.3126

Lunar & Planetary
Programs .1250 .0923 .1388 .1449
Mariner Mars 71 — — .0454 .0296
Viking 73 — — .0400 .0350
Mariner Venus
Mercury 73 — — .0030 .0211

188
 VIKING ORBITER
Paine was convinced that the only alternative to the delay of Viking was
its cancellation. At noon on 31 December 1969, Paine told John Naugle that
further analysis of the federal budget for 1971 by the Bureau of the Budget
had disclosed a $4-billion problem; NASA had been asked to reduce its
request by $225 million. The administrator and his associates considered
three ways to cut dollars—delay Viking from 1973 to 1975; cut the Viking
orbiter completely and reduce further the Office of Manned Space Flight
budget; or eliminate manned flights after the final Skylab flight in 1973.
The second and third options would not provide the necessary reduction,
and the Bureau of the Budget, with President Nixon's agreement, thought
that deferral of Viking was the best step. Naugle spent the rest of that day
working out the details of Viking's slip, taking time out to note for the
record: "I left at 4:30 pm to welcome the New Year and the new decade in a
bleak mood—feeling that two years of careful planning for Viking had been
wiped out in four hours by a combination of a budgetary error and the
article in the [Washington] Post on Monday, 29 December, by Cohn stating
that scientists at the [American Association for the Advancement of Science]
Meeting had advocated a reduction in the NASA science program." NASA's
space projects were under criticism as part of a general outcry against
federal spending that did not contribute to the solution of social problems
like pollution and feeding the poor. While scientist Carl Sagan pointed to
the Defense Department as the real source of budget misallocations, other
"authorities" questioned NASA's current proposals to send manned mis-
sions to Mars. Caught in the midst of the antimilitary, antitechnology furor
was Viking. During the last hours of 1969, NASA nearly lost another
opportunity to land on Mars at all."
After two weeks of scrambling to reorganize the space agency's pro-
grams, Tom Paine made a public statement of the changes the 1971 budget
would require. Mindful of recent criticisms, he commented:
We recognize the many important needs and urgent problems we face here
on earth. America's space achievements in the 1960's have rightly raised
hopes that this country and all mankind can do more to overcome press-
ing problems of society. The space program should inspire bolder solu-
tions and suggest new approaches.... NASA will press forward in 1971 at
a reduced level, but in the right direction with the basic ingredients we
need for major achievements in the 1970's and beyond.
While NASA diminished its total activities, the agency would "not dissi-
pate the strong teams that sent men to explore the moon and automated
spacecraft to observe the planets." Paine listed the following actions as
being consistent with the requirements of the 1971 budget:
1. We will suspend for an indefinite period production of the Saturn V
launch vehicle after the completion of Saturn V 515.
2. We will stretch out the Apollo lunar missions to six-month launch
intervals, and defer lunar expeditions during the [Apollo Applications
189
ON MARS
Programs space station flights in 1972 [actually flown in 1973, as Skylab
flights.]
3. We will postpone the launch of the Viking/Mars unmanned lander
from 1973 to the next Mars opportunity in 1975.
With the closing of the Electronics Research Center in Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, these actions would reduce the number of persons (including
contractors) working on NASA projects from 190 000 at the end of fiscal
1970 to about 140 000 at the end of fiscal year 1971.59
Although Viking survived, there was considerable confusion at first
over what the modified project would be. Henry Norris and his orbiter
teammates officially learned about the change in plans on 12 January
1970. 60 At the Viking Orbiter Staff meeting in Pasadena the next day, Norris
explained that they had been asked to examine two alternatives for 1975
Viking missions—the basic 1973 orbiter-lander mission rescheduled for
1975, or a direct-entry lander mission. This renewed debate over what was
called "Options A and B" brought a sense of deja vu among the working
people.61
Besides an additional direct dollar cost of about $102.2 million, JPL
learned from the program office at headquarters, other problems were
associated with deferring Viking to 1975. Steps would have to be taken to
bolster morale among the scientists and engineers. The several false starts
on Viking's predecessors and the cancellation of Voyager had already
discouraged many. As with all complex projects, a strong and highly
]motivated team was essential for success, and a limited sum of money would
have to be made available during fiscal 1970 and 1971 to hold the existing
team together and permit some meaningful work on the aspects of the
mission that would pose the greatest technical challenges. The balance of
the Viking project would be budgeted at 1970 levels, but slipped two years.
An additional five percent would be added to compensate for possible
inflation.
William J. Schatz of the JPL Propulsion Division pointed out two
other problems caused by the delay. A mission in 1975 would require a
longer flight time; Mars's position relative to Earth would require a differ-
ent trajectory. Previously, the mission analysis and design people had used
Voyager 1973 work to plan for the 1973 Viking flight. A 1975 launch would
require the specialists to start trajectory and flight path analyses from
scratch. New calculations would demand more manpower and computer
time, both of which cost money. Hardware alterations would also be
required. Changes in the materials used for the propulsion systems might
be necessary to ensure their reliabi I ity, and the use of helium as a pressurant
would have to be reevaluated. But beyond these technical considerations
was the economic impact of the stretchout. "Of prime importance," said
Schatz, was the retention "of a qualified team of engineers at the rocket
engine contractor during the stretchout period." The engine manufacturer,
Rocketdyne, a division of North American Rockwell, was already laying off
190
 VIKING ORBITER
personnel, "jeopardizing their ability to support our development pro-
gram." Other vendors were either closing their doors or dropping assembly
lines for certain components because of the general poor condition of the
economy. JPL was planning to procure many items it needed for Viking as
soon as possible and place them in bonded storage until it was ready to
assemble the spacecraft.62
During late January and early February, NASA Headquarters, Lang-
ley, and JPL personnel continued to evaluate the future course of Viking.
After receiving a 28 January briefingby various Viking staff members, John
Naugle decided on 10 February that the agency would pursue its original
plan to flyan orbiter-landercombination. Positive words of support for the
Viking team were put on record by George M. Low, NASA deputy adminis-
trator, and Naugle. Both men knew that the real work had just begun, but
they appreciated the teamwork displayed during the latest crisis. Low told
his colleagues, "Viking holds the highest priority of any project or program
in NASA's Planetary Program. Viking holds a high priority among all of
NASA's programs."63
The Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences also
underscored the value of continuing with Viking, but the board's endorse-
ment carried some reservations. Philip Handler, president of the Academy,
had suggested to NASA Administrator Paine in mid-November 1969 that a
Space Science Board review panel be established to evaluate the balance
among the scientific disciplines supported by space agency funds. The last
such review had been held in July 1966 at a time when National Academy
and NASA personnel had assumed that the budget for space activities
would continue to increase. Paine accepted Handler's offer, but advised
him and his colleagues to weigh carefully the impact of any recommenda-
tions to shift money from one project to another. Any recommendations to
cancel programs that had already gone through an elaborate approval
process within NASA would, in the existing budgetary climate, "almost
certainly lead to the curtailment of the on-going [programs] with little
chance that additional funds [would] become available for [any] program
which the Board feels should be increased."64
The Space Science Board team that evaluated NASA's space science
activities was known as the Viking Review Panel, reflecting the amount of
money being spent on the Mars project and the concern generated by the
postponement of the Mars landing. The panel report issued on 24 March
1970 combined praise and concern. NASA was complimented for its work
in defining a project that accurately reflected the payload recommendations
of the Space Science Board's 1968 study, Planetary Exploration, 1968-1975.
Cost projections, however, caused some division among the members of the
panel. Some believed that the potential return from the Mars mission was so
great that $750 million was justified. Others expressed concern that "within
the extremely restricted budgetary climate, NASA must set much more
limited goals for itself in order to achieve a balanced scientific effort." This
191
ON MARS
latter group feared that Viking's high cost would cause the space agency to
lose other "less costly but equally valuable missions."
Some participants in the review were worried about the complexity of
the Viking science payload, the most sophisticated payload planned to date,
with many new experiments. A two-year delay of the Viking launch might
indeed be beneficial. "The additional two years can be devoted to an exten-
sive test of the abilities of the payload, increasing confidence in [it]."
Since it appeared that future budgets for space activities would be low,
the Viking Review Panel recommended that "considerably more modest
planetary missions" be initiated in the years to come. Single, complicated,
expensive projects like Viking were too risky—politically and technologi-
cally. Realistically appraising the Viking Review Panel's pronouncement,
John Naugle told Paine, "It is, I think, in view of the talk by the scientific
community these days, an accurate and as good a statement about Viking as
we could expect. "65

WORKING TOWARD JULY 1975

Money problems would always haunt the Viking project. The scarcity
of dollars especially affected the development of the lander and its science
payload and repeatedly tried people's patience and equanimity. Early in
1973, Joseph R. Goudy, the Langley Viking Project Office resident engi-
neer at JPL, commented on budget cuts that led to the dismissal of about
200 employees at the California laboratory on rather short notice:
These cutbacks have created a different atmosphere and environment,
resulting in a change in attitude. Six months ago, when the [Viking
Project Office] came in with a new requirement or direction that required
additional or premature effort, it was generally accepted with the attitude,
"We don't think it's necessary but it's their money; if they want it, we'll do
it." Now, with the Orbiter having to take rather severe cuts, this is no
longer considered "their" money and the attitude has become much more
critical, if not down-right hostile.66
Henry Norris, looking for ways to keep his orbiter personnel from reacting
too negatively to the repeated budget cuts, tried to convince them—and for
the most part he succeeded—that the budget was just one of the many
realities that a good engineer or manager had to live with and work around
as he tried to do his job.
The tasks assigned to the orbiter teams were laid before them in a
five-year schedule, which ended with a pair of mid-summer 1975 launches.
The master plan was presented for the first time at the Viking Project
Management Council meeting in February 1970, and it reflected the
changes brought by the stretchout.
The pace of the work at JPL assumed a rhythm familiar to the people
who had worked on other NASA projects. The determining factors, "driv-
192
 VIKING ORBITER

Table 33
Viking Orbiter Schedules

Event Proposed before Proposed after Actual

1 Jan. 1970 1 Jan. 1970 Dates

Preliminary design
review May 1970 Jan. 1972 19-20 Oct. 1971
Critical design
review June 1971 Jan. 1973 9-10 July 1973
Start proof-test
spacecraft test Aug. 1972 March 1974 Jan. 1974
Qualification
test completed Nov. 1972 July 1974 Jan. 1975
Shipment of first
flight hardware to KSC Feb. 1973 Dec. 1974 Feb. 1975
Launch July 1973 July 1975 20 Aug. 1975
9 Sept. 1975

SOURCE: Informationon the 1970 master plan was taken from Henry Norris, ''Viking Orbiter Project
Staff Meeting—Minutes of January 13 and 14, 1970," memo, 19 Jan. 1970.

ers" in NASA parlance, for the designers and engineers were master sched-
ules that determined when major hardware components had to be com-
pleted so the launch dates could be met. But the realities of designing and
building the spacecraft did not always conform to calendar milestones, and
the variance led to frequent revisions of the schedules. At every step along
the way, the work was formally documented in a large number of Viking
project documents. By cross-checking and coordinating these documents,
the project manager at Langley could be assured that the orbiter, lander,
science payloads, launch vehicles, ground support equipment, flight con-
trol facilities, and the tracking system would all function as required when
the hardware was brought together and assembled for the launch and flight
to Mars. This system of mass documentation, formal reviews, telecons, and
informal conversations worked because the people associated with the
effort believed in delegated management. Jim Martin's centralized respon-
sibility and authority for Viking was a key factor to the project's success, but
equally important was the esprit de corps among the Viking teams at the
working level.67
The troops at JPL functioned within divisions responsible for specific
engineering activities or disciplines. Norris and his orbiter staff allocated
funds, prepared plans and schedules, assigned tasks, and received progress
reports, but the divisions carried out the actual design and development of
the spacecraft and experiment hardware, as well as prepared and operated
such facilities as the Deep Space Network and the Space Flight Operations
193
ON MARS

Facility. Each division chief and his subordinates not only supervised their
personnel but also selected the engineers who represented their divisions on
the orbiter team. *68
The structure of management at JPL did not fit Jim Martin's man-
agement scheme. The people at Langley had always worked through a
more centralized organization, in which everyone was directly responsible
to the project director, and the Viking Project Office was uneasy with the
JPL system. Martin knew that the organizational structure of the lab would
not likely be changed just for this mission, so he went to Pasadena in the
early spring of 1970 to observe firsthand how JPL worked. Specifically, he
wanted to know: How had JPL dealt with hardware problems in the past?
How did it plan to manage the Viking orbiter in the future? How would it
control the flight phase of a mission ?69
Henry Norris believed that the time Martin spent with division man-
agers and Viking representatives at JPL led him to understand more clearly
the lab's approach to project management. Martin was still "not entirely
comfortable" with the organization, Norris reported, but at least the project
director had been exposed to it and the men who fi I led the ranks. Likewise,
the people at JPL began to appreciate the sources of Martin's concerns and
continued to work with the project office to improve and strengthen JPL
management control over the teams in Pasadena.70
Although they had adopted different approaches, the personnel at
Langley and JPL were working toward the same goal. Once the baseline
orbiter configuration had been established in February 1969, the next
major orbiter goal was the preliminary design review (PDR). This formal
review, held on 19-20 October 1971, came at the end of the conceptual phase
for the design of the orbiter systems; the specialists were now ready to work
on the detailed design of the hardware. Once the basic soundness of all
aspects of the orbiter was approved, the teams would head for the next
important milestone, the critical design review (CDR). Getting to the PDR
had been a major accomplishment, made difficult by the repeated problems
with the budget; but the teams at JPL had completed their design work and
coordinated their efforts, attending weekly meetings and frequently using
the telephone along the way. In fact, more than 60 meetings were held that
directly impinged upon the design of the orbiter.
The preliminary design review gave all interested parties a look at the
orbiter as JPL planned to build it. Once the conceptual design was com-
plete, work on the design of breadboards, or first working test models, of the
basic orbiter Subsystems would begin. These designs would be evaluated at
subsystem PDRs and, once approved, work on the breadboards would
*Divisions and their representatives assisting the Viking orbiter staff at JPL, spring 1970: Quality
Assurance and Reliability, G. E. Nichols; Project Engineering, V. R. Galleher; Data Systems, G. F.
Squibb; Space Science, M. T. Goldfine; Telecommunications, J. R. Kolden; Guidance and Control,
A. E. Cherniack; Engineering Mechanics, W. J. Carley; Astrionics, J. D. Acord; Environmental Sciences
Simulation, N. R. Morgan; Propulsion, W. J. Schatz; Mission Analysis, P. K. Eckman; and Technical
Information and Documentation, S. B. Hench.

194
 VIKING ORBITER
proceed, with their suitability for conversion into flight hardware being
confirmed during a series of subsystem critical design reviews. A general
CDR for the entire Viking orbiter system would certify the readiness of the
orbiter staff to go to the next step—building the flight-ready orbiters.
By October 1971, the orbiter had assumed the basic configuration it
would have when launched in 1975. The spacecraft had grown considerably
larger than its Mariner Mars 71 predecessor. Most noticeable visually were
the larger solar panels and the larger high-gain antenna. But al l the internal
subsystems were taking on a Viking identity of their own as well. The
Mariner inheritance was still there, but instead of directly transferring
subsystems from one craft to another, the engineers were borrowing from
Mariner experience and know-how. Stil1, it was this transfer of technologi-
cal knowledge from Mariner Mars 71 and Mariner Venus 73 that permitted
the Viking orbiter personnel to get the craft ready to fly on time with a
minimum of problems and money crises.
Jack Van Ness, deputy Viking project manager, recorded in his "Vik-
ing Weekly Highlights Report" that the orbiter system preliminary design
review was well organized and informative. Only 22 action items remained
for solution. "This relatively small number is somewhat indicative of the
clarity and thoroughness of the presentations." At the conclusion of the
review, the Viking Advisory Review Panel and the Orbiter System Manag-
er's Advisory Panel provided a favorable overall evaluation of the orbiter
status. None of the evaluations turned up any critical problems that would
give Martin's Viking Project Office cause for concern.71
With the PDR behind them, Norris's people began to prepare the
detailed designs of the 21 orbiter subsystems. Soliciting requests for propos-
als from industrial contractors, selecting companies to build the subsys-
tems, and negotiating contracts occupied the months from October 1971 to
July 1972. One contract was not let until July 1973. Meanwhile, the various
divisions at JPL had begun to work on the subsystems that would be built at
the laboratory. Preliminary design reviews for these subsystems began in
January 1972 and lasted until late November.
Close on the heels of the PDRs came the subsystem critical design
reviews, which spanned January to July 1973. When the subsystem CDRs
were completed, a general CDR at JPL 9-10 July 1973 evaluated the entire
orbiter system as it had evolved to date. The CDR panel, the Viking
Advisory Panel, and the Orbiter System Manager's Advisory Panel all
expressed their confidence in JPL's performance and the quality of the
teams' work. 72 The technical problems being encountered by the orbiter
were the routine kind that appeared during the course of most spacecraft
projects—recurring difficulties with poor-quality integrated circuits and an
unhappy experience when an early production propulsion tank ruptured
because of a metallurgical failure.
During the summer of 1973, only two subsystems caused genuine
concern. The infrared thermal mapping (IRTM) subsystem was behind
195
ON MARS

schedule, but by mid-July the Santa Barbara Research Center had the
trouble under control, and the subsystem CDR was held that month. The
data-storage-subsystem tape recorder's failure to operate at a satisfactory
speed put it on the Viking Project Office's "Top Ten Problems" list. In
October the "54L" integrated circuits were also added to the list. Overall,
however, the orbiter was shaping up as a well-behaved spacecraft, and
everyone was pleased. Concern over the orbiter's financial problems was
constant, but the project management was confident that Henry Norris's
teams were on schedule and doing well. By drawing on Mariner heritage,
they had the Viking orbiter under contro1.73
In mid-1973, the orbiter hardware entered the test phase. The first test,
called the modal test, was conducted with the orbiter development test
model, to determine if the mathematical model used for the engineering
load analysis was correct. The modal test ran from late May until the end of
July. A week later, General Electric delivered the first computer command
subsystem. In late August, the propulsion-system engineering test model
was test-fired at the NASA Edwards Test Station in California, while at JPL
the flight-data-subsystem breadboard was checked out with other pieces of
hardware that were to be linked to it, such as the visual imaging subsystem,
the IRTM, and the atmospheric water detector. During the first and second
week of September, other tests were run to determine the effect of shock on
various orbiter instruments. Joseph Goudy reported to Martin on the 14th
that the results from the pyrotechnic shock tests were much better than they
had anticipated: "None of the subsystems that were on board for the tests
appeared to have suffered any adverse effects...." The sensitive instru-
ments would not be harmed when the spacecraft was explosively separated
from the Centaur launch vehicle stage and the lander was explosively
separated from the orbiter. 74 In mid-December 1973, JPL completed the
vibration stack test of the orbiter and lander development test models. Since
this was the first time that orbiter and lander hardware had been mated and
tested together, everyone in Pasadena was particularly satisfied when no
important questions were raised by the examinations.75
With the new year upon them, the orbiter team focused its attention on
final assembly of the proof-test orbiter and tests of this first flight-style
hardware. These qualification tests would determine the spaceflight worthi-
ness of the orbiter system designs as they had been rendered into hardware.
The assembly process took three months as each of the subsystems was
checked out and assembled onto the orbiter bus. During April and May, the
engineers at JPL conducted the system readiness test, verifying the function-
ing of all orbiter components. The successful examination of the orbiter
hardware prompted Goudy to report to the Viking management at Langley
that they were on schedule and that the assembly of the proof-test orbiter
had served as a "pathfinder" for the fabrication of the flight orbiters.76
In the process of building this first craft, officially designated Viking orbiter
1 (VO-1), the spacecraft assembly personnel members at JPL learned some
196
 Table 34
Growth in Capacity of Data S torage Subsystems

Marin er 64 Marin er 69 Mariner 7 1 Viking 75

Num ber o r tape record ers 2

' umber o r tracks 4 8 8 x2
Record in g rate 16200 bits per ec 132 000 bits per sec 301 172 bilS per ec, lra ck
I thro u gh 7; 4 a nd 16 ki lo bits
per sec, track 8
Pl ay back ra te 8 1/ 3 bi tS per sec 270 bi ts per sec 1, 2,4, 8 , o r 16 k il o bits 1,2,4,8,or 16ki lob its
LO rage ca pac it y 5. 4 million bits 23 milli o n bi ts 180 milli o n bit s 64 0 m illi o n bits x 2
Leng th o r ta pe 100 m e ters III m eters 168 me ters 384 m eters x 2
We ig ht 19 kg II kg 7.7 kg x 2
Contractor Lockh eed Electron ics Co . Loc kh eed E lectro ni cs Lockh eed E le tro ni cs
in c., Pl a inri e ld , .J.

NOTE: Th e da ta subsys tem s (ree l-LO -rre l ta pe reco rd ers) used o n the Marin er a nd Vikin g spacecra ft permiued I('cordin g sc ientifi c da ta a nd subsequ eml y
pl ay in g it bac k thro ug h Ih eco mmuni ca ti o n s subsys tem [or tra nsmi ss ion to Ea rth . As th e numbel o [ experim cnt;, in creased a nd thea m o unt o [ da ta to be
SLOred a nd p layed ba ck grcw . success ive da la LOra ge sys lems beca me mo re co mple x. Ea c h new tape reco rder had g rea ler ca par il y, pos in g n ew
techn o logica l cha ll enges . In Vi kin g, each da ta su bsys tem tape recorder wc ighed 3.3 kg less th a n th c Marin er 7 1da la subsys tellll cco rd el . whil e hav in g 3.6
lime;, Ih e info rm a ti o n SLOrage ca pacil y, Th a t accomp li shm ent too k tim e and ca used so m(' rea l hea daches [o r the Vikin g m a nage);,. but th e' com p leted
re o rd ers wo rk ed very sucn·ss[ull y dur in g th e mi ss ions.
ON MARS
important lessons that would help them build Viking orbiter 2 and 3, the
orbiters that would fly to Mars. One problem they encountered was the lack
of sufficient work stands, particularly during the installation of the thermal
insulating blanket. More stands were ordered, to avoid any bottleneck
during the assembly of the flight articles. The proof-test orbiter was moved
on 8 May from the Spacecraft Assembly Facility to the Environmental
Laboratory, where it would go through the rigors of vibration, electromag-
netic interference, pyrotechnic, thermal vacuum, and compatibility tests
during the summer of 1974. At the same time, engineers would begin
assembling and testing VO-2 and VO -3.77
On schedule with satisfactory results, the VO-1 tests were completed in
late August. As the JPL team turned its attention to readying VO-3 for early
examination, however, unexpected budget problems brought a change in
plans. 78 On 27 September, the orbiter staff was forced to order all testing of
the third orbiter to cease. The second test team was disbanded; no money
was available for testing. VO -3 was put into storage, and the proof-test
orbiter (VO-1) was redesignated a flight unit. VO-1 and VO-2 would be the

The thermal-control model of the Viking orbiter mated to the

lander thermal-effects simulator was used in August 1973 to
verify the effects solar radiation would have on the spacecraft.
The science platform with imaging system and other instru-
ments is attached under the orbiter.
 -A
• ^ • , ,P
e t

Building the Viking Orbiter at Jet

Propulsion Laboratory in 1979. Men
working inside the chassis, right, fab-
ricate the orbiter bus structure. Below
right, they attach the propulsion mod-
ule to the propellant tanks. Below,
solar panels are in place on the nearly
completed orbiter.

1 R L rMMMMM6;

r
`a
i

4
ON MARS
spacecraft sent to Mars. To ensure the acceptability of the proof-test hard-
ware for flight, a series of meetings were held during the next several
weeks. 79 But an orbiter design qualification review scheduled for early
October 1974 lost much of its significance, since the change in plans had
thrown off JPL's timing. As one participant observed, it was hard for a
review panel "to determine if the Orbiter met all of its requirements in spite
of all the testing that has been done. "80
After several more months of work, orbiter VO-1 was verified for flight
on 9 January 1975, and the VO-2 tests were completed on the 31st. The
orbiters were shipped to the Kennedy Space Center in February, where a
series of preflight checks would be made through the spring and summer. 81
The Viking orbiter, remarkably close to early weight predictions (see table
35), was a very carefully tested piece of equipment. For the teams at JPL, the
design, development, fabrication, and assembly had, for the most part, gone
according to plan, schedule, and budget.
Table 35
Viking Orbiter Specifications, 1969-1975

Baseline PDR Flight

Orbiter Element Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter
Feb. 1969 Oct. 1971 Feb. 1975

Bus dimensions
Long sides 139.7 cm
Short sides 50.8 cm
Height 45.7 cm 45.7 (in cm
Distance from launch
vehicle attachment
points to lander
attachment points 3.29 m 3.29 to
Distance across extended
solar panels, tip to tip 7.80m 9.75 m 9.75 m
Weight with fuel 2298.6 kg 2304.3 kg 2324.7 kg
Weight of fuel 1862 kg 1404.8 kg 1422.9 kg
Weight of science
instruments 57.6 kg 65.4 kg 65.2 kg
Visual imaging system 21.8 kg 42.05 kg 40.05 kg
Infrared thermal
mapper 13.6 kg 7.48 kg 9.30 kg
Mars atmospheric
water detector 15.90 kg 15.90 kg

SOURCt.: JPL, "Viking Project Orbiter System, Visual Presentation, February 13, 14, 1969" [Feb. 1969];
JPL, "Viking 75 Project Orbiter System PDR, October 19-20,1971, Presentation Material" [Oct. 1971];
and Martin Marietta Aerospace, Public Relations Dept., The Viking Mission to Mars (Denver, 1975),
pp. III-25, 111-27, III-32. III-33.

200
 Propulsion
Low-gain antenna module

Solar panel

Science platform -
Solar energy
Cruise sun controller
sensor Et
Orbiter bus
sun gate

Viking 7. 'I
orbiter ? fy

l^

Attitude-control
Relay antenna High-gain gas jets
antenna
IL Viking lander capsule

Configuration of the mated Viking orbiter and capsule in cruise mode.

Carl D. Newby, supervisor of the Spacecraft Development/Mechanical

Support Group, oversaw the assembly of the orbiters. It was the biggest
spacecraft Newby and his team had built, and because it was so big it was an
easy craft on which to work—they had room to move around during the
assembly process. Newby pointed out that it requires a special personality
to work on space hardware and a special dedication. Fabricators come to
view the spacecraft as part of their lives, to care about it. Working in a closed
environment, they have to learn to live with one another, as well. Spacecraft
builders must be adaptable, very careful, and thoughtful. One false move,
one thoughtless motion can destroy an assembly or component worth
thousands of dollars or months of time. Damage to a spacecraft usually also
requires requalification of the injured components or perhaps requalifica-
tion of the entire craft. Workers on the Viking orbiters—many had worked
on Ranger, most had worked on the Mariners—were very fond of their
spacecraft. As Newby repeatedly reminded the specialists at JPL, the orbiter
was a "good spacecraft to work on, it was on time and on budget."82
Building the Viking landers, however, was a completely different story.

201
Page intentionally left blank
 7
Viking Lander: Creating the Science Teams

Designing and fabricating the Viking lander was a difficult task.

Engineers at JPL could draw on their experiences with Mariner systems as
they worked on the orbiter, but the lander team was tackling a new field.
The men in California completed the orbiter with relatively few technical
difficulties; but the contractors at Martin Marietta in Denver, breaking
much new technological ground, encountered many problems. The lander
was far more complex than NASA's previous unmanned lander, the lunar
Surveyor, and Viking's goals were more ambitious. Viking was twice as
heavy as Surveyor; it had two cameras for stereophotography and a com-
plement of very sophisticated scientific instruments, and it was destined to
land on a planet far more distant than Earth's own moon. The Viking
lander represented a series of clever inventions in answer to specific prob-
lems. While this inventiveness can be seen clearly in the creation and
fabrication of the biology instrument and the gas chromatograph-mass
spectrometer, the NASA-contractor team also developed a host of other new
solutions to meet new technological demands.
As with the orbiter, the first priorities of the Viking managers in
dealing with the lander were establishing spacecraft specifications, select-
ing an organization to build it, and forming key teams to do the work—
industrial, managerial, and scientific teams. Team-building began months
before the official approval of the Viking program when Jim Martin at
Langley Research Center selected some of his top people from the Lunar
Orbiter team. For deputy project manager Martin selected Israel Taback,
spacecraft manager for Lunar Orbiter. Iz, as he was called by his colleagues,
had joined the Langley staff in 1942 as a mechanical engineer on gradua-
tion from Cooper Union Engineering School. He successively headed the
instrument calibration laboratory—a group developing aircraft flight
instruments—and the navigation and communications branch at the Lang-
ley center. Gerald A. Soffen, Viking project scientist, once noted that while
Taback might have looked like a tailor among the engineers and managers,
he was the wizard behind the Viking lander. If any one man could be
awarded the title "father of the lander," it was Taback.'

203
ON MARS
During the summer and fall of 1968, Taback supervised the progress of
the contractors studying various technological approaches for landing on
Mars. General Electric was investigating hard-landers; McDonnell Douglas
Astronautics was examining soft-landers; the Boeing Company was study-
ing propulsion and landing systems; and Hughes Aircraft was looking into
low-cost landers, support modules, and mission reliability. In Denver, the
Martin Marietta Corporation was winding up a study of direct versus
out-of-orbit entry for the lander. 2 These early studies helped define the
shape and size a Mars lander would have for a Titan-launched mission.
They also drew attention to subjects that would require special handling.
Taback and.his associates at Langley worked constantly with the contrac-
tors so that their latest ideas for alternative approaches to lander design
could be debated and evaluated in NASA circles.
As Taback's people and the contractors worked on general approaches
to lander design, Jim Martin took steps to begin definition of the science
payload. In August 1968, he established a science instrument working
group under the chairmanship of G. Calvin Broome. Broome, who had
joined Langley in June 1962, was manager of the photographic subsystem
of Lunar Orbiter, overseeing design, fabrication, testing, and operation of
the instrument that would photograph the lunar surface. Just 30 years old
in the summer of 1968, Cal Broome was given a major responsibility for
Viking. His working group, a subdivision of the Mission Design Steering
Committee, would oversee all the preliminary planning for the scientific
payloads for the orbiter and lander. Essential to its work was an understand-
ing of the interactions among the various lander experiments, especially the
interfaces among the surface sampler, biological instrument, and gas
chromatograph- mass spectrometer experiments being proposed for the
mission.'
With the definition of the lander and science hardware taking shape,
Jim Martin needed a project scientist. He first took measure of Gerald
Soffen during a 1967 briefing, when Soffen, a senior scientist at JPL,
described his abbreviated microscope as a possible life detector. The scien-
tist impressed Martin with his technical competence and his enthusiasm for
Mars exploration. Jerry Soffen, 42 years old in 1968, was one of the early
members of the exobiology community. After receiving his Ph.D. from
Princeton University in 1960, he had been a U.S. Public Health Service
fellow at the New York University School of Medicine. Shortly after he
joined the JPL staff, he took part in devising instruments for detecting life
on Mars, in the science planning for Mariner B, and in the development of
automated biology laboratories. Before the demise of Voyager, Soffen had
been deputy project scientist for that endeavor. With this background, he
had the necessary stature in the scientific community that Martin was sure
would be needed by the project scientist of a 1973 Mars landing mission.'
In August 1968, Edgar M. Cortright, Langley director, asked JPL
Director William H. Pickering to assign five JPL staff members to the
204
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
Virginia center for six to nine months of temporary duty. Of those
requested, four had taken part in capsule systems advanced development
activities at JPL. The fifth was Soffen. Pickering and his managers were
unhappy about this request. At that time, Langley and JPL were competing
over Mars mission proposals, and it did not seem to be in JPL's best interests
to send its specialists to help the competition. Pickering told Cortright that
if Langley wanted Soffen, then Soffen would have to resign his position and
join the civil service staff at Langley. Soffen recalled that he felt like a pawn
in a game of planetary chess. Cortright could not promise that the Langley
proposal for a 1973 Mars mission would be approved, and if it were not,
Soffen could find himself a solitary scientist awash in a sea of engineers in
Tidewater Virginia. If he stayed at JPL, he would be able to keep alive his
vital contacts with other space scientists, but he might also miss the oppor-
tunity to lead the first landed scientific investigations of Mars. Cortright
ultimately persuaded Pickering to agree to Soffen's temporary assignment
to the Langley Mars 73 planning project, but only after an appeal to John
Naugle at NASA Headquarters.'
Reflecting on his decision to move from California, Soffen commented
that morale and leadership also affected his desire to make the change. In the
months immediately following the termination of Voyager, the planners at
JPL were in turmoil. At Langley, the situation was different. Cortright and
Martin wanted their 1973 project to become a reality, and Martin espe-
cially pursued this goal with single-minded zeal. If sheer will and determi-
nation could make something happen, then Langley would be the center
that landed spacecraft on Mars. Appreciating this aggressive spirit, Soffen
forced the issue of his being detailed to Langley by purchasing a house in
Hampton, Virginia. In the face of a determined Soffen and a solid front in
the NASA management, Pickering had to let Soffen go east.6

A TEAM OF SCIENTISTS
Setting up the science instrument working group and appointing a
project scientist'* were part of Langley's strategy to gain an early definition
of the scientific aspects of the landed mission. Prospective industrial con-
tractors would, in turn, have a reasonably good understanding of the
problems in building the lander and incorporating the scientific instru-
ments into it. During the second half of 1968, Jim Martin, Jerry Soffen, and
A. Thomas Young began talking to scientists. Tom Young would have a
very difficult assignment as science integration manager; he would often be
surrounded by the conflicting demands of Martin, project engineers, con-
tractor engineers, and oft-complaining scientists. Another 30-year-old, a
mechanical engineer with a second degree in aeronautical engineering,
Young was a native Virginian and a graduate of the University of Virginia.
*At NASA Headquarters, Soffen's counterpart was Milton A. Mitz, program scientist. On 28
December 1970, Mitz left Viking to join NASA's Grand Tour Project, and Richard S. Young became
Viking program scientist.

205
ON MARS

He had joined Langley in 1961 and managed the mission-definition phase

of the Lunar Orbiter project.'
Together, Young, Martin, and Soffen went in search of science team
members for a 1973 mission. At the outset, it appeared that NASA Head-
quarters preferred that Langley deal with "inside" scientists; that is, per-
sons already receiving support from the Office of Space Science and Appli-
cations. But the managers at Langley wanted to cast their net as widely as
possible.' Their philosophy was outlined in a document, "Selection Cri-
teria for Team Membership," circulated by Jerry Soffen in early December
1968. It began, "Rarely are scientists assembled in loosely bound organiza-
tion and asked to perform and make intelligent compromises." As a rule,
they act as individuals with considerable control over their own research
efforts. For the Mars lander project, a group of scientists would have to work
"in concert" to select the best plans for developing instruments that might
be used several years later. In addition to projecting the wisest technological
approach, the science team would have to handle "engineering problems,
financial problems, political pressure, not to speak of scientific unknowns.
The quality of brilliance is likely to be in more abundance than wisdom and
certainly more than experience." An "absolute prerequisite" for member-
ship on the science team was "complementarity to other members of the
team." The guidelines also noted that usually scientists were identified
with a speciality. For this team, however, persons with scientific breadth
and an ability to cooperate with others would be more important assets.
Strictly discipline-oriented persons would be a liability.
"The most difficult candidates to evaluate are likely to be the new or
unknown faces." Some of the newcomers might be "well-meaning-but-not-
too-useful" scientists who were attracted to the project because they
believed that "the space program might be a nice lark for awhile." Others
would not understand that participation in a spaceflight project required a
minimum commitment of five years. The burden of ferreting out the good
scientists rested with Soffen and his colleagues at Langley and NASA
Headquarters. The guidelines cautioned, "An unknown name should not
mean that the candidate is relegated to a second rate position." But the
NASA managers could not afford to accept an only candidate for a position
either, hoping he would "work out." Obviously, "the time for bringing up
doubts is during selection not after the choice" was made, when dismissal
would be difficult, awkward, and embarrassing.
While "scientists do not like to make decisions any more than other
people," someone would have to be the "General" when science and democ-
racy failed to resolve problems. It was, therefore, important for Soffen and
his associates to consider which of the scientist candidates would make
good leaders. Team leaders certainly had to be good communicators, with
their teammates and with other members of the project. One last thing had
to be kept in mind during the search: Teams "should not be too large. Five
are a democracy, six an assembly, and more than eight lead ultimately to
confusion and are often uncontrolled."'
206
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
The need for three basic lander science teams had been identified by
December 1968—imaging, organic analysis, and life detection. The scien-
tists on the imaging team would represent the most mixed set of disciplines,
since the goals for that experiment were so broad. Each field of inquiry
anticipated some useful information from lander photography. "The biolo-
gist has hope of finding something interesting. The geologist expects clues
to the surface characteristics. The mineralogist could make some deduc-
tions about the surface composition." Cartographers, geographers, and
engineers working on landing maneuvers and planning future spacecraft
for Mars would all have an interest in the images from the landers' cameras.
While most of the specialists who wanted to be included on the imaging
team were more interested in the information the system would obtain than
the development of the instrument itself, some would have definite sugges-
tions about the technology. To translate these suggestions into specifica-
tions that the contractors could use in building hardware, a very talented
instrument engineer would also have to be assigned to the team so that
Langley's plans for a facsimile camera on the lander could be realized. The
name for the camera was borrowed from the technique in telegraphy in
which a picture is divided into a grid of small squares. The brightness of
each square is converted into an electrical signal, and a sequence of such
signals transmitted to a receiving station. The sequence is converted into an
equivalent array of light and dark shades, and a "facsimile" of the original
picture is produced on a photographic film. In 1968, the facsimile camera
for aerospace applications was a relatively new tool, and the imaging
science team would have to learn many new lessons in the development of
that instrument for Viking.'o
It was generally agreed that the imaging team leader would need to be
familiar with facsimile camera technology, experienced in photo interpre-
tation, and well versed in other major aspects of the mission. He would need
a geologist colleague who was a "field scientist familiar with a wide variety
of terrain and experienced in interpreting photos." And that geologist
would have to be acquainted with the major theories on the formation of
Mars. A biologist for this team would be difficult to find according to
Soffen. There just was not a large group of "first rate field biologists from
which to choose," and of these only a small number were interested in
exobiology. Interpreting the images from the standpoint of mineralogy and
inorganic chemistry might be done by a geologist, biologist, or related
specialist. Analyzing the effects of the braking rockets on the landing
zone—called site alteration—might require additional expertise, depend-
ing on the mode of terminal descent chosen. Obviously there would be more
to Martian imagery than just taking pictures. The photographs would
provide many important clues to scientists, and the system would likely be
the eyes of the landed spacecraft, relaying important messages to Earth-
bound engineers.
For the organic analysis team, five different specialties were required—
organic chemistry, gas chromatography, mass spectroscopy, inorganic
chemistry, and meteorology. The organic chemist in the group must be a
207
ON MARS
specialist in pyrolysis, since "the central theme of the experiment is the
reconstruction of the organic [compounds] from the analysis of the end
products of thermal degradation." For pure compounds, this analytical
work can be very complex. For mixtures of compounds, the task is exceed-
ingly difficult. "For mixtures in which soil inorganics have been added. the
experiment is ... T' Since gas chromatography was a science in which the
technology was "changing every day," the specialist for this experiment
would have to be abreast of those changes. This expertise was especially
important because the information provided by gas chromatography would
help other specialists understand the makeup of compounds they encoun-
tered in other experiments.
The heart of the entire organic investigation was an unusual sensor
called a mass spectrometer. This instrument would examine the vapors
produced by Martian soil compounds when heated. The vapors would be
drawn into the gas chromatograph, which would separate the vapors into
their individual components. The components would then be drawn into
the mass spectrometer to be ionized (given an electrical charge) and ana-
lyzed to identify the constituent components. Profiles for each compound
would be converted into digital form and sent to Earth. Results of the
organic chemistry analysis would give scientists insights into compounds
that might have been produced by any life forms on Mars and identify any
organic material that might be present or might be generated at the Martian
surface by purely chemical means." The biological experiments were all
predicated on the detection of active life processes, but the organic chemis-
try investigation would determine if any organisms had existed in the past
or if the right organic compounds were present for the evolution of life in
the future. As a cross-check on the life detectors, the organic chemistry
experiment was all-important.
In addition to the analysis of organic compounds, there would also be a
need to examine inorganic compounds found at the landing site. Because
many of these inorganics are found in volatile form (ammonia, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, sulfur dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide) and appear only as gases in the atmosphere, a scientist
would be included on the organic analysis team who was "familiar with
such outgassing" and the composition of "juvenile" and secondary plane-
tary atmospheres. A meteorologist could also add to the examination of
these atmospheric elements as he studied the dynamics of Martian weather.
Finally, the major instrument planned for the lander was an integrated
series of life-detection experiments. By 1968, after several frustrating years
of experimenting with sample collectors for Voyager, exobiologists agreed
that a Martian biology investigation instrument should have a common
source for sample acquisition and analysis if evaluation of the results from
the individual elements was to have scientific validity. Because the biology
investigation was to be an integrated experiment, Soffen expected several
kinds of specialists to be on the biology team. "But more important than the
208
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
specialties, there should be a good mixture of different attitudes and expe-
riences," since this complex of experiments would undoubtedly be "the
most controversial of the payload." For example, the variations on a
growth-detection instrument were apparently limitless, so the biology team
would have to select the best concepts and then "be willing to defend them
as the most reasonable thing to be done." Four kinds of biology expertise
were sought for the Viking lander biology team:
A microbiologist is the essential ingredient, one familiar with soil
growth conditions and the. problems of demonstrating viable organisms
from natural soil.
A photosynthesis specialist. Since part of the experiment is likely to
be done in the light, searching for the photosynthetic reaction, it is
important that someone familiar with these conditions be included.
A cellular physiologist-biochemist. This is usually the same individ-
ual as the microbiologist, but in addition it is desirable to find a specialist
familiar with intermediary metabolism and the internal biochemistry of
organisms....
One versed strongly in biological theory, evolution, genesis, chemi-
cal de nova synthesis, genetics. This theoretical job is likely to give the
very fabric to the biological goals of the mission. An appropriate person
could become the [team leader].
Soffen and his colleagues believed that an engineer with a particularly
strong background in developing miniaturized systems would also be an
asset to the biology group in the design of the life-detection experiments.12
To expedite the development of the lander science instruments, the
new Viking Project Office, in concert with the program scientist's staff at
NASA Headquarters, organized the science activities into three phases—
preparation, implementation, and data analysis. The preparation period
would extend from October 1968 to December 1969, culminating in the
selection of the Viking scientific investigators for the flight. Implementa-
tion would run from December 1969 through the final preparations for
launch. The analysis phase would begin with the collection of the first data
and end with the shutdown of each of the instruments. Only the lander
investigations were identified as requiring a preparation phase, because the
Viking managers expected that series of experiments to be more difficult to
develop than the orbiter instruments. Orbiter investigators also would be
chosen later than lander experimenters.
Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications John
Naugle officially began selecting investigators for the preparation phase 27
September 1968. Although the "solicitation for participation" did not
name any specific mission or guarantee the participants in the early phase a
place on the flight team, Naugle, program scientist Milton Mitz, and Soffen
realized that those chosen in the fall of 1968 to help define the scientific
payload for the lander would have an inside track toward selection as
investigators for Viking. And everyone—managers and scientists—recog-

209
ON MARS
nized that the development of an atmospheric probe-lander and the scien-
tific instruments for a Mars lander would "require a long lead time."
Considering also the highly integrated payload, the interdisciplinary
na cure of some of the proposed instruments, and the basic complexity of the
lander design, NASA had no choice but to bring scientists into the planning
phase at the very earliest point, even if this later made objective selection of
the flight team scientists more difficul1.13
The flight team investigators would be responsible for developing the
functional specifications for the instruments and for providing direct gui-
dance in all aspects of instrument design and construction. Including
scientists in all stages of experiment definition, design, development, fabri-
cation, testing, and operation was an attempt to preclude a problem that
had plagued many of NASA's programs: the conflict between the builders
of scientific instruments and the users of the data collected from them.
Outside the arena of spaceflight, scientists have traditionally built or at least
closely monitored the construction of their own experimental apparatus.
Indeed, scientists were often judged by their peers on how well they exe-
cuted the design of their hardware. With the shift from experiments on the
laboratory bench to instruments that had to be integrated into the multi-
plicity of spacecraft systems, a rift grew between the persons who conceived
the experiments and analyzed the results and those who actually built the
hardware. An exobiologist might conceptualize an investigation and even
build a bench prototype, but any elements of an integrated biology instru-
ment would likely be built by a contractor specializing in the design and
fabrication of flight hardware. This new division of labor did not often
please the scientists, especially when engineers took an "I know how to do it
better than you" stance. To avoid this problem in Viking, Naugle and the
other NASA managers wanted the scientists working with the project from
the very beginning.14
On 11 February 1969, after the headquarters' Space Science and Appli-
cations Steering Committee had evaluated the many proposals sent them by
potential investigators, Jim Martin sent letters to 38 scientists, inviting
them to participate in the preparation phase of project planning. While
some familiar names were among the scientists, many were also newcomers
to space science. Soffen's objective of incorporating new talent into the
teams had been realized. All the invitees accepted, and their first meetings at
the Langley Research Center were the inaugural sessions of the Viking
science instrument team, 19-20 February, and the Science Steering Group,
21 February. 15 These meetings gave the scientists an overview of the entire
project, introducing them to current activities, the project's methods of
operation, and the schedule. Scientific objectives were discussed with
respect to the existing knowledge of Mars and the investigations planned
for Mariner 1969 and Mariner 1970 spacecraft. The scientists were also
briefed on their responsibilities and the manner in which the teams and the

210
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
Science Steering Group would function. Mission design, engineering facts
of life ("engineering constraints"), and hardware design (lander, orbiter,
and scientific instruments) were summarized, as well. 16 On 25 February,
NASA Headquarters officially announced the selected preliminary Viking
science team members." The list was a long one, and the number of teams
had grown to eight (see app. D).
During the next six months, each science team planned instrument
development. At the February Science Steering Group meeting, Jim Martin
had told the team leaders that their science definitions should clearly state
the scientific values of the instruments and the definitions "should be so
complete that they may be used as a guide in preparing preliminary specifi-
cations for spacecraft design." The scientists were responsible for defining
their potential hardware needs. 18 Viking planners had initially agreed to
include a "science definition" in "Mission Definition No. 2," but that
official statement of Viking science objectives promised to be too lengthy.19
Only the essential data would appear in the mission definition, while the
more detailed information would be included in a reference work, "Viking
Lander Science Instrument Teams Report." Lander contractors would use
both documents as sources of information about the proposed instruments
and a guide to scientific rationale as they determined how to increase the
scientific capabilities of the lander.20
Potential scientific investigators received the "Announcement of
Flight Opportunity for Viking 1973" in early August 1969. This package of
materials, which included the instrument teams' reports and the mission
definition, would guide scientists who wished to work on one of the
suggested experiments or who wanted to propose alternative versions of
existing experiment proposals or additional experiments. 21 (See app. D for
an excerpt from one of the science reports.) Concurrent with the final
revisions of the science instrument reports, the Science Steering Group
recommended at its July meeting that the weight of Viking lander science
instrumentation be targeted at 41 kilograms rather than the original 32
kilograms. The extra weight would permit consideration of a number of
important additional goals that had been identified as desirable if a larger
payload was possible.22
With the completion of three major documents—the "Viking Lander
Science Instrument Teams Report," "Viking Mission Definition No. 2,"
and the "Science Management Plan"—the science instrument team's work
was essentially completed. The next step was the reception and evaluation
of the science proposals in response to the flight opportunity announce-
ment. More than 300 persons had attended the two day pre-proposal brief-
i rig for Viking science. By the 20 October deadline, NASA had received 150
proposals. Since 5 of these were considered dual proposals and 10 presented
additional instrument options that had to be studied, the total number of
items to be evaluated reached 165. They were divided into nine groups.

211
ON MARS
Table 36
Viking Science Proposals

Lander b
1
0 ter

Experiments Number of Experiments Number of

Proposals Proposals

Imaging 14 Imaging 17
Molecular analysis 19 Proposals for experiments
Active biology 13 requiring additional
Meteorology 11 instruments 27
Entry science 15 Radio science 27
Proposals for experiments
requiring additional
instruments 22

As part of the evaluation process, Mike Mitz, program scientist at headquar-

ters, made these proposals available to the four subcommittees of the Space
Science and Applications Steering Committee—Planetary Biology, Plane-
tary Atmospheres, Planetology, and Particles and Fields. Each proposal
was reviewed by at least one subcommittee. The steering committee
recommended 12 experiments and 61 scientists to John Naugle, who con-
curred on 15 December (see app. D and table 37). Of the 8 lander experi-
ments, 6 had been proposed during the preparation phase of the lander
work; 2 were new investigations suggested by outside scientists, and 1 of the
major instruments proposed for the Lander during the early planning
phase, the ultraviolet photometer, would not be flown.23
In the course of selecting the scientific experiments for Viking, Jim
Martin expressed some reservations to Ed Cortright: "The proposed science
payload represents an escalation in science objectives which is likely to lead
to cost increases beyond those estimated in our assessment." His concern
was especially strong for the experiments not previously examined by science
instrument teams. Cost problems could be generated by the entry-science
retarding-potential analyzer, the lander-science physical properties inves-
tigations, or the magnetic properties experiment. "These additions, when
coupled with the problems of using the [gas chromatograph-mass spec-
trometer] to measure water and adding a gas exchange investigation to the
biology instrument, add up to a potential overrun...." Martin was also
worried about some of the scientists chosen for the work. He told Cortright
that lessons they should have learned over the course of the preceding year
were not being implemented. "Specifically, the Biology Team has the same
group of men who demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to work
together, the [Molecular Analysis] Team has two members only interested
212
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM

Table 37
Key Dates in Assessment of Viking Science Proposals

I I-12 Sept. 1969 Pre-proposal briefing for potential experimenters.

20 Oct. 1969 Proposals due at NASA Headquarters.
23 Oct. 1969 Copies of proposals due at Langley and JPL; meeting held at
Langley to discuss proposals.
3-4 Nov. 1969 First Space Science and Applications Steering Committee
(SSASC) subcommittee meetings to initiate evaluation
process, Goddard Space Flight Center.
7-8 Nov. 1969 Review of science proposals at Langley.
12-14 Nov. 1969 Second subcommittee meetings, Goddard.
17 Nov. 1969 Viking Project Office assessments of proposals due at NASA
Headquarters.
18-20 Nov. 1969 Definition of science payload by Headquarters Planetary
Program Office.
21 Nov. 1969 Tentative payload presentation to D. P. Hearth, director,
Planetary Program Office.
26 Nov. 1969 Planetary Program Office recommendations made to SSASC.
3 Dec. 1969 Recommendations presented to SSASC in writing.
8 Dec. 1969 Oral presentation to SSASC.
15 Dec. 1969 Selection of Viking science payload by John E. Naugle,
associate administrator for space science and applications,
based on SSASC recommendations.

in water detection who will interfere with achievement of the team's pri-
mary objective, and the Entry Team has the same two members who have
demonstrated many times an inability to work together. "21
Martin had good reason to be worried about possible cost escalations.
On 3 September, Don Hearth's Planetary Program Office held a Viking
science review with Langley personnel, Office of Space Science and Appli-
cations program chiefs, and Dr. Henry J. Smith, deputy associate adminis-
trator for space science. The objective was to establish weight- and cost-
limit goals for Viking science activities. Later decisions about overall Viking
costs and flight instruments could be made using these guidelines. Some of
the more significant decisions reached at the 3 September review were on
reduction of the lander science instruments' total weight, development of
backup instruments for the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer and the
biology instrument, and specific dollar limits on science spending.
As a result of the early fall meeting, the science planners reverted to the
32-kilogram limit on science instruments, dropping the 41-kilogram pro-
213


ON MARS
posal made by the Science Steering Group. The major difference between
the two weight packages was the addition of a separate mass spectrometer
for determining lower atmosphere constituents. Hearth's view was that the
additional scientific information they could obtain with that instrument
could not be justified when they considered its cost. He believed that the
first gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer measurements after touch-
down would be sufficient. Weights and costs of the 32-kilogram science
payload for the lander were summarized in September 1969 (table 38).
Table 38
Estimates for Lander Payload, September 1969

Item Weight Cost

(kg) (millions)

Entry science 4.1 $ 4.1

Imaging 5.0 6.2
Biology 5.4 1 l .3
Gas chromatograph-mass
spectrometer 10.4 8.5
Meteorology 2.3 3.0
Water 1.1 1.8
Seismometry .9 2.0
Ultraviolet photometry 5 0.7
Total for instruments 29.7 37.6
Integration and test 2.0 5.8
Total 31.7 $43.4

Cost of the lander instruments was expected to be about $1.36 million per
kilogram. The orbiter experiments were projected to cost about $0.56 mil-
lion per kilogram. Overall costs were broken down as in table 39.

Table 39
Viking Science Cost Projections, September 1969

Item Cost
(millions)

Lander science $43.4

Orbiter science 32.0
Support of science teams 13.3
JPL support of GCMS development 5.6
Ames support of biology instrument
development 2.1
Total $96.4

214
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
With an additional 10 percent for contingencies, Hearth established a firm
ceiling of $107.5 million for the total Viking science package.25
Looking at Hearth's estimate in December, Martin believed that they
were selecting too many members for the experiment teams. "The total
number of team members and participating scientists has increased beyond
our budgeted estimates and considerably beyond what the [project office]
believes is required to achieve the mission objectives." The budget called for
55 scientists; 61 had been selected. Martin would have been happy with
fewer than 40. (By flight time, the number of science team members would
grow to 80.) Although Don Hearth's Planetary Science Office had told all
the scientists that the payload selection was tentative pending negotiation
of a contract for each instrument and an individual contract for each
scientist, Martin personally believed that it would be extremely difficult for
NASA to drop any scientist or investigation. The "pressure will be on to
consider an increase of a few million [dollars] as acceptable; it will come out
of our contingency allowance and avoids unpleasantness between [the
Office of Space Science and Applications] and the science community."
Martin feared that in a few years when all these reasons for the
increased expenditures had been forgotten, he and the Viking Project Office
would be held responsible for not properly managing their funds. With
only $102 million set aside for total project contingency costs (a small
amount compared to other major NASA projects) and the "tight funding
environment" that everyone expected to face for several years, it appeared to
Martin that "a prudent manager must hold the line against escalation in all
areas of the project today." Since he saw considerable cost uncertainty
associated with the science instruments, Martin would be especially cau-
tious in this area. 26 Many of his concerns did become problems in the future.
There was friction among the members of the biology team, and the costs of
the biology instrument and the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer rose
sharply. Most of these difficulties emerged after the January 1970 schedule
change from a 1973 to a 1975 launch.
Reservations aside, NASA appeared to be well on its way to organizing
a Mars lander mission. In encouraging Joshua Lederberg to work with the
biology team, Richard S. Young, chief of exobiology, Office of Space
Science and Applications, had written that many details of the biology
experiment still needed resolving. Young sought Lederberg's advice on
NASA's "method of operation" as much as on "the science involved in these
missions." Looking back over the long road since the early 1960s when
exobiology was a very new field, Young noted, "The science hasn't changed
much since the `Westex' days [see chapter 3], but we are finally trying to
organize in the best way as to achieve some of the `old' objectives." Young
and his colleagues wanted "to make this thing work ... within the con-
straints imposed" on them by the administration and Congress. 27 They
would need the help of many parties to reach their goal.

215
ON MARS
SELECTING A CONTRACTOR
Selection of a contractor to build the lander and to supervise integra-
tion of the lander and orbiter and integration of the spacecraft and launch
vehicle paralleled in time the selection of the scientific experiments. On 28
February 1969, Langley Research Center issued a request for proposals on
the design and fabrication of the lander and project integration. In addition
to the 20 firms directly solicited for this procurement, 12 others requested
and were sent copies of the proposal package. Technical and managerial
proposals were submitted to NASA by the Boeing Company, McDonnell
Douglas Corporation, and Martin Marietta Corporation. All three com-
panies had conducted studies earlier for Jim Martin's Titan Mars 1973
team. In the process, they had developed an enthusiasm for and an expertise
in the design of Mars landers.
In April the Source Evaluation Board began with an appraisal of the
written proposals and visited the production facilities of each of the three
potential builders, where members of the board spoke at length with com-
pany representatives. As Administrator Thomas O. Paine noted in his
report on the contractor selection process, the board furnished written
questions to each firm before its visit. The companies were advised that the
questions covered deficiencies and omissions as well as proposal ambigui-
ties and that they were being given an opportunity to support, clarify,
correct, or make revisions. After the visits, the board made its final rankings
in May 1969.
Martin Marietta received the highest overall final rating; its cost pro-
posal was between those of the other two bidders. The Denver-based divi-
sion's technical proposal was well organized, according to the judges on the
board; its strong points were "outstanding mission analysis and plans for
maximum science return, the communications system, the terminal descent
radar analysis, a common deorbit and descent engine, and landing gear
design." Weak points included "the power system design and uncertain
subsonic stability of the aerodynamic configuration." NASA specialists
believed these to be "readily correctable" problems, and Martin Marietta
suggested that the inflatable-balloon decelerator (ballute) and parachute
combination, which had been proposed for slowing and stabilizing the
lander once it was separated from its aeroshell, be replaced by a more
conventional parachute.
Boeing received the second highest overall ranking and offered the
lowest cost. Boeing's proposal contained "a well-conceived mechanical
design, a redundant and flexible communications system, and an excellent
plan for launch and flight operations." Proposal weaknesses centered on a
method suggested for dealing with the scientific instruments and the inves-
tigators, the power system design, and deorbit propulsion. The latter two
areas would require "major proposal revisions," according to the source
board. Boeing had planned to join forces with General Electric and Hughes
Aircraft Company—GE as the subcontractor for entry, power, data han-
216
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
dling, and attitude control systems; Hughes as the subcontractor for termi-
nal landing subsystems, terminal guidance and control, terminal propul-
sion, and landing gear. While the combination of these three companies
offered much "specialized experience" and while the Boeing-GE-Hughes
team plan was well organized, NASA officials thought there were "poten-
tial management and operational problems" in this arrangement.28
McDonnell Douglas, with the highest cost estimate, was ranked third.
Technical weaknesses outweighed the strengths of its proposal. And the
potential strength of its management team was outweighed by its decentral-
ized facilities, which were not as well suited for Viking as those at Martin
Marietta or Boeing.
Following the Source Evaluation Board presentations, Paine met with
a few key NASA employees to obtain their views on the board's findings.
Administrator Paine, Associate Administrator Homer E. Newell, and
NASA General Counsel Paul G. Dembling subsequently met and agreed to
award the contract to Martin Marietta. 29 Paine explained that his choice for
the lander contractor was influenced by the fact that the firm had "applica-
ble company experience, technical capability and the most outstanding
facilities ... which are specially tailored to Viking requirements." Martin
Marietta's participation in early Voyager activities and its decision to
maintain a team effort with more than 100 persons during the 1967-1969
period had "established a strong and highly motivated" group from the top
management down through the working personnel.30
On 29 May 1969, Paine announced that NASA planned to award a
cost-plus-incentive-fee/award-fee contract for $280 million. 31 The lander
system as proposed by the contractor was technically evaluated by the
engineers at Langley to identify changes that should be made before the
formal contract negotiations between NASA and Martin Marietta began.
These alterations were documented in a "shopping list" of 18 items over
which Langley and the new contractor negotiated. With the changes, the
contract figure totaled $299.1 mil lion in the contract approved by Paine 20
October. Martin Marietta's fee was targeted at $14.52 million, but the
incentive provision permitted the company to earn more money if the
contract was concluded at less than the projected cost of $299.1 million and
it penalized the company for any cost overruns. For every dollar above the
target, Martin Marietta would lose 15 cents from the fee, while any cost
savings would bring an additional reward of 15 cents per dollar.32
The statement of work that accompanied the contract for "Viking
lander system and project integration" was kept as general as practical so
that the number of changes in the contract could be kept to a minimum.
Other large NASA projects like Gemini and Apollo had produced thou-
sands of contract modifications. David B. Ahearn in the Langley Procure-
ment Division sought from the beginning to produce a Viking contract that
would ensure that the work was done properly but with a minimum of
paperwork. During the life of the contract, the number of alterations made
in that document numbered about 300.33
217
The Viking lander design went through a number of versions in 1968 and 1969.
Above, one of the four-legged configurations presented at the Viking science
instrument team's meeting 19-20 February 1968 was to be powered by radioisotope
generator and battery. One not shown arrayed solar cells on the lander's f lat top to
provide power. Although RTGs posed heat problems, the Viking Project Office
preferred them. Below, the three-legged September 1969 design added a second
camera for stereophotography and moved the meteorology instrument to the
high-gain antenna mast.
High-gain
Radioisotope
thermoelectric S-band antenna
generator
(RTG)
(2 places) Meteorology

UHF antenna instruments
(3 places)
Low-gain
S-band
antenna

Facsimile
cameras

Terminal
propulsion
Soil sampler Attitude- — fuel tank
control (2 places)
roll nozzles
(6 places)
Landing gear
Terminal (3 places)
propulsion
fuel tank
(3 places)
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
Very early in the contract, a major modification, made necessary by the
two-year launch-date slip, was negotiated between NASA and Martin
Marietta. On 13 January 1970 following the administrator's unexpected
announcement of the change in plans for Viking, the Langley Research
Center Contracting Office notified the contractor to stop all work autho-
rized under the contract. That week meetings at JPL, Martin Marietta, and
Langley began reprogramming for the new game plan. Martin Marietta
studied two possible alternatives for a 1975 launch (table 40).39

Table 40
Alternatives for 1975 Viking Launch

Option A: Option B:
Viking 1973 Mission Direct Entry
Slipped to 1975 Opportuniiy Lander Mission in 1975

Orbiter-lander-Titan III-Centaur Lander-relay module-Titan III-Centaur

1973 management and contractor team 1973 lander contractor to supply
relay module
1973 science and scientists 1973 science and scientists
Type II trajectory Type II trajectory
Use added time to minimize technical
risk, optimize hardware use, minimize
schedule risk, and minimize cost.
FY 1969, 1970, 1971 funds held to $87.5
million.
First priority in study Second priority in study

By mid-February, the Viking Project Office authorized Martin Marietta

to proceed with the first option and lifted the stop-work order. Through the
end of fiscal 1971 (30June), only $87.427 mill ion would be made available
for the project, so Martin Marietta would not be able to hire as many
persons as planned. Nor would it be able to increase employment levels as
rapidly as it had hoped under the 1973 schedule. JPL also had to make
changes in its manpower projections. Although Martin Marietta would
employ a smaller total number during the life of the lander contract, those
who did work on Viking would he employed for a longer time. As a
consequence, the total cost of the lander grew by another $44 million (see
also graphs in appendix C.)35
The immediately apparent increase caused by the shift from a 1973 to a
1975 launch was $141 million. While other factors would drive Viking costs

219
ON MARS
Table 41
Diking Cost Increases Because of Launch Delay
(in millions, as of June 1970)

Component Viking 1973 Viking 1975

(as of June 1970)

Lamlrr $313 $360

Orbiter 202 257
Other 94 133
Total $609 $750

even higher, the economics of delaying the project two years to meet the
political pressures on the fiscal 1971 budget were expensive for NASA and
American taxpayers.

SCIENTISTS, INSTRUMENTS, AND SUBCONTRACTORS

The Viking project stretchout also affected management of the scien-

tific experiments for the Mars mission. Originally, the Viking Project
Office had planned to negotiate contracts with the scientists and select
instrument subcontractors during the first weeks of 1970, and most of the
science teams had met in early January to review their plans. With the
switch to a 1975 mission, that schedule had to be reevaluated and the
activities reprogrammed. On 13 January the science teams, except those
working on the biology instrument and the lander imaging system, were
told to terminate their Viking activities.36
Jerry Soffen advised all of the scientists in late January that the Viking
Project Office's main goal was to make the transition to a revised schedule
as smooth as possible, while protecting against any unnecessary cost
increases or further schedule delays. "During this transition period," Soffen
hoped that the scientists would "not lose sight of the Viking objectives,"
and he reminded them that "scientific research has never been an easy way
of life. We expect to find favorable aspects of this Viking deferment in the
form of improvements in the investigations and the better use of Mariner 71
results." 37 The Viking Project Office worked out a procedure for keeping
the science team leaders in the instrument definition process during the
transition without having to include them informal contract negotiations.
After selection of a subcontractor to negotiate to build a science instrument
and before negotiations began, a technical review would be held. Martin
Marietta, the Viking Project Office, the science team, and the subcontractor
(or "vendor") would thoroughly review the procurement drawing, espe-
cially where changes in specifications were required. The science team

220
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
leader could participate in discussions leading to prenegotiation specifica-
tion. Then, during negotiations, any additional changes would be coordi-
nated with the team leader through the Viking office-"
For the scientists as a group, the next big gathering scheduled was the
Viking science review in mid-April 1970. By that time, Martin Marietta had
chosen Itek Corporation's Optical Systems Division to develop and build
the lander camera system and was evaluating biology instrument proposals
from Bendix Aerospace Systems Division and TRW Defense and Space
Systems Group. JPL was in the process of evaluating a breadboard model of
the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer, and Martin Marietta's plan-
ning for the construction of the upper-atmospheric mass spectrometer
breadboard was under way.39
For three days, 13-15 April, 42 scientists (about two-thirds of the total
team membership) met with representatives from the project office and
lander contractor. After receiving reports from the Viking managers the
first morning, each team leader presented a 10- to 20-minute summary
report on the status of his experiment that afternoon. On the 14th, a series of
concurrent team meetings gave the scientists time to talk with their team-
mates and discuss matters of common interest with other teams. Later that
day, a number of special science meetings took up investigative considera-
tions affecting more than one team, such as site alteration, organic con-
tamination, landing site characteristics, atmosphere. The final day of the
gathering was given over to a session of the Science Steering Group. The
scientists found all the meetings educational but agreed that the smaller
"think" groups they had participated in the second day were particularly
stimulating. Viking's schedule may have been stretched out, but nearly
everyone agreed that much work would still have to be done by all to meet
the 1975 launch date. 40
The pace of work was moderately slow at first because of the limited
money available, but in retrospect that may have been fortunate, because
many technological problems lay ahead. Three scientific instruments—the
ones given first priority for the dollars available—were particular prob-
lems: the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer, the biology instrument,
and the lander imaging system.'* While the story of these instruments is a
tale of amazing accomplishment, the facts also indicate that if Viking had
flown in 1973 it probably would have been launched without the gas
chromatograph- mass spectrometer and the biology instrument. Without
those experiments, Viking would have been a vastly different mission.
Those instruments were ready to fly in 1975, and the story of their design
and fabrication deserves to be told. For the men and women who worked the
extra hours, sweated out the successive problems, and reveled in personal

*Thomas A. Mutch has described the history of the lander cameras in The Martian Landscape,
NASA SP-425 (Washington, 1978), pp. 3-31.

221
ON MARS
satisfaction when the experiments actually worked on the surface of Mars, 11

was "their" lander, "their" experiment, and "their" triumph.

Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer (GCMS)
Development of a GCMS prototype had initially been assigned to the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory by Langley in August 1968. This responsibility
remained with JPL when the Viking project was officially established.
Before selecting a contractor to build the flight hardware, the California lab
had the task of developing, fabricating, and testing a lightweight portable
breadboard of the GCMS that could be used to carry out surface organic
analysis by pyrolysis. Gas chromatography and mass spectrometry in the
laboratory were one thing; shrieking the equipment to a size that could be
placed on a spacecraft was another. 41 Requirements for such an instrument
were not easy to meet for a laboratory model; restrictions put on the design
to qualify it for spaceflight made it extremely difficult.
Pulverized Martian soil would be placed in the instrument and heated
to temperatures up to 500°C. The gases given off would be carried into a gas
column, a long tube packed with coated glass beads that would selectively
delay the passage of gases according to their adsorptive qualities. The
column would then be heated progressively to 200°C at a rate of 8.3°C per
minute. Each level of temperature would release different organic mole-
cules, separated into narrow family groupings. A palladium separator unit,
porous only to hydrogen, would filter out that gas, leaving only the vapor-
ized organic compounds, which would be drawn into the mass spectrometer
to be ionized. The stream of ions would be focused in the electrostatic and
magnetic sectors of the device. When the stream of focused ions struck
the electron multiplier tube, generating electrical impulses, that activity
would be amplified and recorded, producing a profile of each compound.
Finally, the profiles would be converted into digital signals that could be
transmitted to Earth.42
Although the GCMS was a complex piece of equipment, no one
predicted the difficulties that JPL encountered in its development. At first,
dollars and failure to agree on priority for the instrument's development
were causes for delay. But by the summer of 1970, serious engineering and
managerial problems were plaguing GCMS development.43
In September 1970, Cal Broome told Jim Martin that the GCMS,
nominally under the purview of Henry Norris's Viking Orbiter Office, was
a stepchild not getting proper supervision because of the decentralized
management structure at the lab. 94 A five-day GCMS engineering model
review, held 25-30 January 1971, was a disaster. Jack Van Ness told Langley
Director Cortright that between 200 and 300 "request for action" forms
resulted from the review; he anticipated that 100 to 150 of those items would
be assigned to JPL for its attention. "It is expected that the major output of
t lie review will be a critical reassessment of the requirements imposed upon

222
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM

the instrumentand its subsystems, with an eye towards reductions in instru-

ment complexity." 45 Two weeks later, Van Ness reported that JPL had
taken steps to strengthen its managerial control. John J. Paulson, head of
the GCMS project office, would henceforth report directly to Robert J.
Parks, assistant laboratory director for flight projects. This shift put the
GCMS on the same management plane as Mariner Mars 71 and Viking
Orbiter. The Viking Project Office hoped this visibility would help solve
some of the stepchild's troubles.46
Jim Martin was not pleased. At a Science Steering Group meeting 2-3
March 1971, he indicated that funding increases, technical problems, and
schedule slips had caused him and his colleagues considerable concern
about the future of the GCMS. Although the recent management change at
JPL was encouraging, the instrument's progress would be watched closely
during the next few months. If progress was not satisfactory, Martin would
have to consider an alternate or less ambitious design. 47 The project manag-
er's attitude toward the GCMS difficulties was not enhanced by his unhap-
piness over the science subsystem preliminary design review at Martin
Marietta on 1-2 March. The part of the PDR covering the science experi-
ments integration laboratory (SEIL), to be built in Denver, was particularly
unsatisfactory. Martin told the lander contractor that the SEIL PDR would
be repeated and that no funds would be spent on equipment for that instru-
ment until a satisfactory review had been held .41 (The SEIL was canceled in
July 1971; instruments tests would be performed on the system test bed
lander at Martin Marietta.)
On 18 March, the GCMS engineering breadboard was operated for the
first time as a completely automated soil-organic-analysis instrument. Sev-
eral problems of the kind usually associated with first tries were encoun-
tered, but everyone in the Viking Project Office interested in the develop-
ment of the GCMS considered it a major step forward. 49 Meanwhile, an ad
hoc GCMS requirements review panel, established by Martin after the
unsuccessful engineering model review in January, met to discuss possible
ways of simplifying the design.` Preliminary results of the ad hoc panel's
study were presented at the June 1971 Science Steering Group meeting.
Martin noted several discouraging facts at this session: by this date the start
of GCMS science testing had slipped by six months (from early 1971 to
October 1971); after four years of work the breadboard was just ready; and
the GCMS was now getting too heavy. Originally projected to weigh about
9.5 kilograms, the GCMS was weighing in at about 14.5 kilograms. The ad
hoc panel presented five GCMS design variants with weight projections
between 11 and 14 kilograms, but they requested and were given more time
to study the science impact of these alternatives.50

*Panel members included Chairman H. B. Edwards, K. Biemann, T. Owen, R. S. Young, J. J.

Paulson, and G. C. Broome.

223
 Mass spectrometer Soil sample
I[on loader and
detector processor

-Ion.
al, source
A, = r '

^Ate
\... Hydrogen
I supply
• t Gas 1^
chromatograph

Y..
The development model, top left, of the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer
was the first step toward spacecraft hardware. Aftera breadboard model, completed
in October 1971 to perfect functioning of the instrument, designers worked on
weight, size, and modifications to integrate it into the lander. The mockup, top
right, is 35 centimeters wide. Finally, the flight GCMS is tested and prepared for its
long journey through space to investigate Mars.

As the reconsideration of the GCMS continued, the Viking Project

Office sponsored the first "Viking science symposium,"structured to pro-
vide extended discussions of the chemical and biological premises on which
two of the project's major investigations—biology and the molecular analy-
sis experiment—were based. While much of the material presented was old
information to seasoned Mars hands, for many of the attendees it was the
first time they had been exposed to these scientific assumptions underlying
the Martian search for life. In addition, several stew interpretations of old
phenomena or refined Mars data were presented for discussion. Alan Binder
224
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM

of the Illinois Institute of Technology's Research Institute suggested an

alternative explanation for the so-called "wave of darkening." The most
common reason given for this phenomenon had been an increase in atmos-
pheric humidity as water sublimed from one polar cap and moved toward
the other. New observations indicated that the wave, which progressed at a
speed of 30 kilometers a day, might actually be a wave of brightening.
Earth-based photometric measurements had compared dark areas to bright
areas on the assumption that it was the bright areas that were unchanging.
If the bright areas were getting brighter, then water or vegetation was not
needed to explain the change. Instead, the explanation might be some
simple mechanism, a dust storm, for example. Some microbe hunters who
saw this as one more strike against the possibility of Martian water might
not have been pleased, but the reasoning was more consistent with other
investigations that indicated limited water on the Red Planet.51
Toby Owen of the State University of New York at Stony Brook and
Michael McElroy of Harvard reported that Mariner 6 and 7 had provided
new clues about the composition of the planet's atmosphere. It was 95
percent carbon dioxide. Nitrogen probably existed in quantities less than 4
percent, and perhaps as little as 0.5 percent. Traces of carbon monoxide,
molecular oxygen, ozone, and water vapor were likely. While these were not
very encouraging comments for those who wanted to find life on Mars, Carl
Sagan repeated his oft-given summary that the only way to make such a
determination was to go there and check out the planet. Such an examina-
tion might not end all speculation, but it would certainly give them better
data. To make that trip worth the effort, the GCMS and the biology
instrument would have to work.
The problems encountered with the gas chromatograph-mass spec-
trometer were not made any better by renewed money problems. A special
meeting held 19 September to discuss the budget led to some very bitter
reactions by several scientists. Martin told those investigators that they
would have to reduce their projected costs by a further $17 million to $22
million. Before the next discussion of the science budget reduction in early
October, Jerry Soffen received some amazing letters in response to his
comments about scientific priorities. There was a decided lander-versus-
orbiter outlook among the scientists, and a dichotomy between the build-
the-experiment-hardware-yourself group and the more theoretically ori-
ented investigators.
Harold P. Klein, biology team leader, was among the first to write. He
concluded that it was more important to get results from the lander than
from the orbiter. "I say this for a number of reasons: by 1975, we will have
had several missions to the planets—with flybys and orbiters, but no lander
mission; we have learned a great deal about Mars from the Mariner series and
there is no doubt that these have shaped our views of the planet, and that
Mariner 9 should add immeasurably to this store of information." But there
had never been a direct measurement made from or of the surface of Mars.
225
ON MARS
"What I am emphasizing is something which scientists recognize as first
order science—i.e., it is generally easier to refine your techniques, and
repeat your experiments with more sophisticated equipment than to start
investigating in unknown territory." But Klein noted that "it is much more
exciting to try something completely new and different—to do something
first." He would be willing to sacrifice the orbiter imaging system rather
than subtract anything from the landed group of experiments.
On the lander, we are proposing a number of investigations—and while
these will all be "first time" investigations, and therefore of great poten-
tial interest, it is obvious that some are concerned with answering really
colossal questions and others are not. It is no surprise—at least to me—
that there is a direct relationship between the magnitude of the scientific
question being asked, and t lie complexity, uncertainty and, therefore, the
expense involved in the equipment concerned with each investigation.
Klein would prune the orbiter science to only that needed to support the
lander. While dropping the large imaging payload, he would maintain the
atmospheric water detector and the infrared thermal mapping device. He
hoped that no lander experiments would have to be eliminated, but if
deletions were necessary the big experiments—the GCMS, the biology
instrument, and lander imaging—must be preserved.52
Don L. Anderson, seismology team leader, was equally strong in his
opinions. "First of all, I feel that Viking was poorly conceived from the
beginning, and this, of course, was headquarters' fault." With that shot
across the NASA bow, he continued:
The way science was selected was ill-conceived, and headquarters was
repeatedly warned that one does not decide what needs to be done and then
try to find someone to do it. In the past, the scientists designed the
experiments and, by and large, the instrument. The Viking scientists have
little experimental experience and virtually no equipment experience.
They were chosen because they expressed an interest in an area—not
because of any demonstrated wisdom on the important problems of Mars
or of the solar system. As a group they cannot provide you guidance in
scientific policy matters of priority. As individuals they are ineffective,
because of the system, in riding herd on their own experiments, particu-
larly the costs.
Translated, the exobiologists might be asking the "colossal" questions, but
it was Anderson and his colleagues who were doing experiments with
which they had first-hand experience. They could create hardware and
deliver it at a reasonable cost and on time. Anderson accepted, to a degree,
that "one can argue that the first mission to Mars should have biological
emphasis," but the realities were "that the biological and organic experi-
ments were not ready when the payload was selected, are not ready now, and
probably will not be ready in 1975." Anderson admitted that physical
226
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
measurements, such as seismology, were relatively easy, but that complex
experiments like the GCMS and the biology investigation were more diffi-
cult than anything NASA had ever flown. One could argue parenthetically
that the molecular and biological investigations were closer to real labora-
tory science than anything ever done before in space. These experiments
required more than data gathering; they demanded elaborate manipula-
tions of sample materials in miniature laboratories. As he noted, such biolog-
ical investigations as these were "not even routine measurements on the
earth." They were "not ready to fly a biological mission to Mars. Even if the
instruments are ready the chances are high that they will not work on Mars,
and if they do, will give ambiguous results." This team leader represented
one camp of scientists who wanted to make "straightforward" measure-
ments; Klein and his associates preferred to pioneer a new "first order"
science in space. There were strong arguments for both points of view,
which did not make Soffen's or Martin's tasks any easier. The Viking
Project Office managers had their hands full—with complicated and trou-
blesome hardware, independent and troublesome scientists. A firm disci-
pline would have to be applied to both.53
The issues raised in the September-October 1971 Science Steering
Group meetings would not be resolved immediately. But the discussions led
to several changes, as the minutes recorded:
I. Reduction of science team support—By deleting certain efforts of the
scientists, holding fewer meetings, and supplying less assistance.... This
will save $3 M[illion].
2. Reduction of the Molecular Analysis Investigation—Current technical
problems with the GC/MS have resulted in substantial cost increase over
the original estimate. Most team leaders agree to the importance of the
investigation but feel that there should be a cost ceiling. By reducing the
requirements and simplifying the instrument, it should be possible to
assure technical feasibility and to bring the costs down to a level consistent
with the present project plans ($35 M). This involves a reduction of the
number of samples analyzed,deletion of clirect[mass spect rometer] analy-
sis and [deletion of a detector portion of the gas chromatograph]. The
cost saving is $3.0 M.
3. Relaxation of the Biology Instrument Requirements—Two major
requirements involving temperature control and waste management, and
several minor ones, can be relaxed at considerable savings.... The total
cost reduction of $2.0 M has been agreed upon.
4. Limitation of Viking Orbiter Science Mission Planning.... The sav-
ing is $1.0 M.
5. Reduction of Meteorology Investigation ... to result in a "weather
station" type experiment.... The saving would be $1.6 M.
6. Limitation of the Physical Properties Investigation to Current Base-
line.... [The saving would be $0.15 M.]

227
ON MARS
7. Use of fixed masts for the Viking Lander Cameras.... The cost saving
is $0.3 M.
8. End Mission B at the beginning of conjunction.... The savings are
essentially in operations: $0.5M.54
These changes totaled up to a possible saving of $11.5 million. Decisions
that were postponed at that meeting included eliminating photometric
calibration of the orbiter camera ($1.6 million) and deleting the X-band
radio ($1.1 million), the image-motion-compensation device for the orbiter
camera ($0.4 million), the retarding-potential analyzer from the entry
science experiment ($2.3 million), and deleting either the infrared thermal
mapper ($3.3 million) or one of the biology experiments ($1.9 million).
(Deletion of the orbiter imaging system was also seriously considered at this
time. That proposal is described in chapter 9.)
Between October 1971 and March 1972, there were numerous conversa-
tions among Viking Project Office personnel members, JPL authorities,
and the contractor, Litton Industries, about the fate of the GCMS. Jim
Martin was not very happy with JPL's management of this activity, and he
told the lab on several occasions that he wanted JPL to monitor the contract
the way Martin Marietta was monitoring its science subcontracts. He did
not want JPL trying to build the GCMS; that was Litton's responsibility.
As early as October 1971, Martin was considering finding another organiza-
tion to handle the GCMS contract, and the project office awarded Bendix
Aerospace a contract to study the feasibility of using an organic analysis
mass spectrometer (OAMS) in place of the GCMS. Similar in the informa-
tion that it produced, the OAMS did not use a gas cltromatograph. To
demonstrate his concern, Jim Martin added the GCMS to the "Top Ten
Problems" list on 26 October. "Specifically the problem is the systems
design and program redefinition of a simplified GCMS." Shortly thereaf-
ter, Klaus Biemann and his colleagues of the molecular analysis science
team requested that Alfred O. C. Nier, the entry science team leader, be
added to their group because of his background in mass spectrometry.55
The addition of Nier to the GCMS activity was another blow to JPL.
He had written to Jerry Soffen in September 1971: "While I regard a
properly devised and managed GCMS experiment as one of the most
important things we could do on Mars, the history of this endeavor leaves so
much to be desired I really wonder whether it has not disqualified itself
already." Nier thought that JPL's record in this area was "dismal." Nier
also shared Don Anderson's complaint about the GCMS scientists' lack of
experience in inventing and building instruments. He believed that it was
"most unfortunate that in NASA's selection of the team some regard was
not given to this factor in view of JPL's weakness in this very difficult area."
By these statements, Nier did not mean to detract from the caliber of the
individuals on the GCMS team, but he felt that it was necessary to under-
score the nature of the problem facing the project managers.56

228
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
Continued troubles with development scheduling for the gas chroma-
tograph-mass spectrometer and the lack of confidence among the scientists
in JPL's ability to manage the instrument's development and fabrication
led Martin to transfer the management of the GCMS instrument contract
from JPL to his Viking Project Office at Langley. As a preparatory meas-
ure, he announced that effective 29 February 1972 Cal Broome, lander
science instruments manager, would report directly to the Viking project
manager. This shift was one more step to tighten cont rol over the lander
science payload and give those experiments the visibility that they seemed
to require. Further—as a consequence of Klaus Biemann's presentation on
the GCMS and the OAMS made at the February Science Steering Group
meeting, in which Biemann had noted that each instrument had advantages
and disadvantages that could not be directly compared—Martin decided in
favor of continuing the development of a simplified version of the GCMS.
His action was prompted primarily by the cost projections, which indicated
that it would be cheaper, by about $7.5 million, to retain the GCMS and
transfer management of the instrument to Langley. NASA Headquarters
approved this recommendation on 10 March, and Martin appointed Joseph
C. Moorman as the GCMS manager and J. B. Lovell as the Viking Project
Office resident engineer at Litton Industries. Although the development
and fabrication of the instrument was still far from ensured, at least a more
responsive management-contractor structure had been established to deal
with the problems that would emerge later.57
Viking Biology Instrument
Nearly everyone associated with the Viking project realized the Viking
biology instrument was going to be a technical and scientific challenge, but
no one was able to predict just how much time, energy, and dollars would
be required by this complex scientific package. Devising a biology instru-
ment that held three experiments in a container less than 0.027 cubic meter
in volume and weighing about 15.5 kilograms was more of a chore than
even the most pessimistic persons had believed. Certainly the TRW Systems
Group personnel who won the Viking biology instrument subcontract in
competition with Bendix Aerospace Systems Division did not expect its
original estimated cost of the completed flight instruments and test articles
to soar from $13.7 million to more than $59 million. 58 A box about the size
of a gallon milk carton, the instrument contained some 40 000 parts, half of
them transistors. In addition to tiny ovens to heat the samples were
ampules containing nutrients, which were to be broken on command;
bottled radioactive gases; geiger counters; some 50 valves; and a xenon lamp
to duplicate the light of the sun. It was a complicated and sophisticated
miniature laboratory.
The Viking biology instrument was originally conceived as essentially
the integration of four individual life-detection schemes. According to

229
 $50

45

39.9 41.0
40
37.3

35

30
C
O
E
C:
25
;O
U
20

15 16.6

10

Gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer cost projections.

Loyal G. Goff, Viking Program Office, NASA Headquarters, "the transi-

tion from these early hardware models to an integrated, automated, and
miniaturized flight unit capable of surviving all of the environmental
conditions of sterilization, launch, cruise, and landing was a horrendous
undertaking." These environmental requirements, with the performance
specifications, demanded considerable examination and testing of the
materials used in the biology instrument. The initial design concepts for
the experiment were developed by Ball Brothers Research Corporation,
Boulder, Colorado, and the Applied Technology Division of TRW Defense
and Space Systems Group, Redondo Beach, California, under contracts
managed by NASA's Ames Research Center.59
On 3 September 1970, when the TRW team was given the go-ahead by
Martin Marietta, four direct biological tests had been selected for the

230
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
instrument that could examine the Martian soil for traces of living orga-
nisms through the measurement of some aspect of the metabolic process.
Three of the procedures could in principle detect "resting" metabolism,
although all would be more reliable if growing organisms were present.
The first experiment, originally called carbon assimilation but later known
as pyrolytic release, would be performed with a minimum addition of
external substances (that is, only radioactive carbon dioxide PCO21,
radioactive carbon monoxide [ 14CO], and water vapor) to the samples. Exper-
iment two, originally known as Gulliver and subsequently called labeled
release, was to add extremely diluted solutions of labeled (carbon 14)
organic matter to the Martian soil samples under conditions that barely
moistened the samples. Experiment three, called the gas-exchange experi-
ment, provided for adding greater amounts of organic materials and water
to the samples. Because it was rich in nutrients, Jerry Soffen and others
referred to this as the "chicken soup" experiment. The fourth experiment
(subsequently eliminated) was the light-scattering experiment, or Wolf
Trap as it was better known. Requiring the growth of organisms in the
sample, this investigation provided the least Marslike environment because
it would suspend the sample in an aqueous solution. But if microorganisms
did grow, they would turn the liquid cloudy, and the light sensor would
detect the change. Together, the four experiments represented a range from
very dry to saturated solutions, and experimenters hoped they would pro-
vide a check on each other while giving Martian microbes a choice of
environments in which to grow.60
The first year of work leading up to the preliminary design review was
spent making a breadboard model for each of the experiments. The PDR,
originally scheduled for July 1971, was postponed three months so that a
number of changes could be made in the biology instrument design. In
October, TRW submitted new "estimated cost at completion" figures to
Martin Marietta; the cost had risen to $20.2 million. TRW had greatly
underestimated the complexity of the task, which accounted for about half
of the $6.5-million jump. The rest was due to modifications in the experi-
ment definition.
The 4-6 October preliminary design review in Redondo Beach, Cali-
fornia, disclosed a number of problem areas in the design and management
of the Viking biology instrument. Rodney A. Mills, Walter Jakobowski's
deputy, feared that Martin Marietta and TRW could both be blamed for
poor management. 61 Of particular concern were the complexity of the waste
management system, which would store the water and organic materials
after they had been tested; the complicated nature of the sampling system;
the increasing instrument weight, which would lead to higher costs; and
the numerous elements that, should they fail, would render the whole
instrument useless. On 1 July 1971, Jim Martin issued Viking project
directive no. 6: "It is project policy that no single malfunction shall cause
the loss of data return from more than one scientific investigation. " 62 Each
231
ON MARS
of the biology experi men is was considered to be one scientific investigation
under this philosophy, and there were numerous "single point failures"
that could terminate the data return from the instrument. At the October
PDR, no single experiment stood out as a particular problem, but Martin,
Broome, and their colleagues were worried about the overall complexity of
i he TRW design.63
During November and December 1971, TRW and Ames Research
Center personnel under Harold Klein worked to simplify the biology
instrument. Deleted from the design were the Martian gas pump, the
onboard carbon dioxide gas system, one control chamber each for the
gas-exchange and light-scattering experiments, and related valves, plumb-
ing, and wiring. But it became apparent at a biology instrument review in
late December that more drastic changes would have to be made. During the
final days of January 1972, Martin concluded that one of the experiments
would have to be eliminated to reduce the volume, weight, complexity, and
cost of the package. Walt Jakobowski and Richard Young from NASA
Headquarters met with representatives from the Viking Project Office,
Martin Marietta, and TRW on 24-25 January to discuss ways to remedy the
problems, especially cost, which had escalated to $33 million.64
That meeting was not a satisfactory one from Jakobowski and Martin's
point of view. TRW was not able to suggest any acceptable engineering cost
reduction items without removing two or more experiments. Additionally,
all of TRW's cost reduction proposals had high-risk factors for scheduling,
testing, or both. Martin Marietta personnel who had reviewed TRW's
schedule and manpower figures were also unable to offer any alternatives.
To find solutions to their problems, Martin formed an ad hoc panel for the
examination of imposed and derived requirements on the Viking biology
instrument under the chairmanship of Howard B. Edwards of Langley's
Instrument Research Division. While that panel met to determine which, if
any, of the scientific and engineering requirements could be relaxed or
eliminated to reduce cost, weight, size, and complexity of the overall
instrument, Klein, Joshua Lederberg, and Alex Rich, biology team
members who were not affiliated with any particular experiment, met to
discuss priorities for deleting one of the experiments.
Dropping an experiment was a painful experience for the men who
made the recommendation and those who implemented it. By 13 March,
NASA Headquarters had decided that the light-scattering experiment, the
investigation based on the least Marslike premise, should be terminated.
The men in Washington cited possible difficulties in interpreting results
and a potential for further cost growth as reasons for their action. It was
John Naugle's unhappy responsibility to tell Wolf Vishniac that his Wolf
Trap would not be included in the Martian biology instrument. Noting
that "this was one of the more difficult decisions" that he had had to make
since joining NASA, Naugle told Vishniac that they had to "simplify the
biology experiment—its history of growth in cost and complexity had
232
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM

forced this position." In deciding how to reduce costs, the managers at

NASA had tried to consider both scientific and engineering factors:
On the science side, we are assured that the deletion of the light scattering
experiment, while undesirable, is the least damaging in terms of data lost.
I won't go into detail here since you have talked at length with Drs.
Lederberg and Rich on this subject. On the engineering side, it seems that
the light scattering experiment might be considered one of the least
complex in terms of number of parts and detail of design, but is one of the
more difficult to actually build into a problem free device.
Following advice from all members of the biology team, Naugle stressed the
desire that Vishniac continue to participate as a member of that group.65
Although the biology team seldom acted as a cohesive group, the
decision to eliminate the light-scattering experiment did draw members
together temporarily. As a group, they aired their dissatisfaction with the
decision, the manner in which it was made, and the limited likelihood that
it would reduce significantly the cost of the biology instrument. At a
biology team meeting in March, Dick Young and Jerry Soffen were on the
hot seat as they once again explained the need for cost reductions in an era of
tight budgets. Klein, the team leader, wrote to Naugle on behalf of the
whole group:
Naturally, the Team is not very happy that the scope of the biological
experiments was reduced.... This science reduction is all the more diffi-
cult to accept because it is not at all clear just what factors dictated this
decision. Recent discussions with TRW ... leave little doubt that no
savings in weight or in volume will follow from the elimination of the
light scattering experiment.... Whether, at this late date, any cost savings
will accrue from the deletion is also problematical.
While stopping short of mutiny—and still promising to work hard—Klein
said that the team wanted a better explanation of why Wolf Trap was
dropped .66
Understandably, Wolf Vishniac was not happy with the decision. He
criticized Lederberg and Rich for not being familiar with the development
status of his experiment: "I am shocked to find that a judgment on the value
of an experiment was based upon such complete ignorance on the present
state of the instrument...." Much of the discussion regarding Wolf Trap
concerned "matters which have long ago been settled and solved." Some of
the data the NASA managers had used in their decision-making process had
been gathered by the Ames Research Center. Vishniac was told by persons at
Ames that they had sent headquarters "some old reports which we had lying
around." When the scientist asked why "old" material was used, he was
given some surprising news: "It doesn't really matter, we have long ago
decided that light scattering is to be eliminated." The more Vishniac
investigated the elimination of his experiment, the more he was displeased.

233
ON MARS
He believed that there had been some anticipatory preparation for drop-
ping Wolf Trap. And according to Vishniac, Lederberg and Rich were not
really suited for or capable of making an informed decision. "Their aloof-
ness from the team, their ignorance of the mechanical details and the
apparent predisposition of Ames to leave out the light scattering experi-
ment makes me question the value of their recommendation. "67
In a compassionate review of the decision and the process by which it
had been made, Naugle tried to allay Vishniac's frustration and anger. The
associate administrator pointed out that something had to give, as the
budget could not be increased. They had been forced to review and revise all
of the Viking experiments on the orbiter and lander. If Lederberg and Rich
had not participated in the examination of the biology instrument, some-
one entirely unfamiliar with the instrument and the search for life on Mars
would have.
We recognized that we were asking them to undertake a very difficult and
personally distasteful job of reviewing four experiments which had origi-
nally been very carefully selected and had just recently been certified as
complementary and an excellent payload for Viking, and recommending
which of the four could be removed with the least impact on the overall
biology experiment. They reluctantly agreed.
In the guidelines we gave then we said the decision should be primar-
ily made on the basis of the scientific merits of the experiments since there
was no substantial engineering factor to use to select the experiments to
be deleted....
Dr. Lederberg and Dr. Rich's recommendations were clear—that all
four experiments should fly, but if one must be dropped, it should be the
light scattering experiment. They also make it clear that although the
experiment should be dropped, the experimenter (Dr. Vishniac) should
not!
Naugle thought that the deletion would "contribute" in a very real way to
the solution of their Viking payload problem. "I am assured that we will
save at least two or three pounds [0.9-1.4 kilograms] by this action. This
wi 11 be applied directly to the weight deficit already incurred by the biology
package." Additionally, space would be saved for other biology require-
ments, at a saving of at least $2.3 million .61 In the short run, the projected
cost of the biology instrument did drop, but by the fall of 1973 the cost
estimates would escalate wildly, leading to another major review of the
biology package.
Wolf Vishniac faced other disappointments in the loss of his Mars
experiment. While he continued to participate constructively in the biol-
ogy team's work, he no longer had any NASA funds to support his research
projects and personnel. Vishniac soon discovered that he would have to pay
a high price for having gambled on spaceflight experiments. He had been
the first person to receive exobiological research support from the agency,

234
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM

but now that the money was gone he discovered a hostility on the part of
many scientists directed toward those who had accepted "space dollars." In
spring 1973, Vishniac wrote to Soffen telling him that he could not attend a
particular meeting. "I will do whatever is essential in the Viking Program
but I simply must place my priorities on my university work. The conse-
quences of my change in status in the Viking Team have been far-reaching
as you know, not to say disastrous." He was finding it difficult to obtain
support for laboratory research because of his work with the space agency.
The National Institutes of Health had refused a grant application; "I was
told unofficially that it received a low priority because I was `NASAing'
around." The National Science Foundation had decided not to renew a
grant for Vishniac, partly because of his association with NASA. The
exobiologist told Soffen that "it is essential that I recapture some sort of
standing in the academic world and I must therefore limit my participation
in Viking to essentials only. "69
In 1973, Vishniac was still pursuing his research into the origins of life
and the possibility of life on other worlds when he fell 150 meters to his
death in Antarctica's Asgard Mountains. Searching for life in the dry valleys
of that bitter cold and windswept region, Vishniac was attempting to prove
that life forms could adapt to extremely hostile environments. Early in
1972, he had found microorganisms growing in what had previously been
thought to be sterile dry valleys. This discovery by Vishniac and his gradu-
ate student assistant Stanley E. Mainzer, using a version of the Wolf Trap
light-scattering instrument, was a bit of good news for the believers in life
on other planets but a contradiction of the findings of Norman Horowitz
and his colleagues Roy E. Cameron and Jerry S. Hubbard, who in five years
of research had yet to detect any life forms in that barren land.
The dry valleys of South Victoria Land, Antarctica, with a few other
ice-free areas on the perimeter of that continent, formed what was generally
agreed to be the most extreme cold-desert region on Earth. The area was also
the closest terrestrial analogy to the Martian environment. These valleys,
which covered several thousand square kilometers, were cut off from the
flow of glaciers out of the interior of the continent by the Transantarctic
Mountains. Although the valleys were ice-free, their mean annual tempera-
ture was -20°C to -25°C, with atmospheric temperatures rising to just the
0°C mark at the height of the summer season. Liquid precipitation and
water vapor were almost nonexistent, and the limited snowfall usually
sublimed to the vapor phase without ever turning to liquid. It was in this
region that Horowitz's colleagues discovered what was believed to be the
only truly sterile soil on the face of Earth. From their research in the dry
valleys, Horowitz and his associates concluded:
These results have important implications for the Mars biological
program. First, it is evident that the fear that terrestrial microorganisms
carried to Mars could multiply and contaminate the planet is unfounded.

235
Scientists attend a Viking planning meeting at Langley Research Center in 1973.
Left to right are Dr. William H. Michael, Jr., leader of the radio science team; Dr.
Wolf Vishniac, assistant biology team leader; and Dr. Richard S. Young, Viking
program scientist from NASA Headquarters in Washington.

The Antarctic desert is far more hospitable to terrestrial life than is Mars,
particularly in regard to the abundance of water. In other respects, too—
such as the ultraviolet flux at the surface—Mars is decidedly more hostile
than the Antarctic.
Second, Martian life, if any, must have evolved special means for
obtaining and retaining water.... This has been known for some time.
What is new in these findings is that even under severe selective pressure
microbial life in the Antarctic has been unable to discover a comparable
mechanism. To some this may suggest that life on Mars is an impossibil-
ity. In view of the very different histories of Mars and the dry valleys ... we
believe that such a conclusion is not justified.
Finally, the Antarctic has provided us with a natural environment as
much like Mars as we are likely to find on Earth. In this environment, the
capacity of life as we know it to adapt and survive is pushed to the limit.
The concentration of living things around the sources of water in the dry
valleys and their rapid drying out in the most arid locales may be useful as
a model of the distribution of the life we may, if we are lucky, find on
Mars.70

But in 1972, Vishniac detected microorganisms with Wolf Trap in

exactly those regions that Horowitz had declared sterile. Life had found
ways to survive in the inhospitable, Marslike dry valleys. In December 1973,
Vishniac went back to Antarctica to learn more about these hardy microbes.
He wanted to know where they obtained their life-sustaining water and
nourishment. Alone on a steep slope in the dry valleys, Vishniac slipped,
fell, and died.'' Vishniac and his Wolf Trap life detector had been successful

236
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
on Earth, but he would not see Viking go to Mars, and his instrument
would not be applied to searching for elusive Martian microbes. A man who
had done much to give exobiology legitimacy as a field of research was
gone. The loss of Vishniac from the biology team was repeatedly felt in later
years. He had been an arbiter and a man of good cheer. As the biology
instrument continued to increase in cost and to raise more and more
technological hurdles to be overcome, a man with his talents and humor
was sorely needed.
During the first half of 1973, work progressed on the design develop-
ment units for the biology instrument and the gas chromatograph-mass
spectrometer. Science tests for the biology instrument had begun in mid-
December 1972, with biology team members participating in the trials of
their experiments. GCMS testing began in early May. After the first round
of testing, the Viking managers held a critical design review on 23-25 May
for the biology instrument, and even though they discovered no major
problems with the package, Martin Marietta and the Viking Project Office
were less than pleased with the review. The GCMS critical design review in
mid-July disclosed only three major concerns, which was encouraging
news considering the problems that piece of hardware had caused earlier.
Unhappily, new trouble with the management of the biology instru-
ment surfaced in mid-July. At a meeting held at TRW, Jim Martin learned
that completion of the design development unit had slipped by three weeks
and the projected delivery date of the proof test capsule unit was behind by
five weeks. The problem, Martin found, was failure to plan ahead; TRW
lacked the skilled manpower to assemble and check out these crucial units.
As the July session went on, the discussion of the biology instrument came
"unglued," according to Martin; he feared that the work at TRW was "out
of control" with no credible schedule or cost plan. 72 By that autumn, the
situation was even bleaker. On 15 October, Ed Cortright wrote to George
Solomon, vice president and general manager at TRW. Cortright had been
monitoring TRW's handling of the biology instrument problems with the
intent of reporting to Hans Mark, director of Ames Research Center. His
report was to give the center better data for judging prospective contrac-
tors—of which TRW was one—of experiment hardware for the Pioneer
spacecraft scheduled to visit Venus. Cortright's report to Ames would not be
favorable. He thought that TRW, Martin Marietta, and NASA had underes-
timated the complexity of the biology instrument task: "The original TRW
proposed cost was grossly underestimated with the result that the current
estimate at completion is $30.9 million, which is $18.4 million or 147
percent over the original estimate." Of that amount, $12.4 million was
TRW's overrun; $6 mil lion had been spent on redefining the experiments.
Cortright told Solomon that the TRW management had placed too
much emphasis on the company's previous performance and had been
reluctant to face the fact that the biology instrument was getting into
serious trouble. "You are currently beset with a rash of technical problems
237
 ^1Y
.AP

F ^ti

?fix

l .v

Surface distribution
assembly
Pyrolitic-
release
1
lamp

C
Pyrolitic
release
Electronics
subsystem
1W
Gas exchange
Mechanical
Labeled release
subsystem

The development model of the Viking biology instrument's mechanical subsys-

tem, top left, conveys some of the external complexity of the experiment. The
mockup, top right, minus the essential electrical and plumbing connections
exposes the hardware to view. At lower left, a diagram shows the biology instru-
ment afterdeletion of the light-scattering experiment. At lower right, in finalstages
in 1975, the automated equivalent of a well-equipped biological laboratory makes
up a package of less than 0.03 cubic meter to land on Mars.

which further threaten schedule and cost. It is clear that if the job were on
schedule, there would be more time to adequately cope with the necessary
fixes." Impressed with the steps Solomon had taken to strengthen man-
agement of the biology package, Cortright nevertheless believed that "heroic
action" would be necessary to ensure "a successful experiment on the
surface of Mars." 73 Two weeks later, after the schedule had slipped even
further and the biology instrument had been put on Martin's Top Ten

238
 VIKING LANDER: SCIENCE TEAM
Problems list, Cortright again wrote the general manager about the "poten-
tially catastrophic" situation and sent a similar letter to Richard D. De
Lauer, TRW Space Systems executive vice president. To De Lauer, Cort-
right bluntly said, "It is imperative that you bring to bear on these problems
the most talented individuals you can find within your Company, and
elsewhere, and quickly weld them into a problem solving team to get this
job done. I know you have taken steps in this direction and I cannot fault
individuals who are currently working the problems. However, I must
believe that you have not yet applied your maximum effort, for which there
is no longer any substitute."74
The problems at TRW were twofold. The engineering tasks imposed
by the experiments were very difficult, and TRW's management of the
project was poor. At very low temperatures, valves and seals failed, and
other hardware difficulties surfaced as the initial pieces of equipment were
tested. But most serious was the absence of a strong, driving manager at the
California firm overseeing the work. In November 1973, production of the
flight units was essentially stopped while the biology instrument was
redesigned. But design quality and workmanship problems persisted,
causing test failures and schedule difficulties. To meet the launch date,
TRW was required to conduct design-development concurrently with
qualification testing and fabrication of the flight units. By the first of
February 1974, several independent analyses of the situation at TRW
pointed to the possibility that the final flight units of the biology instru-
ment would not be ready until July 1975. That would be very close to the
scheduled launch dates (August and September) and too late for adequate
preflight science testing.
Cal Broome, who had been appointed NASA biology instrument man-
ager in December 1973, in a private note to Jim Martin on 7 February 1974,
stated that his own view of the situation at the subcontractor's was that the
"engineering organization, and, to a lesser extent, the manufacturing
organization [at TRW], are running out of control." Furthermore, "The
TRW engineering `culture' simply cannot accept scheduling and discipline
in connection with engineering problems." Broome was also worried that
others would not share his opinion of TRW's failings and simply view his
pessimistic outlook as a case of Broome having panicked again; but Hatch
Wroton, the Martin Marietta resident engineer at TRW, and Dave Rogers,
the JPL resident at TRW, had independently assessed the biology instru-
ment's status and agreed with Broome's bleak prognosis.75
During the remaining months before the Viking launches, time lost in
the schedule would be made up, only to be lost again when some new
difficulty appeared. In July 1974, Martin had Walter O. Lowrie, lander
manager at Martin Marietta, and Henry Norris, orbiter manager at JPL,
study contingency plans for flights without the biology instrument and
single flights of the Viking spacecraft in 1975, 1977, and 1979. Days later,
progress on the instrument at TRW looked more promising, but by the end
239
ON MARS

of the year, when the performance verification tests of the completed

instruments were being conducted in Redondo Beach, new doubts about
meeting the schedule plagued the Viking managers.76
The seesaw between failure and progress finally stopped in the early
spring of 1975. On 7 March, Martin wrote to the three men who had seen the
biology instrument through some of its most difficult moments—Eugene
M. Noneman, TRW; Hatch Wroton, Martin Marietta; and Roy J. Duckett,
Viking Project Office: "I was pleased today to be advised that Viking
biology instrument S/N 106 is in its shipping box ready for delivery. I
believe that you and your team members have achieved a very significant
and important milestone. While there is still much work ahead of us,
having a flightworthy biology instrument ready to ship to the Cape is a
gratifying accomplishment." Martin extended his personal congratula-
tions to every member of the team. 77 On 28 May, Cal Broome could at last
recommend to Jim Martin that the GCMS and the biology instrument be
removed from the Top Ten Problems list. Those had been the final items on
the list of troubles. The hardware units were finally ready for shipment.
Table 42
Viking Biology Instrument Schedule, 1971-1975

Milestone Original Contract Actual Delay in

Delivery Date Delivery Date Months

Preliminary design review Jule 1971 Oct. 1971 3

Critical design review Aug. 1971 May 1973" 9
Design-development
testing complete (S/N 001) July 1971 Dec. 1973" 17
Qualification unit delivery/
qualification testing
complete (S/N 102) Sept. 1973 Mar. 1975` 18
Proof-test capsule unit
delivery (S/N 103) June 1973 Nov. 1974 17
Flight unit-1 delivery
S/N 105 on Viking lander
capsule #1 Jan. 1974 Mar. 1975 14
Flight unit-2 delivery
S/N 106 on Viking lander
capsule #2 Apr. 1974 Mar. 1975 11
Flight unit-3 delivery (S/N 104) July 1974 Apr. 1975 9
Spare flight unit Added Deleted —
Dec. 197311 Oct. 1974'
"Martin Marietta contended that a realistic CDR was not completed until Mar. 1974.
"Design development testing was completed on a nondeliverable unit; one of the deliverable units was
canceled; the other deliverable unit's mechanical subassembly was simulated in system test bed testing.
` Qualification testing was different from original plans and not as comprehensive.
dThis unit, not included in the original contract, was added in Dec. 1973.
'Unit deleted Oct. 1974 when requirement for spare lander was eliminated.


$60
59.0

55 55.0

50 50.3

45 44.2

40
37.7

35 34.5
fn 33.0
0 32.7
E 30
C 29.4 29.2
(n
u 25

20.3 TRW estimate

20
at completion
17.0
16.7 Viking Project Office
15 estimate at completion
13.7 13.8

10

0
19/U 19/1 1 19/2 1973 19/4 1975

O
C
v C C
C Ql N C aN.
o E u
C g —
C
C
C
O N a cD to 7
O d .D _' O O 'in N .V
N O
N N OJ N N L
E N j '-' O m
W O_ Ou -0 H -O 7 O LL

Biology instrument cost projections.

The cost in individual time and effort on these two items had been high; the
dollar costs were equally great. By launch, the GCMS bill read $41 million,
and the biology instrument had cost $59 million.78
There was, of course, more to the Viking lander science package than
the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer and the biology instrument.
Each of the other instruments went through a similar series of problems met
and problems solved. The GCMS and the biology instrument were unique
because of the magnitude of the difficulties and the expense. With time, al l
problems with the instruments were resolved, and interaction among the
scientists improved. Still, each team remained a collection of individuals,

241
ON MARS
and among the teams only a loose confederation existed. Before the mis-
sions were flown, a stronger discipline would have to be forged. Operation
of the orbiters and landers would be a complex task, and each sequential
operation would have to be carefully planned and precisely executed. Jerry
Soffen, Jim Martin, and Tom Young had many difficult tasks ahead of
them, and one was establishing tighter control over the Viking scientists
without stifling their inquisitiveness—exercising discipline so as to get
maximum science return, but not in such a manner as to eliminate flexibil-
ity when scientific targets of opportunity appeared.
As the Viking science teams and their instruments matured, Jim Mar-
tin faced other technical problems with the lander, each of which had to be
solved before the spacecraft could fly. Complexity and technological chal-
lenges abounded. Building Martian landing craf t was genuinely hard work.

242
 8
Viking Lander: Building a Complex
Spacecraf t

The Viking lander represented a careful melding of the demands

imposed by the scientific mission and the high degree of reliability required
of the spacecraft subsystems. Weight and volume considerations affected
the size of each subsystem. After the Voyager program with plans for an
11 500 -kilogram spacecraft was abandoned in 1967, a follow-on study con-
cluded that a spacecraft weighing 3700 kilograms could be transported to
Mars by a Titan-Centaur-class launch vehicle. The Lander and its flight
capsule would account for more than a third of this weight (1195 kilo-
grams). At the start of the mission, the orbiter and lander would be housed
in a 4.3-meter shroud atop the Titan-Centaur. The landed spacecraft would
be 3 meters at its widest point and 2 meters tal l from the footpads to the tip of
the large disk S-band high-gain antenna. While weight and volume limita-
tions helped to shape the Viking lander, data about Martian atmospheric
pressure obtained during the Mariner 69 mission were also influential.
Mariner 69's occultation experiment indicated that the atmospheric
pressure at the surface of Mars ranged from 4 to 20 millibars, rather than 80
millibars as estimated earlier. This information had a definite impact on
the aerodynamic shape of the Mars entry vehicle being designed, since
weight and diameter would influence the craft's braking ability. Langley
engineers had determined that aerodynamic braking was the only practical
method for slowing down a lander as large as Viking for a soft touchdown.
The entry vehicle would have a diameter of 3.5 meters, an acceptable
ballistic coefficient that would help ensure Viking's safe landing on Mars.
Since electrical power requirements were thought of in terms of the
weight that the power apparatus would add to the spacecraft, the design
engineers sought creative means for getting maximum results from a min-
imum amount of power. Low-power integrated circuits were used exten-
sively both to conserve energy and to keep the package small. In addition,
power switching techniques were devised to reduce energy requirements. As
John D. Goodlette, deputy project director at Martin Marietta, noted, the
design rule was "turn off unneeded consumers."' When power had to be
used, the equipment was designed with multiple power levels, or states, so
243
ON MARS
that only the minimum power required to achieve the immediate function
would be consumed.
Once separated from the orbiter with its 700-watt solar panels, only 70
watts of radioisotope-thermoelectric-generated power would support 111c
long mission on the surface. Because of this limitation on landed power, the
radio transmitters could be used only sparingly, a factor that in turn
controlled the amount of data that could be sent to Earth.
The Viking lander was a highly automated spacecraft for a number of
reasons. Since there was only a 20-minute one-way communications oppor-
tunity between Earth and Mars during the landings, control of the lander
from Earth from separation to touchdown was not practical. The entire
function of navigation—from obtaining an inertial reference to locating a
local surface reference—had to be accomplished by the onboard computer.
After landing, the spacecraft would be out of direct communication with
Earth for about half of each Martian day. And because of electrical power
limits, the communications between lander and mission control in Cali-
fornia would amount to only a short time each day. The lander, therefore,
had to be capable of carrying out its mission unattended by Earth. Mission
specialists could send the lander new assignments or modify prepro-
grammed ones, but for the most part the craft was on its own as it did its
day-to-day work.

LANDER MISSION PROFILE

Jim Martin and his colleagues hoped the lander mission would follow
the ideal schedule: Final prelaunch activities begin 56 days before launch
with the terminal sterilization of the entire lander system within its bio-
shield. The craft must survive a 40-hour sterilization cycle, during which
temperatures will reach a maximum of 112°C. During this preparation
period, the lander is functionally passive except for its two mass-spectrom-
eter ion pumps. Following a checkout, the propellants, pressurants, and
flight software are loaded, and the lander is mated with the orbiter. After the
first prelaunch checkout, initiated by the orbiter under local control of the
guidance computer, the spacecraft is encapsulated, transported to the
launch pad, and mated with the launch vehicle, followed by the second and
final prelaunch checkout. All major communication with the lander before
separation is accomplished through the orbiter communications link.
During the launch and boost phases, only the power and pyro con-
trollers, the data acquisition system, and the tape recorder are active. After
the spacecraft separates from the launch vehicle, the orbiter commands the
lander computer to separate the bioshield cap and begins the lander cruise
state. During cruise, the lander is largely passive. Only the data acquisition
system, ion pumps, and thermostatically controlled heaters on propulsion
equipment, the biology instrument, and the inertial reference unit are
powered. The heaters prevent the freezing of propellants and biology nutri-
ents. Heat also controls viscosity of the gyro flotation fluids. The primary
244
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
housekeeping chore during the cruise phase is monitoring the thermal
balance and the equipment when it is powered.
The tape recorder is activated about every 15 days to ensure its later
performance. An update to the computer requires the activation of the
computer and the command detectors and decoders. The portion of the
computer memory used during prelaunch checkout procedures is modified
during the cruise so that it can perform other operations during the mis-
sion. The gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer requires a venting-and-
bakeout sequence to rid the analyzer section of absorbed gases. For bakeout,
with its high peak-power demand, the lander batteries are first conditioned
and charged using orbiter power; the computer, detectors, and decoders are
powered up; and a six-hour bakeout sequence is commanded from Earth,
followed by a week-long cooldown period to reestablish the proper thermal
equilibrium. About five such cycles in two groups are required, each
accompanied by mass-spectrometer readings, which are analyzed to deter-
mine the performance and heal th of the instrument. After each activity, the
lander is powered back to cruise state and, after the final bakeout of the gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer, a cruise check is made and the batteries
discharged. About 52 days before reaching Mars, the final conditioning and
charge cycle is undertaken for the lander batteries.
Before the lander separates from the orbiter, a four-and-one-half-hour
checkout verifies the lander systems' health. A group of orbit commands
precedes this last check, during which local control is assumed by the lander
computer and power is transferred from the orbiter to the lander. At check-
out completion, the computer memory is read out, the batteries are
recharged on internal power, and the computer reverts to standby. After
cruise checkout, power is transferred back to the orbiter, which assumes
control. The next events prepare the lander for its release. For eight hours,
the radioisotope thermoelectric generators recharge the lander's batteries.
Twelve hours before separation-318 days into the mission—an orbi-
ter commander turns on lander command detectors and decoders, placing
the lander under the control of its own computer. Mission control com-
mands update descent information and carry out checkout decisions made
by the operations team. The commands are directed to the lander via
its S-band receivers. A memory readout follows update, and the lander
assumes a standby mode. This sequence is repeated three and one-half
hours before separation. About two and one-half hours before separation,
direct orbiter command starts the separation sequence. Final preparations
begin with warming up the inertial reference unit to its operating tempera-
ture. At 37 minutes before separation, a final "go" is uplinked from Earth
and received by the lander 15 minutes before separation. At this point,
valve-drive amplifiers, pyrotechnic controllers, entry thermal control, and
relay communications link are activated. A final check verifies that the
inertial reference unit has transferred to the entry condition and that all
systems are go. If these checks fail, the lander is powered down and trans-
ferred to the update mode. If the checks pass, the telemetry system is
245
 S-Band High Gain Antenna (Direct)

Magnifying Mirror
No
RadarAltimeter
Electronics 2
Magnet & Camera GCMS Processor
Test Target
Seismometer Camera 12 Ea)

UHF Antenna (Relay)

— Meteorology Sensors
V

RTG Power Source (2 Ea) u I Meteorology

(Inside Cover) Boom Assembly
RTG Wind Cover (2 Ea) f Landing Shock Absorber
S-Band Low Gain
Antenna Magnet Cleaning
Brush
I

Roll Engine (4 Ea)

Leg No. 2
Terminal Descent
Propellant Tank (2 Ea) Biology Processor

Radar Altimeter Antenna & / Terminal Descent

Terminal Descent Landing Radar Engine (3 Ea)
(Underside of Lander Structure) X-Ray
Fluorescence 18 Nozzle Configuration
Leg No. 3 Funnel Surface Sampler Boom

Collector Head
Magnets
Lander details

switched to an entry mode, the bioshield base connectors between orbiter

and lander are separated, and the lander-orbiter separation pyrotechnic
devices are fired.
Immediately after separation, attitude control-deorbit propulsion is
readied by opening the isolation valves. Af ter inertial reference unit calibra-
tion, attitude control is initiated by orienting for the deorbit burn. The burn
is delayed until the lander capsule is far enough away from the orbiter that
the orbiter's solar panels will not be damaged or contaminated. The pitch-
yaw engines supply the deorbit impulse with a 23-minute burn. The con-
trol system ensures that the lander is in the proper position for the entry
science experiments to function. The retarding-potential analyzer and the
upper-atmosphere mass spectrometer collect data during the three-hour
descent.

Entry and Landing

After orienting the lander in preparation for entry into the Martian
atmosphere, the control system turns on the radar altimeter, which assumes
the high-altitude search mode. On sensing 0.05 g with the longitudinal
accelerometer, the attitude control system is adjusted, and the computer
begins radar-altimeter data processing. Aerodynamic forces quickly trim
the entry vehicle to about a -11 1 angle of attack, corresponding to the lander's

246
Ae lute

Lanael

Descent
Capsule

in
we d
Aeroshell &
Position
Heat Shield

"0')

Bioshield Ca

Aeroshell Cover

2
Separation Point ^` Aeroshell Heatshield
Bioshield Base

Landing capsule system

ON MARS
offset center of gravity. Instruments collect additional entry science data for
pressure and temperature during the remainder of the deceleration period.
At 5.5 kilometers above Mars, the computer begins parachute deploy-
ment based on radar range to the surface. Terminal-propulsion valve-drive
amplifiers power up. the aeroshell separates frorn the lander, and the
terminal-roll-propulsion isolation valves open within about seven seconds
after parachute deployment. Radar-altimeter changes occur with separa-
tion of the aeroshel 1, and a lander body-mounted antenna switches into use.
The four-beam doppler terminal-descent and landing radar is also activated
to sense velocity relative to the surface. The lander's legs are deployed from
their stowed position.
At about 1.5 kilometers above the surface, the computer initiates
another radar-altimeter mode change and shortly thereafter opens the
terminal-propulsion isolation valves. The parachute-base cover assembly
separates from the lander, and the lander descends toward the surface under
three-axis attitude control. The control system and engines halt the hori-
zontal velocity acquired while on the parachute by tilting the entire lander
upwind. At the same time, residual vertical velocity is stopped. On sensing
610 meters to the surface, the radar altimeter switches to low-altitude mode;
the low-altitude mode for the terminal-descent and landing radar begins at
100 meters. At about 50 meters, vertical navigation continues inertially,
ignoring radar-altimeter data. At 17 meters, the terminal engine-shutdown
switches are armed, and a constant velocity descent is initiated to maintain a
speed of 1.5 meters per second until landing-leg touchdown. Velocity
steering continues, using the terminal-descent and landing radar. On sens-
ing closure of the terminal-engine-shutdown switches, the computer com-
mands shutdown of the terminal propulsion system by closing a pyro-
activated isolation valve, backed up by a software timer.
Landed Operations
The landed mission begins with several housekeeping chores, which
include shutting down all descent guidance and control equipment except
the computer and the inertial reference unit; the latter operates five more
minutes to establish the local vertical altitude and the direction of north.
This information is used to compute the direction of Earth so the high-gain
antenna can be accurately pointed the following day. Protective devices are
armed but not yet activated, the telemetry is set to the highest relay data rate
mode of 16 kilobits per second, and the first real-time imaging sequence is
begun. A multiple readout of about 25 percent of the computer's memory
follows.
After deploying the high-gain antenna and the meteorology boom,
opening the camera dust-removal valve, and opening the cover to the
biology-processor and distribution assembly, all mission pyrotechnic
events are completed. A second real-time imaging sequence begins and
continues until the orbiter disappears over the horizon. The relay link fades
248
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
out about 10 to 12 minutes after landing and, at 15 minutes after, the
transmitter is shut off. The meteorology instrument and the seismometry
instruments are turned on, and the high-gain antenna is stowed to its
normal rest position. Finally, the adaptive mission is begun by activating
the mission sequence of events.
Before the Viking landers had the opportunity to perform this complex
series of events on Mars, managers, scientists, and engineers faced a multi-
tude of problems on Earth.

SCIENCE DATA RETURN

The goal of obtaining the greatest amount of scientific information

possible from the Martian surface was the major influence on the design
and structure of the lander. During 1975 and 1976, Mars and Earth would be
at their maximum separation distance, about 380 million kilometers. Since
the distance would vary during the mission and since the length of relay
opportunities would also vary, several data transmission links were built
into the lander equipment for direct communications with Earth (1000,
500, and 250 bits per second were available at a single transmitter output of
20 watts). A second communications link, UHF through the orbiter, was
functionally redundant with the direct link. The orbiter relay had three
transmitter power levels (1, 10, and 30 watts) and two data rates (4 and 16
kilobits). Since available communication time was severely limited by the
power available, typical communication periods would be about 1 hour for
the direct link transmitters and 20 minutes for the relay link transmitters.
With these link times, data rates, and power output, the rate of scientific
data returned to Earth would be about 1 million bits per day for the direct
link and 20 million for the relay link. Since the relay link was the more
efficient from an energy standpoint, the mission planners would use the
orbiter link for the majority of the mission's activities.
Several electronic tricks could be played with the data transmitted
(telemetered) to Earth. Because of the short transmission times, "house-
keeping" engineering data would be telemetered in real time. Much of the
scientific data would be sent on a delayed schedule, having been stored on
the tape recorder. Bits of immediate data and delayed data could be electron-
ically interleaved. Although this combination of information cut in half
the amount of data that could be returned, it did guarantee the return of
important scientific and engineering data during the crucial communica-
tion periods. Furthermore, each instrument was constructed to convert its
scientific information into a digital code. The imaging system would
produce large amounts of digital information, but the biology instrument
and the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer would send much lower
volumes of data. With the exception of the imaging system, the lander
instruments could automatically communicate with the guidance, control,
and sequencing computer when their storage capacities were full. At that
time, the data would be dumped into bulk storage. Imaging-data storage or
249
ON MARS
direct transmission, however, had to be preplanned because of the very large
amounts of digital information.
Considerable technical sophistication was required to execute the
scientific experiments, digitize the information collected, store the data,
manipulate it, and transmit it to Earth on cue. This technological complex-
ity and sophistication had a direct dollar equation: developing such a
complicated machine in a small package against a specific deadline
required a large budget. The world in which NASA operated, however, was
full of budget restrictions.
The stringent post-Apollo fiscal scene forced the space agency's man-
agers to work hard and be tough with their personnel and their contractors.
Legislators who favored tighter federal budgets argued that such activity
was a natural part of NASA's job, but a decade earlier many of these same
senators and representatives had willingly appropriated extra dollars when

9D
^V

i
Earth

Lander to Earth
two-way radio link
• Lander science data
• Engineering telemetr
• Doppler and range s
• Commands
link

Lander U11 wIaI*

_` " \^^"` ^y,lll Ill-l'^ .«an.^*.a'—^rr. `

: Net

y""' ► '^M.. -+wan—^: _^ J. .^^a'^",°, .«wnn.

 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
Apollo managers needed them to solve the problems associated with win-
ning the race to the moon. Post-space race hardware was also expensive,
and the Mars landing was a complicated project. The Viking managers
were committed to accomplishing their mission in a scientifically valid
manner and within a reasonable budget, but more dollars-and the spirit of
the Apollo era-would have made it easier. Ingenuity and good manage-
ment would have to substitute for extra appropriations.
Management's warnings about costs began to sound like a broken
record to many of the scientists in the Mars venture; but, like it or not,
scientists had to think about money as much as about science. In the fall of
1973, the total project cost had been estimated at $830 million. During the
spring and summer of 1974, that figure grew substantially, and despite
additional parings the estimated cost at completion reached $930 million by
the fall of 1974. That amount, however, did not include the extra dollars the
biology instrument ($7 million) and the gas chromatograph-mass spec-
trometer ($4 million) would demand from fall 1974 to spring 1975. These
two instruments long occupied prominent places on Jim Martin's Top Ten
Problems list.
Table 43
Cost History of Diking Lander and Selected Subsystems
(in millions)

Estimated Cost at Completion Total

Date Lander
Biology GCMS Lander GCSC Total Actual Cost
Camera Lander

June 1970 17.8 360 19

Sept. 1970 13.7 20.6 9.8 3.4
Aug. 1971 17.0 25.0 12.9 401 62
Feb. 1972 34.5 35.0 17.4 381 107
July 1972 32.3 35.0 18.1 10.2 420 149
Apr. 1973 29.2 35.4 22.9 10.2 430 286
Mar. 1974 44.2 38.7 23.1 24.1 512 411
July 1974 50.3 39.9 27.4 24.7 543 451
Sept.1974 55.0 23.5 28.1 559 473
Mar. 1975 59.0 41.0 27.5 545 545
June 1976 59.5" 412' 27.3`' 28.1 553.2''

"Actual cost incurred. GCMS = gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer.

GCSC = guidance, control, and sequencing computer.

TOP TEN PROBLEMS

Martin began the Viking Top Ten Problems list in the spring of 1970
to give visibility to problems that could possibly affect the launch dates.
Viking project directive no. 7, issued 4 October 1971, codified the concept:
251
ON MARS
"It is the policy of the Viking Project Office that major problems will be
clearly identified and immediately receive special management attention by
the establishment of a Top Ten problems list." To qualify for this dubious
distinction, the problem had to be one that seriously affected "the successful
attainment of established scientific and/or technical requirements, and/or
the meeting of critical project milestones, and/or the compliance with
project fiscal constraints." Anyone associated with the Viking project could
identify a potential priority problem by defining the exact nature of the
difficulty and forming a plan and schedule for solving it. When Martin
made an addition to his list, a person in the appropriate organization was
charged with solving the problem, and someone M the Viking Project
Office monitored his progress. Weekly status reports were datafaxed from
the field to Langley. At Martin Marietta, William G. Purdy, vice president
and general manager of the Denver Division—through Albert J. Kullas and
later Walter Lowrie, his project directors—sent weekly status bulletins on
the lander's top problems, since that system seemed to have the greatest
number of difficult components and subsystems. In the spring of 1972,
Martin told Cortright he hoped the supervisors of employees who had one
of their tasks assigned to the top 10 list would not be penalized. Martin, not
wanting a stigma attached to identification of a problem, was concerned
that at Martin Marietta assignment of a problem might "automatically be
considered as a mark of poor performance" when promotions or raises were
given. Generally, the nature of the crucial problems was so complex that
punishing one individual would not solve the problem. As with the gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer and the biology inst rument, the novelty
of the technological task was often the source of the ti ^uble. 2 Some prob-
lems seemed to stay on the manager's worry list forever. Others made repeat
performances.
At times, Martin found it necessary to bring a particular problem to the
attention of a specific subcontractor. Depending on the clout needed behind
the message, Martin would sign the letter or enlist the aid of Langley
Director Cortright or Martin Marietta Vice President Purdy. In extreme
cases, the letter would be sent out over the signature of the NASA adminis-
trator. Early in 1973, the Viking Project Office identified six subsystems
that required Administrator James C. Fletcher's personal touch: inertial
reference unit, subcontractor Hamilton Standard; terminal-descent and
landing radar and radar altimeter, Teledyne-Ryan; guidance, control, and
sequencing computer, Honeywell; lander camera, Itek Corp.; upper-
atmosphere mass spectrometer, Bendix Aerospace; gas chromatograph-
mass spectrometer, Litton System S.3
Fletcher wrote the president of each company asking for his personal
pledge of support for Viking and seeking his fullest cooperation in resolv-
ing the problem. The administrator usually asked them to come to
Washington to discuss the issues further. By setting off an alarm in the front
office, NASA managers from Fletcher and his deputy, George Low, to Jim
252
 Table 44
Top Ten Problems

Item Added to List Deleted from List

GCMS progress and schedule 4 May 1970' July 1971

Lander gear design 4 May 1970'
Site-alteration program schedule 4 May 1970'
Solder joints, failure mode under sterilization 4 May 1970' Dec. 1971
Post-Mars-orbit-insertion orbit determination
convergence 4 May 1970' May 1971
Lander weight growth 4 May 1970'
Orbiter weight growth 4 May 1970`'
Site alteration 4 May 1970' Aug. 1971
Wet tantalum capacitor failure under sterilization
temperatures Jan. 1971 Feb. 1971
Completion of data requirement list/data
requirements description Jan. 1971 Feb. 1971
Lander gear design Feb. 1971 Aug. 1971
Lander weight contingency Mar. 1971 Oct. 1971
Orbiter weight contingency Mar. 1971 Aug. 1971
Lander materials Aug. 1971 Oct. 1972
Lander processes Aug. 1971 1 June 1972
Lander parts program 27 Aug. 1971 1 June 1972
GCMS configuration and schedule Oct. 1971 2 Feb. 1972
Balloon-launched decelerator test 2 Feb. 1972 July 1972
Radar-altimeter design-development schedule Feb. 1972 24 July 1973
Lander entry weight Mar. 1972 26 Apr. 1973
Proof-test-capsule schedule 31 Mar. 1972 26 May 1972
Guidance, control, and sequencing computer
development-test schedule 21 July 1972 15 Jan. 1975
Aeroshell radar-altimeter-antenna engineering
release 22 Aug. 1972 5 Jan. 1973
GCMS development-test schedule 1 Sept. 1972 6 June 1975
Viking lander camera development schedule 1 Sept. 1972 2 Apr. 1974
Titan-Centaur-shroud qualification program Sept. 1972
Upper-atmosphere mass spectrometer development
schedule 12 Jan. 1973 31 Oct. 1974
Surface-sampler boom motor S Feb. 1973 10 Sept. 1974
Proof-test-capsule component delivery 26 Feb. 1973 19 Feb. 1974
Flight-team facility space 11 Apr. 1973 1 Nov. 1973
Inertial reference unit 12 Apr. 1973 3 Oct. 1973
Seismometer instrument 22 Aug. 1973 20 Dec. 1973
Viking-orbiter-system data-storage-subsystem data
recovery July 1973 20 Dec. 1973
54L microcircuit particle contamination Oct. 1973 4 Nov. 1974
Proof-test-capsule schedule recovery 19 Apr. 1974 21 Oct. 1974
Lander-test-sequence development 19 Apr. 1974 12 Dec. 1974
Building 264 construction of facilities funding 27 June 1974 29 Aug. 1974
Guidance, control, and sequencing computer flight
software 2 July 1974 15 Jan. 1975
GCMS processing-and-distribution-assembly shuttle
block design 29 Oct. 1974 6 June 1975
Biology instrument 26 Oct. 1973 6 June 1975

"Although the Top Ten Problems concept was not officially recognized until October 1971, the system
was used before that date. In Jim Martin to Henry Norris, "Viking Top Ten Problems," 4 May 1970,
these items were listed.
ON MARS
Martin hoped to impress on subcontractors their obligations to the Mars
project.' At times, the NASA administrator had to be extremely blunt. Once
his letter resulted in a meeting with John W. Anderson of Honeywell, Inc.,
about the guidance, control, and sequencing computer. This worrisome
piece of hardware, the key to the lander's performance, controlled and
arranged the sequence of all lander functions from separation from the
orbiter through completion of the mission. Without this brain and central
nervous system, the lander would be worthless. Schedule delays and cost
increases in developing the guidance, control, and sequencing computer
were in large part the result of the requirements established for this piece of
equipment—energy efficiency, small size, reliability, heat resistance, lon-
gevity. Each lander had a guidance, control, and sequencing computer,
made up of two completely redundant computers with 18 432-word plated-
wire memories. The overall computer was 0.03 cubic meter (26.7 x 27.3 x
40.6 centimeters) and weighed 114.6 kilograms. Its most advanced feature
was the two-mil plated-wire memory, making small size and low power
consumption possible. Either of the twin computers within the guidance,
control, and sequencing computer could operate the lander, but only one
would be used during descent. The computer would have to work flawlessly
if the landing was to succeed. Once the lander was on the surface, either
computer could control the craft.
As prime contractor for the lander, Martin Marietta had responsibility
for the important computers. In May 1971, the firm asked for proposals
from 11 firms to subcontract for the guidance, control, and sequencing
computer and received 5 responses. After an unusually complicated con-
tracting process, Honeywell, Inc., was selected as the builder, largely
because of its plans to use the two-mil plated-wire memory. Work began at
Honeywell's Aerospace Division in Saint Petersburg, Florida, in November
1971. Honeywell also had a contract with Martin Marietta for the develop-
ment of the lander's data-storage memory, a digital-data-storage device used
in conjunction with the lander's tape recorder. The data-storage memory
would have the same plate-wire memory units. Combined projected costs
for the guidance, control, and sequencing computer and the data-storage
memory in 1971 was $6.1 million, with a ceiling cost of $6.8 million.
A preliminary design review for the computer was held on schedule in
April 1972. At this review, plans called for development testing to be
completed by December 1972, following which Martin Marietta and NASA
personnel would hold the critical design review. Because of difficulties in
fabricating the sense-digit transformers, the plated wire, the memory tun-
nels, and memory planes, the critical design review was rescheduled for
March 1973. As problems continued with component deliveries and
memory fabrication, the date for the review was slipped several times.
Finally held in August 1973, the critical design review indicated that the
design was acceptable in theory, but more development tests were required.
Because Martin Marietta needed early delivery of the computers to keep
lander fabrication and testing on schedule, Honeywell had to proceed with
254
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT

a parallel program in which the development units and the flight-style

computers were built at the same time.
Throughout 1973, Honeywell had difficulties with the plated-wire
memories. Engineers could not produce sufficient quantities of the plated
wire with the proper magnetic characteristics, and they had problems in
fabricating the matlike tunnel structures in which the wire was manually
inserted. The magnetic keepers applied to the exterior of the sandwiched
memory planes also became troublesome for Honeywell. The subcontrac-
tor faced another setback when faulty plated-through holes were found in
many of the printed circuit boards, which had been purchased from a
commercial supplier. These 18- x 23-centimeter Honeywell-designed
circuit boards had up to 16 layers of circuits and 3000 plated-through holes for
making electrical connections. A great many of the original circuit boards
had to be scrapped and reordered from another supplier.5
The various problems with the guidance, control, and sequencing
computer led NASA Administrator Fletcher to ask Honeywell Vice Presi-
dent Anderson in for a serious talk. Anderson had previously met with
Fletcher on 15 February 1973, and subsequently Deputy Administrator Low
told Fletcher that some of the computer problems had apparently been
solved as a result. But, still unhappy, the administrator wrote again:
"During our meeting I was ... disturbed by the inference in one of your
remarks, that Honeywell is unable to put forth its best efforts on this job
because of the type of contract.... I hope I was mistaken in my impression
that this is so, and I trust that Honeywell will fully live up to all of its
obligations." Only Fletcher could talk this firmly to corporation execu-
tives. Jim Martin, for all his crustiness, was not in such an authoritative
position.'
Anderson responded in the positive manner Fletcher was seeking: "In
spite of my comments of philosophical concern, I had hoped to have left you
with the conviction that Honeywell was applying the best of its resources in
a prudent and expeditious fashion. I believe it would be agreed by both the
people from NASA and the Martin Company that we are going to find
solutions to problems." 7 However—despite all the efforts of the agency,
Martin Marietta, and Honeywell—the guidance, control, and sequencing
computer, which first made the top 10 list on 21 July 1972, was not removed
from the chart until 15 January 1975.
By late 1973, Honeywell had exceeded the $6.8-million ceiling by nearly
$3.5 million. Working under a fixed-price contract, the contractor had no
profit incentive to improve the situation. Martin Marietta took several
steps, at NASA's urging, to improve the Honeywell operation. The contract
was changed from a fixed-price to a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, with
Honeywell accepting a $3.5-million loss. The project was rescheduled, and
its cost reestimated to $24 million. Honeywell doubled the number of
employees assigned to the computer, as special teams worked to solve
specific problems and expedite production. Alternatives to the two-mil
plated-wire memory were also examined. While the engineers in Florida
255
ON MARS
attacked these problems, Martin Marietta began a backup program to
develop an alternative memory system.8
Also in late 1973, Martin Marietta established a resident management
office with a staff of 20 at Honeywell's Saint Petersburg factory. This team,
and NASA personnel from Langley, assisted Honeywell's managers with
scheduling, managerial, and engineering tasks. Everyone was clearly con-
cerned about the fate of the computer. Langley Director Ed Cortright told
Deputy Administrator Low on 30 October 1973 that a meeting with top
computer industry experts indicated that Honeywell's problems were not
unique. "It appears that the major difficulty is one of schedule time availa-
ble to reliably produce and test computers needed to support the building of
flight" landers. Money might buy more people, but neither people nor
dollars could purchase more time.9
In January 1974, the Viking Project Office team decided to change all
the flight-model computer memories to a new two-mil plated wire known
as "coupled-film wire" because it had a second magnetic layer. It was easier
to produce, had higher electrical output, was less subject to mechanical
damage, and was affected less by temperature changes. Honeywell became
more optimistic about meeting schedules. The first flight-model computer
was delivered to Martin Marietta in April 1974, nine months late according
to the original schedule. Although this proof-test-capsule model had a great
many deficiencies, it did permit Martin Marietta to go ahead with its lander
tests. Unhappily, delivery schedules continued to slip during 1974 as
Honeywell faced more technical difficulties. Faulty components were
uncovered. One lot of transistors was rejected. More unsatisfactory printed
circuit boards came to light.10
Continuous monitoring of the subcontractor's troubles was rewarded,
however, in late 1974 when the computers were finally ready for delivery.
On 15 January, Jim Martin received the following message from Walt
Lowrie at Martin Marietta:
Oh ye of little faith —We gave birth to the last computer today. I don't
know how you feel on the subject but it would appear to me that this top
ten has now died of old age.
Seriously—although the path has been extremely tortuous I really
feel we now have an excellent computer on Viking."
Martin removed the lander computer from his list of major problems. Thus
it went, step by step—problems identified and then solved. At this stage in
Viking's existence, there was very little glamor, just long hours, hard work,
and an occasional antacid.
TESTING THE LANDER

Another phase of the lander's evolution was the multiplicity of tests to

which the components, subassemblies, and assemblies were subjected.

256
The guidance, control, and sequencing com- rI
puter was the Viking lander's brain. At right,
magnetic wires as fine as human hair are
inserted into the computer at Honeywell
Aerospace, Saint Petersburg, Florida. In
testing below, the HDC-402 computer, part
of the lander's computer, looks like pages of
a book. At bottom, Jim Martin (second from
right) on 10 January 1975 congratulates Bar-
ton Geer (left), director of system engineer-
ing and operations at Langley; R. Wigley,
Honeywell's Viking program manager; and
F. X. Carey, Martin Marietta resident man-
ager at Honeywell. GCSC flight article 2
and the qualification unit are in the fore-
ground.
ON MARS
Again, this was not terribly exciting work, but it was essential to producing
spacecraft that could be relied on to function far from Earth.
As with the Viking orbiter, a number of simulators were developed to
verify analytical predictions of lander system performance, to investigate
the effects of the thermal and dynamic environment on the craft, and to
permit tests of subsystems, such as the scientific experiments. The major
Viking simulators included:
Lander (structural) dynamic-test model (LDTM). A flight-style struc-
ture with partial flight-style or equivalent propulsion lines and tanks. Mass
(weight) simulators were used for nonstructural hardware. The LDTM was
used for structural vibration, acoustic noise, separation tests, and pyrotech-
nic shock evaluation.
Lander (structural static-test model (LSTM). A flight-style structure
used for qualification of the primary structure under steady-state and low-
frequency loads.
Orbiter thermal effects simulator (OTES). A simulator used to study
the orbiter's thermal and shadowing effects during the lander-development
thermal environmental tests.
Proof-test capsule (PTC). A complete Viking lander capsule assembly
assembled from flight-style hardware, used for system-level qualification.
Structural landing test model (SLTM). A 3/e, geometrically scaled model
of the lander, dropped at various velocities and attitudes to determine
landing stability boundaries. The % scale was chosen because the Martian
gravity was %a that of Earth's.
Thermal-effects test model (TETM). A full-scale model incorporating
developmental thermal control systems and flight cabling test harness.
Flight equipment thermal effects were simulated by special equipment.
The TETM was used to verify the system developed for controlling the
temperature of the lander.
Electrical thermoelectric generators (ETGs). Generators used in test-
ing in place of the radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). ETGs
had electrical heating elements that simulated the electrical and thermal
characteristics without the hazard of nuclear radiation. 12
There were three broad categories of tests: system development, quali-
fication, and flight acceptance. Development tests determined the levels of
performance that components and subassemblies would have to meet to be
acceptable. They also provided early identification of design deficiencies.
These trials used primarily the dynamic-test model, the orbiter thermal-
effects simulator, and the thermal-effects test model. Qualification tests
used hardware attached to the proof-test capsule and the static-test model.
During the "qual tests," hardware was subjected to stresses and environ-
mental conditions that exceeded any expected during the mission. Envi-
ronmental tests included heat compatibility, acoustic noise, launch sinewave
vibration, landing shock (drop test), pyrotechnic shock, solar vacuum, and
Mars-surface simulation. These and additional tests were performed at the
258
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
component and subsystem level. The flight acceptance tests were performed
on flight hardware before qualification testing. Only the thermal steriliza-
tion and solar vacuum tests were made with assembled flight landers.
Environmental Tests
The proof-test capsule, encapsulated in its bioshield, was subjected to
the heat compatibility test to verify that the system could withstand heat
sterilization. During this test, the chamber atmosphere consisted of dry
nitrogen containing about three percent oxygen and other gases. The
capsule was subjected to 50 hours of 12PC heat, and flight landers were
exposed to 112°C for 40 hours. Components were subjected to five 40-hour
cycles and three 54-hour cycles at 121°C.
The vibrations of liftoff were computed by analysis of data from earlier
Titan-Centaur flights and the February 1974 proof flight of a Titan IIIE-
Centaur D-1T launch vehicle (this flight and preparation of the Viking launch
vehicle are discussed in appendix E). Despite the necessary destruction of
the Centaur stage on this flight after its main engine failed to start, some
information was gained to help define the ground-based simulations
(launch sinewave vibration tests) of the low-frequency vibrations encoun-
tered during launch, stage separation, and spacecraft separation. Through
combined analysis, flight-derived data, and simulations, the engineers were
able to determine if the lander components could withstand the predicted
vibrations. 13 The acoustic noise test simulated the effects of the sounds of
powered flight. Levels of the individual components were determined by
earlier tests using the lander dynamic-test model and proof-test capsule.14
Random vibration tests were applied only at the component level, to
screen out faulty workmanship and design defects. Laboratory simulations
of the levels of vibration encountered during actual flight proved not to
produce satisfactory data. Borrowing from procedures devised during the
Apollo program, the vibration levels were raised to a level that would screen
out bad components but not damage good ones. Component vibration
levels were the same for both qualification and flight acceptance testing,
but the latter was shorter so that multiple tests could be run without
exceeding the qualification test levels. In the pyrotechnic shock tests run at
the system level, a series of pyrotechnic devices was fired to simulate the
effects of actual mission events and at the same time demonstrate the actual
performance of the pyrotechnically actuated mechanisms. Components
were subjected to vibrations similar to those expected with the Viking
pyrotechnic devices and to contained explosions that replicated the impact
of explosions and gas pressure buildups on specific assemblies.'-,
Solar vacuum tests, held in a nearly complete vacuum in Martin
Marietta's test chamber (4.5 meters in diameter and 20 meters high), simu-
lated the worst predictions for thermal heating and cooling during the
flight to Mars. Both the effects of heating and cooling and the performance
of the lander's thermal control system were evaluated. Each mission phase
259
ON MARS
was completed twice for the qualification tests of the proof-test capsule and
once for the flight acceptance tests of the flight landers.16
Deorbit-entry-landing thermal simulation tests, conducted on a com-
ponent level, duplicated the effects of entering the Martian atmosphere—
pressure increase, entry heating, and the post-landing cooldown. Compo-
nents were placed in the vacuum test chamber at 1/760 of an Earth
atmosphere, heated to a temperature of 149°C, and held there for 530
seconds. Chamber pressure was then raised to 5/760 of an Earth atmosphere
with cooled nitrogen gas, to provide an atmospheric temperature of -10PC.
In this manner, the lander's passage through the Martian atmosphere with
the attendant heating and cooling was duplicated. The change of 250°C
represented the wide range of temperatures that the lander would be
exposed to on Mars. Such extremes were part of the reason the engineering
of the lander had been such a complicated task. For all components, the
most critical period would be the 15 to 20 minutes after landing, since by
that time all equipment would be operating and the entry heat buildup
would not have had time to dissipate.
In the landing shock tests, the proof-test capsule, with landing gear
extended, was dropped from a height necessary to achieve a velocity of 3.36
meters per second on impact. Each drop produced the worst possible
dynamic loads on a different landing leg and footpad. In addition to these
drop tests, the shock stresses generated by the opening of the parachute were
evaluated analytically and then measured during the balloon drop tests
(balloon-launched decelerator tests) at the NASA White Sands Test Facility
in New Mexico in the summer of 1972. They were carried out successfully
despite postponements caused by uncooperative weather. As a consequence
of these tests, new techniques were developed to unfurl the parachute
progressively, minimizing the deployment shocks to the lander.11
During the Mars-surface simulation tests, the lander configuration of
the proof-test capsule was subjected to thermal conditions worse than those
expected on the surface of Mars. By subjecting the lander to different
conditions and varying the vehicles' internal electrical power, three basic
tests were performed—hot extreme, cold extreme, and the predicted norm.18
In consultation with the Science Steering Group, the test engineers chose
argon for the chamber atmosphere during the cold extreme, because prelim-
inary data from the Soviet Mars probes had indicated that as much as 30
percent of the planet's atmosphere might be composed of this rare gas.*
Since argon promotes electrical corona and arcing in electronic compo-
nents, the test teams were to determine whether there would be any adverse
effects on lander subassemblies if the concentration of argon was that high.
Science End-to-End Test
One of the most significant activities during the lander testing cycle
was the science end-to-end test (SEET), conducted during the Martian-
*Subsequent Viking data indicated that the argon content in the Martian atmosphere was only
about 1.5 percent.

260
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
Table 45
Mars Surface Thermal Simulation

Parameter Hot Extreme Cold Extreme Nominal

Shroud temperature -1290Cf 5°C -151°C to -81°C -112°C t5°C

Chamber pressure and 2 t 0.1 mb, CO2 35 t 2 mb, Argon 4 f 0.1 mb, CO2
atmosphere
Solar radiation 1078 f 47 watts/m 2 0 watts/m 2 539t 31.5 watts/m2
Solar duration 12.33 hrs. None 12.33 hrs.
Vehicle power 1395 watt-hrs 1345 watt-hrs 1371 watt-hrs
Ground simulator -46°C to +24°C Uncontrolled Nominal
Thermal coating Degraded Original Original
ETG thermal output Maximum Minimum Nominal
(680 t 2 watts) (630 t 2 watts) (673 t 2 watts)
Test duration (PTC) 3 days 4 days 3 days before hot
extreme; 3 days
before cold extreme

surface simulations at Martin Marietta. The two major SEET objectives

were "to verify the adequacy of the implementation of the scientific investi-
gations from sampler collection to interpretation of resulting data by the
scientists" and to "familiarize the Viking scientists and other flight opera-
tions personnel with total operation of the investigations and their respec-
tive characteristics." In the course of carrying out these basic objectives, any
hardware or procedural problems were to be resolved, to avoid similar
difficulties during the actual mission.19
Getting the science end-to-end test started took some effort. It was
postponed several times because of problems with the motor used to load
samples into the oven heating assembly of the gas chromatograph-mass
spectrometer. When the pumpdown of the vacuum test chamber began on
17 September 1974, the proof-test capsule lander used in the operation had
a GCMS simulator aboard instead of the actual test unit. SEET was also
run without the biology instrument. Despite the absence of these two
major experiments, the test was useful.
The lander systems were examined rigorously. During the thermal
vacuum chamber operations, a Martin Marietta computer facility sent
commands via cable to the guidance, control, and sequencing computers.
The plated-wire memory, once a leading top 10 problem, performed very
well in the simulated Martian atmosphere. In addition, JPL processed data
recorded on computer tapes from lander subsystems much as data would be
during the real mission. Tests of the ultrahigh-frequency (UHF) radio link
261
 i

\ C

Viking simulators went through intensive envi-

ronment tests to ensure the final spacecraft would
function far from Earth. Above left, Viking pro-
gram technician Alonzo McCann adjusts a cable
on the proof-test capsule-decelerator assembly, as
lander and capsule are prepared for January 1974
heat-verification tests. One of the lander cameras
is to the right of center. Above right, a technician
watches as an acoustic shroud is lowered over the
Proof-test capsule before acoustic tests in mid-
June 1974. At lower right, the proof-test capsule is
lifted out of the vacuum chamber at Martin
Marietta, Denver, in October 1974 after a month-
longseries of rigorous tests to qualify it foropera-
tions on Mars.

for data transmission and the lander tape recorder also indicated that those
systems were ready for flight.
Other subsystems were given a thorough examination: the surface
sampler, the lander's imaging system, the weather sensors, the x-ray fluo-
rescence spectrometer, the seismometer, and the biology sample processor.

262
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
The multipurpose surface sampler (boom-and-scoop assembly) success-
fully delivered soil samples to the x-ray spectrometer and biology processor
unit and to the GCMS position. The only significant problem occurred
when the sampler arm snagged on the holder of a brush used to clean a
magnet on the magnetic properties experiment. This problem was cleared
up by minor hardware modifications and a new mission rule that prohib-
ited cleaning the magnets until all of the biology samples had been taken.
The lander facsimile cameras made nearly 100 images, including pictures of
trenching exercises with the backhoe and of particles adhering to the
magnets. The meteorology instrument performed well in Marslike condi-
tions that could not be duplicated in a standard wind tunnel. Although the
biology instrument was not on board, the processor containing the screens
and cavities for the measurement and separation of the materials scooped
up by the surface sampler was tested and proved satisfactory. 20 During the
seven days (18-23 September) that it took to simulate five days of experi-
ments on the surface of Mars, many important lessons were learned as
procedural and hardware "glitches" were encountered and overcome, and
much needed experience was gained with the meteorology, seismology,
camera, x-ray fluorescence spectrometer, and magnetic properties experi-
ments.21
Priestley Toulmin, team leader for the inorganic chemical investiga-
tion (x-ray fluorescence spectrometer) had been uncertain about the merits
of SEET as it was planned, however. Toulmin's experiment, a late addition
to the lander science payload, would determine the nature of inorganic
compounds (minerals) in the Martian soil. As early as 1968, the Space
Science Board had suggested it in recommendations to NASA for planetary
explorations. But the priority given inorganic analysis was much lower
than that assigned the search for biologically derived compounds—
although, with the exception of this experiment, the original payload for
Viking had followed the board's suggestions closely. Information gathered
from the lunar samples returned by Apollo astronauts and early Mariner 9
results suggested the need to reconsider the utility of inorganic analysis.
Mariner 71's findings were particularly evocative because they indicated
that Mars was geologically younger and more active than had been
expected. Asa result, in the fall of 1971 the space science community lobbied
the NASA management, especially John Naugle, associate administrator
for space science and applications, to include an inorganic experiment on
the lander. Of two possible investigations, the one designed by Martin
Marietta and the team led by Pete Toulmin was selected. (The other
instrument, designed by a team led by Anthony L. Turkevich at the Enrico
Fermi Institute of the University of Chicago, had been under development
for a longer time, but the XRFS was expected to cost less, be lighter, and
require less space and power.)22
As time for SEET approached, Toulmin was concerned about the
manner in which it would be conducted. Both he and Klaus Biemann, team
263
ON MARS
leader for the molecular organic analysis (the GCMS), had insisted strongly
on the inclusion of "blind" samples in the analyses to be done by their
instruments. These materials, unknown to the teams, would be identified
by the results of the experiments, to simulate the interpretative work of the
actual mission. In addition to making certain that this aspect of the SEET
experience was carried out, Toulmin told Jerry Soffen in early September
1974 that he was concerned about the validity of the trials since the x-ray
fluorescence spectrometer to be used in the test was different from the actual
flight article. The test version had several shortcomings that had already
been corrected in the flight units. A final reservation centered on the
seeming inflexibility of the test plans.23
By the end of the science end-to-end test, however, Toulmin believed in
its worth. He had previously discussed with Jerry Soffen "some reservations
and qualifications the Inorganic Chemical Investigations Team felt were
applicable to that program." In most instances, Toulmin believed that "the
events proved us correct in our concerns regarding the state of the hardware,
the software, and ourselves" and they had predicted several of the break-
downs that occurred. But in one major respect Toulmin felt he and his
colleagues had misjudged the testing program: "I ... grossly underesti-
mated the tremendous value of the experience for those who participated in
it. We learned things about the operation of the instrument and its relations
with the rest of the lander, and about the recognition, diagnosis, and
correction of problems and malfunctions that we would never have learned
by any other method." Although the actual mission would differ greatly
from the simulations, "it was an invaluable introduction to a whole new
world." In his report to Martin, Toulmin singled out "for special mention
the three unflappable controllers of the SEET data room: Henry von Struve,
Frank Hitz, and Ron Frank."24
Phase B of the science end-to-end test was less satisfactory. Begun on 7
October with the reworked gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer, it had
to be terminated on the 10th when additional problems were encountered
with that instrument. These difficulties led to a special test of the GCMS in
conjunction with the biology instrument's performance verification test in
February 1975. Despite some additional functional difficulties, Klaus Bie-
mann was able to identify from the GCMS data tapes the five compounds in
the blind samples.
Whereas the mass spectrometer went through the end-to-end func-
tional and operational exercise, the biology instrument did not. The biol-
ogy instruments were delivered too late for proper testing. By the time the
hardware became available, limited time, money, and manpower argued
against the thorough test. To questions about the adequacy of the func-
tional testing of the hardware on the proof-test capsule lander in Martin
Marietta's thermal vacuum chamber and the biological operation of the
experiments, Cal Broome told Martin on 30 June 1975, less than two

264
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
months before liftoff, "The current planning assumes that the testing
already accomplished is adequate, i.e., the combination of Biology [per-
formance verification] at the lander level (instrument 103) and soil biology
at the instrument level (instrument 102 and 103) is adequate to provide
assurance of proper operation on Mars." He added, "There is no question
that this program does not provide ultimate verification, i.e., operation of a
flight instrument in a lander with real flight sequences and verification of
proper results," but said, "Our position has been that risk of the current
approach is acceptable." Broome was responding to a NASA Office of
Space Science inquiry about the possibility of conducting a biology end-to-
end test after the Viking spacecraft had been launched .25
Four major factors influenced the scope of the biology instrument
acceptance test program. One, the introduction of soil or experiment nu-
trient into an instrument would render it unusable for flight. Cleaning the
instrument was impossible without destructive disassembly. Thus, the
functions of the flight instruments (S/N 104, 105, and 106) had to be tested
only by simulating their operations on Mars. Soil testing was necessarily
limited to components and units not reserved for flight use. Two, the
complexity of the instruments, the multiplicity of their functions, and the
operational pace (one minute between commands) meant that complete
functional tests would be extremely time-consuming. The minimum time
required for an entire end-to-end electrical and pneumatic checkout of a
biology instrument was one month on a round-the-clock schedule. Only
abbreviated functional tests could be performed. Three, given the long
turnaround time required to repair and retest instruments if a component
failed, all components and subassemblies had to be tested before assembly
in the integrated instrument, where accessibility was a problem. And four, a
substantial number of design changes were incorporated into the flight
units after the manufacture and test of the qualification unit (S/N 102),
requiring additional qual tests. Functional tests were then carried out to
ensure that the flight instruments had not been harmed by the qualification
test stress levels.
Each flight version of the biology instrument was subjected to a
sequence of acceptance tests: operational system checkout, vibration test,
functional verification, thermal verification, sterilization, and operational
system checkout. The operational checks were computer-controlled, testing
the electrical functioning of the instrument. Mechanical and structural
quality was verified through vibration tests, while the functional verifica-
tion tests were complete validations of all instrument systems. Computer-
controlled electrical and pneumatic sequences assessed individually the
functioning of each critical component or subassembly. The thermal verifi-
cation tests were performed with the biology instrument in a Marslike
atmosphere of carbon dioxide through a temperature range of -18° to 30°C.
Instruments were sterilized in a biologically filtered nitrogen atmosphere at

265
Science end-to-end tests sought to verify
complete performance of the Viking scien-
tific instruments and familiarize scientists
and f light operators with the total operation
of Mars investigations. Above, a technician
prepares the proof-test-capsule lander for
the environment and SEET tests. At right,
sample boxes are positioned for testing the r r r .
lander's surface-sampler assembly.

120°C for 54 hours. The total acceptance test spanned three to five months,
depending on problems encountered during the process.26
Although this was a busy test schedule, no flight-model biology
instrument had been tested as part of the total lander system, and in the fall
of 1975 Harold P. Klein, leader of the biology team, and his colleagues
argued for such a test. Langley and headquarters personnel resisted any
lengthy additional testing. Such an examination could not take place
before January 1976 and would interrupt a number of schedules. In late
September, the Viking Project Office proposed a committee led by Gary
Bowman, biology instrument team engineer, to take an in-depth look at the
biology instrument test data from a lander systems point of view. From the
team review, areas of specific concern could be identified and a decision
about additional tests made.27
Klein responded on behalf of his teammates in November after Bow-
man's group and the biology team had looked at the testing issue again.

266
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
Ideally, the biology team would have liked to install the flight-model S/N
104 biology instrument in the proof-test capsule at Denver, to make biolog-
ical examinations of soil samples, but the S/N 104 unit had to be kept sterile
until after the mission, when additional tests might be necessary.
What the biology team could do was install the proof-test-capsule unit
(S/N 103) on the proof-test-capsule lander to observe real data being pro-
cessed from the biology instrument detectors through the lander system.
The biology instrument simulator was not similar enough to the flight
hardware to provide a meaningful test of the lander-biology instrument
interface, but the test could simulate the sequence of biology instrument
operations from soil collection through processing, analysis, and data
return. Not only would experimenters have a chance to see if the instrument
would function as planned, but they could watch their hardware in action,
in preparation for the days when the instruments would be operated on
Mars.28
Jim Martin and his staff on 25 November 1975 decided at least part of
the tests the biology team wanted could be carried out during the flight-
operations-software verification tests scheduled for the proof-test-capsule
lander in February 1976. Only the tests that would not require extra funds
could be done. Martin told Klein: "We have neither the dollars to extend the
test nor the people to analyze the data." Other aspects of the biologists' plans
for testing were likewise impossible:.

... your request for lander/biology tests with transmitters/antennae in

real operational modes is also difficult to accommodate. As you know,
this test would require use of an anechoic chamber (very expensive) or
moving the entire lander to an outdoor location to avoid RF reflections
(also expensive). We made a fundamental decision in 1973/1974 that the
lander [electromagnetic compatibility] test program had to proceed with-
out a real biology instrument because such an instrument did not exist
until much too late. Instead, we have relied upon the positive results of a
rigorous EMC test on the instrument at TRW. In today's dollar limited
environment, the dollars to plan, set up, and conduct another radiated
EMC test for biology are prohibitive. We must rely on analysis and
instrument level test experience.29

While not enthusiastic about any additional biology testing, Martin

informed Noel Hinners at NASA Headquarters that the "potential return
from [the partial testing he had agreed to] is sufficient to incorporate it into
our plans." He believed that the project management had "done everything
reasonable to satisfy the concerns of the Biology Team as to the adequacy of
the pre-landing test proram." Martin wanted to turn to other more impor-
tant issues: "Following the test, we must and will devote the full biology
flight team resources to preparation for landed operations.... including

267
ON MARS
training contingency analysis and preparation of pre-canned sequences to
be ready for the multiplicity of possible required reactions to data from
Mars."30

REORGANIZATIONS AND ADDITIONAL CUTBACKS

During the remaining year and a half before the Viking launches, a
number of changes were made in the top management structure at NASA.
The first of these was announced by Administrator Fletcher on 5 March
1974. Rocco A. Petrone, director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, was
appointed NASA associate administrator, the number three position at
headquarters, replacing Homer Newell who retired in late 1973. John E.
Naugle, named Petrone's deputy, continued to act as associate administrator
for space science until Noel W. Hinners, director of lunar programs in the
Office of Space Science,* was selected in June to fill the space science slot.
When Petrone left NASA for a job in industry in April 1975, Naugle
assumed his duties on an acting basis until 23 November, when he was
appointed to that position.
Fletcher in March 1974 also announced a headquarters reorganization,
with two primary objectives. First, he sought to consolidate under one
senior official, the associate administrator, the planning and direction of all
NASA's research and development programs. And second, by creating a
new position—associate administrator for center operations, to whom the
center directors would report—the administrator funneled the responsibil-
ity for the field centers to one office. George Low, deputy administrator,
temporarily took on this new task until Edwin C. Kilgore was appointed
in May 1974.
Fletcher stressed that the changes were necessary in this era of consoli-
dation, an era of tightening budgets and reducing manpower levels.
As we approach the time when the Space Shuttle becomes operational,
there needs to be a mechanism for the orderly phaseover from conven-
tional launch vehicles to the shuttle; at the same time we need to take an
innovative and coordinated approach in planning and developing all of
our future payloads—manned and unmanned, science, applications, and
technology. Our aim is to achieve this consolidation of all Aeronautics
and Space Activities through the office of the Associate Administrator.
NASA's administrator believed that the future of the agency's activities
depended entirely upon the strength "of NASA's most important re-
source—the 25,000 people located primarily at our field centers." This figure
was down from a peak of nearly 36 000 in fiscal year 1967.31
Petrone and Hinners had the unenviable task of keeping Viking proj-
ect costs from escalating further. When Petrone assumed his responsibili-
• In December 1971, a reorganization set up an Office of Space Science and an Office of Applica-
tions, replacing the Office of Space Science and Applications.

268
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
ties as associate administrator in March 1974, the projected completion cost
of Viking had risen to $927.5 mi 11 ion, and nearly all of the cost problem was
associated with the lander-the biology instrument, the gas chromato-
graph-mass spectrometer, and the guidance, control, and sequencing com-
puter were among the leading troublemakers. As table 46 illustrates, the
price of the orbiter was repeatedly pared to help pay for the lander. Money
for support activities was held relatively constant. Actual costs for the
orbiter and support activities were below the June -July 1970 estimates, but
the lander was costing nearly $200 million more than it was projected to in
1970.32
Table 46
Viking Cost Projections, 1974
(in millions)

Total Estimated Cost Cumulative

Date Lander Orbiter Support at Completion Total
(Estimated Total + APA")

July 1970
baseline $359.8 $256.0 $134.2 $750.0 + $80.0 = $830.0 $ 51.0
Dec. 1970 359.8 256.0 134.2 750.0+ 80.0 = 830.0 54.5
June 1971 358.0 256.3 135.7 750.0+ 80.0 = 830.0 81.8
Jan. 1972 384.6 256.7 143.7 785.0+ 44.7 = 829.7 150.6
June 1972 414.4 252.3 134.5 801.2+ 28.2 = 829.4 223.8
Dec. 1972 426.1 251.3 132.2 809.6+ 19.8 = 829.4 366.6
June 1973 436.2 247.5 143.0 826.7+ 11.3 = 838.0 466.5
Dec. 1973 456.7 241.0 140.3 838.0+ 0.0 = 838.0 595.2
Mar. 1974 511.9 242.4 140.2 894.5+ 33.0 = 927.5 646.7
Apr. 1974 518.2 242.8 1-10.2 901.2+ 18.8 = 920.0 667.9
Dec. 1974 545.2 242.1 139.1 926.4+ 3.6 = 930.0 805.2
July 1975 548.7 243.0 138.0 926.2+ 3.5 = 929.7 855.2
July 1976 558.2 243.0 134.1 935.3 + 0.3 = 935.6 898.9
Jan. 1977
actual costs 558.2 240.5 115.8 972.4' 914.5

"Allowance for program adjustment (APA), or reserve funds

nEstimate through end of prime mission.

In October 1974, Petrone and Hinners tightened the purse strings

considerably. Viking budget ceilings were established for fiscal 1975 and
1976, and deviation from these amounts required Petrone's personal approv-
al. Before any increase in the budget would be permitted, Petrone wanted to
see documented evidence of steps taken to squeeze the dollars from else-
where in the Viking budget. The reserve funds (allowance for program
adjustments) were directly controlled by Petrone. Hinner's staff provided
Petrone with weekly status reports on project costs and manpower levels for
Martin Marietta, JPL, TRW, and Honeywell throughout the winter of
1974.33
269
ON MARS

Two important management changes also took place at the centers

during the summer of 1975. At Langley in September, Ed Cortright, after 27
years of government service, retired and entered private industry and also
served as president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau-
tics. He was replaced by Donald P. Hearth, who since leaving the Lunar and
Planetary Programs Office at NASA Headquarters in 1970 had been deputy
director of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. On
the West Coast at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Bruce Murray had been
appointed in April to succeed William Pickering, who was retiring after
having led the laboratory since 1954. Hearth and Murray were old Mars
program men. Occasionally they had disagreed over budget, manpower,
and managerial issues during Mariner and the early years of Viking, but
they would cooperate on the team that would launch, fly, and land the
Viking spacecraft. Present from nearly the beginning of the search for life
on Mars, Hearth and Murray would see the fruition of years of work from
the inner NASA circle.34
In September 1974 when the second flight orbiter was canceled and the
proof-test orbiter converted to a flight article, the third lander, the backup,
was also terminated. By this move, Petrone and Hinners hoped to save an
additional $9 million. As the project moved closer and closer to the billion-
dollar mark, members of Congress had told NASA that no further repro-
gramming of funds, like shifting $40 million of the fiscal 1974 budget to
Viking, would be allowed. In an across-the-board cost-reduction exercise,
Jim Martin's project office searched for ways to save dollars to cover the
expense of such items as the biology instrument and the GCMS.35
Three landers had been planned originally to ensure that at least two
would be ready for launch. Had one of the prime landers suffered a last
minute problem that required a violation of sterilization procedures and
then reassembly and resterilization, the backup could have been used. With
this third lander gone, only parts would be available for substitution should
either flight lander have preflight troubles. The need for a backup orbiter
had never been as critical as for the lander, since the orbiters did not have to
go through the subassembly and completed assembly rigors of sterilization.
Resterilization of either lander would have required precious time during
the 65 -day Viking launch window. The process at the Cape would require
about 5 days, although only about 48 hours would actually be spent in the
oven at microbe-killing temperatures.
If the first lander should fail at the time of launch, the second lander
could replace the first with a minimum of lost time. If difficulties occurred
during the second launch, however, it could take up to 27 days to remove the
lander from its sterile capsule, disassemble it, find the malfunction, repair
it, reassemble the lander, and then resterilize it. Under such a contingency,
Martin and his people believed that they could carry out the work and still
launch the second craft in time; it would be tight, but if the lander was
repairable they thought they could get it on its way .36
270
 VIKING LANDER: COMPLEX SPACECRAFT
PREPARING FOR LAUNCH
The first Viking flight hardware arrived at the Kennedy Space Center
(KSC) during November and December 1974. This material included the
Titan IIIE core vehicle (liquid-fueled rocket stage), the solid-fueled rocket
motor components (strap-on booster stages), and the Centaur upper stage.*
All of the elements were as close to flight configuration as practical when
delivered, so that the major tasks remaining were only assembly and testing.
The Centaur standard shroud, the "nose cone" that protected the orbiter
and lander during ascent through Earth's atmosphere, was delivered ready
for the addition of such bolt-on items as electrical harnesses, instrumenta-
tion, and insulation. Upon delivery, launch vehicle B, which would be used
for the first mission, was prepared for the mating tests scheduled for April
1975.
Viking lander capsule 1 arrived at the Cape on 4 January 1975, and
engineers made a detailed inspection and subjected the capsule and lander
to a series of verification tests, which included compatibility checks
between the S-band radios and the Deep Space Network. Last minute
modifications followed, based on the test information, after which the
radioisotope thermoelectric generators were installed and the lander system
was finally built up for mating tests. Meanwhile, the first Viking orbiter
arrived on I 1 February and was put through the same rigorous verification
tests.
Up to this point, the flight lander and orbiter had never been physically
or electrically in direct contact, having been assembled over 1600 kilometers

*The Titan IIIE core vehicle was shipped by C-5A aircraft from Denver, where it had been
manufactured by Martin Marietta. The Centaur stage, built by General Dynamics Convair Division,
was also flown to Florida on a C-5A from the factory in San Diego. United Technologies Chemical
Systems Division shipped the solid rocket motors from Sunnyvale. California, by rail.

Work progresses on the Viking

lander I (foreground) and 2 at the
Martin Marietta plant in Denver
in the fall of 1974.
ON MARS
apart. Viking orbiter 1 and Viking lander capsule 1 were mated for the first
time on 8 March. More than two weeks of interface and system testing
indicated that they would work together satisfactorily. The next hurdle was
encapsulating the orbiter-lander assembly inside the Centaur shroud on 27
March. The specialists in Florida would then run some additional tests
before the whole unit was moved to launch complex 41 where the Titan ITTE
stood assembled. After the assembly had been hoisted and mated to dic
launch vehicle on 31 March, another series of tests were carried out on this
48.5-meter-high stack of hardware. A flight events demonstration, Viking
orbiter precount, Viking lander prelaunch, and terminal countdown—all
were completed successfully.
After mating tests, the orbiter and lander were removed from the
launch vehicle and returned to the assembly facility for flight compatibility
tests. The Viking flight team monitored these examinations from the Vik-
ing mission control and computing center in building 230. The Deep Space
Network provided communications for telemetry and spacecraft com-
mands. Concurrently, the second orbiter and lander were going through the
checkout process so successfully that it became feasible to use either of the
two craft for the first launch. This additional capability gave Jim Martin
and his people a dose of extra confidence.
As work on the hardware moved along according to schedule, the men
who would control and command the craft during the flight were also
simulating mission activities. Members of the orbiter performance and
analysis group participated in seven separate tests during April. For each
activity through launch, the group had at least one test exercise that would
prepare them for the real thing. The flight path analysis group simulated a
midcourse maneuver exercise on 14 April, and the results were so successful
that a repeat exercise was canceled.37
May was an equally active month at Kennedy, with some occasional
troubles. Grounded circuitry delayed for two days the important plugs-out
test (during which the spacecraft was on internal power) of Viking lander
capsule 1, and some communications problems between ground data sys-
tem and the Deep Space Network required additional tests. Orbiter perfor-
mance and analysis group personnel experienced some difficulties with a
computer program and had to reschedule orbiter simulations. Still, build-
up and checkout of both Viking spacecraft were proceeding according to
the latest schedules. All flight equipment, except for the gas chromato-
graph-mass spectrometer, had been installed on the first lander. Viking
orbiter 1 was undergoing the system readiness test at the end of May, while
installation of the high-gain antenna was begun on Viking orbiter 2.38
A lightning bolt that struck the Explosive Safe Area Building caused
momentary excitement. Electrical charges from the strike induced currents
that damaged two pressure transducers on the orbiter propulsion module
S/N-005. After a quick review, the Viking managers decided not to fly this
unit. Instead, S/N-006, being readied for the second launch, was assigned to
the first spacecraft. Once again, the modular approach to building space-
272
 T ,

Now

r 7^. Air

Viking orbiter 1, top left, is mated to

Viking lander 1 at Kennedy Space
Center on 8 March 1975. Above, tech-
nicians lower the launch shroud over
thespacecraft on 27March. At left, the
shrouded orbiter and lander move to-
ward 31 March mating with the Titan
IIIE launch vehicle, for more tests.

craft had paid off. To be able to substitute assemblies when required was
clearly advantageous. Caution was a major element in preparing for a
successful mission. Orbiter propulsion module S/N-005, its propellants
unloaded, was refurbished as a spare. The previously designated backup
was upgraded to flight unit status and assembled to the second orbiter.
Buildup and checkout continued into June, interrupted now and then by
thunderstorms and lightning alerts. To protect personnel and hardware,
safety regulations at KSC stipulated that all activities had to be halted when
a lightning alert was declared.39
A major milestone many people had worried about was passed when
the first lander capsule (VLC-2) was successfully sterilized. Much of the
273
ON MARS
trouble with the design, development, and testing of the lander subsystems
had centered on building components that could withstand the high
temperatures required to kill all terrestrial organisms. Eliminating mi-
crobes without degrading or destroying the hardware had been one of the
major challenges of the project. Viking lander capsule 2 was placed in the
sterilization chamber at Kennedy on 15 June. For more than 43 hours, the
craft and its capsule were subjected to temperatures up to 116.2°C as heated
nitrogen gas swirled around the hardware. The poststerilization short test
verified that all subsystems were functioning properly. A number of minor
glitches arose, but none proved to be a major concern.
Once the Viking management was assured of the first craft's good
health, the second, VLC-1, was moved into the sterilization chamber for al-
most 50 hours. While lander 1 was readied for propellant loading, lander 2
and orbiter 2 were mated for a last time, officially becoming the Viking A
spacecraft. By mid-July, the long process of designing, building, assem-
bling, testing, and flight preparation was drawing to a close. The Viking A
spacecraft was mated to its Titan launch vehicle on 28 July at launch
complex 41. The 3500-kilogram spacecraft was ready to go to Mars. Prepara-
tions for Viking spacecraft B were proceeding for the second launch, while
emphasis on personnel training increased during the last two months
before the first liftoff.
System-level flight operations test and training continued with a series
of verification tests. Verification test 3 on 12 June checked out the portion of
the mission that included the launch of spacecraft B while spacecraft A was
in its cruise phase. All the verification tests up to this point had been classified
"short-loop"; their data—commands and the like—had been generated
inside the Spaceflight Operations Facility at JPL. Beginning with verifica-
tion test 4, data were exchanged between JPL and the tracking stations in
Goldstone, California, and in Spain, test 4 verifying the design and execu-
tion of the spacecraft B midcourse maneuver. Verification test 1B was still
more elaborate, and the loop was even longer. Simulating the launch
portion of the Viking A mission, computers at the Kennedy Space Center
generated data for the Viking Mission Operations Facility at JPL. Deep
Space Station 42 at Tidbinbilla, Australia, also participated in this test,
since it would be responsible for first communication with the spacecraft
after launch. The launch phase of this simulation was normal, but trainers
threw in a malfunction—an early cutoff of the Centaur engine—to test the
reactions of the flight team. The team had to plan and execute an early
emergency maneuver with the orbiter propulsion system to place the space-
craft on the proper trajectory to Mars. While no one really expected the
Centaur upper stage to give any problems (it had been performing well for
nearly a decade), the trainers wanted the flight team to prove its readiness
for any contingency.
With these tests completed, the flight team was certified by the success-
ful operational readiness test on 6 August.
274
 Table 47
Viking Demonstration and Training Tests

Date Test Nature and Results

2 July DT-2 Processing uplink commands to lander through orbiter for

cruise checkout. Data processing went well, but flight team
needed more training.
13 July DT-3 Fifty-hour cruise operation test culminating mock
midcourse maneuver. Working around the clock, flight
team met several problems. Successful test.
25-26 July DT-I Three-part exercise. Part 1 covered spacecraft powerup
through launch to 6 hours into mission. Part 2 covered
midcourse maneuver. Part 3, conducted at request of Deep
Space Network personnel, covered lander memory-readout
sequence. All 3 parts successful.
10 July TT-1 Simulation of midcourse maneuver with simulated
emergencies. Not successful.
28 July TT-1 Successful retest of TT-l.
rerun

SOURCE: R. D. Rinehart and H. Wright, "Daily KSC Status (FAX)," memos dated 23.29, 25, and 2ti June
1975; and VPO, "Mission Operations Status Bulletin," no. 7. 23 June 1975, and no. 8. 8 July 1975.

During the last week before liftoff, final preparations were made:

29 July Orbiter precountdown checkout and lander cruise-

mode monitoring tests completed.
30-31 July Lander computer prelaunch checkout.
1 August Composite electrical readiness test completed.
2 August Super Zip installed on Viking A shroud. (Super
Zip is a linear explosive charge used to separate the
clamshell halves of the shroud after launch.)
3 August Pyrotechnic ordnance devices installed on Viking A.
6-7 August Propellants loaded into Titan IIIE launch vehicle.

Although a faulty valve and a battery discharge problem would delay the
beginning of the journey to Mars by nine days, Viking was otherwise ready.
Many had labored mightily to get the project to this point, and the adven-
ture was about to begin. A great amount of work lay ahead of the Viking
teams, however, before the landers could touch down on that distant, alien
275
ON MARS
planet. One of the most important tasks, preparation for which had paral-
leled hardware development, was the selection and certification of scientifi-
cally valid but technologically safe landing sites on Mars. Before examina-
tion of the Martian environment could begin—and even while the Viking
spacecraft headed out through space—many hours would be spent looking
for safe havens for the two landers."

276
 9
Safe Havens: Selecting Landing
Sites for Viking

Since the basic goal of Viking was to conduct scientific experiments on

the surface of Mars, the selection of landing sites was recognized early as a
topic of major importance. Once the decision was made in November-
December 1968 to make a soft landing from Mars orbit, the project en-
gineers and scientists began a long colloquy in which they weighed the
demands for lander safety (a crashed lander equaled no science) against the
desire to land at locations most attractive scientifically. At first, the
discussions were necessarily general in tone; the scientific knowledge (in
terms of both physical data and visual images) was still very limited.
Mariner 4, flying by the planet in July 1965, had yielded new information
and the first extraterrestrial images, revealing a heavily cratered, moonlike
surface. From Mariner 4's perspective, the planet appeared to have eroded
very little. Some scientists concluded that this meant there had not been
much wind or water activity on the surface. Other scientists pointed out that
Mariner 4 had sampled only I percent of the Martian surface; they wanted to
see the other 99 percent, and they wanted to see it more closely.
The Viking Project Science Steering Group began to consider the
interplay between landing sites and Viking lander science during its first
meeting in February 1969. Mariner 4 had raised as many questions as it had
answered, and data from Mariner 69 (Mariner 6 and 7), soon to be launched,
would not be available until next year. Donald G. Rea, deputy director of
planetary programs in the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters,
during this first Science Steering Group meeting raised the landing site
question when he asked for thoughts on how best to use the orbiter in
support of the landed science program. Thomas Mutch, a geologist, began
the discussion. The lander imaging team he headed had not considered
landing site selection, since members thought orbital images were of little
vaILIC in the site selection process. They assumed that orbital photographs
would not be able to pick up geological features smaller than a football
stadium (i.e., resolutions in the 100- to 1000-meter range). Ground-based
scientists could not possibly see the lander or smaller scale hazards that
could affect its safety, and Mutch's team did not believe that orbital pictures
would help them pick either a good science site or a good landing spot.'
277
ON MARS
Wolf Vishniac of the biology team disagreed. Orbiter imaging could
provide a valuable means for differentiating between places of low and high
biological potential. He also believed that a possible strategy for selecting a
landing site might be to set one craft down in a dark area and the other in a
light area. The difference between Mutch's evaluation and that expressed by
Vishniac was in itself illuminating. Mulch was thinking in terms of the
small-scale features (measured in centimeters) that the lander would be able
to see. Vishniac was basing his comments on the large-scale light and dark
features observed through Earth-based telescopes. Between these two scales
lay an unknown range of Martian topographical features that would mean
the difference betweeen a safe landing and a crash.
The second steering group meeting, at Stanford University a month
later, heard additional possibilities for using orbiter imaging in selecting a
landing zone. On the large scale, Seymour Hess, the Viking meteorologist,
expressed the hope that the orbiter could find a large, flat area on which the
lander could be placed, so his weather station would function more effec-
tively. He preferred a place with no surface "relief for 10's to 100's of
kilometers." Surely the orbiter images could spot such a tableland. But
Klaus Biemann, a chemist from MIT, noted that in the search for life forms,
as well as in the molecular analysis his team would make, it was preferable
that the first lander sit down in a warm, wet, low site. His ideal site
demanded the fewest degrees below freezing, the highest traces of water in
whatever form it might be found, and the highest atmospheric pressure (i.e.,
the lowest elevation) possible; life would most likely survive under those
conditions.
In addition to the imaging system, the water-vapor mapping and
thermal mapping experiments being planned would give the Viking team
clues to the best sites while the lander was still attached to the orbiter, but
the exact role of the orbiter would become clear only with time. Defining
the mission occupied the Science Steering Group for the remainder of 1969
and most of 1970. 2 By August 1970, Jim Martin believed "that the definition
of Viking landing site characteristics, the definition of data and data analy-
sis needed to support the selection of sites, and the integration of engineer-
ing ... capabilities and constraints" should be more coordinated.' A.
Thomas Young, Viking Program Office science integration manager, led a
landing site working group,* which met for the first time as a body at MIT
on 2 September 1970. Martin opened the proceedings, indicating that "the
actual Viking landing sites would be selected through this group."
C. Howard Robins, Jr., deputy mission analysis and design manager,
reminded the group that the Viking system requirements were not being
developed for a single ideal mission. Instead, his teams were planning for a
*Other members of the working group were C. H. Robins and G. A. Soften, Langley Research
Center; W. A. Baum, Lowell Observatory; A. Binder, Science Applications Institute; G. A. Briggs and C.
B. Farmer, JPL; H. Kieffer, University of California at Los Angeles; J. Lederberg, Stanford University;
H. Masursky and H. J. Moore, U.S. Geological Survey; and C. Sagan, Cornell University.

278
 SAFE HAVENS
broad spectrum of missions based on the desire to set the lander down
anywhere in the latitude band 30° north to 30° south. The hypothetical
landing sites being used to develop the "preliminary reference mission"
had not been selected for their scientific merit. They had been chosen
simply to give the analysis and design specialists something to work with in
creating spacecraft design requirements. Finally, he reported that his office
would develop the "operational mission design," which would guide the
conduct of the real missions, by working hand in hand with the landing site
working group.
The working group members began to discuss the desirable features
and characteristics of Viking landing sites, with Tom Young suggesting
that initially they ignore any potential system or mission constraints. Carl
Sagan led off the brainstorming session by considering the problem in
terms of three primary areas of investigation—biology, geology, and meteor-
ology. Comments on biology centered on the availability of water, atmos-
pheric and surface temperatures, and ultraviolet radiation. Each of these
three variables could affect the possibility of finding life forms.
The meteorologists wished to observe four related phenomena over a
period of time—seasonal darkening, the daily night-day cycle, long-term
meteorological variations, and the annual polar-cap regression process.
They also hoped the lander could be in a position to observe dust devils,
ground fog, and ice clouds. William Baum of the Lowell Observatory's
Planetary Research Center presented a status report on Earth-based motion
studies of clouds on Mars. Cloud patterns were being mapped under the
International Planetary Patrol Programs hourly each day, and recent daily
photographs had shown significant changes, but he could not say how
these alterations might be correlated with seasonal or other patterns.
The first working group meeting closed with a discussion of the
relationship between the Mariner 71 mission (Mariner 9, launched 8 May
1971) and Viking. Dan Schneiderman, Mariner 71 project manager, hoped
Viking personnel members would participate in that mission as observers
during the first 100 days and thereafter as users of the orbital cameras to look
for potential Viking landing sites. Martin assured the working group
members that they would have an opportunity in October to discuss topics
of common interest between Mariner 71 and Viking.'
FINANCIAL PROBLEMS THREATEN ORBITAL IMAGING SYSTEM

August to October 1970 was a busy time for the Viking project manag-
ers and the landing site working group. General discussions quickly gave
way to deliberations over specific problems. One of those specifics was the
orbiter visual-imaging subsystem, which had been identified as a candidate
for elimination or modification to reduce costs substantially. The project
stretch-out required paring costs, and Jim Martin and his colleagues sought
ways to do so while still saving the orbiter and other key elements of the
proposed mission.'
279
ON MARS
The Science Steering Group had identified three alternative ap-
proaches to orbital imaging that would save dollars—the Viking camera
system already proposed; a slight variation of that system in which the
image motion-compensation device was eliminated at an estimated $1-
million saving; or a modified Mariner 71 imaging system (using improved
optics), at a possible saving of $8 million. 6 At the July 1970 Science Steering
Group meeting, Viking project scientist Jerry Soffen had told his col-
leagues that the cost reduction exercise in progress made it necessary for
them to decide which investigations or parts of investigations were the most
important scientifically. Each science leader had to defend the costs and
merits of his team's experiment and recommend ways to conserve money.
When Mike Carr—orbiter imaging team leader and an astrogeologist from
the U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California—had defended the
orbiter television camera system, he had argued that the costs were as low as
they could be. When asked if the Mariner 71 camera system could be used on
Viking as well, he had said emphatically, no.
Carr's orbiter imaging team reported in October that the orbital imag-
ing from Viking would substantially enhance the scientific- value of all the
other experiments. ? The imaging system would improve the probability of
a safe landing, help define the environment in which the lander experi-
ments would be performed, and permit comparisons of the landing site
with other regions on Mars. The team was convinced that the proposed
Viking camera system would yield superior pictures. "A modified 1971
camera would provide only minimal support for the Viking mission and
would add only little to our knowledge of the planet. The Viking camera
system outperforms the [Mariner] 71 camera in ... very fundamental
ways." Mariner 71's camera was a slow-rate vidicon unit, requiring a cycle
time of 42 seconds to capture a single image. Viking's fast vidicon worked in
a tenth of that time. To get overlapping coverage with the Mariner 71
A-camera, it would have to look at a larger area, losing detail in its resolving
power. Mariner 71's B-cameras had a resolution comparable to the Viking
system, but with a slow vidicon system it could not produce contiguous
frames of coverage and would leave gaps between pictures. Viking's cam-
eras would yield high-resolution and overlapping images, so the Viking
team could get the photographic images they needed of the entire landing
area in a single pass.
The fast vidicon camera system put other demands on the team, how-
ever. On the orbiter, the camera would require a fast, reliable tape recorder
to store all the electronic bits into which the images had been coded. The
telemetry system and ground-based recorders must be capable of handling
the data flow, and the image-reconstruction and processing computers and
related equipment would have to process that data as quickly as it was
received. But Carr believed that this elaborate complex of machines and
men was essential to Viking's success. "The Viking camera will always
outperform the [Mariner] system by delivering more resolution per area
280
 SAFE HAVENS
covered, by allowing greater flexibility in choice of filters and lighting
conditions and making more effective use of a lower periapsis."'*
These performance differences were important to site certification.
"With only two landers judicious choice of landing sites is essential to
ensure that they will result in maximum scientific return." According to
Carr and his colleagues, orbital imaging would be the key to site selection
by providing:
(1) Numerical terrain data (crater statistics, slope frequency distribu-
tions, etc.) such that the landability of different sites can be compared
and assessed.
(2) Distribution frequencies of features such as craters, ridges, block
fields, that are potentially detrimental (or advantageous) to lander
experiments.
(3) Absolute and relative elevation measurements as a supplement and
check to radar and [infrared] data.
(4) Information on the geologic nature of the potential landing sites.
(5) Information on seasonally variable clouds, condensations, and sur-
face albedo differences both locally and regionally around potential
sites.,
The orbital imaging team was sure that the difference in results from
the Mariner 71 and the Viking systems would be striking. Mariner 71 would
be unable to portray objects smaller than 1 kilometer in diameter, while
resolution with the Viking system, j edged to be about 45 meters, was "close
to the limit from which data can be extrapolated to the scale of the lander
[2-3 meters]." The orbiter imaging specialists contended that using a
modified Mariner 71 system would render the imaging "virtually worthless
for obtaining terrain statistics and the distribution of specific features at the
scale of the lander or making useful elevation measurements." To make
their point, they used 80-meter- and 1-kilometer-resolution photographs of
the Apollo 14 landing site on the moon to illustrate how sensitive geologi-
cal and topographical analyses were to this change. Most telling was the
team's comment that the state of Martian imagery after Mariner 71 would be
"roughly comparable to that of the Moon before any spaceflight program."
Besides searching for landing sites, the experts hoped the orbiter imag-
ing system would return data on the activity of the Martian atmosphere,
provide a much better understanding of the geological processes, and
perhaps even yield clues to the existence or nonexistence of life. And there
was the future to look to, they suggested. "The Viking landers will not be
the last spacecraft to land on Mars. Others will surely follow and sites will
have to be selected. Our whole lunar experience has been that the prime

• Periapsis is the point in an elliptical orbit at which a spacecraft or satellite is closest to anybody it
is orbiting. Its opposite, or highest point, is the apoapsis. Specifically for Earth orbits, the terms are
perigee and apogee; for the moon, perilune and apolune; and for the sun, perihelion and aphelion.

281
 [t

V.

11

rt

^ A

Orbiter imaging team leader Michael Carr used Apollo 14 photos to explain the
difference in image resolution between thecamerasof Mariner Mars 71 and Viking
orbiters. Resolution of about 80 meters for the top photo of the Apollo 14 landing
site is slightly worse than the effective ground resolution of the Viking baseline
camera. Chief justification for choosing the site was the presence of the Imbrium
Basin ejecta, indicated by rough terrain in the west part of the photo. In the bottom
photo, al a resolution of about I kilometer (comparable to that of the Mariner Mars
71 camera), the area looks bland and uninteresting and the ejecta is not detectable.
Details of the terrain are inadequate for assessing landing conditions and topo-
graphic and geologic content of the area.

282
 SAFE HAVENS

consideration in selecting any landing site is the availability of imagery."

No judgment could be made about the relative merits of different sites for
engineering or scientific purposes without adequate images. "In the past, a
[lunar] site without imagery has been rejected immediately. There is Buie
reason to believe that for Mars the decision making process is going to be
significantly different." It was "imperative to collect as much imagery as
possible to provide a decision making base for future missions."
Finally, the imaging team turned to political considerations.
One of Viking's characteristics is its high-risk, high-gain mode of
focusing on a search for life. Negative results on all the biologic experi-
ments is not unlikely; the seismometer may never see a quake. To run a
billion dollar mission and obtain largely negative results would be
embarrassing politically for the project as well as for NASA as an agency.
Whether negative results reflect the lack of life, or the wrong kinds of
experiments or the wrong landing locations might be difficult to see....
Thus, the high-resolution imaging system may be considered as the
"meat and potatoes" low-risk but guaranteed-significant-gain experi-
ment in the mission.
It was excellent insurance against critics who might say that Viking had
been too narrowly focused. The orbiter imaging team urged that the
Mariner 71 camera system be dropped from further consideration. 9 The
landing site working group recommended to the Science Steering Group
that the Viking system be retained, and the steering group and NASA
Headquarters concurred. to
A year later, money problems recurred. On 19 September 1971, the
Science Steering Group met in a special session where the science team
leaders got the bad news. Despite all efforts to reduce costs in management
and engineering phases, Jerry Soffen had to tell his colleagues they must
reduce the overall science costs by $17 million to $22 million. Several
methods were mentioned, but each team quickly put in writing reasons why
its own experiment should be exempted from the reductions.
The 6-7 October meeting of the steering group at the California
Institute of Technology concentrated solely on money matters. Three
options for reducing costs were discussed at length. The first called for
deleting some routine activities—holding fewer meetings, and the like;
perhaps as much as $3 million could be saved here. By simplifying the gas
chi omatograph-mass spectrometer and the biology instrument, another $5
million or so might be cut. Reducing science activities on board the orbiter
could save another million. Other parings and deletions brought the total
potential savings to just over $22 million. The second option called for
eliminating the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer, which had a pre-
dicted $35-million price tag, but the Science Steering Group preferred not
to act on this item until it had a better feel for the technical feasibility of
building the instrument.
283
ON MARS
Option 3 was the removal of the imaging system from the orbiter. As
Hal Masursky recalled the scene, Soffen said, "We have a 17-22-million-
dollar problem and the Orbiter Imaging System costs 25 million. Any
suggestions?" Most of the steering group members were reluctant to
recommend removing those cameras until they saw the Mariner 71 photo-
graphs. They would make that recommendation only if the Mariner images
showed a bland, uninteresting surface. Mike Carr and Hal Masursky be-
lieved the imaging system was necessary for site certification regardless of
what data Mariner 71 produced. C. Barney Farmer, team leader for the Mars
atmospheric water-vapor detection experiment, expressed his concern
about the whole idea of using these meetings to effect cost reductions. He
went on record indicating his reluctance to recommend the removal of any
full investigation. The group postponed a decision on the third option
until January-February 1972. Money had been, was, and would continue to
be a problem. Still, it was only one part of the problem of searching for a
landing site."

PREPARING FOR SITE SELECTION

Besides considering the imaging system and discussing desired landing
site characteristics at its October 1970 meeting, the landing site working
group also considered what it could gain from Mariner 71. Dan Schneider-
man introduced the group to the Mariner project, and Edwin Pounder
reviewed mission operations plans for both the prime 90-day mission and
the extended mission (for the remainder of the first year in Mars orbit).
Pounder went on to outline problems and promises of the project, one of
the promises being data that would assist the Viking team in landing site
selection. Patrick J. Rygh and Robert H. Steinbacher briefed the working
group on mission operations and participation by scientists.
In turn, Hal Masursky and Carl Sagan told the Mariner specialists
what the Viking team hoped to learn from Mariner 71. What they wanted
was not in the written mission plans but was rather, How do we learn as we
go along and then modify our plans accordingly? In NASA shorthand, this
tactic was called the adaptive mode—acquiring data from a spacecraft and
quickly using it to modify the mission. The Viking team was certain it
would need this skill, and it would require discipline, planning, and timely
responsiveness to succeed. In the plans for Mariner- 71, data processing was
not scheduled to catch up with acquisition for a year, and Masursky feared
that unless adequately supported, the complete process could take 5 to 10
years, which was obviously too slow to be of value to Viking. Years of work
had to be compressed into weeks. On occasion, time for data processing
would have to be whittled down to days and even hours. 12
At its next meeting, 2-3 December 1970, the landing site working
group made its initial recommendation for landing sites, so that Howard
Robins' mission planning staff could proceed with its work. These pro-

284
 SAFE HAVENS
posed sites had been chosen after only four months. Carl Sagan, who had
been urging that the site selection process be completely documented,
prepared a convenient summary of the thinking—as he saw it—that went
into the choices. "The following is a preliminary attempt to integrate
coherently a range of ideas which have been suggested on the Viking
landing site question, to point out inadequacies in the existing data, and to
serve as guide for future discussion." He noted that the "present cycle of
discussion on landing site selection is to aid development of the Viking
Project Reference Mission #1," a theoretical model that would be used in
planning mission operations and designing the spacecraft. Since in some
respects this was a training exercise, there was no commitment to the
specific landing sites they had selected.
In considering landing sites for the two Vikings, some factors would be
certain to change. But those that would likely remain unaltered fell into two
categories, engineering and scientific. Under the engineering heading, the
30° south to 30° north latitude range for landing sites was dictated by the
angle at which the spacecraft would have to enter the Martian atmosphere
to obtain optimum aerodynamic deceleration and proper thermal condi-
tions. Second, nearly all of the working group members agreed that the
lander should sit down where atmospheric pressures were the highest. As on
Earth, high pressure corresponds with lower elevation, but whereas sea
level pressure on Earth averages about 1013 millibars, surface pressures on
Mars are 100 times lower. Pressure at the lowest elevation was believed to be
close to 10 in i 1 libars and at the top of mountains less than 1 millibar, but the
uncertainty in these values was 20 or 30 percent at the time. The Viking
scientists hoped that Mariner photographs and ground-based radar studies
would give them more exact information on atmospheric pressure relative
to topographical features. A third engineering concern was the effect that
Martian surface winds would have on the spacecraft. The Mars engineering
model with which the team was working predicted winds of less than 90
meters per second, but Sagan noted that newer calculations indicated the
possibility of winds up to 140 to 200 meters per second.
If such winds are encountered during landing maneuvers, the survivabil-
ity of the spacecraft is very much in question; and such winds, even after a
safe landing, might provide various engineering embarrassments. It will
shortly be possible to predict which times and places are to be avoided....
Such considerations obviously require further theoretical study and (with
Mariner Mars '71) observational study. But they do indicate how new
parameters, not previously considered, can severely impact landing site
choices. Such considerations imply that any landing site selected at the
present time should not be too firmly imbedded in the Project's
thinking.13
Other technical factors affecting the choice of a landing spot included
the time of day on Mars at touchdown, the size of the landing target, and a
pair strategy calling for one very safe (but perhaps less interesting) site and
285
ON MARS
one of greater scientific potential. Depending in part on progress made in
developing the lander tape recorder, Sagan thought that it might be desira-
ble to land in the late afternoon to ensure that some lander images of the
planet would be transmitted to the orbiter before it passed out of view of the
lander, giving the team at the Jet Propulsion Lab maximum assurance of
obtaining at least some initial pictures of the surface. They had to face the
possibility that the lander could die while the orbiter continued on its way
around Mars; it would be 24.6 hours before the orbiter passed over the
lander a second time. Should a late afternoon touchdown be called for,
those areas with dense cloud development at that time of day would have to
be excluded. Turning to the target, or landing ellipse, Sagan indicated that
it was currently 400 by 840 kilometers, which would eliminate areas appre-
ciably smaller than this zone. The pair strategy had been devised for reasons
of "survivability." One landing site would be selected with "safety consid-
erations weighed very highly"; if the first mission failed on entry, the team
would want to have a preselected, extremely safe site for the second lander.
"It is therefore necessary to consider some sites almost exclusively on
engineering grounds." Sagan hoped planners could "back off from this
requirement a little bit and seek out safe contingency sites with at least
acceptable science." Alan Binder had made this same point earlier but
somewhat more bluntly: "The engineering criteria must reign since it
hardly need be mentioned that a crashed lander is not very useful even if it
did crash in the most interesting part of the planet. "19 Sagan wrote, "Before
any Viking lander is committed to a given site, there must be reasonably
extensive Mariner Mars '71 type data, including but not restricted to imag-
ery." He thought that selection of alternative candidate sites should be
based on Mariner 71 data, and certification of the various candidates should
be based on Viking data, which would be of higher resolution.
Sagan's report t hen turned to the working group consensus on science
criteria for the landing sites. Many members believed it would be useful to
pair the first two landing sites in such a manner that each one would be a
control for the measurements made at its companion location. A reason-for
varying from this plan would be positive results from the biology experi-
ments on the first lander; then the Viking team might wish to land the
second craft as near the first one as possible to determine if the results could
be duplicated. The best guess at the time was that Martian life, "or at least
that subset of Martian life which the Viking biology package is likely to
detect," would be found where there was water near the surface. But there
was still considerable debate about the nature and amount of water that
might be found. Low atmospheric pressures and temperatures always
below 0°C did not augur well for the presence of liquid water. Still, Sagan
and others believed that it was possible to have life-sustaining water present
in other forms.
The uncratered terrain observed in the Mariner 4 photographs was of
possible interest. Sagan hypothesized that such terrain must have been
286
 SAFE HAVENS
recently (in geological terms) reworked. "Whatever the cause of the rework-
ing, bLit particularly if it is due to tectonic activity, such locales are much
more likely a priori to have had recent outgassing events and therefore to be
of both geological and biological interest." Taking into consideration all
these factors, Sagan listed his six favorite landing spots, but several of his
colleagues came up with other suggestions of their own.15
After considerable freewheeling debate of the kind that characterized
many of the working group's meetings, the group recommended three sites
for each lander. It wanted to find water, and it wanted to land one craft in
the north and one in the south. The mission planners indicated that it
would be best to land the first Viking in the northern latitudes, or during
the Martian summer. Immediately following the working group sessions,
the mission analysis and design team subjected the six candidate sites to a
preliminary examination, and its first quick look revealed no apparent
difficulties. On 7 December, Jim Martin directed Martin Marietta to pro-
ceed with the design of the two Viking missions using Toth-Nepenthes
(15°N, 275°)* for the touchdown area of the first lander and Hellas (30°S,
300°) for the second craft.16
Early in February, Dan Schneiderman and Jim Martin signed a
"Memorandum of Agreement for Viking Participation in Mariner '71
Operations." Two areas were identified for direct Viking participation—
mission operations and scientific data analysis. Viking personnel would
work as part of the Mariner team. The Viking data analysis group would be
housed in the Science Team Analysis Facility at JPL, and a Viking repre-
sentative would act as an observer at the Mariner science recommendation
team meetings, watching the interplay between the science advisers and the
mission operations personnel.17
The Viking landing site working group did not meet again until April
1971. Meanwhile, the mission planners and the Martin Marietta Corpora-
tion evolved the "Mission Design Requirements Objectives and Con-
straints Document," which outlined for the first time in detail how the two
missions would be conducted from launch through operation of the science
experiments on Mars. Members of the landing site team and the Science
Steering Group met in joint session on the afternoon of 21 April to discuss
that document and mission planning in general, but earlier that day the
landing site team had considered at length its participation in the Mariner
71 operations.
Tom Young opened the morning session, noting that Robert A.
Schmitz would serve as manager of the Viking-Mariner Mars 1971 partici-
pation group. His duties included overseeing the Viking data analysis
team, which would examine areas related to proposed Viking landing
areas. This team would be drawn from two groups of scientists, those who
would be working as part of the Mariner 71 operations team—Geoffrey
*Longitude on Mars is always determined in a westerly direction, 0-360 1. For more on Martian
place names, see T. L. Macdonald. "The Origins of Martian Nomenclature," Icarus 15 (1971): 233-40.

- 287
ON MARS
Briggs, Michael Carr, Hugh Kieffer, Conway Leovy, Hal Masursky, and
Carl Sagan—and part-time participants from the Viking team.* Schmitz
also was to act as the Viking observer on the Mariner 71 science recommen-
dation team, which would give him a much broader understanding of the
entire Mariner project.
Hal Masursky raised two problem issues in data management for
Mariner 71, computer data processing and preparing Mars maps. The flow
of data from the Mariner spacecraft would be so rapid that only one-fourth
to one-third of the information could be processed in real time or near real
time by the Mariner 71 system. At that rate, Masursky predicted it would
take 18 months to get a complete set of reduced data records, a serious lag
for Viking planners who wanted to use this information to land their
spacecraft. And to prepare maps from Mariner 71 photography, stereo
plotters and computers for analytical cartography, as well as more expe-
rienced cartographers, must be brought in. The photogeologist noted that
these problems would be discussed with the JPL Mariner people later in the
month. But at Carl Sagan's request, these issues were raised that afternon at
a joint session with the Science Steering Group. The advisory body agreed
that modest expenditures of Viking funds would be justified if supporting
Mariner 71 data processing would contribute to the success of Viking.
Masursky would prepare a letter to Jim Martin that clearly defined items
that needed support and justifications for using Viking funds.18
MARINER 9'S MISSION

Mariner 71 did not get off to an auspicious start, as Mariner 8's launch
from Kennedy Space Center on 8 May 1971 ended in failure. Anomalies
began to appear in the Centaur stage main engine after ignition. It shut
down early, and the Centaur stage and spacecraft fell into the ocean. An
investigation team determined the cause of the failure and worked out
corrective actions before the 30 May launch of the second Mariner 71 craft.
At 6:35 p.m. EDT, Mariner 9 began its 398-million-kilometer direct-
ascent trajectory toward Mars. Weighing 1000 kilograms at liftoff, the
spacecraft carried six scientific experiments: infrared radiometer, to mea-
sure surface temperatures; ultraviolet spectrometer, to investigate the com-
position and structure of the atmosphere; infrared interferometer spec-
trometer, to measure surface and atmospheric radiation; S-band radio
occultation experiment, to study the pressure and structure of the atmos-
phere; gravity field investigations; and the high- and low-resolution televi-
sion imaging system, to map the surface of the planet. After a journey of 167
days, Mariner 9 went into Mars orbit on 13 November 1971, becoming the
first spacecraft to orbit another planet. Orbital parameters were close to
those planned, and the spacecraft circled Mars twice a day (11.98 hours per
• C. Snyder, T. Mutch, D. Anderson, W. Baum, A. Binder, B. Farmer, R. Hutton, J. Lederberg, H.
Moore, T. Owen, R. Scott, J. Shaw, and R. Shorthill.

288
 SAFE HAVENS

revolution) at an inclination of 65°. Technicians referred to Mariner 9's

path as 17/35—after 17 Martian days and 35 revolutions of the spacecraft the
ground track would begin to repeat itself, giving the specialists the same
images under essentially the same solar illumination. The Mariner
planners had chosen a periapsis altitude of about 1250 kilometers to ensure
some overlap when two consecutive, wide-angle A-frame images were
recorded looking directly downward at the surface. Gaps between images
acquired before or after periapsis could be filled in on a subsequent cycle 17
days later.19
The NASA team sent Mariner 9 to the Red Planet at a time when the
southern polar cap was shrinking and the southern hemisphere was under-
going its seasonal darkening, and the spacecraft instruments were designed
to observe these phenomena. But Mars gave the Mariner scientists more
than they had bargained for. On 22 September 1971, as the spacecraft made
its way to its destination, ground-based astronomers noticed a brilliant,
whitish cloud, which in a few hours covered the whole Noachis region of
Mars. What they saw was the beginning of the greatest, most widespread
Martian dust storm ever recorded.'*20
The progress of the storm was amazing. It spread from an initial
streaklike core, some 2400 kilometers in length. On 24 September, the dust
cloud began to expand more rapidly to the west, blanketing a large area
from the east edge of Hellas (a proposed Viking landing site), west across
Noachis in three days, a distance two-thirds of the way around the planet.
To the north, Syrtis Major was beginning to disappear beneath the haze. On
28 September, a new cloud developed in Eos, a region later found to be part
of the canyon lands of Mars. Peter Boyce, of the Lowell Observatory in
Flagstaff, Arizona, reported that his observations taken in the blue-light
spectrum had shown a reduction in contrast for several prominent features
days before the dust cloud was visible to astronomers. This indicated that
Martian dust had been drawn up into the atmosphere some time before the
actual cloud could be seen. By the end of the first week in October, clouds or
storms had engulfed nearly the entire planet. A zone about 12 000 kilome-
ters long had been obscured in only 16 days. Prospects were dim for a
successful mapping of the planet when Mariner 9 reached Mars on 13
November. At Mariner mission control, there were some worried people,
and the Viking team worried along with them.
On 8 November, the first pictures of Mars came back from the space-
craft. While these were essentially calibration shots designed to check out
the television system, they were large enough to give a reasonably good view

*C. Capen of the Lowell Observatory theorized in February 1971 that such a storm was possible.
Since 1892, astronomers have observed substantial dust storms each time an Earth-Mars opposition
coincided with Mars' closest approach to the sun-1892, 1909, 1924-25, 1939, 1956. Because of the
eccentricity of its orbit, the radiation received by Mars at perihelion is more than 20 percent stronger
than usual. This increase substantially raises atmospheric and surface temperatures, and the resultant
instabilities give rise to swirling columns of air that lift dust and debris into the Martian sky.

289
ON MARS
of the planet. But t!ie dust was all-pervasive; no detail could be discerned.
One scientist, in a bit of gallows humor, suggested that they must have
visited Venus by mistake, since that planet is perennially blanketed by
clouds. His remark was not well received. With the loss of Mariner 8, the
Mariner 71 project planners had completely reworked the missions they had
scheduled for the two spacecraft. Mariner 8 was to have mapped the planet
while Mariner 9 looked at the variable features of Mars, and both of these
tasks were of great interest to Viking planners. The redesign of two missions
into one had been accomplished while Mariner 9 traveled toward the Red
Planet.
Mariner personnel members began a series of preorbital sequences to
gather science data on 10 November. Originally they had hoped that these
long-distance photographs of the whole planetary disk would provide them
a global view of the surface. These images would have helped fill the gap
between the low-resolution views obtained by Mariner 4, 6, and 7 and the
higher resolution closeups they were hoping to take with Mariner 9. The
first preorbital science picture revealed a nearly blank disk with a faintly
bright southern polar area and several small dark spots. The intensity of the
storm "shook everybody up," according to Hal Masursky, "because we
could in effect see nothing." The key to their elaborate mission plan was a
series of photographs that would be used in developing a control net for
photomapping. That work was supposed to be done during the first 20 days
after the spacecraft went into orbit, but they couldn't see a thing! The
revised plan was dumped, and the Mariner operations team searched for
items to photograph while waiting for the storm to subside.
Working with classical maps of Mars and more recently acquired radar
data, the Mariner 9 television crew was able to demonstrate that one of the
dark spots they could see in the science picture coincided with Nix Olym-
pica (Snows of Olympus). That mysterious feature, often seen topped with
bright clouds or frost deposits, was known from radar measurements to be
one of the highest areas of the planet. Nix Olympica, towering through the
dust clouds, was revealed as a very high mountain, the first Martian surface
feature other than the polar cap to be identified by Mariner 9. Computer
enhancement of the 14 November images revealed volcanic craters in the
summits of four mountains protruding through the pall of dust. This
unexpected information led to the discovery that Nix Olympica and the
three nearby dark mountains were actually enormous volcanoes, which
would dwarf any found on Earth. But only these large features were visible.
Other mapping sequences of orbital images produced a series of nearly
featureless frames. Unhappily for the Viking team, adaptive photography
brought pictures of things that did not aid its search for a landing site, like
images of the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos.
By 17 November, craters in certain regions began to appear in the
television images as light-colored, circular patches. In similar fashion, an
irregular, bright streak appeared running along the "canal" Coprates,
290
 SAFE HAVENS
through Aurorae Sinus into Eos, the region of chaotic terrain identified by
Mariner 6 and 7. Radar measurements had shown a depression several
kilometers deep in this region. Indeed, the evidence, as incredible as it
sounded, had indicated the presence of a huge canyon some 3000 kilometers
long and varying in width from 100 to 200 kilometers. Beneath all that dust
was a world of amazing topography. The Mariner and Viking science teams
anxiously awaited their first clear view of that scene. In late November and
early December, the dust storm seemed to be subsiding, but a couple of
weeks later that trend slowed to a standsti 11. Worried scientists were relieved
when the clearing process began again during the last days of the year.21
While the dust storm had a significant impact on the Mariner 9 mis-
sion, its persistence through the month of November had a devastating effect
on two Soviet probes launched on 19 and 29 May. Each of these craft
weighed 4650 kilograms (nearly eight times the weight of Mariner 9) and
consisted of an orbiter and a lander. The lander, containing a sterilized
scientific package, was designed to enter the Martian atmosphere protected
by a conical heatshield. Once the shield was discarded, the scientific
instrument un if would descend on a parachute, and at about 20 to 30 meters
above the surface the lander would be slowed further by a braking rocket.
Those were the Soviet plans. On 27 November, just before Mars 2 entered
orbit, the lander was ejected from the spacecraft to begin a 4 1/2-hour journey
to the surface. But something went wrong, and the lander crashed into the
Martian surface at 44.20 S, 313.20 . Five days later, Mars 3 approached the
planet and released its scientific cargo. After the descent, the craft landed
safely at 45°S, 168°, and relayed a television signal to its parent craft in orbit.
Success was short-lived, as the signal stopped after only 20 seconds. Soviet
space scientists concluded that both failures were due to the storm raging on
the surface. Unable to decipher the electronically coded television data, the
Soviets could not determine what the surface looked like. Not only did the
Soviet landers fail, but the dust storm outlasted the lifetimes of the imaging
systems on both orbiters. Complementary data would have been useful for
both the Mariner 9 and Viking teams, but the planet would not cooperate.
Viking was likely to be the first craft to take pictures on the Martian surface,
but only if it landed safely. And for many NASA planners, that was still an
open question.22
When the Viking Science Steering Group met at JPL in December
1971, one of its pi i ]nary concerns was to learn what Mariner 9 could tell it
that would affect Viking. Although the men participated in a weekly
Mariner science evaluation team meeting designed to summarize the most
recent scientific findings, they did not learn anything positive. The severe
dust storm had foiled their efforts. Hal Masursky and his colleagues con-
cluded that the Martian atmosphere might never completely clear, espe-
cially in the low areas, during the Mariner mission. If Mariner 9 did not
acquire the reconnaissance data they required, Viking would have to per-
form the task, which made the instruments on the Viking orbiter even more
291
ON MARS
important. The Viking Project Office would have to keep "its options
open" and give thought to several different models of the Martian surface,
to be prepared for whatever Viking might encounter.23
Clouds were clearing over Mars the third week of February 1972,
however. During orbits 139 to 178, one mapping cycle of interest to Viking
had been completed, covering the region from 25° south to 20° north. A
second mapping cycle was in progress, and a third later that month would
cover a Viking area yet to be determined. The coverage was reported to be
very good.21
Mariner scientists devoted the February session of the Science Steering
Group to reports summarizing their recent data and comments on the
implications for Viking. Most of what they had to say had already been
made public during an early February press briefing held at NASA Head-
quarters. Bradford Smith, deputy team leader for the television experiment,
had told reporters that the Martian atmosphere had begun to clear slowly in
December, with more rapid progress during the first week of January.
Pictures now available of the Martian surface led the science team to
conclude that the planet was a far more dusty place than they previously
had thought. But at that same press conference, Hal Masursky had some
positive words about the dust storm. The first 30 to 40 days of the mission
had given the scientists an opportunity to study the dynamics of the Mar-
tian atmosphere. "It will be 15 years ... before such a large dust storm can
be seen" again. The storm, however, forced the mission planners to devise a
reconnaissance scheme for looking at the planet from a higher altitude and
photographing any clear areas with the high-resolution camera. Once the
clearing trend started, the Mariner team began a new series of mapping
sequences that were at least as complex as the original mission plan.
The mapping process revealed a fantastic planet, strewn with features
that caught scientists' immediate attention. Huge volcanoes with attendant
lava flows were found in the Tharsis region. And features that had been
observed previously—such as three dark areas called North Spot, Middle
Spot, and South Spot—were now clearly volcanoes. The caldera, formed by
the collapse of the cone, of North Spot was 32 kilometers across, while the
width of South Spot's crater was 120 kilometers. But these volcanoes were
all dwarfed by Nix Olympica, which was renamed Olympus Mons. To the
east of Tharsis, the Mariner team found a high plateau, much of which was
8 kilometers above the surface, that evidenced complex fault zones. Some
areas had been uplifted; others had been depressed; in places large blocks
had been tilted. "We think this indicates a very dynamic substratum under
the Mars crust," Masursky noted. He showed the press some slides of the
great chasm, which was some 4000 kilometers long and hundreds of kilo-
meters wide at points. Looking at this complex of valleys and tributaries so
recently obscured by dust, Masursky commented, "We are hard put to find a
mechanism other than water to form this kind of complex, erosional
channel. If it were not Mars, and if water weren't so hard to come by there,
292
 SAFE HAVENS
we would think that these were water channels." This thought, pregnant
with many possibilities, would require considerable analysis.
Masursky told the Science Steering Group that the scientific commun-
ity was changing its thinking about Mars. After the 1969 flyby missions
(Mariner 6 and 7), scientists still tended to believe, from the 165 low-
resolution photographs taken from a distance of 3400 kilometers, that Mars
was a dead primordial planet. But the Mariner 9 photographs illustrated a
very differed t kind of place. The crispness of the edges on the volcanic piles
and the absence of cratering seemed to indicate that these volcanoes were,
geologically speaking, young. Just how young was uncertain. The fault
zones showed that the crust had been broken many, many times. Mars
evidently was a dynamic, geochemically evolved planet and not just a static
accumulation of cosmic debris as some experts had theorized after the
Mariner 1969 flights. With the realization that Mars was an active planet in
geological terms, the search for possible life forms became more exciting.25
Next at the February meeting, Al Binder described some of the work the
Viking data analysis team was doing. A preliminary contour elevation map
of the zone of interest to Viking had been compiled from 1967, 1969, and
1971 Earth-based radar observational data, which had been combined with
Mariner 9 S-band occultation findings. To help determine the topography
of Mars, the S-band experiment correlated the effects of temperature and
pressure differences on radio signals through the thin atmosphere. Such
maps would give clues as to which regions deserved a closer look and more
detailed mapping later in the summer of 1972.26
Jim Martin opened the second day of the Science Steering Group
meetings on 17 February with a summary of the cost status of the project,
particularly of the experiments. What followed could only be called a tough
session. Each team leader explained what was being done in his project area
to cut costs and under close cross examination defended his budget against
future cuts. Everyone felt the pressure, so Mike Carr was not shy about
arguing strongly for his orbital camera S.27 Prefacing Carr's presentation,
Conway W. Snyder, Viking orbiter scientist, described eight possible
camera choices for Viking:
Alternative Choices Savings (in millions)
Delete cameras altogether $17.80
Use Mariner TV cameras 3.30
Use augmented Mariner TV cameras 3.15
Mariner engineering 5.30
Viking imaging system without image motion compensation 0.40
Viking imaging system without photometric calibration 1.30
Viking imaging system without image intensifier 0.70
Delete above 2 items 2.00
Carr proposed that the photometric calibration and the image intensi-
fier be dropped. This modified imaging system would permit double cover-
age but at one-half the resolution of the originally proposed system. The
293
 e'

.r

Ina mosaic (above left) of photos taken by Mariner 9 just before going into orbit of
Mars in November 1971, computer processing reveals subtle details and swirls of
dust. There is no suggestion that the dust storm is dispersing. Arsia Silva, most
southerly of the three dark volcanic peaks, is slightly below the eguatorand 200 km
in diameter. Streaks are probably wind-driven clouds. Bright patches near the dark
spots are artifacts of processing. Olympus Mons (above right), gigantic volcanic
mountain photographed by Mariner 9 in January 1972 as the dust storm subsided,
is 500 km across at the base, with cliffs dropping off from the mountain flanks to a
surrounding great plain. The main crater at the summit—a complex, multiple
volcano vent—is 65 km across. Mons Olympia is more than twice as broad as the
most massive volcanic pile on Earth. The meandering "river" in the photo below is
the most convincing evidence found that a fluid once f lowed on thesurface of Mars.
The channel, Vallis Nirgal, some 575 km long and 5 to 6 km wide, resembles giant
version of a water-cut arroyo, orgulley, on Earth. Mariner infrared spectral data, as
well as Earth-based instruments, showed very little water on Mars, however. The
Martian valleys also resemble sinuous rilles on Earth's moon believed to be asso-
ciated with lava flows, but no lunar rilles display the branching tributaries seen
here. The channel was first seen on 19 January 1972.

w
Mariner 9's wide-angle TV camera on 12
January 1972 photographed the vast chasm
at right, with branching canyons eroding Wo
the plateau. These features in Tithonius
Lacus, 480 km south of the equator, repre-
sent a landform evolution apparently
unique to Mars. The resemblance to treelike
tributaries of a stream is probably superfi-
cial, for many of the "tributary" canyons are
closed depressions. Subsidence along lines
of weakness in the crust and possibly defla-
tion by winds have sculptured the pattern.
The photo, taken from 1977 km away, cov- IMEEL
ers 376 by 480 km. The mosaic of two photos
below, taken of Tithonius Lacus region
J
from 1722 km, covers an area 644 km across
and shows a section of Valles Marineris.
Pressure measurements by Mariner's ultra-
violet spectrometer registered a canyon depth
of 6 km (the Grand Canyon in Arizona is 1.6 And
km deep). The dotted line is the UVS
instrument's scan path. The profile line
below shows measurements converted to
relative surface elevations. The photo on the
following page shows the full length of the
canyon system.

^. r -O
.D

.r
UO
i

'
'a

rr4 9.0 k

6.0km+3.7mi

6.0 k m
(19.7001,) 3.Ok

1
 Panoramic view of the equatorial region on Mars was made from pictures taken by
Marin er 9 from late January to mid-March 1972. Several h undred fram es were
scaled to ize for th e composite, w hich extends from J0 0 longitude at the Tight edge
to about 140° at left. Th e photo map stretches more than one-t h ird the way around
Mars and cover about 28 million sq km , about one-fift h the plan et's surface. Th e
equator bisects th e mosaic horizonta lly. At left , the com plex of new ly discovered
gian t vo lcanic mountain includes Olympus Mons, th e largest. At least nine huge
vo lcanoes have been pinpointed in Mar iner 9 photos. Thro ugh the cen ter runs the
enormous canyon sy tem Valles Marin eris, 4000 km long, some 200 km wide at
points, and neaTly 6 km deep. (Portion are shown in the pTevious photos.) On
Earth, the canyon system would extend from Los Angeles to New York.
 SAFE HAVENS
modified Viking imaging system would also permit all data to be put onto
one tape recorder. The reduced resolution (about the same as the Mariner
B-frame high-resolution images) was acceptable to the orbiter imaging
team since the more important requirement for contiguous images could
sti 11 be met. Snyder had pointed out that contiguous or overlapping photos
could be obtained with the modified Mariner 9 cameras, but that the process
of acquiring such photos on multiple passes would be long and inefficient.
The orbiter imaging people took the position that the Mariner systems were
not very suitable for Viking site certification; they wanted the modified
Viking imaging system. They would, of course, have preferred the original
system but were willing to give up parts of the initial concept to help pare
the budget.
An executive session of the science group was held the next day. Once
again, each team leader explained how he might save money, and NASA
Associate Administrator for Space Science Naugle presented his perspective
on the budget problem. After a few brief words of praise and the good news
that Viking had passed a major hurdle—its fiscal 1973 budget had been
established—Naugle stated that the best program operating policy always
called for setting a cost ceiling and adhering to it. He did not intend to give
Viking financial relief because such a deviation from policy could have
long-term disruptive effects on other aspects of the agency's program. True,
there were funds being held in reserve, but Naugle stressed that they were a
hedge against possible problems during the hardware development phase.
Noting that the cost of the science payload had risen from $110 mil lion to
$160 million, the associate administrator made it clear that it was now
necessary to make hard decisions to avoid more forced cost reductions in the
future. While final decisions were not due until 1 March, Naugle gave his
preliminary thoughts about cuts: he favored the proposed $2-million modi-
fication of the imaging system (Snyder's last alternative).28

CANDIDATE SITES
With money problems temporarily set aside, the landing site working
group turned once again to site selection. The "Viking '75 Project Landing
Site Selection Plan," distributed the second week of February 1972, spelled
out the entire process the Viking teams would follow in finding sites. The
plan carefully delineated responsibility distributed among the groups
within the Viking organization.29
At the top of the pyramid, John Naugle's Office of Space Science at
NASA Headquarters would have overall responsibility for reviewing the
project's proposed landing areas and approving final selections. Jim Mar-
tin's Viking Project Office at Langley would oversee the six groups whose
activities influenced the selection process. Martin Marietta Corporation's
Denver Division, in its role as mission planning coordinator, would have to
keep track of all flight and engineering considerations that might influence

297
ON MARS
or be influenced by the landing spots ultimately chosen. Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, supervising the design of the orbiter, would ensure that the
craft could actually perform the tasks required of it. The United States
Geological Survey was charged with making a series of Mars maps
(regional, area, topographic, and geologic) to support the site selection
process and with analyzing the terrain in the territory mapped. 30 The
landing site working group, which established science criteria for landing
areas, applied those criteria to candidate spots and recommended the best
sites to the Science Steering Group. And the Science Steering Group, after
reviewing recommendations, formulated its own site selections for Martin's
project office—a simple format for a complex task.
Twenty-five members of the landing site working group met for their
fifth meeting, at JPL on 25 April 1972, to discuss a wide variety of topics.
James D. Porter of Martin Marietta, Viking mission analysis and design
program engineer, brought the working group up to date on the engineer-
ing constraints that impinged on the site selection process. One was
obvious: north or south of 25° latitude, the spacecraft in orbit would not
receive adequate solar radiation on its solar panels to keep its batteries
charged. Without that power, the orbiter could not relay messages to Earth.
Other problems concerned the surface the lander encountered: slopes it
touched down on had to be less than 19°, free of rocks and other hazards
greater than 22 centimeters in height. Porter was also worried about winds
during descent. A landing area that had winds greater than 70 meters per
second was automatically eliminated. Porter's presentation was a status
report, and he would be keeping the landing site working group informed
as new restrictions were discovered.
As the day's discussions progressed, a lively debate developed over the
nature of the processes that had shaped the Martian terrain. Areology, the
scientific study of the planet Mars, was still less than a precise enterprise.
Tim Mutch, in considering the terrain map (1:25 000 000 scale) that the
Viking data analysis team had developed, questioned how the working
group could extrapolate terrain information from such a map to determine
topographical features as small as 22 centimeters. Several men present
believed that rock sizes in the centimeter range could be determined from
ground-based radar, since it would supposedly provide information on
Martian features that small. Combining radar data with high-resolution
images similar to the Mariner B-frame pictures had worked well in selecting
landing sites on the moon. Others suggested that the radar-photo analysis
approach would not be as simple on Mars; the varying kinds of terrain
created by different processes would make interpretation of radar data more
difficult. At this meeting, the rift between believers in radar and believers in
photography first appeared. That division would widen and characterize
many of the discussions held, right up to the time of the Viking landings."
After additional consideration of physical characteristics for landing
sites, Howard Robins turned the meeting's attention toward the 35 sites that
had been proposed for Mariner 9 photographic coverage. Mariner 9 had
298
 SAFE HAVENS
taken 6876 photos covering 85 percent of the planet. At the time of the
meeting, the spacecraft was powered down and would remain so until June,
because its position relative to Mars and the sun no longer gave its solar cells
adequate exposure. Apollo 16 was a second factor leading to the suspension
of the Mariner mission; during mid-April the Goldstone, California, 64-
meter deep space antenna was being used to return Apollo's color television
pictures. On 4 June 1972, Mariner 9 would begin its "extended mission"—
to complete the mapping of the planet and take landing site photographs
for Viking.
After a rather lengthy discussion, the landing site working group
recommended that all 35 sites be photographed. 32 With a dual purpose in
mind, I. George Recant, Viking science data manager, decided it would be
useful to rank the 35 sites. The information would be valuable "in the
inevitable trade-offs which have to be made in the negotiations with the
Mariner Project in targeting areas for photography." And he thought that
the evaluation exercise would identify "many of the considerations which
may be required by the [working group] in the landing site selection
process."33 The next two working group meetings, previously scheduled for
June and July, were slipped to August and September, at which time the
group would have to determine six 30° by 45° regions that would be
topographically mapped by Hal Masursky's Branch of Astrogeological
Studies of the U.S. Geological Survey at Flagstaff, Arizona.34
During May, George Recant, Tim Mutch, Bob Schmitz, and Travis
Slocumb evaluated the 35 areas according to engineering safety and scien-
tific interest, with safety considerations outweighing science by more than
five times. After much juggling, which Recant noted was subjective in
many ways because "no quantitative methods were used in evaluating most
of the criteria," they came up with a "relative rating" of the candidates .31
Schmitz took the target preferences and worked out a photography schedule
wi th the Mariner team, and on 6 June he advised Martin that three narrow-
angle, closeup B-frames and one wide-angle A-frame coverage would be
attempted for each target. The B-frames would be large enough to cover an
entire landing ellipse. He noted further that sites with a relative score
between 90 and 75 would be covered first, 74 to 60 second, and below 60 last.
Finally, 24 of the 32 sites-3 sites were dropped from consideration—would
be photographed during the first nine weeks of work that summer.36
Typical of the complexities brought on by continuous evaluation of
data was the proposal to add 4 more targets to the list of 32. On 9 June, Hal
Masursky, Al Binder, and James Gliozzi, representing the Viking data
analysis team, wrote a memo to Bob Schmitz. The 4 additional sites "are in
areas which have become accessible on the basis of Binder's recent revision
of the Mars Topography map and updated Viking Lander capability."
Masursky and his colleagues pointed out that "these sites are typical of
some of the most striking geomorphologic features of the Martian surface
which have not been considered in previous targeting exercises." They also
presented alternate choices for landing sites should engineering constraints
299
ON MARS
continue to change. If these areas were not established as candidates soon,
they feared that these particular kinds of terrain would never be considered
if no B-frame pictures were taken, even though upgraded lander capability
might warrant selection of such spots. Looking back at their experience
with Project Apollo, the data analysis experts realized that no pictures of a
location meant its immediate rejection from consideration as a landing site.
They hoped to forestall that kind of decision.37
It quickly became clear that the Viking planners might be asking for
too many photographs. The Mariner team had to divide the attitude
control gases aboard the spacecraft between Viking's requests and Mariner's
experiments. One investigation in particular, the relativity experiment
scheduled for September during solar conjunction, would require a major
expenditure of control gases. Since early spacecraft maneuvers had con-
sumed more propellant than anticipated, the total number of Viking target
sites to be photographed had been reduced to 24. As of early July, 15 areas
had been photographed—once with the wide-angle A-frame camera and
three times with the high-resolution B-frame camera. Tim Mutch com-
plained about this cut to Naugle, who while sympathetic could only note
that although the Mariner pictures would be an important factor in the
Viking landing site selection "Viking Orbiter capability for reconnaissance
and site certification can also be used as needed."38

A mosaic (at right) of photos taken by Mariner 9's high-resolution camera B of a

Mars feature about 130 km long by 64 reveals dunelike ridges in what shows as a
dark patch in a large crater in the photo (at left) taken by wide-angle camera A.
Highest resolution of camera B at lowest planned point in orbit could reveal
features as small as 60 in cover an area 16.4 by 20.8 km, while a camera A
frame covered 164 by 108 km with a resolution of 800 m.

Y
 SAFE HAVENS
On 19 July, Tom Young distributed copies of the 19 Viking target
photographs taken by Mariner 9 to date, in an attempt to accelerate the site
selection process so that operational mission design could begin as early as
possible. On 13 July, he told the landing site working group that he hoped
it would choose regions of primary interest during its 4-5 August session. At
a meeting to be held late in September or early in October, Young expected
the working group to identify and debate candidate landing sites. Everyone
would have his say, but in two months the group would pick primary and
backup sites for each lander. A review by the Science Steering Group and the
Office of Space Science would follow immediately. It was a tight, busy
schedule, but Young believed it was necessary to make the best use of the
project's resources and give the scientists time to participate in the mission
design process.39
When Young met with the landing site working group at Langley
Research Center in August 1972, he summarized the many preliminary
steps already taken to finding landing areas for Viking I and 2 on Mars. All
this had been necessary and useful training for the actual selection process.
"I want to be sure we understand the seriousness of the actions we'll be
taking. Consider[able] design effort will be expended on designing the
mission starting in December and changes will be costly and have schedule
impacts," Young emphasized. Therefore, "the sites we are selecting will be
the landing sites unless we learn something significant from future analysis
of our data or [from] a Soviet landing in 1973." He meant that no site
changes would be made for minor reasons; they could react only to impor-
tant findings or new safety considerations. "I want us to select the best sites
in December that our collective wisdom will permit. "40
The debate that followed Young's statements demonstrated just how
divergent opinions were among the 33 specialists present. Jim Porter, who
kept the mi»utes of the meeting, noted that during a discussion of the Mars
atmosphere each investigator appeared "to have his own technique for
determining atmospheres" and total correlation was not achieved. There
were similar debates over radar analysis, the fate of the Soviet Mars landers,
and other topics. Hal Masursky gave the group additional cause for concern
when he pointed out that the visual impressions of Mars had been con-
stantly changing from the beginning of the mapping mission. For exam-
ple, features were j ust now becoming visible on the floor of the region called
Hellas as the dust in the atmosphere dissipated. He expected his whole
outlook on landing sites to alter by February when the skies would be
clearer and orbital photographs more revealing. Jerry Soffen ranked the
experiments proposed for Viking, giving the search for life the highest
priority, which meant that water or evidence of water in the past would give
a region good marks as a landing spot. And there were other considerations:

• The geoscience investigation should be made in areas of hetero-

geneous and differentiated characters.
301
ON MARS
The meteorology investigation should be in locally smooth areas.
Entry science preferably should have one mission in the northern
hemisphere.
The sites should be selected so that orbiter science has favorable
viewing conditions.

Regardless of their interests, the specialists all had to work within an

established "landing site strategy": The Viking sites would be selected
using Mariner and Earth-based data, with a primary and a backup site for
each lander. The preselected Mission A primary site would be examined by
the Viking orbiter's science instruments before the first landing, to make
sure there were no surface changes or atmospheric hazards. If the site was
certified, the Lander would be committed to it; if not, the backup site would
be the next choice. If results from the Mission A orbiter and lander sup-
ported the preselected Mission B sites, certification would be made in the
same way as for Mission A, but spacecraft B could be retargeted to a new area
if data indicated the need. A new site would be certified by orbiter instru-
ments, although certification would be more complicated because the site
would not have been studied intensively beforehand.
On 5 August, "with maps, overlays, theories and opinions abound-
ing," each interest group was given an hour to indicate its primary choices
for landing regions. Two stood out-15°N, and 0° to 10°S longitude. Viking
1 would be targeted for the north; Viking 2 would be sent south. Before the
end of September, the eight regions chosen would be examined in detail.41
Before the working group adjourned that day, it placed a conference
telephone call to Joshua Lederberg of the biology team. Professor of genet-
ics at the Stanford University School of Medicine, Nobel Laureate, and
long-term supporter of Mars exploration, Lederberg carried considerable
influence. He restated the biologists' desire to land at low, wet places,
preferably near river basin deltas, but he raised another possibility. Why
couldn't Viking land far north, 65° or higher, touching down where the
polar cap had recently retreated? He had originally expressed the desire to
go north in a handwritten memo to Howie Robins in June, believing the
zone between 30°S and 30°N to be too restrictive. "I am about to leave the
U.S. for about a week; but on my return will prepare a statement of dismay
(for the record). Biology is assertedly a prime goal of Viking. The [Mariner]
71 data surprised us by indicating that Mars' H 2O is principally poleward.
Yet here is the box we are in for Viking'75: to be choosing `optimal' landing
sites within the least promising zone." 92 Since many members of the work-
ing group responded favorably to Lederberg's proposal to go farther north,
Tom Young had his mission planners look into the engineering con-
straints. Jim Martin subsequently authorized Martin Marietta and JPL to
make a limited study to determine what would be involved in landing
between 65° and 80°N, but Young advised the landing site working group
they would "approach this subject with caution and much reservation.""
302
 SAFE HAVENS
The 28 September 1972 landing site working group session at Langley
was well attended. After Soffen introduced new member Noel Hinners of
the Apollo Lunar Explorations Office at NASA Headquarters and Jim
Porter briefed the group on engineering constraints, Young addressed the
key topic: Should they try to land a craft near the north polar region of
Mars? His answer was no. It could be done, but the risks to the landing craft
did not seem to justify the potential gains. Equally significant, not only
would it cost between $2 million and $20 million more depending on
hardware changes, it would also slow the project's schedule. Young
believed the combined increase in money and time was bad news, but he was
ready with a detailed reply to the scientists' grumblings. First, landing in
the north polar region was technically feasible, an important consideration
for future missions. And second, the Viking Project Office understood the
high scientific interest in the far north. But third, studies indicated high-
risk or high-cost schedule impact because additional communications
equipment would have to be developed to ensure adequate links between
the orbiter and the lander. With a fixed launch date, the risk was just too
high. Because of a November 1976 solar conjunction —Mars would be out of
view from Earth—a delay in launching the spacecraft would cut into the
prime cycle of science data gathering. All factors considered, Viking 75
would not try to land closer to the northern polar region. John Naugle also
restated the budget limitations, firmly reminding the scientists that no
additional money would be made available. Information gathered by
Mariner 9 regarding the polar regions would have to be filed away for use on
some future mission to Mars. Considerably more discussion ensued about
sites in the 30°S to 30°N latitude range, as each member of the working
group had the opportunity to indicate his preferences. At the conclusion of
the meeting, they recommended 10 sites.

Table 48
Candidate Landing Sites Selected August 1972

Mission A Mission B

No. Latitude Longitude No. Latitude Longitude

1 20°N 1580 7 2 0S 1480

2* 20°N 770 8 2 0S 1860
3 19.50N 340 9 9 0S 1440
4 120N 1580 10 9 0S 1810
5 12°N 77°
6 120N 2670
*Denotes lower prioritN

303
ON MARS
The group's next step was to review these candidates and select one
primary and one backup site for each mission at the next meeting, sched-
uled for 4 December 1972 at Orlando, Florida. 44 But it was not that simple.
On 19 October, Tom Young telexed 20 members of the landing site working
group; Hal Masursky and William Baum of the Planetary Research Center,
Lowell Observatory, had recommended changes in the 10 sites.

Table 49
Changes in Candidate Landing Sites, October 1972

28 September Locations Masursky Recommendations

Site
No. Longitude Latitude Longitude
Latitude

I 20.0°N 1580 21°N 1570

2 20.0°N 770 190N 650
3 19.50N 340 No Change
4 12.0°N 1580 8°N 1630
5 12.0°N 770 100N 800
6 12.0°N 2670 100N 2690
7 2.0°S 1480 No Change
8 2.0°S 1860 No Change
9 9.0°S 1440 90S 1410
10 9.0°S 1810 No Change

The alterations had been proposed so the Viking team could get maximum
Mariner B-frame high-resolution pictures. Tom Young polled the working
group by telephone on the 20th-15 had no objections; Barney Farmer,
Richard Goldstein, Jim Porter, and Toby Owen had specific comments;
and A] Binder could not be reached. Changes like these would become part
of the routine process of landing a spacecraft on the surface of another
planet, and this was just the beginning.95
Polar Option Revisited
By the time the landing site working group next met, in December
1972, Mariner 9 had completed its mission and Joshua Lederberg had
thumped on the desk of NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher. On 27
October when Mariner 9 used the last of its attitude control propellant, a
command was sent from JPL's Mariner Mission Control that shut down the
spacecraft's transmitters. Despite initial setbacks, the mission had mapped
the entire planet, permitting Viking scientists to gather far more images of
candidate landing zones than they had originally anticipated. The infrared
and ultraviolet instruments aboard Mariner had also observed large por-
tions of the planet. As the data were being analyzed in November, Lederberg
met with Fletcher and Naugle to express the scientists' concern that the
304
 SAFE HAVENS
polar region was not being given a fair chance because the "engineers"-
Lederberg's shorthand for the project management—had not done their
homework earlier and examined the polar regions for possible landing
zones. The upshot of his arguments was the decision by Fletcher, in consul-
tation with George M. Low, his deputy, and Naugle, to hold in abeyance
any final action on a polar region landing until they had heard from all the
science team leaders .16
Armed with the latest in a growing series of maps based on Mariner 9
data, the landing site team met 4-5 December at Martin Marietta's Orlando
facility to pick the primary and secondary landing sites for Viking I and 2.
When Tom Young opened the session, he admitted that the question of a
polar landing site had not yet been resolved, but the working group would
go ahead with the original task of naming the landing sites in the equator-
ial band. In turn, John Naugle commented briefly on the strategy for a
polar landing mission: "Send Mission A to the equatorial zone and target
Mission B for the polar regions. Then if A succeeds, allow B to continue to
the polar landing site, but if A fails, retarget B to an equatorial site." The
Viking Project Office would provide a work plan and cost estimate to
NASA Headquarters by 15 January 1973. Young responded that the ground
rules would be kept open but no hardware changes would be made yet. If a
decision was made to go to the pole, a fifth and sixth site should be selected;
i hat is, a primary and secondary site in the polar region. NASA intended to
hold a press conference in late December to announce the landing targets,
and Young wanted any decisions reached by the working group before then
withheld until the briefing.
The December 1972 announcement was not made; it was 7 May before
any decision was made public. Between the December 1972 and the April
1973 sessions of the landing site working group, there was a great deal of
argument, debate, or spinning of wheels—depending on one's perspective.
Unanimity over where to land was difficult to achieve. During the 4
December dialogue, which lasted some 12 hours, only one site was selected.
The group agreed that the primary site for the first lander would be at
Chryse, 19.5°N longitude, 34° latitude. On the fifth, after another lengthy
discussion, site 10 from the list, Apollinares, 9°S, 181°, was picked as the
prime target for the second lander; site 9, Memnonia, 90S, 1440, would be the
backup. A secondary target for the first lander was not selected, because of
concern over the strength of the surface at site 1 (21°N, 157°) and because site
2 (19°N, 65°) had undesirable elevation characteristics.47
A backup target for Viking 1 and the question of going further north
continued to be nagging problems into the early months of 1973. An ad hoc
group* for identifying north polar region sites for review by the working
group met 14 December at Stanford University. Five sites were proposed.

*N. L. CrabiIL J. A. Cutts, C. B. Farmer, J. Lederberg, H. Masursky, L. Soderblom, G. A. Soffen,

and A. T. Young.

305
ON MARS
Table 50
Polar Landing Sites Proposed December 1972

Site No. Latitude Longitude

12 73 0N 3500
13 740N 2250
14 63°N 0°
15 63 0N 850
16 63 °N 1600

During the next several weeks, each of the science team leaders indicated his
group's thoughts on the polar landing, as Jerry Soffen had requested
during a December Science Steering Group meeting.48
Mike Carr was one of the first scientists to express his opinion: "In
general the Orbiter Imaging Team has conflicting responses." On one
hand, team members were enthusiastic about a polar landing coupled with
a successful equatorial touchdown, because of the potential benefits to
lander science. But on the other, they were apprehensive about the impact of
such a landing on the orbiter imaging experiment. If the orbiter was used to
support a lander in the polar regions, the craft could not be employed to
photograph other areas of the planet as planned, because the orbiter's path
would have to be altered considerably to accommodate a polar site. Carr
said, "We are unable at this time to adequately, confidently assess some of
the implications of a polar landing because of inadequate study of the
problem."
Carr was also concerned that landing one spacecraft so far north would
curtail the two "walks" around the planet, during which the orbiter would
photograph Martian features at higher resolution. Four years would have
passed since Mariner 9 did the same; to lose this comparative photography
would reduce measurably the understanding of the processes at work shap-
ing the planet's features. If there were great pressure to go north, "the
disadvantages could be tolerated if the Lander were to go to a site that
exhibits uniquely polar phenomena ie one that is at least as far north as 75°.
We would be very reluctant to accept these substantial disadvantages for a
site at 65°N, which is not likely to be significantly different geologically
from an equatorial site.""
Physical properties investigator Richard W. Shorthill said that he had
discussed the "north polar site" with his team, and it had not favored the
proposal. From the start, this group had considered safety to be the prime
requirement for a Viking landing site. "Considering the present state of
knowledge we cannot support a North polar landing." There was no radar
coverage of the polar regions—" no information on surface roughness at the
scale of the spacecraft, no information on the mechanical properties of the
surface materials." Mariner imagery of the polar regions had been either
ambiguous or too obscured by dust for a reliable evaluation. He went on:
306
 SAFE HAVENS
We believe that soils with excessive amounts of water or ice are
incompatible with the Viking lander surface sampler system as well as the
GCMS [gas chromatograph mass spectrometer] experiment. The behav-
ior of soil with interstitial ice in a Martian environment [is] poorly
understood. One could visualize a sublimation process that yields a por-
ous under dense surface material more than 40 cm thick. On the other
hand the surface could be wind swept yielding a rock like surface com-
posed of soil and ice.
Furthermore, the safe landing of the first spacecraft at the equator would
not ensure that vehicle's longevity on the surface. The team believed that
the second lander should also be sent to a relatively safe place. Shorthill also
looked at the question of money. He was strongly opposed to cutting back
on science funding to provide changes in the lander and orbiter so that they
might operate in the polar region. "Any new funds NASA might make
available for design changes required for polar operations could better be
used to increase mission success in areas where previous cutbacks have
reduced the chances of success"—areas such as testing, mission planning,
team activities, and continued assessment of the surface properties of the
equatorial landing sites.
After first evaluating the polar proposal on its scientific merits, Sey-
mour L. Hess of the meteorology team had subsequently developed reserva-
tions. He found it "incredible that a project with such severe financial
problems has accepted the addition of a thirteenth experiment and now
seems to be about to swallow an additional major cost for the polar option."
He also believed that the polar site proposal would be bad for the entire
project. "One of the major sources of our troubles is that NASA has been
extremely ambitious in the total amount of science it is scheduling in
comparison to its fiscal resources. To add this new ambition is, in my
opinion, fiscal recklessness. "10
Harold P. Klein, biology team leader, had another point of view.
Klein told Sof fen that the biology team had once again reviewed the polar
versus equatorial site question at its 11 December meeting and regarded the
presence of water as "the most critical parameter in the search for life on
Mars." After listening to all the facts and opinions, the team believed that
liquid water would be less likely on the equatorial regions than in areas
closer to the poles. "We are not, of course, assured that the polar regions wil I
afford opportunities for the production of water under or near the ice caps,
but we feel that these regions afford a significantly better prospect for this
than the more equatorial zones." Therefore, Klein reported that his team
strongly supported the proposition that at least one landing be made in the
polar region."
Tim Mutch made a personal response. He had written one letter to
Soffen that was a "dispassionate, scientific-engineering analysis," which
came to a slightly negative to neutral conclusion on the polar landing
proposal. A# ter thinking-about what he had written, Mutch concluded that
he had probably missed the real issue: "The point is that Viking is an
307
ON MARS
exciting journey of exploration. The fact that it survives NASA's budget
cuts is partly attributable to its wide appeal. Scientific skepticism not
withstanding, laymen are intrigued by this bold search for life on another
planet." Looking at Viking in this framework, Mutch had asked himself
what all the talk about a polar landing really meant. "We are maintaining
that we should keep open the possibility—only the possibility—of going to
a northern latitude after the first lander has been on the surface almost two
weeks and has been working perfectly for that period." A second successful
landing did not guarantee a doubling of the scientific knowledge gained
about the planet. Indeed, exploring near the poles might yield less informa-
tion than gained at the equator. The Lederberg scenario was only a "long
shot," which may or may not be worthwhile. But to Mutch, the single, most
important aspect of the mission was exploration. If the Lander is a success,
then Viking as a project will be a success. Keeping the polar option open
permitted them to continue playing the role of bonafide explorers. "The
public will appreciate this (and ultimately we're responsible to those tax-
payers who foot the bill). In essence we've identified the two most disparate
areas on the planet and we're considering going to both. It's not that
different from any polar journey. You equip yourself as best you can. You
set some intermediate reasonable goals, and if all goes well you make a dash
for the pole."
Although the polar option would increase the cost by at least $2
million to $3 million, Mutch felt that it should be preserved. He thought
that Administrator Fletcher should award the additional money. "Failing
that, it does not seem unreasonable to absorb it within existing Viking
budgets—even though there will be associated pain. "52
Not all of Mutch's colleagues agreed with. him, and Young and Soffen
continued to receive letters concerning the matter as late as the day of the
next landing site working group session, 8 February. Robert Hargraves of
the magnetic properties team seemed to favor trying a polar landing. "If `A'
is successful, the prospects of a 77 or 79 Viking Mission are dim, and the
engineering risk is not horrendous, I'd say let's try." Hugh Kieffer, repre-
senting the infrared thermal mapping team, said that it "moderately
opposed" a north polar landing site considering only the infrared thermal
mapping experiment. But when members looked at the pole from the
standpoint of lander science, they noted that it was a proper objective for
Viking; however, it would be difficult to validate such a site for safety.
Kieffer, therefore, was "hesitantly in favor of a polar site." C. Barney
Farmer, leader of the Mars atmospheric water detector experiment team,
was also somewhat ambivalent in his analysis. A polar landing would not
be good for his group's experiment, but from the overall science strategy it
seemed to be the thing to do. He favored "a polar B-site strategy." The
molecular analysis team, led by Klaus Biemann, had met on 10 January at
JPL, deciding unanimously in favor of trying a polar landing. It had not
considered the funding and risk problems, assuming that the final decision-
308
 SAFE HAVENS
makers at the Viking Project Office and NASA Headquarters would take
them into account.53
When the landing site team met at Langley in February, it began to
tackle its two problems—a backup site for the first lander and a possible site
in the polar latitudes. All aspects of the polar problem were reviewed again,
as Carl Sagan outlined the positive and the negative. Sagan had come to the
side of the those who favored safety. In a 12 January letter to Young, he had
said, "When I total up the pros and cons I find that the scientific advantage
of a polar landing site, while real, is far outweighed by the risks." He
believed the successful landing of the second spacecraft in the polar region
was actually much less than 50-50. When he equated that to losing $200
million—the total projected cost of a future Mariner-Jupiter-Saturn
probe—lie considered the risk unjustified. But Sagan had other worries on
his mind. He was still concerned about the possibility of the first lander's
disappearing in quicksand at one of the equatorial sites and favored further
study of the meaning of the radar data, expressed in terms of dielectric
constants, so the surface-bearing properties of Martian soil could be better
evaluated. Generally, he believed too much stress was being placed on
visual images at the 100-meter scale and not enough on radar, which could
indicate surface irregularities at the 10-centimeter scale. He pointed out:
It is perfectly possible for a candidate landing site to be smooth at 100
meters and rough at 10 cm, or vice versa. Cases of both sorts of anticorrela-
tion are common enough on Earth. It has been alleged that at least in
studies of the Moon there is an excellent connection between roughness at
10 cm and roughness at 100 meters. A detailed statistical study of such
correlation should be prepared and subjected to critical scrutiny. The
[U.S. Geological Survey] seems to be the obvious organization to prepare
such a study.... However even if such correlations exist for the Moon, it
is by no means clear that they exist for Mars. A similar study should be per-
formed for the Earth. This can readily be done by cross-correlating Apollo
and Gemini photography of the Earth with radar studies.... Until such a
connection is clearly shown for the Earth—and I have grave doubts that
such a strong correlation exists—we would be foolhardy to attach very
much weight to the 100 meter appearance of candidate landing sites on
Mars. Unfortunately visual appearance has been given high weight ill
[working group] deliberations.54
Arguments and debate over, the majority of the working group favored
northern sites 12 and 13 as primary and backup targets for a polar landing.
Tom Young forwarded the group's recommendations to the Science Steer-
ing Group that
1. The Mission "A" landing sites with all factors considered be:
Latitude Longitude
Primary Site 3 19.50N 34.0°W
Backup Site 11 20.0°N 252.00W

309
^y\
r^ 3

The landing site working group on 8

February 1973 debates the choice of targets
on Mars for Viking landers. In a voting
• „^ process on one proposal are (above, left to
( right) Richard Young, Harold Klein,
Henry Moore, William Baum, Noel Hin-
r ners, Harold Masursky, and Walter Jako-
bowski. At left, Norman Crabill and
{Masursky discuss pros and cons. From
*i .. -71
40 left below, Carl Sagan, Tobias Owen,
Terry Gamber of Martin Marietta, and
Barney Farmer consider arguments for a
` proposed site.

J ^'

^t4
 SAFE HAVENS
2. The Mission "B" landing sites, if NASA decides that the sites will be in
the North Polar Region, be:
Primary Site 12 73.0°N 350.0°W
Backup Site 13 73.50N 221.5 0W
3. The Mission "B" landing sites, it the sites are in the equatorial region,
be:
Primary Site 10 9.0°S 181.0°W
Backup Site 9 9.0°S 144.0°W
While approving the A sites for the first lander, the Science Steering Group
could not come to an agreement over the second lander's destination.
Several members of the group still wanted additional information regard-
ing which areas had the highest probability of containing water in liquid
form. In a joint memo to the steering group, Soffen and Young noted that
any additional delays would have "a significant impact on the Viking
mission design schedule and other Viking planning"; completion of the
recommendation by 1 April was extremely important.55
As the delays mounted, the Viking management grew restive. Some
unknown person suggested that when ultimately chosen the Mission B site
should be called "Crisis Continuum," but at higher levels that sense of
levity was not shared. On 20 February, John Naugle reported to Adminis-
trator Fletcher that the polar latitude site issue had still not been resolved. In
reviewing the problem, Naugle went over the "presence of water" issue that
was dividing the scientists. "It appears that the regions most recently
studied by the Viking Landing Site Working Group may not be good sites
from the point of view of availability of liquid water because of low
temperatures, even though large amounts of water ice are known to exist."
Furthermore, Mariner 9 data being analyzed suggested that the optimism

Viking landing site working group discussions continue on 8 February

1973, with (left to right) Michael Carr, Gerald Sof fen and Thomas Young
at the table, Robert Hargraves, Burt Lightner, Arlen Carter, and Priestley
Toulmin (back to the camera).
ON MARS
sites for water availability might be around 55° north. Naugle added that
this region had not yet been studied in detail by the landing site specialists.
The possibility of water and the geographical differences between the polar
and equatorial zones were the two reasons some of the scientists favored
landing in the northern latitudes. Naugle said that the Office of Space
Science saw sufficient justification, in recommendations from a majority of
the landing site working group to plan for a polar landing. "If we do decide
to do a polar mission, we have a majority decision ... to recommend a site at
73°N to you." Liquid water was the nagging question. Where were they
most likely to find it? Naugle promised the administrator a recommenda-
tion by early April. On the following day, 22 February, Fletcher returned a
copy of Naugle's memo wish a terse, handwritten message in the margin:56
John N-
I have two questions.
(1) Does Lederberg (& his committee) agree that the chances of life are best
at 73°?
(2) Does liquid water have to exist now or could it have existed once, for
life "signatures" to be detected?
From my own point of view, the main reason to consider polar landings
was to increase the probability of finding life, not to study vastly different
geological regions.
JCT
The biologists would commit themselves only to the statement that the
chances of finding life "are highest wherever liquid water is present for at
least transient periods." As for Fletcher's second question, Naugle reported:
For an active biota to exist, liquid water must exist at least transiently.
Biological "signatures" (e.g., organic molecules) can exist if liquid water
was ever present and life existed in the distant (millions of years) past. The
difficulty here will be in determining whether the organic molecules
detected are the product of biological processes or nonbiological (or
prebiological) processes. Viking will detect organic matter, but may not be
able to clearly distinguish between biological and nonbiological types.
We have newly developed techniques available in the laboratory now ...
but such sophisticated analyses will have to wait for post-Viking or return
sample missions.
A special meeting had been held 28 February to consider the question of
possible locations for liquid water on the Red Planet. Naugle summarized
the results of the "water hole tiger team's" session for Fletcher. No one
could say positively that there was any locale on Mars where liquid water
could be found. "This does not preclude the possibility for liquid water; it
simply means that based on what we know now about the surface of Mars,
we cannot determine where liquid water may exist even in transient form."
Therefore, it was not realistic to select any site using only the liquid water
argument. In the absence of a firm consensus among the biologists, Naugle
had to report that he was not much closer to a recommendation than before.

312
 SAFE HAVENS
He told Fletcher that he would have the necessary information following
the next meeting of the landing site working group.57
Destinations Determined
The big day was 2 April, and Tom Young wasted no time in laying
down the ground rules for this important meeting of the landing site
working group. Selection of Viking targets "should be based upon the best
knowledge that we have today." In choosing a backup for the second lander,
Young wanted the group to assume that the first one had made a successful
touchdown. Finally, site selection should be based only on scientific, cost,
schedule, and risk considerations—not on policy constraints.58
While Naugle and Fletcher were puzzling over a polar landing site, the
Viking scientists were changing their minds about the north. The more
they talked about liquid water at higher latitudes, the more they thought
about the low temperatures they would find there. Could they expect living
organisms to survive during the transient appearance of liquid water as that
compound passed from the solid to the vapor form or vice versa? Biologist
Wolf Vishniac had looked into that question during February but had not
turned up any evidence to support the belief that bacteria could grow or
survive at temperatures much below -12°C. 59 Studies made with the
Mariner 9 infrared interferometer spectrometer had disclosed surface
temperatures ranging from -123°C at the north polar region to +2°C near
the equator. 60 The search for unfrozen, active life forms in the northern
latitudes on Mars seemed unrealistic.
On 2 April, Lederberg conceded that 73°N no longer appeared to be a
rational goal. Now the biologists were seeking a region where condensation
might be anticipated that reached a temperature as high as -13°C—they
wanted to land between 40° and 55°N. Long hours of discussion followed,
during which the working group voted not once but several times on where
to send the Viking spacecraft. Site 3 (19.5°N, 34°) was selected as the primary
target for the first lander, and site 11 (20°N, 252°) was chosen as the backup.
The group narrowed the second mission to two candidates, 16 and 17, but
remained undecided over which should be the primary target. The Science
Steering Group subsequently made that decision, recommending number 16
(44.3°N, 10°) as the Mission B primary site and number 17 (44.2°N, 110°) as
the backup.61
Looking back on the ordeal of choosing sites for Viking, Tom Young
used the word "traumatic" to describe the process. "We really thought that
we were embarking on a reasonably simple task...." But it had been very
difficult to focus all the engineering and scientific issues on each specific
site; "everytime we thought we [had] it, we would find another prob-
lem...." One of the complicating factors had been the continuous stream
of new knowledge about Mars. Their immediate need for information had
forced them to take a quicker and harder look at the recent Mariner 9 and
Earth-based data than they would have under normal conditions. And each
313
ON MARS
new piece of data changed the Martian picture as the specialists tried to
select their targets.62
Hal Masursky, who had worked with Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, Apollo,
and earlier Mariner missions, thought the lengthy debate over landing sites
had been not only useful but essential. However, he thought that the
biologists and organic chemists had not thought through the landing site
question; they had had to be educated about the nature of the planet and the
spacecraft's capabilities. According to Masursky, some of the scientists
developed many of their ideas as the debates went along, and they were
forced to analyze quickly new facts at the table. The photogeologist recalled
that while Tom Young and Jim Martin had kept pressing the working
group for timely decisions, the managers had obviously understood the
need for extended debate and had never tried to stifle interchange of ideas.
Young and Martin, despite all kinds of external pressure, had managed to
protect the scientific integrity of the landing site working group .13
Results of the landing site search were made public on 7 May 1973.
John Naugle announced that a valley near the mouth of the six-kilometer-
deep "Martian Grand Canyon" was the target for the first lander. Known as
Chryse, the region had been named for the classical land of gold or saffron
of which the Greeks had written. If all went well, Naugle told the assembled
press corps, the first Viking would be set down on or about the Fourth of July
1976. The backup to the Chryse site was Tritonis Lacus, Lake of Triton,
named for the legendary river in Tunisia visited by Jason and the Argo-
nauts. The second Viking was targeted for Cydonia, named for a town in
Crete, with Alba, the White Region, as backup. Soffen told the press that
NASA hoped Viking 1 would be heading for a very safe but interesting
target. The scientists had decided early that the first site should be sought in
the northern hemisphere (because it would be Martian summer there), at
the lowest elevation possible (higher atmospheric pressure and better
chance of water in some form), on the flattest, least obstructed region they
could find (for landing safety and weather observations). But the second
mission had been a different story. The biologists wanted water, and after
much debate and study they hoped to find it in the 40° to 55° north latitudes.
Their Mission B sites were just above 44°.
But what about these specific sites? What were they really like? Hal
Masursky spoke to this point. From the Mariner 9 photographs, he could
demonstrate that about 50 percent of the planet was pockmarked with large
craters not unlike the southern highlands of the moon. "We think this is the
ancient crust of Mars that was differentiated very early ... and continued to
be bombarded by cosmic debris...." Large basins on the planet recorded
that epoch. The largest basin, Hellas, was nearly twice the size of the Mare
Imbrium, a giant lunar crater 676 kilometers in diameter. To the north, the
planet appeared to be smoother and younger, and scientifically more inter-
esting. Chryse was at the point where a number of "stream" channels
appeared to empty onto a plain (Chryse Planitia). Essentially featureless in
the Mariner A-frame photographs, there was reason to believe that the area
314
 SAFE HAVENS

was covered by fine wind-borne materials. The photogeologists believed

that there was a likelihood of finding fossil water* in this region, since
highland materials would have been deposited here during earlier epochs of
water-caused erosion. According to Masursky, "It looks like ... the Mars
environment has been different enough so that there was surface flowage of
enormous amounts of water ... into this great northern basin, and our
landing site is at the mouth of that great channel system." The B site,
Cydonia, combined the greatest chance of atmospheric water with a low,
smooth plain. Masursky thought that this was an optimal landing target.
Whereas the first area saw the drainage of the highlands and would likely
provide soil samples representing transported highlands materials, the
second site, near a large volcanic complex, was covered with basalt flows
partly blanketed by wind-blown debris. "We think this combination of sites
gives us the best possibility of fossil and present water, and our best samples
to test the evolution of the planet. "64
Selection of the Viking landing sites based on the data available in 1973
was only a first step toward ensuring safe havens for the spacecraft on Mars,
and the Viking scientists recognized that additional data should be obtained
from Earth-based radar observations and Viking orbital photography. Still,
the work of the landing site working group provided the foundation for
subsequent debate about the safety of the two Viking landers. The second
phase of the landing site story focuses on the certification of the chosen sites,
a process that started in May 1973 and was still going on hours before the
landers were released for descent to the Red Planet. As is so often true of first
steps, site selection was the initiation to a more bewildering process—
landing site certification.
'Stream channels are equivalent to fossils in that they are evidence that water once existed.

315
Page intentionally left blank
 10

Site Certification—and Landing

With site selection behind them, the landing site working group
members faced two more tasks—completing their individual commitments
to science teams and certifying the Martian landing areas they had chosen.
They were reasonably hopeful that the targets were safe ones, but they could
be certain only after they had examined additional Earth-based radar stud-
ies and the orbital pictures Viking 1 would send back from Mars. Careful
certification of each Viking site would have to be carried out before the
landers descended to the Martian surface, but no one expected certification
to pose real difficulties now that they were over the hurdle of finding
suitable targets. These expectations would be dashed in Jime 1975.

PLANNING SITE CERTIFICATION

Certification Team
In August 1973, Jim Martin selected Hal Masursky to lead the landing
site certification team, with Norman L. Crabill from Langley as his deputy.
This group, which functioned as an operational organization rather than a
planning body, included members from orbiter imaging, infrared thermal
mapping, Mars atmospheric-water detection, and mission planning and
analysis teams, as well as radio astronomers.' Together they designed a
strategy for landing site certification, which R. C. Blanchard of the Viking
Project Office presented at the February 1974 meeting of the Science Steer-
ing Group. Blanchard broke the certification process down into four peri-
ods: 1. Pre-Mars orbit insertion (MOI) for Viking 1. 2. Post-MOI and
prelanding for Viking 1. 3. Postlanding for Viking 1; pre-MOI for Viking2.
4. Post-MOI and prelanding for Viking 2. Blanchard noted that before the
first Viking spacecraft orbited Mars, new sources of data that might possibly
affect the landing sites could include Earth-based radar studies of the
planet, Soviet missions flown before June 1976, and scientific observations
made by Viking as it approached Mars. Analyzing all new information
would help them make a "go/no-go" decision concerning the desirability
of landing at the prime site latitude and, they hoped, would contribute to
"A-1" site (first choice for first lander) certification.
317
ON MARS
Viking 1 would make extensive observations of the prime site, with
special emphasis on the low-altitude photographs obtained during the
close approach (periapsis). In addition, two or three picture pentads
(groups of five photos) would be taken on each revolution to permit
comparison of images taken at different exposures (due to the elevation
angle of the sun). The A-1 site would also be studied by the orbiter water-
vapor detector and infrared thermal-mapping instrument to determine if
the scientists' preconceived notions about the target were valid. Viking 1
would also observe the second lander's primary target (B-1) from low
altitude with two picture swaths and one high-altitude pentad. Should the
A-1 site be found acceptable (certified), then the Lander would be targeted for
that site. If it was not acceptable, then the backup site (A-2) would be
examined. Once a landing area was chosen, orbiter trim maneuvers would
fix the spacecraft's periapsis near that site.
During the third period, postlanding for Viking 1 and preorbit inser-
tion for Viking 2, information sources available to Earth control would
include B-1 site data from the first orbiter, entry and landed science data
from the first lander, evaluation of the first site certification procedure, and
approach observations made by Viking 2. The team would then make its
commitment to the B mission target. Once the second craft was in orbit, the
men would confirm a B-1 site using additional data from the second orbiter
and the further assessment of Viking I science results. Blanchard assured
the Science Steering Group that the A-1 and B-1 targets chosen by the
landing site working group definitely would be used, unless compelling
arguments materialized to require a change. Further, the scientists were
reminded that the certification team would continue to be influenced
strongly by considerations of safety during the first landing, but hoped that
during the second landing it could look for a more scientifically interesting
site even if less safe than the first.2
The first new data the Viking team received came from the Soviet
missions.
Soviet Attempts to Investigate Mars
Much to the dismay of everyone working on Viking, the four flights the
Soviets sent to Mars in 1973 raised as many issues as they settled. Mars 4 and
5 were launched on 22 and 25 July, followed by Mars 6 and 7 on 5 and 9
August. Mars 4 came within 2100 kilometers of the Red Planet on 10
February 1974 but failed to go into orbit when the braking engine did not
fire. On 12 February, Mars 5 went into orbit. As no effort was made to detach
landers, Western observers assumed that these two Soviet craft were
designed to operate as orbiting radio links between landers aboard Mars 6
and 7 and tracking stations on Earth. Mars 7 approached its target on 9
March, but the descent module missed the planet by 1300 kilometers when
some onboard system malfunctioned. On 12 March, the remaining vehicle
separated from its carrier ship, which then went into orbit around the sun.
318
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING
Mars 6 descended directly to the surface and provided telemetry for 120
seconds before it crashed.3
Soviet scientists reporting on the descent and crash-landing of Mars 6
calculated that it landed at 23°54' south latitude and 19°25' longitude in the
region called Mare Erythraeum. The landing site was "situated in the
central part of an extensive lowland region," part of the global zone of
depression extending for several thousand kilometers north and south of
the Martian equator. Most of the landing zone (about 75 percent) was
heavily cratered. Part of this terrain analysis was based on Mariner 9 data,
but the characteristics of the actual landing zone were determined by the
radar-altimeter readings obtained during the parachute descent of the
Soviet craft. Additionally, Mars 6 instruments indicated "several times"
more water vapor in the atmosphere than previously estimated, news over
which Viking scientists were cautiously optimistic, since it enhanced the
possibility of discovering some kind of life forms. Mars 5 photographs
provided additional data on the planet's surface features, and while most of
the Soviet findings correlated with previous knowledge and predictions
there was one major anomaly.4
One of the experiments carried on the Mars 6 larder was a mass
spectrometer designed to determine the gaseous composition of the Red
Planet's atmosphere. Although the recorded mass spectrum data were not
recovered, engineering data on the operation of the vacuum pump
appeared to indicate unexpected quantities of noncondensable gases. Soviet
scientists interpreted the data as an indication that the atmosphere might
contain as much as 15 to 30 percent argon (contrasting with 1 percent in
Earth's atmosphere). The Americans had been operating on the assump-
tion that the thin Martian atmosphere contained less than 3 percent argon.
A concentration approaching 15 to 30 percent would force some rethinking
about Mars and about Klaus Biemann's mass spectrometer experiment. It
would mean that the Martian atmosphere had been much denser in the past
than the specialists had believed. That would have made the existence of
liquid water possible, but it posed a question—what had happened to those
atmospheric gases? That was the puzzler. A great concentration of argon
would also require some changes in the use of the gas chromatograph-mass
spectrometer, since inert gases like argon tended to impede its operation.
Obviously, the Soviet Mars missions had not answered many of the U.S.
questions, but they had added another element of excitement to the first
Viking landing. Everyone would watch closely the results of the entry
science team's experiment to see just how much argon it detected as the
lander made its way to the surface.5
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RADAR

As Klaus Biemann puzzled over argon in the Martian environment,

others on the Viking team were tussling with an equally troublesome issue,
radar. As a tool to study planetary surfaces at great distances, radar seemed
319
 ON MARS
to have immense potential. A signal of a known strength could be transmit-
ted from one of the large radio astronomy antennas on Earth—Arecibo in
Puerto Rico, Goldstone in California, or Haystack in Massachusetts —to
the moon or Mars. The returned signal could then be compared with
known signal characteristics and a judgment madeaboutsoil composition,
the dimensions of slopes and rocks, and other characteristics of a specific
area. Radar promised to give information on a scale of a few centimeters,
where orbital imaging would tell the site certification team only about
features that were larger than a football field. Radar thus promised to be a
powerful tool for certifying landing sites, except that not everyone believed
in its promise, making it a controversial issue. Furthermore, this technique
could examine only a restricted range of latitudes on Mars.
While the Viking Project Office had been planning all along to use
radar as an aid to landing site certification, Carl Sagan, once again acting as
a catalyst, forced the issue early in 1973. 6 On 3 February, Sagan wrote to Jim
Martin, and beneath the hyperbole of his prose Martin found some specific
steps that could be taken to rectify what Sagan saw "as serious short-
comings in the landing site selection procedures." What worried him most
was the interpretation being placed on some of the radar signals received
from Mars. Some of Sagan's colleagues saw visually smooth areas as sand or
dune fields, but he hypothesized that the low reflectivity of the radar was not
due to the scattering effect of sand grains and surface ripples but to the
absorption of the signal by a deep layer of dust. "At a recent landing site
working group meeting we were all entertained to see a Viking lander
sinking up to its eyebrows.... While a similar suggestion that lunar
landing spacecraft would sink into surface dust has proved erroneous, it by
The 305-meter-diameter radar dish antenna at the Arecibo Observatory of the
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center nestles in the Puerto Rico hills at left
below. At right below, the 64-meter dish antenna of the Deep Space Network's
Goldstone, California, tracking station faces toward space. Arecibo's reflector
surface consists of 38 778 aluminum panels, each about 1 by 2 meters, attached to a
network of steel cables. The radar feed mechanism, mounted on a 600-ton triangu-
lar platform, is suspended by cables above the dish.

i
•.L,
^r

A t \
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING
no means follows that quicksand is not a hazard for Mars." He reminded the
project manager that the Soviets had suggested that quicksand might have
been the cause for Mars 3's failure.
As a consequence, Sagan made some "explicit recommendations."
First, he believed more serious theoretical work was needed to understand
better the meaning of returned radar data. Second, Earth-looking radar on
satellites and aircraft could bounce signals off terrain thought to be analo-
gous to that on Mars, and as a data base was established scientists could
compare radar returns from unknown Martian surface areas with known
Earth terrains. Third, Sagan thought that major support should be given to
Arecibo, Haystack, and Goldstone Observatories so they could examine
Mars in detail during the 1973 and 1975-1976 oppositions. He noted that
the Arecibo staff was resurfacing its 300-meter radar dish and would be
installing a new transmitter. Once these renovations were completed, the
observatory would "have a very impressive Mars mapping capability,
which should be exploited to the fullest."
Turning to visual imaging, Sagan repeated his concern that smooth
surfaces at the 100-meter scale might be rough at 10 centimeters. Had lunar
surface data been analyzed to determine if there was any relationship
between roughness at the two scales? Hal Masursky's people might look
into this matter. And similar correlation of Earth photos should also be
studied. He seriously doubted that one could make judgments about the
nature of the surface or the scale of the lander from any photographs the
orbiter was likely to produce. Sagan believed that radar, properly under-
stood and interpreted, was likely to be more useful in site certification than
all the photographs that would be taken.'
Sagan's concerns were important ones. Jim Martin and Tom Young
considered his recommendations, and on 23 March 1973 Martin wrote to
Edgar M. Cortright, director of the Langley Research Center. Martin
planned to take three actions as a consequence of Sagan's letter. Arecibo,
Goldstone, and Haystack radar facilities would make nearly simultaneous
observations of the same areas on Mars during 1973. Since the latitude base
that could be studied was lirni ted to 10° to 20° south, none of the candidate
sites could be examined, but the information would be valuable because it
would contribute to the specialists' understanding of radar's potential in
such investigations. The Arecibo team also agreed to make studies in the
1975-1976 period and prepare a quick analysis of its data in the weeks before
the scheduled landings.
The second action taken by the Viking Project Office was to set up a
radar study team, which would undertake to eliminate some of the ambi-
guity in interpreting radar data. On 1 March, Tom Youngand Jerry Soffen
met with Von R. Eshleman and G. Leonard Tyler of Stanford University's
Center for Radar Astronomy, where they had been engaged in an active
program of analyzing and interpreting lunar radar studies. Tyler agreed to
lead the team that would work toward improving interpretation of Mars
radar information. Martin told Cortright, "As you are aware, some of the
321
ON MARS
areas with low radar reflectivity are candidate landing sites. We must better
understand the meaning of the low radar reflectivity to assure that the
current sites are acceptable or guide the selection of proper alternatives."
Tyler had his work cut out for him, and Martin arranged for a retreat at
which a small group could consider thoroughly the implications of radar
studies for Viking.'
Tyler presented the results of his study to the landing site working
group meeting at Langley on 4 November 1974. Basing his conclusions on
data obtained from all three radar facilities, Tyler noted that correlation
between radar features and Project Mariner imagery was poor. His study
group had learned a great deal: the Martian surface was very heterogeneous
on the large scale; Mars tended to have greater variation in surface reflectiv-
ity than Earth or the moon; Mars appeared smoother than the moon to the
radar; the 100-meter resolution of the orbiter camera system seemed likely to
give appropriate information for extrapolating down to the scald of the
lander; and data for the 15° to 20° south band of the planet could not be
applied to latitudes in the north without variation. Jim Porter, keeping
minutes for this meeting, reported that both Tyler and his colleague Gor-
don Pettengill "laced their presentations strongly with tutorial material
which greatly enhanced the ability of the group to understand and correctly
interpret their findings."
After listening to Tyler, the landing site working group was unani-
mous in the opinion that the A and B sites were still the best targets.
Although the four targets A-1, A-2, B-1, and B-2 were still believed to be in
the correct order of precedence (the Chryse site, A-1, receiving a strong vote
of confidence), the team became less enthusiastic in its endorsement of the B
sites. They also raised some questions about the C sites that had been
located recently at 9° south. The need for new sites had been raised in early
1974 when some of the working group members began to get nervous about
what the orbiter's cameras might find. Should the prime and backup sites
prove unsatisfactory or if operational difficulties should develop with the
spacecraft that would require the selection of some other safe landing spot,
they wanted a pair of "super safe" sites where radar. photographic, and
topographic information indicated that the spacecraft would have the best
chance of landing undamaged. A special subcommittee* had been estab-
lished to look into possible C sites and make recommendations as early as
possible.9
The work of the C site subcommittee took longer than the working
group anticipated. After meeting in December 1974, the group met again on
6 February 1975 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to recommend the study
of three latitude bands (8.5°S, 4°S, and 4°-6°N) that would be visible to
either the Goldstone or Arecibo radars during August to November 1975.
The radar specialists would observe each of these regions as it became
*Subcommittee members included Chairman H. Masursky, N. L. Crabill, J. D. Porter, L. Kings-
land, G. L. Tyler, T. Owen, H. Moore, G. A. Soffen, and G. A. Briggs.

322
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING
accessible and recommend sites based on combined radar and visual criteria
to the Landing Site Staff, the new name of the certification team, in
September 1975. They would repeat the process in November after the 4°
north coverage. From these observations, the Landing Site Staff would
develop a final recommendation in April for Tom Young, who had become
mission director. A detailed alternate mission design (for the C sites) would
be developed between December 1975 and May 1976 by Viking flight team
members at JPL.
A general feeling among the subcommittee members was that the
second mission should be targeted for one of the C sites, since the available
radar data indicated that some regions on Mars were very unsafe for landers.
The B sites were so far north that radar coverage would never be possible.
Norm Crabill wrote in the minutes of the 6 February 1975 meeting that
apparently radar data could be used to reject sites, but it was doubtful that it
was sufficient to confirm a site. On the other hand, Sagan and some of his
colleagues did not want to rely on photos alone. Despite all their earlier
work, the landing site specialists were still nervous about their efforts to find
suitable landing points for Viking. 10 Putting aside nagging uneasiness, the
Science Steering Group and the Landing Site Staff met in a joint session at
Langley to consider the recommended process for selecting the C sites. After
more discussion of radar as a tool, further explanations of this complex
business by Len Tyler, and additional considerations of the argon problem,
the joint group approved the proposed plan for C site selection.' 1

EVOLVING A CERTIFICATION PROCESS

Along with radar and C site problems, site certification remained an

open issue. In late May 1975, the Viking Project Office released one of the
major products of the Landing Site Staff, a draft of the "Site A-1 Certifica-
tion Procedure." This document described how the landing specialists
would establish the acceptability of A-1 for landing and how they would

During the 24 February 1975 i

landing site working group
meeting, Len Tyler explains
his complex radar studies of
the Martian surface to (left to
right) B. G. Lee, William Mi-
chael, Thomas Mutch, Don`
Anderson, Richard Shorthill,
Gary Price, and Robert Har-
graves. ' I
1
ON MARS
recommend a target point that maximized the probability of a safe touch-
down. Their recommendations would be based primarily on their analyses
of low-altitude photographs taken during the first 10 orbiter revolutions.
Key to the certification process would be the stereophotographic swaths of
the A-1 site taken during the fourth and sixth revolutions—called P4 and P6
photos, as the revolutions were numbered from Viking's periapsides. After
playback on video recorders, reconstruction, image processing, and
enhancement, these photo frames, in the form of stereo pairs, would be
analyzed at the U.S. Geological Survey's Flagstaff facility, whefe ground
elevation, slope angles, and surface roughness would be estimated. This
information would be used with photo mosaics made from the orbiter
frames to produce geologic maps of the proposed landing site region.
Earth-based radar and telescopic observations, oblique and high-altitude
photos, as well as Mars atmospheric-water detector and infrared thermal-
mapping coverage of the landing site region, would provide supportive
information about the nature of the surface. From this data base, landing
site specialists would prepare a safety assessment report of the target zone.
During the site certification process, the Landing Site Staff would
provide a series of recommendations. Just before the craft was inserted into
orbit of Mars, the team would decide either to execute the normal insertion
maneuver and proceed with data acquisition or to modify the maneuver if a
dust storm or some other anomaly were detected during approach. After
playback, processing, and inspection of the imaging system frames from a
pass over the A-1 site, it might be necessary to adjust the timing of the orbit
or the pointing of the camera platform to obtain optimum coverage of the
site on subsequent passes. Four such data-acquisition-adjustment oppor-
tunities were planned that would affect the camera sequences at or near P3,
P4, P6, and P 10. The Viking team would then have to answer the crucial
question: would it land the craft or reject the site the team had selected?
Recommendations would be made at three points before Lander separation
from the orbiter. A preliminary commitment to A-1 would be made seven
days before separation (at about P9), based on a preliminary assessment of
available data. A firm commitment to land would be made three days later,
and a precise target point would be established. A final commitment to
land, made just before separation, would be determined after examining
photos taken during the previous five days to confirm the absence of dust
storms and high winds.12
In the time that remained before the spacecraft reached Mars, the
Landing Site Staff continued extensive preparations for completing site
certification as scheduled during the critical period between orbital inser-
tion and lander release. In June and July, a functional test checked the
ground-based hardware that would process photos from the orbiter and
make the photomosaics and maps. The weakest link in the several-
hundred-million-kilometer chain from Mars to the photo analysis labs in
northern Arizonaseemed to be the 850 kilometers the photographs traveled
across the western U.S. Continental Trailways bus express, a leased army
324
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

aircraft, and datafax were used to strengthen the connection between Los
Angeles and Flagstaff. The team did parts of the test a second time, verifying
the readiness of the processing equipment and the personnel.13
During the last months of 1975 and early 1976, the staff gave considera-
ble attention to timing. Since so much depended on timely certification,
scheduling became a paramount concern. The landing site specialists,
working closely with the mission design team and the orbiter performance
and analysis group, were ready by early February 1976 to test the timeline in
what they called the "SAMPD-1" test, an exercise developed by B. Gentry
Lee's Science Analysis and Mission Planning Directorate."

FLIGHT TO MARS
While the Viking team calculated, planned, and debated where to land,
the two spacecraft and their launch vehicles were delivered to the Kennedy
Space Center. After completion of the prelaunch checkout, the countdown
for Viking I began on I 1 August 1975. At 115 minutes before the planned
launch command, a thrust-vector-control valve—essential to launch-
vehicle directional control—failed to respond properly when tested, and the
countdown was halted while the valve was examined. Technicians found
that a slight leak of propellant had caused corrosion. The valve probably
would have worked, but the project management was not willing to take
chances with a $500-million payload. The launch was rescheduled for 14
August.
Before the faulty valve could be replaced, another problem was discov-
ered on the 13th. A check of the orbiter's batteries showed they were produc-
ing only 9 volts instead of the required 37, having been discharged by a
rotary switch that had been turned on inadvertently after the first post-
ponement. Even though the problem was quickly traced and the managers
were convinced that it was the result of a failure outside the spacecraft, the
batteries still required replacement, a process that would require much
time. The entire spacecraft had to be removed from the Titan-Centaur
launch vehicle and replaced by the second Viking. Jim Martin and Tom
Young had been prepared for such a contingency—the second spacecraft
had been tested and was also prepared for launch. This dual readiness for
liftoff prevented a costly delay.
Countdown was resumed, and the launch was completed without
further incident. Viking 1 was on its way at 5:22 p.m. EDT, 20 August 1975.15
The shroud was jettisoned, the spacecraft separated from the launch vehi-
cle, and the solar panels deployed. The star Canopus was acquired by the
star tracker on the first try. Viking I was off to a good start.
Repairs were quickly made to pad 41, and the second launch vehicle
was readied. Batteries replaced and tested, the first spacecraft was mated to
the Titan-Centaur. But new troubles were discovered in the orbiter's S-band
radio system during precountdown checkout. When the difficulty could not
be solved on the pad, the spacecraft was removed from the launch vehicle for
325
ON MARS

a second time. After replacing part of the S-band hardware, the Viking
flight team was ready to try again.
The second launch was a cliff-hanger. The countdown was going
smoothly as storm clouds began to gather near the Cape. Seven minutes
before the scheduled liftoff, meteorologists at the launch site said that if
Viking were not launched within ten minutes the flight would have to be
scrubbed because of cloud cover, high winds, and possible lightning. Vik-
ing 2 left its pad at 2:39 p.m. ED -T 9 September, just three minutes before the
order would have been given to cancel. About five minutes after the Titan
and its cargo disappeared into the clouds, an intense rainstorm began and
lasted for more than an hour. Eight minutes into the flight, all telemetry
from Viking 2 was lost. Six minutes later, the stream of electronic data
returned, and the craft went flawlessly on its way to Mars. Jim Martin may
generally have discounted luck in the course of Project Viking, but on 9
September 1975 Viking 2 was a lucky spacecraft.16
The Vikings had begun a journey half way around the sun. For the
next 10 months, the landers would be kept in hibernation, with just enough
activity to allow the flight team to monitor key systems. When the flight
contollers tried to charge the second lander's batteries en route to Mars, the
battery charger did not respond to the command. After several days of
detailed analyses and tests on the "test lander" at Martin Marietta's Denver
factory, the specialists concluded that something inside the battery charger
had failed, and they used the backup charger to bring all batteries up to full
charge. During November, a complete system checkout indicated that both
landers were in excellent condition. Throughout the remainder of the

The Titan III-Centaur launch vehicle thrusts

Viking I upward on 20 August 1975 on its
800-million-kilometer journey from Cape Ca-
naveral, Florida, to a 1976 landing on Mars.
The spacecraft was to go into orbit of the
planet in mid-1976 and, after verification of the
landing site, the lander would separate from
the orbiter and descend through thin atmos-
phere to land gently with its scientific instru-
ments and cameras.
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

cruise, lander and orbiter science instruments were prepared and calibrated
for Mars operations.'?
Jim Martin and Tom Young noted in a postmission journal article
that on paper the mission operations strategy appeared sound, but the
"complexity of the mission made us duly cautious." NASA had never had to
operate four spacecraft (two orbiters and two landers) at one time, and the
Viking managers had sought to guarantee success by extensively testing the
hardware and exhaustively training the Ilight team. Ground system tests
verified the readiness of computer programs and all the interrelated equip-
ment scattered across the United States. Compatibility tests between the
ground system and the spacecraft led to many software modifications to
facilitate command signals. A comprehensive simulation system trained
the flight team and checked out the readiness of the entire system, while
intentionally introduced emergencies tested the ability of men and hard-
ware to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Martin said time and time again
that he did not believe in 1 trek. In this highly complex business, one should
rely only on hard work and brains. The Viking teams tested and retested
their systems, and the results often meant personnel reassignment, schedule
changes, and the modification of operational concepts.'a
Of all the tests conducted during the first halt of 1976, the most impor-
tant was the "A-1 Site Certification Timeline Validation." SAMPD-1,
Science Analysis and Mission Planning Directorate test 1, was designed to
evaluate the Viking 1 site certification decision process. Participants had
agreed beforehand that this would not be a true simulation, since the data
from the test would not be run through the computers. Some of the process-
ing equipment was still not ready and, without better information about
the landing sites, to simulate photos of those areas would have been diffi-
cult. SAMPD-1 would be an intensive review of exactly what data would be
available at each step and how that information would be produced and
distributed. From this drill, the Landing Site Staff hoped to identify any
necessary procedural changes.
Conducted in early February, SAMPD-1 was judged by different parties
a success—or a failure. As mission director, Tom Young was satisfied
because the exercise had allowed the flight team to evaluate the certification
process and discover its weaknesses. But Gentry Lee, science analysis and
mission planning director, looked back on the SAMPD-1 operation as a
disaster. Flight team members had repeatedly arrived at certification meet-
ings without knowing why they were there or else had attended them
because they had had nothing else to do. After the test, Lee took steps to
alleviate the confusion. He asked Norm Crabill, deputy chairman of the
Landing Site Staff, to prepare a schedule for all regular meetings of the staff
to be held during the actual certification process. Crabil l was also called on
to devise a procedure that would let all the participants know when Land-
ing Site Staff decisions would cause changes in the flight team's plans.
Updating documents, plans, and schedules was a major enterprise, matched
only by the need to keep everyone working from the same revised materials.
327
 Table 51
Major Training Tests for Planetary Operations

Test Date Purpose

Uplink development exercise 2-15 Dec. 1975 To design primary mission for
(demonstration test 4) Viking 1 for 12 days following
touchdown. Also to train for
SAMPD and prepare for
demonstration tests.
Science Analysis and Mission 8-12 Feb. 1976 To evaluate site certification
Planning Directorate (SAMPD) process.
test 1
Continuation of demonstration 22 Feb.-2 Mar. 1976 Simulated events of Viking 1
test 4 mission from 52 hrs before
separation to 8 days after
touchdown, to demonstrate
capability to perform all
necessary sequences and
respond to data gathered.
Demonstration test 5 canceled Demonstration test 4 success
obviated test 5.
Demonstration test 6 31 Mar.-4 Apr. 1976 Simulated events on orbiter 1
from 24 hrs before Mars orbit
insertion to 4 days after
insertion, to test downlink and
uplink processes.
Demonstration test 7 7-10 Apr. 1976 Simulated lander and orbiter
operations from day 11, to test
activities of active science
mission following first
sampling of Mars's soil.
Demonstration test 4R 18-22 Apr. 1976 Detailed simulation of mission
from 30 hrs before separation to
shortly after touchdown, to
retest sequences for separation,
entry, and landing.
Training test 5 26-29 Apr. 1976 To test landed sequence for
8th Mars day and separation
activities, with introduced
anomalies.
Training test 3 2-4 May 1976 Simulation to test presepara-
tion and separation activities,
with introduced anomalies.
Training test 4 10-11 May 1976 To train for Mars orbit
insertion, with introduced
anomalies.
Operational readiness test 2-3 June 1976 Final dress rehearsal for MOI
of Viking 1.

328
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING
In all, 40 "action items" resulted from SAMPD-1, all requiring resolution
before Viking 1 reached Mars, but once those actions were taken the actual
certification process would proceed more smoothly. 19 Subsequent demon-
stration and training tests were more successful, with each exercise pointing
the way toward readiness for the active science part of the mission. On 2 and
3 June, about two weeks before Viking I was to enter orbit of Mars, the last
full-dress rehearsal was held without a hitch. The Viking flight team was
finished with simulations. It was time for the real thing.

VIKING 1 AT MARS

"Planetary operations" began 40 days before orbital insertion, a date

chosen arbitrarily. As the first spacecraft approached Mars, the pace quick-
ened on Earth. Much lay directly ahead—final instrument calibrations,
optical navigation, course corrections, approach science observations, Mars
orbit insertion, spacecraft navigation, landing site certification, entry,
landing, and finally initiation of the landed science experiments.
During preparation for a planned final Viking I course correction
maneuver 9 June 1976, 10 days before orbital insertion, the orbiter's teleme-
try revealed a problem. Helium gas was slowly leaking through the gas
regulator that pressurized the orbiter's propulsion system. As Tom Young
later described it, a ladder series of pyrotechnically operated valves opened
and closed the line from a large helium bottle to the gas regulator, and that
regulator was in turn connected to the fuel and oxidizer tanks. The regula-
tor was leaking at a rate that would pose a serious problem. The gas did not
leak overboard; it leaked into the fuel and oxidizer tanks, and the pressure
could rise so high that not only would the engine stop functioning it would
explode.20
Should the Viking controllers run the engines in an extra course
correction maneuver, or should they fire the last remaining pyrotechnic
shutoff valve in the line between the helium tank and the regulator?
Another midcourse correction would use up the extra pressure without
closing off the gas line, and if the pressure continued to rise after the
maneuver it would not be excessive at the time of the final orbital insertion
maneuver. But, alternatively, the flight team could close down the pressure
line and open it again just before insertion. Jim Martin did not favor the
second option because a valve failure would abort the mission. That was a
risk he would not take. Martin held "a fairly hairy meeting" at JPL that
day, at which he and Young favored another midcourse correction, while
nearly all the other members of the team wanted to close the valve. Even
John Goodlette, the project's chief engineer, preferred closing the valve.
But when Martin telephoned Administrator Fletcher and John Naugle at
NASA Headquarters, it was with the news that he was overriding his
advisers' suggestion. He was going to make another course correction
maneuver on 10 June.21
329
ON MARS

After that burn was executed, the leak continued, but a second engine
burn on 15 June reduced the pressure in the tanks to an acceptable level.
After orbital insertion, the line between the helium tank and the faulty
regulator was closed and the remaining helium posed no further threat.
These two maneuvers slowed the spacecraft down, delaying insertion by 6.2
hours. Additional maneuverscould have held thearrival timeconstant, but
the men in Pasadena preferred not to waste the spacecraft's propellant.
Orbital insertion of Viking 1 required a long engine burn-38 minutes
of thrust, which consumed 1063 kilograms of propellant and was more than
twice the time of the engine burn required by Mariner 9 to enter Mars orbit.
Viking had to be slowed from its approach speed of 14 400 kilometers per
hour to 10 400 kilometers per hour for insertion into orbit. To bring the
spacecraft to the proper point at its first periapsis, the mission flight path
analysts placed it in a long, looping 42.6-hour revolution of the planet,
reaching first periapsis at the time originally scheduled for the second.
Previously computed timelines could be maintained with only a minimum
of modification.
Great precision characterized Viking's navigation throughout the mis-
sion. After orbit insertion, the orbital period was only 12 minutes shorter
than planned, even though the mission could have accepted a much larger
error at that stage. And periapsis was only 3 kilometers above the predicted
1511. Other parameters were equally precise. A 21 June trim of the initial
orbit adjusted the period to 24 hours 39 minutes 36 seconds, by lowering the
apoapsis of the orbit from 50 300 to 32 800 kilometers without changing the
periapsis. This placed Viking I in the desired orbit, bringing it over the
landing site in Chryse once each Martian day. Because of the 42.6-hour first
revolution, for scheduling purposes there never was a "first orbit." The P1
calibration photos were lost, and the first photographs of the Chryse region
were not received until the third revolution.22
Crisis over Chryse
On the evening of 22 June 1976, the Landing Site Staff was holding its
fifth meeting in what was to stretch into a series of 48 sessions before both
Viking spacecraft were on the surface. During their early discussions, the
scientists had concentrated on the readiness of men and machines to certify
the landing regions. 23 In the midst of another theoretical session on the
problem of extrapolating downward from the scale of the images produced
by the orbital camera system to the size of the lander, reality intruded. At
6:09 p.m. PDT, the first picture of the landing site appeared on the overhead
television monitor in the meeting room. Gentry Lee later told the press,
"You would have believed that all the people in that room were ten years
old because we all got up and forty of us ran over to the scope and watched it
come in line by line." Mars as viewed by Viking 1 did not look like the
planet photographed by Mariner 9. Their landing site, chosen after years of
debate, lay on the floor of what looked like a deeply incised river bed.
330
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING
Surprise, shock, and amazement only began to describe the specialists'
reactions to this first picture.24
Mike Carr recalled his feelings when the orbiter imaging team
members began to look at the P3 data in detail. "We were just astounded—
both a mixture of elation and shock...." They were elated at the quality
and detail of the pictures but shocked at what they saw. All their data-
processing schedules had been based on a preconceived notion of what Mars
should look like, and this was not it. The night of 23 June stretched into
morning as building 264, which housed the Viking scientists working at
JPL, became a beehive of activity. The orbiter imaging team was busy
arranging photographs into mosaics, counting craters, and evaluating the
geological nature of the region. All that they saw—the etched surfaces, the
multitude of craters and islands in the channels (all at the 100-meter
scale)—told them that the A-1 site was not a suitable place to land.25
The Mars of Viking was strikingly different from the Mars of Mariner
for two reasons. First, the Viking cameras permitted the imaging team to see
far more detail. And second, they could discriminate ground features more
readily because the Martian atmosphere was much clearer. Hal Masursky
remarked that large lava flows in the Viking photographs were totally
invisible on Mariner images. "There was enough fuzzy in the air so all that
stuff just vanished into gently rolling topography. We can see the sharp
edges of little tiny lobate lava flows standing on one another." From
studying the Mariner findings, the photogeologists had come to believe
there were very few small craters on Mars; now they found fields of them.
Masursky recalled, "Jim Cutts wanted us to ... count all these thousands of
craters.... That's interesting, but it wasn't necessary for site certification.
You can take off your socks and count all the craters you need" to know that
it was a dangerous place to land. 26 Masursky and his colleagues now
understood that the dust had never really settled during the Mariner 9
mission. Instead of a blurred surface, they now saw a fantastic array of
geological detail. Mars was at once an intriguing and forbidding planet.
There were other problems, too. At the Landing Site Staff meeting on
the 23d, Gentry Lee said that he was nervous about the analysis effort. Great
attention had been given to planning the gathering of data, but the analysis
was diffuse. Carr and Masursky shared his concern. As the data continued to
pour in, it was obvious that more discipline was needed in evaluating the
hazards (craters, depressions, knobs, and islands) and mapping the geologi-
cal structure of the landing area. Meanwhile, new computer programs had
to be written and additional consoles rounded up and plugged into the
computer at the California Institute of Technology. A series of task groups
was established to take on the work, and a group of JPL summer interns
(engineering undergraduates) was put to work counting craters and other
hazards. Carr reported that there was a period of floundering, but the
landing site team soon got reorganized and back on the track. From that
point, despite the long hours, the team worked more efficiently.27
331
 The first closeup of the Chryse
region on Mars—the A-1 candi-
date landing site photographed
22 June 1975 from Viking I or-
bit—changed the Viking sched-
ule. A channel floor with de-
pressed areas and irregular edges,
as well as the many craters, did
not makean inviting area for the
lander. The center of the photo is
'? Y
at about 18°N latitude, 34° longi-
tude. Other photos (opposite) fol-
lowed.

At a 24 June Viking press briefing, Lee explained what was going on

behind the scenes. Between 300 and 400 persons participated in the site
certification process. When the pictures came down from Mars, JPL, the
Astrogeology Center at Flagstaff, and several other organizations went to
work. Every night, a Landing Site Staff meeting was held, divided into two
portions—operational and analytical. Were the photos, mosaics, maps, and
the like acceptable and on time? What did it all mean? To find a safe place
large enough for a landing ellipse, the team would need more photo
coverage, possibly to the northeast or northwest of the prime A-1 site.21
Apparently the spacecraft could go either direction without upsetting the
timetable for a Fourth of July landing. 29 The next 28 hours were just the
beginning of a very busy, tension-filled period.
At noon on 25 June, the press heard from Lee and Carr. The Viking
Project Office had decided to move the P6 photo coverage 60 kilometers
farther to the northeast than previously planned, to avoid the southwestern
part of the original landing ellipse where the so-called etched terrain, or
scablands, were. Just before midnight on the 24th, the latest P4 photos had
come in to fill the gaps in their mosaic. Lee, Carr, Masursky, and nine other
members of the imaging team had sat there for more than 30 minutes
sliding ellipses around on the mosaic in an effort to find an area where it
might be safe to land. So far, there was no safe haven. 30 To study these
images, Mike Carr had three groups working for him. Bill Baum led the
analysis of atmospheric phenomena. Ronald Greeley was in charge of geo-
logical mapping. Jim Cutts and Win Farrell were making quantitative
analyses of landing site hazards, and Henry Moore oversaw the mapping of
these craters, knobs, and hummocks.
Two landing site meetings were held on the 25th. The discussions
centered on one key question, "Do we continue at A-1, or do we prepare to
go to A-2?" Masursky summed up the situation:
332
More photos of the Chryse region on 22-23
June 1976 told the unhappy story. The A-I P 15
landing site was not safe. Above left, a camera
on orbiting Viking I photographed an "island"
z. n a rough channel complex with eroded rims.
A closer view above right shows a channel and
craters. At right, "Islands" with etched layers
of rock are in the channel of Ares, largest chan-
nel in Chryse, in a pair of high-resolution pho-
tos. Meteorite-impact craters pepper the sur-
face. Below, a mosaic of 12 photos is the center
third of a strip taken by Viking I on its second
low pass over Mars on 23 June. A-] lies toward
its center.

vi
ON MARS
The P3 reconnaissance coverage was successful in that it provided
some room to maneuver the ellipse when the original location turned out
to be unacceptable, and we have some overlap on the last Arecibo radar
coverage at 17-18°N.
The resolution of the Viking I pictures is several orders of magnitude
better than Marine 71 at Chryse. We can now see and identify objects as
small as 130 meters, so we have a powerful tool for looking at surface
texture.... Mariner 71 had 2 passes over Chryse—one at very high sun
angle, the second at a low sun angle.... During the second pass, the
planet was much closer and more surface textural details could be seen.
The planet appears much more clearly now than even during the last of
the Mariner 71 mission. The channels (scablands or etched terrain) we are
now seeing were the vaguest kind of markings in the `71 pictures; on
Viking 1 pictures we can also see layering and ejecta blankets, so we are in
a much better position to evaluate site hazards and adjust the ellipse
location. We are moving the ellipse around to avoid islands, craters, ejecta
blankets and etched terrain. The current location is about 19.35°N and
32.5°W [the so-called A-1 South site] centered in cratered lunar mare type
terrain unit. Many successful landings have been made on the moon in
that kind of unit.31
At the end of the staff meeting, as traw vote indicated that 20 members of the
group favored staying with A-1, while 24 wanted to move on to A-2. Jim
Martin did not vote, but he indicated that he would take all the views into
account before the decided which course to follow.
Martin was not long in making his decision known. A landing site
meeting that lasted most of the day on 26 June suspended the regular order
of business to let the group concentrate on two options outlined by Gentry
Lee. The spacecraft could be moved immediately to the northwest for a
possible landing in the region called Chryse Planitia. Photographs of that
area would be compared later with Arecibo radar coverage scheduled for 4
and 5 July. Or they could reject Chryse altogether and go directly to A-2.
Martin explained that he had decided not to land at A-1 (19.5°N, 34°) or the
alternate A-1 (19.35°N, 32.5°) on 4 July because project specialists did not
understand the processes that had formed some of the visible topographical
features. Without a clear understanding of the geology at the 100-meter
scale, predicting what the surface would be like at the scale of the lander
would have been nearly impossible. Now that the decision had been made
to give up the attempt to land on the Fourth of July, a new strategy could be
established.
The team's major concern was that so little time was left for determin-
ing a course of action for Viking I because of communications complica-
tions that would be posed by the arrival of Viking 2. Once the second craft
came close to the planet, Earth-based controllers would have to ignore
Viking 1 temporarily. According to Martin, the first new milestone would
come on 29 June. By that time, they would have the Hand P10 photos from
the northwestern portion of Chryse. If those images indicated an impossible
334
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING
terrain, the orbiting Viking I would be commanded to move over the A-2
region for landing release on 20 or 22 , July. Martin pointed out that it was
now essential to get more coverage at the B-1 and C-1 sites. The delay in
landing meant they would know less about the surface than they had
planned when it came time to find a landing site for Viking 2. The Landing
Site Staff had hoped to have orbital and surface photography that would
establish "ground truth" for the orbital images. According to Masursky,
"ground truth" simply meant that you could trust the 100-meter photo-
graphs to tell you there was nothing at a smaller scale that would hurt the
lander. There was no time for determining such truth now.
Jim Martin especially wanted a couple of passes over the C-1 region so
the photographs could be compared with the radar observations made
earlier. He believed there would be suitable landing areas northwest of the
A-1 site. If better targets did not materialize, they would move Viking I over
A-2 after photographing the CA area. Martin tersely explained:
The risk we are running in this change in plans is that we may have 2
landers in orbit at the same time. The last date in July we can land VLA is
24 or 25 July. From July 26 through August 8, we can't land VL-1 due to
Mission 2 work. If we have any problems in any of this new plan, we will
have 2 landers in orbit and we may have to land one after conjunction.
Furthermore, after the November- December conj unction, Viking could not
land at the C site because the region would have begun to warm up and the
biologically important water would have dissipated. However, they could
land the second craft at C-1 before conjunction, leaving the first orbiter and
lander circling the planet, temporarily inactive. At the 26 June meeting,
Martin asked the group to vote on three options:
a. Do you want to land at A-1S (19.35°N and 32.5°W) on July 4, 1976?
b. Do you want to observe NW of Chryse and plan to land there July 21
with the contingency to go to A-2 and land after August 8 if anything
goes wrong?
c. Do you want to go to A-2 as soon as possible, keeping B1 and C1
observations and landing about July 22?
The votes were 24 for option a, 17 for b, 2 for c.
Len Tyler reminded the group, however, that the facilities at Gold-
stone, Haystack, and Arecibo had already made radar observations in the
22.5° north, 36.1° region that indicated the terrain became rougher to the
northwest. He expected the upcoming Arecibo observations to confirm this
evaluation, and he predicted slopes of up to 8 degrees. Mike Carr argued
that the Viking lander was extremely tolerant of slopes up to 25 degrees and
less significance should be given the radar results. The differences in out-
look between the radar specialists and the photogeologists were becoming
more apparent.32

335
ON MARS
Closing the meeting with, "Safety is the only consideration," Martin
went to telephone Washington: there definitely would be no Fourth of July
landing. It was after midnight on the East Coast when Nick Panagakos, the
NASA Headquarters public affairs officer at JPL, began trying to find
Administrator Fletcher. After several }lours, Fletcher was reached in San
Diego, where he was addressing the American Academy of Achievement.
Although disappointed to hear that Viking would not land on the Fourth as
planned, he immediately agreed that a safe landing was the paramount
concern. He authorized a news release that could be delivered to the eastern
newspapers and television networks on Sunday before the media represen-
tatives left for California to cover the landing.33

VIKING MISSION STATUS REPORT

12:01 a.m., PDT, Sunday, June 27, 1976
NASA has decided to delay the Mars landing date beyond July 4, pending a
further investigation of likely sites on the Red Planet.
Project officials feel that the terrain in the pre-selected landing area, called
Chryse, may be too hazardous. Orbiter photographs taken during the past
few days reveal a much more cratered and rougher area than previously
shown.
Officials want to study an area to the northwest of the primary landing site,
called Chryse Phoenicia, which may be more suitable than the previously
selected site.
A new landing date will be selected in the next several days, depending on
what new information is revealed by further site investigation, officials
said.
Additional details concerning the rescheduled landing of Viking-1 will be dis-
cussed at a news briefing at the Viking News Center at 9:00 a.m., PDT, Sun-
day.
Viking-I has been orbiting the planet since June 19, taking photographs of
potential landing sites.

Jim Martin met with the press Sunday morning, 27 June. "After
careful examination of the landing site pictures that we have been taking
for the last several days, we have decided that the A-1 area ... appears to
have too many unknowns and could appear hazardous." He had decided,
and the NASA leadership had agreed, to postpone the touchdown while
other areas were examined. He explained the A-1 northwest strategy, which
if unsuccessful would be followed by a look at A-2. By going northwest, they
hoped to get out of the channel, or "river bed," and into a basin, or "river
delta," region. "It has been suggested that the fine material that has been
washed out of the river bed ... has been swept downstream and maybe has
collected in this basin. If so we might expect to see sand dune fields, we
might expect to see craters filled with sand or dirt." He hoped this could be a
336
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

better landing site. Noting they had always planned for such a contingency,
he outlined the steps they would take during the next week.
After the C-1 photos became available, Martin thought the project
team could draw some more decisive conclusions, but he warned the Viking
specialists that even after their examinations they stil l might not come to
understand Mars. "Things completely unknown to us" might be going on
there, Martin said at the press conference. Available Mariner 9 photography
indicated that A-2 was likely to be rougher than the parts of Chryse seen
thus far. Unhappy as they might be, they might have to land at a point in
A-1 that they did not like. "If that were to happen, we would land some time
between the 8th and 12th of July." A landing at A-2 would take place on the
22d or 23d. At this time, Martin could not be more specific; he and his
advisers needed more data.
During the question and answer session that followed the press brief-
ing on the 27th, Martin was asked if any single factor had caused him to
decide against A-1. He replied that he had been concerned since he saw the
first pictures and a great deal of analysis had been done since then. Hal
Masursky had been working 20 hours a day; others on the team had been
putting in 16 to 18 hours daily. The telling points came at the meeting on
Friday evening and the long session held that day. "I came to the conclusion
last night that I had enough concerns about the safety of the landing site
that I thought we must go examine additional sites."
No one understood how the Martian "river bed" had been formed.
Masursky added to Martin's remarks that the geologists just did not have
enough data to make j udgments. With just one site, it was hard to say what
the surface was like; they needed comparative data. The P9 photos of B-1
and the P12 coverage of CA might help. Meanwhile, detailed analysis of
existing data, including the reprocessing of photos using the computers,
would give them a better idea of the terrain they were up against.34
Men and Machines
Behind the scenes, much hard work and intense activity was underway.
Viking's cameras had taken some 200 photographs by 27 June 1976, and an
additional 40 covering the B-1 site were taken on the 28th. Getting these
images was no simple job. Masursky commented that many of the young
people he had talked with had thought NASA's unmanned space projects
were controlled by one great computer with no human beings involved. For
Viking, the computers were essential, but they were only a tool to aid the
scientists and engineers. As Masursky put it, "Computers are just like
wearing shoes. You need them when you are walking on gravel, but they
don't get you across the gravel." Viking was people interacting with the
computers and with one another, and according to Masursky it was "an
intensely human experience. It was young college undergraduates count-
ing craters. Grunt work is what the photogeologists called it, but it was
essential." Hour after hour, they peered through magnifying glasses,
337
ON MARS
counting large craters and those no bigger than a pin prick. It may have
been grunt work, but to someone 17 or 18 years old it was exciting to be at
the center of a major space project and know your work really counted.35
Gentry Lee also talked of the persons who worked outside the lime-
light. Many Viking team members thought of themselves as Earth-bound
sailors guiding their ships across the vastness of space. Jim Martin and Tom
Young stood in the command center, surrounded by their technical and
scientific advisers. Many of these men became known to the press as they
went before the microphones and cameras to explain the problems and
progress of the day. Lee, Masursky, Carr, and other members of the science
team became familiar faces on the evening news. Even Pete Lyman, head of
the Spacecraft Performance and Flight Path Analysis Directorate, took time
out from his busy schedule to brief the media on Viking's status. But many
others working' `in the bowels of the organization" the reporters did not see.
Akin to the boiler room crew on a ship, they did all the work necessary to
enable the men at the top to pick from several options; they did all the
paperwork, computer programming, and system checkouts. Lee noted that
he and others toward the top of the project hierarchy got positive re-
inforcement for their efforts; they got their names in the paper, they got their
faces on television. But the stokers in the boiler room just got groused at
and told to work faster and harder. At least 60 persons reworked mission
blueprints every time a change was made in the proposed landing zone or in
the date of the landing. But the esprit de corps was excellent because each
person was doing the job for which he had trained. They were doing more
than they had expected, but pride being part of the Viking team made the
extra effort a matter of honor.36
As things worked out, the hard work had just begun. Landing Site Staff
members had to schedule their duties around noon status briefings for the
press and their evening staff meetings. Sometimes working copies of mosa-
ics were spirited off to the photo lab so that composite pictures could be
released to the media. Given the strong interest and positive attitude of the
news people, the photogeologists could not really complain, but such
incidents were trying. It was not uncommon for new data to be delivered
during staff meetings, and Masursky and his colleagues would be called on
to make instant analyses before a group of several dozen specialists. Instant
science became a way of life during the last days of June and early July.
There was no time for idle speculation, no respite for reflection. Decisions
had to be made against the clock and the mission schedules. And only
human beings could make these decisions.
Which Option?
"If one sets off as Columbus did to find a new world, he would not
apologize for looking for a safe harbor," Jim Martin commented to the
press on 28 June. To give them some idea of the complexity of the decision-
making process, the next day Martin distributed to the press a "logic flow
338
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

diagram so each of you can be your own 1 udge of where we should go based
upon the evidence." After some laughter, he added, "I kid you not. You see
almost as much evidence as I do. So at each milestone, you can decide which
way you would go." At the two-hour Landing Site Staff meeting that
evening, the attendees considered that same logic flow chart as they pre-
pared for their big session on the 30th.31
Meeting for the 13th time, for four and a half hours on 30 June, the
Landing Site Staff wrestled with the three potential landing targets. During
the facilities report, the men in charge noted that fatigue was beginning to
catch up with some of their people. In turn, 10 specialists reported their
latest information and opinions.
Masursky synthesized the A-1 site selection and certification process:
Two and a half years earlier they had put the ellipse at the channel fronts
"in the hope of getting wet sediments." This spring they had added one
further northwest site, to avoid channel-borne boulders, and one northeast
site, to include the best radar location. "In all of this, we did not anticipate
that the channels would be incised deeply in the A-I site region." Mariner 9
had shown gentle workings in the areas where they could now see stream
cratering. Comparative crater counts showed that if they had gone to "A-1
biased" (A-1 revised, formerly called A- IS, 19.35°N, 32.5°), "we would have
been in reasonable shape. There is not a significant difference between A-1
and A-1NW. We did have to go further NW to avoid incised channels, but
this is not a marked change. Our course is not dramatically different from
what we set out on" two and a half years earlier. A-2 seemed less safe at the
moment; knobs and craters were more predominant, according to Mariner 9
findings. In the A-1 region, Masursky said, "the ranking is straightforward.
Jim Cutts' crater counts clearly show that we are moving in the right
direction. The choice is heavily weighted to the NW." The sun elevation,
however, was somewhat higher in the P8 and P10 pictures than in P4 and
P6, and lunar experience indicated that as the sun went up craters disap-
peared from photos.
Overall, Masursky rated the sites: A-2, worst. A-1 revised, next. A-1
NW, best from available data, the most favorable site at the moment.
When Masursky finished his summary, Tom Young asked fora vote by
those who had experience or a feel for the factors. No one present was ready
to land at A-1 revised. Thirty specialists favored A-1 northwest, while two
wanted to go to A-2. Three abstained—Carl Sagan, Len Tyler, and Henry
Moore—because there were not enough data to make a decision. Under
questioning, Sagan said if he had to he would vote for science and choose
A-1 revised. Tyler was strongly negative to A-I revised and said that A-I
northwest and A-2 looked equally good. Moore favored A-1 northwest and
A-2. If Arecibo radar confirmed the site, he would vote for A-I northwest,
but he just did not feel comfortable about trying to land without radar. Jim
Martin closed the meeting by reminding the group that he had not made his
decision, because not all the P10 photos were available yet."
339
 Views on 27 June 1976 of the A-I NW Chryse
Planitia site, an alternative to the A-1 land-
ing site on Mars, did little to relieve Viking
team worries. Viking 1's close look, in the
two orbiter frames at left, reveals an impact
crater, ejecta blanket, many small craters
with wind tails (probably dunes), fractures,
and knobs of rock. Above, the irregular
south edge of a plateau appears to have been
shaped by the flow of water.

Fifty-three persons attended the project manager's 8 a.m. landing site

meeting on 1 July. Without "rehashing" the previous night's meeting,
Martin wanted to hear any new information from those who had been
working all night, and then he wanted another vote. In the course of the
discussion, it became apparent that the worrisome factor was the Arecibo
radar observations scheduled for 4 and 5 July. John Naugle from head-
quarters asked the assembled specialists how bad the radar at A-1 north-
west had to be "to make us go to A-2." Len Tyler said it was difficult to
anticipate the results. If the data were similar to the Goldstone results for
A-1, he thought they should go to A-2. Carl Sagan thought that two
different situations were possible at A-1 northwest—good quality pictures
with mediocre quality radar, or good quality radar with mediocre pictures.
For safety, he wanted to see both good-quality radar and good-quality
photographs. After some additional discussion of radar by Von Eshleman,
Martin called for a show of hands. All present were asked to vote, and to
discourage fence-sitting he told them that anyone who abstained would
have to explain his position. Should they try to land at A-1 revised? No
hands were raised. Should they try for A-1 northwest? All but one voted for
this option; he favored the third possibility, A-22.39
At the noon briefing, Administrator Fletcher and Jim Martin talked
with the press. Fletcher congratulated Martin and his people for their hard
work and their apparent success in finding a safe landing site in what the
340
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

Administrator called the "Northwest Territory" (A-1 NW). Martin reported

that the flight team was working toward a landing on 17 ,July at 3 a.m. PDT.
Looking back later, Martin said it had been very troubling to find geologi-
cal features that the specialists neither expected nor understood. On Friday,
25 June, when the landing team was still struggling with the question of
what was going on in that area, Dr. Bob Hargraves from Princeton had
made a suggestion that caught Martin's attention. If you do not like this
river bed area from which material has been excavated, look for the area
where that debris has been deposited. "We started thinking about where
that river went." Since the river bed seemed to be going off to the northwest,
"that prompted our decision against landing at A-1.40
Gentry Lee and Hal Masursky had vivid recollections of that event. Lee
commented on the decision to go northwest: "I distinctly remember the
point where I believe Jim Martin changed his mind because I may have been
an hour or two ahead of him.... It wasn't exactly as if light bulbs went off,
but Bob Hargraves has a way at times of explaining things in such a—
especially big geologic things—in such a way that it becomes very clear."
Masursky thought it ironic that the leader of the magnetic properties team
could make so easily a point that he, the leader of the landing site certifica-
tion team, had been trying to get across for 18 months. But when Hargraves
had said, "Let's go downstream," it had come at precisely the proper
moment for Martin to react. Since Bill O'Neil and his navigators had
already worked out the procedures beforehand at Masursky's suggestion,
the Landing Site Staff had been able to move quickly once it had decided in
which direction to move.41
Between 1 and 6 July, as the project team waited for the Arecibo results,
the Landing Site Staff continued to evaluate existing information. During
an afternoon meeting on the 6th, Tyler telephoned from Stanford, where
the Arecibo data were still being analyzed. Generally, the results seemed to
corroborate earlier observations that the topography between 30° and 50°
longitude was rough—A-1 northwest was at 43°. Farther to the west, it
seemed to get smoother. The news was not reassuring.42

Renewed Crisis
Two crucial meetings were held 7 July. At 8 a.m. PDT, Len Tyler
presented the results of the Arecibo radar observations of early July. His
remarks were essentially the same as those given over the telephone the
previous afternoon:
Observations-
1) Good data obtained from Chryse Planitia July 3, 4. Data to West and to
the East obtained July 2 and 5 respectively.
2) July 3 and 4 provide detailed repeatable results from 41° to 46°W with
integrations as short at 0.7° in longitude.
341
ON MARS
Results-
3) One-half power widths generally corroborate Carpenter['s 1967 obser-
vations]. Generally rough between 35 1 and 50°W, smoother to the East
and to the West; with general quantitative agreement.
4) Chryse Planitia is a complex radar area, generally of roughness com-
parable to area observed by Arecibo SW of A -1 (33°-37°W, 17.5°N). On the
average, Chryse Planitia and SW A-1 are not distinguishable by the
current observations.
5) Spectra from Chryse Planitia on both July 3 and 4 show a sharp drop
(2:1) in total reflectivity at about 440W (23.2 0 N). This is interpreted as a
marked increase in roughness and/or decrease in reflectivity at that loca-
tion. However, the apparent abruptness of the change cannot be under-
stood in terms of a simple two-unit model for the scattering, indicating
the complexity of the area. (One needs to build specialized models to
explain such abrupt behavior on spectra averaging over wide areas.)
6) Spectra from Chryse Planitia on both July 3 and 4 show a "spike"
corresponding to approximately 42°W, suggestive of a smoother area near
that longitude.
7) There is no area within the regions probed in Chryse Planitia, of size
greater than about 3 0 in diameter, as smooth as the Martian average
(assuming that the reflectivity is not also anomalously low).

Radar was saying that the surface was rough where the photographs had
indicated it was smooth. The question was which to believe—whether
photos you can see, but at a scale larger than the lander, or radar, which
produces only spectral lines on graph paper but which supposedly has
"felt" the surface. Tyler's conclusions were that the southwestern and
northwestern regions of A-1 were twice as rough as the Martian average and
that west of 50° the surface was back to average. Tom Young closed the
morning session by summarizing their choices: (a) Go to A-1 NW. (b) Go to
A-1 WNW—because of new radar results, no Viking visual imaging. (c) Go
to A-2—because of old radar, no Viking visual imaging. "We may be
surprised at A-2 and there is a timeline problem." Young sent the Landing
Site Staff off to study these options before they reconvened at 4 p.m.43
Jim Martin summed up the new situation for the press at noon: "The
visual images are only really telling us what is observable at ... 100 meters
and up,. . . Rose Bowl size hazards." Tyler and his colleagues believed that
radar "feels slopes, boulders, in the order of a meter or a few meters in size."
Martin and his men had a decision to make that night—go ahead with the
plans for a 17 July landing or use the next day's maneuver to look for a new
site in the 50° longitude area. The map looked good, but no detailed
photographs had been taken in that region. Should a decision be made to
look farther west, any landing would be delayed another three to five days.
He believed that the radar data looked good; the problem was one of

342
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

interpretation, and he had to admit that there were differences of opinion as

to what the radar was telling them,44
Martin, presiding at the 18th Landing Site Staff meeting the night of 7
July, opened by saying: "We must move forward, if not to land, to do other
things. We must today tell" the Spacecraft Performance and Flight Path
Analysis Directorate what direction (east or west) to go tomorrow. "The
outcome of these discussions will be to continue to 23'/z°N and 43V29 W (the
A-1NW site), or go over and observe farther west.... We must be prepared to
continue beyond 6 p.m. tonight to air all viewpoints."
Tom Young took the floor. The fifth Mars orbit trim maneuver had to
be executed at 5 the next evening. "We will correct latitude and walk [move
the spacecraft] westward. If we decide tonight for A-1NW, we can land on
July 17. If we decide to go to WAANW [west A-1 northwest], we keep on
walking, and land at WA-1NW about July 20 plus one or two days." The
calendar of events was a full one:
Thursday, 8 July P-19, Mars orbit trim 5.
Friday, 9 July P-20, take 80 frames of monoscopic recon-
naissance coverage of WA- 1NW to 55°, con-
tiguous to the P-10 coverage.
Saturday, 10 Jul} P-21, photo coverage.
Sunday, 11 July P-22, 80 frames contiguous to P-20 coverage.
Wednesday, 14 July P-24,accept or reject area covered in P-20 and
P-22.
Thursday, 15 July P-25, Mars orbit trim 6.
or
Friday, 23 July P-33, Return to A-1 NW and land there.
And photography versus radar continued to be a dilemma. Site A-1NW
assessment by radar was that it was "bad"; by photos, "good." Site WA-1 NW
radar assessment was "good," but no photos would be available until P-20
and P-22. Good photos to accompany the good radar of the "far west"
would mean a landing there. Bad photos and good radar would mean going
back to A-1 northwest. It was obvious that it was difficult to say exactly what
the various radar signal returns meant. Sometimes the Landing Site Staff
could say with assurance that a particular signal reduced to spectral lines on
a graph equaled a specific terrain. Other spectra were just not fully under-
stood. Tyler was the first to say that he did not "want to land without
images" of the landing site. Young gave the group two choices—A-1
northwest on 17 July, or go west to west A-1 northwest and try for a landing
on the 20th. If the pictures there were bad, return to A-1 northwest and land
on the 23d.
The vote, when it came, totaled 23 for site A-1NW and 12 for going
west. Essentially, the voting indicated that the scientists were ready to land

343
ON MARS
anywhere and get on with the mission. Landing site and project staff
members, surprised by this vote, were still playing it cautious and wanted to
look at another location before chancing a landing. Martin told the group
he would make public his decision that night. 95 That evening the Viking
news center at JPL released a mission status report:
NASA officials have decided to study a possible new landing area on
Mars, some 575 kilometers (365 miles) further west than the previously
planned site. This will delay the landing of Viking 1 at least until July 20.
New radar results obtained July 3 and 4 at Arecibo Observatory
indicate that a more westerly area of Chryse Planitia may be smoother
than the previously selected northwest site. This area ... has not yet been
photographed by Viking.
Viking I will perform an orbital trim maneuver at approximately 5
p.m. PDT, Thursday, July 8, to begin moving the spacecraft over to the
western region, where high resolution photographs will be taken Friday,
July 9, and Sunday, July 11.
If these photographs indicate agreement with the recent radar data,
the landing can occur as early as July 20....46
Martin gave further details the next day at noon, and Len Tyler briefed the
press on the complex business of radar observation and the interpretation of
data. He tried to explain such terms as rms slope, "root mean square" being
a specific kind of mathematical average. He talked about sending a radar
beam out to Mars and then 36 minutes later measuring the nature of the
reflected signal. Using the analogy of a spotlight he said:
I1 Mars were perfectly smooth, one would see a single spot. that's about
one kilometer in size. That spot would be bright; otherwise Mars would be
dark. As you roughen the surface of the planet this single spot breaks up
into a multitude of smaller spots so that one sees a speckle pattern around
the ... radar point.... This pattern would be bright and otherwise the
planet would be quite dim.... As you increase the roughness ... the
size of the speckle pattern increases. So a very smooth location on Mars
will produce a very tight pattern, and a very rough location produces a
broader pattern.
While roughness affected the pattern of the reflected signal, it did not affect
its strength. On the other hand, the nature of the surface—hard to soft—
influenced the returned signal's power. The Arecibo data indicated a
rougher-than-average surface beneath the radar spot when it was aimed at
A-1 northwest. With these results the same as Haystack's radar findings of
nine years earlier, Tyler had voted to go farther west.47
When it was his turn to speak, Hal Masursky frankly indicated that he
was puzzled at the discrepancy between the photographs and radar observa-
tions. He noted that "if our backs were to the wall we would have ... [taken]
the increased risk of attempting to land in this small area embedded
between the radar rough areas" at A-1 northwest. "But since we have the
chance of looking just to the west ... where the radar spectra show a much
sharper, cleaner echo, then it seemed prudent to take the additional series of
344
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

pictures." To put a landing ellipse in a safe part of the A-1 northwest

region, "we'd have to put at least half of it outside the photographic
coverage and again that didn't seem like a good idea." So Masursky also
wanted to look further before committing Viking I to a final landing
place.48
Viking 1 Landing Site Decision
The fifth-orbit trim maneuver was executed just before 6 p.m. PDT on
8 July. After loading the spacecraft's computer memory with the maneuver
command,. ground controllers had temporarily lost contact with Viking for
an expected blackout period, from 4:40 to 6:13 p.m. Viking I performed the
40.77-second engine burn flawlessly and was on its way to look at the "far
west." The next day for important decisions would be 14 July, by which
time the P20 and P22 photos would be fully evaluated. Then the project
team could choose between west A-1 northwest and A-1 northwest.
Meanwhile, the Landing Site Staff was trying to draw conclusions
about the B and C sites for Viking 2. On 8 July, Barney Farmer reported on
his atmospheric water studies over the Capri region (C-1 at 5 0S); at this
season of the year it appeared warm and dry, not biologically promising.
Farmer remarked that if he had his choice free from all other constraints he
would land at Hellas Planitia, which because of its low elevation (high
pressure) offered the probability of more water and higher temperatures
than other sites. His description of Capri led to a phrase popular with the
specialists—it was "hotter than Hellas."49
On the 12th, the site staff met to consider the insights for the Viking 1
site gained up to that point from the P10, P20, and P22 photographs. John
Guest of the University of London had reviewed the revised and updated
geology hazard map and found that neither textured surface nor grooved
plains existed in the landing ellipse, except possibly some fine grooving
below the resolution limit of the cameras. Additionally, channels disap-
peared or stopped rather suddenly, and Guest thought this indicative of
their being covered over by wind- or water-borne dust or larger particles (a
process called mans] ing) rather than their being below the resolution limit.
Hal Masursky believed that existence of this younger, thicker mantling was
consistent with the drop in radar reflectivity in that direction. Norm Crabill
noted in the meeting minutes, "As we go west, we get into older geologic
units and sharper reflectivity, with sharper features appearing further
west." Masursky believed that they had reached the best location for a
landing. He reported that although the slopes in the new ellipse (47.5°
longitude) were as bad as those in A-1 the radar reflectivity was better.
Significantly, this region seemed to have relatively few young impact
craters, which meant that the area was probably covered with weathered
materials that would pose less of a hazard to the lander.
Len Tyler presented findings from the continued radar analysis.
Tongue in cheek, he suggested that the reflected signals dropped off signifi-
345
ON MARS
can tly either because of scattering caused by the surface or because of a hole
through the planet. But, despite the "Chryse Anomaly," he noted that the
surface looked better at 47 0 to 480 . Radar data were once again the subject of
considerable discussion among the specialists, but after a couple of hours
Martin closed the session. They would reconvene that night to consider the
additional P22 pictures processed by then and reach a decision. If they could
not do so quickly, they would meet at 3:00 the next morning and continue to
meet until they selected a landing site. Some tempers and senses of humor
were wearing thin, but Martin continued to display his steady, firm, author-
itative manner. A decision needed to made, and he intended to see it
through.
Hal Masursky opened that night's session. He saw three possible
landing areas: alpha, at 22.4°N, 47.5°; beta, at 22.5°N, 49.0°; or gamma, at
22.0°N, 51.00 . After the staff had moved ellipses around the photomosaics
(playing what Masursky called "cosmic ice hockey"), counted hazards, and
evaluated radar, alpha looked best. Mike Carr expressed an opinion held by
several attendees at that late meeting on 12 July, "Don't prolong the debate,
the choice is clear." Too often, he thought, meetings had lasted a specific
number of hours simply because it was traditional for them to last that long.
He was ready to force the vote.
The alpha site would be a compromise between the hazards visible in
the photographs, primarily impact craters and the blocks ejected from
them, and the small-scale surface properties "felt" by the radar. A vote was
called for, and alpha, at 22.5° north latitude, 47.5° longitude, was the
unanimous choice for the spot to land Viking 1. The 22d meeting of the
Landing Site Staff adjourned at midnight. 50 Mike Carr reflected that he
never had any second thoughts once the decision had been made. "I didn't
realize how great a strain it had been on me.... When the decision was
finally made it was as though a tremendous load went off. "51
With site certification completed on the 12th and the spacecraft's orbit
adjusted on the 16th, the project focused its attention on preparing for a 20
July landing. Final descent trajectory information and minor sequence
changes were sent to the orbiter, and a set of commands for entry, landing,
and the preprogrammed mission was transmitted to the lander. The same
set of commands was transmitted to the Lander Support Office at Martin
Marietta, where a computer-simulated mission was being flown.
At 5:12 a.m. PDT on 20 July 1976, the seventh anniversary of man's first
steps on the moon, the Landing Site Staff learned that the Viking 1 lander
had touched down safely on Mars 19 minutes earlier. The job half done,
the staff continued to evaluate sites for the second spacecraft.
SECOND SITE NO EASIER
On 14 July, after one day off, the Landing Site Staff renewed its work.
As part of the project's open policy, several reporters and photographers
were permitted to watch the group in action. This meeting concentrated on
346
 `'^:...

Hal Masursky (above) on 12 July 1976

explains the geology apparent in the P22
photos. Jerry Soffen stands on his right.
Across the mosaics, standing from right,
are Tom Young, Jim Martin, Carl Sagan,
Mike Carr, and an unidentified partici-
pant. Photo taken by Hans-Peter Bie-
man. Target for Viking 1 in Chryse Pla-
nitia at 22.4°N latitude, 47.5° longitude is
shown in a photo taken 17 July. The area,
photographed from 1551 kilometers
away, is a smooth plain with many
impact craters.

engineering considerations affecting latitude selection for Viking 2. The

tenor of the discussions indicated that the C site latitudes were less favored
than the B site region to the north, because the former were too high, too hot,
and too dry. Debate continued as the Landing Site Staff once again tried to
evaluate a landing zone without having seen the surface.52
On the 16th, Hal Masursky led off the day's session by asking what they
would learn if they could put a spacecraft down in each of the sites they had
considered. A-1 was where the largest Martian channel complex opened onto
Chryse Planitia. According to Masursky and Crabill, it was "the best area to
observe where water and possibly near-surface ice had occurred in large
quantities in the past—the optimum place to look for complex organic
347
ON MARS

molecules." B-1 had been selected because it was in a region where high
water vapor concentration might be expected; also, at this longitude the two
orbiters could provide relay support for either lander. C- I and C-2 had been
chosen because they had appeared safe to the radar team. The landing site
team had to choose between B and C for Viking 2.53
Among others, John Guest, Mike Carr, and Ron Greeley presented
their thoughts on the nature of Martian geology in these regions. Harold
Klein gave his reasons for preferring B; central to his argument was water.
And Josh Lederberg, also believed that there was a better chance for water at
the northern latitudes. Vance Oyama dissented, saying that the B region
was too cold; the temperature was always below freezing. The next day, only
4 members of the group were in favor of the C sites (5°S), while 30 wanted to
go to the B region (44°N). Jim Martin reminded them he would have to make
the final choice for the second mission by 3 p.m. 24 July. 59 A poll was taken
again on the 21st after the first Viking 1 pictures of the surface had been
studied-3 favored the C latitudes, while about 40 voted for B.55
Worries about the B Sites
Cydonia (B-I, 44.3°N, 10°) had been chosen as the Viking 2 prime site
because it was low, about five to six kilometers below the mean Martian
surface, and because it was near the southernmost extremity of the winter-
time north polar hood. B- I also had the advantage of being in line with the
first landing site, so the Viking 1 orbiter could relay data from the second
lander while the second orbiter mapped the poles and other parts of Mars
during the proposed extended mission. While this was a good spot to find
water,* Masursky was worried about the geology of the region. He asked
David Scott, who had prepared the geology maps, to work up a special
hazard map for B-1. After studying the map, Masursky came to the conclu-
sion that the area was not "landable." This analysis, of course, was made
with maps based on Mariner 9 photographs. He told Tom Young and Jim
Martin, however, that there was one hope; wind-borne material may have
mantled the rough terrain and covered "up all those nasties we see."
The first pictures of B-I were taken on periapsis 9, and it was worse
than Masursky had imagined. "But it was not particularly a shock because I
was scared to death of that site before it happened." Masursky proposed a
big swath of pictures heading off to the northeast to about 57° north.
Somewhere in the "Northeast noodle," he hoped that they would see the
mantling develop and cover the rough terrain. Because of engineering
constraints, however, Viking 2 could not land above 50° north. "So,"
according to Masursky, "we cut off the noodle and ... called it the `North-
east rigatoni'—that's a short noodle. "56
Meanwhile, the lander science team was having some worries of its
own with the lander on the surface. The seismometer had failed to respond
•
If the pressure was as high as 7.8 millibars and the temperature rose above freezing, liquid water
was possible at Cydonia.

348
The first pictures of the Viking 2 site were not very promising. Photos of the
preselected primary landingsite, Cydonia, were obtained 28 June by Viking 1 orbit-
er cameras from a range of 2050 kilometers. The rim of the crater Arandas is on
the right edge. Rocks outcrop in the inner well, and ejecta form a lobate pattern
with surface ridges and grooves. Small pedestal craters may have been caused by
impact and etched out by wind. The center of the left photo is at 43°N latitude and
7.6° longitude; the right, 42.4 0N latitude, 7.3° longitude.

to actuation commands from Earth, and some transient communications

difficulties had to be corrected. But most significant for the Landing Site
Staff, the sampler arm on the lander had stuck on the third day of the landed
mission (sol 3). Although the Viking team was able to diagnose the diffi-
culty, devise and test a solution, and free the sampler boom assembly in time
to collect soil samples on schedule (sol 8), the problem emphasized the
importance of safely landing Viking 2. Simply put, if Viking I failed, then
no chances could be taken in choosing a landing site for the second mission.
All the tension and pressure experienced during the past month reap-
peared.57
With the second spacecraft about 2.7 million kilometers from Mars,
Martin told the press on Sunday, 25 July, that the navigators were going to
make an approach midcourse maneuver at 6 p.m. PDT on the 27th to
position the craft for orbit insertion on 7 August. Targeting the spacecraft
for about 46° north, "we're going into an orbit which will allow us to spend
some time observing three possible north latitudes. Two of them are known
as B-1 and B-2.... We've spent a fair amount of energy looking for landing
sites in B-1; so far we haven't seen anything I would like to put an ellipse in."
Continued observation of the B-1 "rigatoni" identified a complex history of
"aeolian deposition interleaved with erosion stripping." As Masursky and
Crabill reported in Science, in some places secondary crater clusters pep-
pered the small plains. In other areas, stripping of the uppermost aeolian
349
ON MARS
mantle had left secondary craters protruding as hummocks where crater
ejecta had inhibited stripping. "In any case, the small areas of aeolian
mantle were not large enough to locate an ellipse in, and the entire B-1
region was rejected."58 During the 27 July Landing Site Staff meeting, held
just before the successful execution of the midcourse correction maneuver,
Masursky indicated that there were several nice little spots in B-1 but they
were only one-tenth the size of the necessary landing ellipse.59
A suitable landing site had still not been found in B-1 when Viking 2
went into orbit on 7 August at 5:29 a.m. PDT. Project strategy now called for
using the second orbiter in the search for a site at Alba Patera (B-2) or
Utopia Planitia. Masursky and Crabill noted that coverage of Alba Patera
during P4 and P7* "raised and then dashed hopes that it would prove to be a
suitable landing site." On revolution four, the photo calibration sequence
indicated a possible site in the northern region of Alba where Masursky had
located his first ellipse using Mariner 9 images. As Young and Masursky
watched the P7 pictures come in on the digifax machine, the region still
looked smooth. Thinking they had found a likely prospect for a landing
zone, they decided to get more pictures during the 15th orbit. 60 During the
night, the mosaic team pasted up all the P7 photos, and Masursky was
shocked by what he saw. Where the individual photos had shown a smooth
terrain, the mosaic revealed a territory that was "rougher than hell." The
difference was in the computer processing; under the proper processing, the
region appeared very rough, covered by textured lava flows. Masursky
thought to himself, "I think we've got a problem." He called for a special
meeting of the landing team on 17 August.
Gentry Lee opened the 42d meeting with a review of the "fast breaking
events" since the previous day. After closer examination of Alba Patera's
"smooth" spots, Masursky had concluded that it was not smooth enough.
"Nothing in B-2 looks comfortable." Lee also noted that "we have an
exhausted crew, as evidenced by the high frequency of errors in the prod-
ucts, from trying to maintain all four options." Those choices had been
labeled B-2 early, the earliest site at which they could land; B-2 late, the
latest site at which they could land; B-1; and B-3. Earlier that day, the
Landing Site Steering Committee, an independent group of scientists
advising Martin, had met and decided to drop the first three options and
shoot for B-3. This decision was the most controversial action taken during
the entire site selection-certification process.61
Masursky recalled the events that led to that decision. At the 17 August
steering committee meeting, he told Young and the others that B-2 was just
no good; they did not need to break their backs getting the P15 photo-
graphs. Since B-2 was out, everyone also agreed to drop B-2 early, and
Masursky concurred. But then someone suggested getting rid of B-2 late, as
well. Masursky protested; they had not "even looked at the rest of the
pictures in the B-2 area." However, they dropped the B-2 late option since it
*These orbit numbers (periapsides figures) are for the second mission.
350
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

would save work and time. The next recommendation was that a candidate
they had been calling "B-1 awful" be scrapped, too. "We were taking six
more sets of pictures there ... to see if we could find a site," Masursky
remembered. Dropping "B-1 awful" cut out another option. The meeting
had lasted only 15 minutes, when others had lasted hours. Masursky left the
session stunned: "We had committed the project to landing at B-3 where we
had zero data."62
What happened at that meeting? Gentry Lee reflected that each man in
the Viking management had a different perspective and a different worry,
even though they were all directed toward the same goal. From his perspec-
tive as manager of the Science Analysis and Mission Planning Directorate,
he worried about his team; by mid-August he had a near mutiny on his
hands. His people had to preserve four mission alternatives. To do that,
"They had to do every day four times as much work as normal. They had to
have a plan for what was going to happen eight days in the future on each of
those options and so those poor people were just about to bite the dust."
Norm Crab] ll also noted that the flight team was too tired to jump through
any more hoops. Young and Martin saw the signs as well. Masursky was not
happy with the decision, but being a team member and a team player he
agreed to try for B-3.63
B-3 called for a landing late on the afternoon of 3 September. From that
location, called Utopia Planitia (47.9° north, 225.9°), 186 photos would
begin coming in the night of the 17th and continue being played back until
2 a.m. PDT on the 21st. All observations previously planned through P15
would still be made and processed, but no operational planning would be
done for any of the B-1 or B-2 areas. 64 According to Masursky, the B-3
pictures looked terrible. While he was pondering the situation in the
photomosaic room at JPL, he was visited by Henry Moore, who picked up a
recently completed mosaic of B-2. Moore found what looked like "sand
dunes all over that area" and called over his colleague. "Hank, I think
you're smoking pot!" was Masursky's first reply, but when he looked at the
mosaic he had to concede that there might be dunes. Because of poor
exposure, it was difficult to tell, so they worked up special enhancements.
"My God, that really looked good. That looks like that area is really covered
by dunes." B-2 west was a promising area. Next they spotted smaller dunes
in the B-3 region (48-490 N, 2200 ) that covered the ejecta blanket outside the
large crater Mie (100 kilometers in diameter) and actually went into the
crater. Farther to the west, some faint marks could be interpreted as the
beginning of aeolian-deposited mantling material. This discovery led to a
whole new debate: " Do dunes cover rocks, blocks and other hazards created
by the erosional and cratering processes that might otherwise menace a
lander?"65
The dune controversy began on the afternoon of 18 August and con-
tinued through the final site review on the 21st. Openly admitting his
preference for the B-2 area where they had spotted the dunes, Masursky
developed a new argument for landing there. In the absence of lunarlike
351
ON MARS
mantles, dunes offered reasonable protection from rocks and blocks. Big
dunes, as seen at B-2, offered better protection than the small dunes seen
near the crater Mie. Before the meeting on the 21st, one of the landing site
team members told Masursky that they would have to land at B-3. They
could not "announce on Tuesday that all options are closed off except B-3,
and then on Saturday decide to go back to B-2." Masursky believed they
would "do the right thing. "66
On Saturday afternoon, 21 August, a formal review of two candidate
sites—B-2 west and B-3 east—was held. During the first mission search,
individual rock units had been mapped but, during the Viking 2 analyses,
hazards had been defined in terms of debris ejected from craters, steep
slopes, or areas subjected to different processes (stripping, mantling, and
texturing). All these features had been mapped to determine favorable areas,
and those mapped features were the center of discussion. Tom Young
reminded them that safety was the fundamental issue but that they must try
to keep "the science factors visible." And Hugh Kieffer reported on his
infrared thermal-mapping instrument (IRTM), which was being used as a
substitute for radar since there was no radar information for the northern
sites. Masursky identified the five candidate ellipses:

B-3 East alpha 47.20N lat. 224.9° long.

B-3 East beta 48.0°N 228.00
B-2 West I 44.1°N 154.90
B-2 West II 47.30N 156.60
B-2 West III 43.50N 153.0°"'

In their report in Science, Masursky and Crabill evaluated these areas.

The dunes in the B-2 region appeared to be bigger and apparently thicker
than those in B-3. In B-3 there seemed to be some favorable aeolian mantle,
even if it showed signs of being pitted. The northern part of B-3 looked
better; cracks became shallower and craters were less abundant. Because of
defects in some of the B-2 photos and an atmospheric haze that had obscured
the surface, the interpreters were cautious in their estimates of the dunes in
that zone. Some of the photogeologists believed that the decreasing number
of small craters in B-3 would continue down to the scale of the lander. Some
felt that the B-2 craters and ejecta blocks, being smaller than those in B-3,
were better covered by B-2's bigger dunes and that B-3's smaller dunes might
not cover the ejecta from the larger craters there as well. Still others favored
site B-3 because they thought it appeared smoothed by uniform mantling. It
was Tom Young's opinion that, although the geological conditions at B-2
east and B-3 west were different, the hazards gave them about the same safety
ranking.
352
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING

Continued discussion at the meeting on 21 August centered on the size

of the block hazards that they might encounter. Their best analyses pre-
dicted that the wind-borne mantling material was sufficient to cover the
small blocks thrown out of the craters by meteoritic impact. In the region of
the crater Mie, it was hard to project what size blocks could be anticipated.
Rocks up to 10 meters in diameter were not ruled out, because of the ejecta
measured in the Surveyor 7 lunar landing site and Apollo 15, 16, and 17
high-resolution photographs of the moon. According to Masursky and
Crabill, "The block populations depend on the number of small craters
below the resolution limit that may excavate blocks from below the wind-
laid mantle and the nUInber exposed by deflation. Slopes were deemed
acceptable based on Earth analogs, except on the inner margins of crat-
ers." 68 Hugh Kieffer's infrared thermal-mapping device did not provide
conclusive assistance in selecting a site. When the pictures looked good,
there were no IRTM data. Where the IRTM gave good results, there were no
photographs. For no site were there both photos and IRTM information.
From the IRTM, B-2 looked less blocky than B-3, but with the IRTM the
latter looked a good deal like Viking Ps landing point. After nearly two
hours of discussion, a dinner break was called.
The meeting reconvened at 6:35 p.m. "Is there demonstrated evidence
that a significant increment in safety exists in going to B-2 that warrants
changing the current plan to go to B-3?" asked Tom Young. Mike Carr
thought the larger dunes in B-2 argued for safety, but then so did the effects
of wind in B-3. Klein and Biemann favored B-2 because more water might
be present for the biology experiment. After a number of other opinions had
been expressed, Young called for a show of hands on two questions:
"Should we select B-3E/B-2W or continue to search? If we decide on a
specific site tonight, should it be B-3E or B-2W?" Of those voting, 28 wanted
a site; 9 wished to continue searching. The B-2 site would be chosen by 20,
B-3 by 10.
Jim Martin concluded the open part of the meeting by requesting Tom
Young, Gentry Lee, Jerry Soffen, Carl Sagan, Hal Masursky, Norm Crabill,
Mike Carr, Hugh Kieffer, Conway Snyder, Brad Smith, Tim Mutch, and
Bob Hargraves to attend an executive session of the Landing Site Staff.
Young favored B-3 and enumerated his reasons: (1) Safety—B-3 appeared to
be mantled, muted, and filled. With all that cover, it was hard to believe that
there could be serious hazards to the lander. Since Carr and others were not
particularly confident about B-2 because of the visibility problems, Young
liked B-3 better. (2) Science—Young saw limited distinction between the
two. B-2 might have a slight edge because of more water and higher tempera-
tures, but those elements did not outweigh the safety differential between
the two sites. As Masursky and Crabill pointed out, "The most significant
scientific distinction had already been realized when the northern latitude
band was selected." (3) Operations—The landing would be more straight-
forward at B-3. To land at B-2 would require additional data analysis, and
353
ON MARS
that would delay the landing significantly (according to Martin, the delay
could be as long as two or three weeks). Such a delay, attended by greater
operational complexity, did not seem to be justified by his readings of the
two sites.
Project Manager Martin agreed with his mission director. He noted
that several of the scientists wanted to do more ambitious exercises with the
second lander, but he believed that additional observations of B-2 would
work an already tired team into the ground. He could not see imposing such
a killing load on the flight team. After some brief comments from others,
Martin said they would go with B-3. It was safe enough; i t had good enough
science. There was no radar, but he was willing to take that risk. Gathering
around the B-3 east stereo mosaic, the group determined the preliminary
coordinates-48.0° north, 226.0 1 . 69 Final coordinates were chosen on 30
August after reviewing the P20 photographs: 47.89°N, 225.86°.
Renewed Drama
An orbital trim maneuver on 25 August 1976 ended Viking 2's walk
around the planet. Two days later a final trim synchronized the periapsis
point relative to the landing site, which was centered 200 kilometers from
the crater Mie. Before preseparation checkout of the second spacecraft,
mission control put the first lander into the "reduced mission mode,"
permitting the flight team to concentrate on the second craft. At 9 a.m. PDT
on 3 September, the Viking Flight Team met for the "go/no-go" separation
meeting. With the exception of one of the terminal descent radar beams and
a gyroscopic ;stabilizer that had given them some trouble, there were no
problems with the spacecraft; all systems were "go" for separation. The
radar problem was solved by locking out the troublesome unit, since tltc
lander could touch down with only three of the landing radar beams
functioning. And further analysis of the Y-axis gyro led the specialists to
believe that it would not give them any trouble. Viking 2 was ready for the
big moment—separation and descent to the surface.
When asked how he assessed the risks and dangers of the Utopia site as
compared to the Chryse site, Martin replied that he believed Utopia was
safe. Even without ground-based radar information, he believed the pro-
cessing of the planet had laid a thick mantle of sand or soillike material over
any rocks and obstacles such as seen around lander 1. The Utopia area
appeared to have perhaps more undulations, hills, and valleys, but he
thought the slopes were gentle, and only 10 percent as many craters were
visible. To the query, "Do you call 155 foot [47-meter] high sand dunes a
better landing area?" Martin replied:
Well let me say that there was not unanimity in the selection of this
landing site. My job is much easier when everybody gets up and says let's
go this direction. Well, here we had a case where people were wanting to
go in a couple of different directions. I still believe that from my own

354
A landingsite for thesecond Vik-
ing lander is chosen in the east-
ern end of Utopia Planitia, 48°N
latitude, 226° longitude. These
three photos were taken by the
Viking 2 orbiter 16 August 1976
from 3360 kilometers away.
Rough ground and craters ap-
pear blanketed by dunes.

knowledge of big sand dunes, that we can land on essentially any sand
dune in i lic United States. I think the Lander is very tolerant to this kind of
hazard. I think it is very intolerant to big rocks. So I would trade sand
dunes for big rocks any day.70
On 3 September, the world would be able to judge the wisdom of the
landing site team's decision.
But there were some heart-stopping moments before Viking mission
control knew that the lander was on the surface. Confirmation of separation
came as scheduled at 12:39:59 p.m. Three seconds later came an indication
that the orbiter had been upset. Twent y -six seconds later the power supply
to the gyros on the orbiter cut out; the second power unit went out at
12:41:19. Without power, the inertial reference unit, which kept the orbiter
aligned properly in space, could no longer control Viking 2. As the space-
craft began to drift off course, its high-gain antenna lost contact with Earth.
Within minutes of the failure, the orbiter's computer sensed the problem
and commanded the backup inertial reference unit to take over and stabilize
the attitude of the spacecraft.
While the men in the Deep Space Network worked to regain contact
with Viking 2, the lander was on its way to the surface. To monitor the
progress of the descending craft, the flight team tensely watched a small
stream of engineering data coming down through the low-gain antenna.
Throughout the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, project personnel, news peo-

355
Viking 2 landing site
47.96° N
225.77° W
270° 300°
Utopia 240 0 \ / / 330° Aview from the Martian north
Planitia North Pole 0o pole shows the location of the
210° two Viking sites.
30°
180°
/ 60'
1500 Acidalia
1200 90° Planitia

/ \ 60° Z

\ Viking 1 landing site

30 0 22.460 N
Ohr se
Olympus 48.010 W y
Planitia
Mons

roc
Qua

Valles
Marineris

ple, and guests waited, subdued, for each little clue that would tell them all
was going well.
At 3:58:20 p.m. PDT (9:49:05 a.m. local Mars time) on 3 September 1976,
the second lander touched down safely. Cheers mixed with sighs of relief,
though the crisis was not over yet. The Deep Space Network worked with
the flight team to get the proper commands to the orbiter. Once the space-
craft locked back onto its celestial reference point—the star Vega—Earth
control again began to recover mission data, including the first two photo-
graphs taken by the lander's cameras immediately after the craft had
reached the Martian surface.71
Viking 2's landed photos illustrated a much rockier terrain than even
the first site. One rock near the lander's footpad in the first picture looked as
if it had been moved during landing. Martin and Young reported that the
panoramic second picture revealed "a flat horizon and a landscape strewn
with many rocks of various types. The tilt of the horizon indicates that the
spacecraft may have landed on a rock." They also noted, "As a surprise, the
panorama shows none of the sand dunes expected from the observations
from orbit. A generally featureless terrain spreads flatly toward the horizon,
more so than at the site of Viking 1. "72
LESSONS LEARNED
After the second landing, seven key Viking team members talked about
the landing site selection process. Of the lessons they had learned, had they
labeled any as especially significant? If later there were a third mission,
what would they do differently? All these men had worked toward the same

356
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING
end—safely landing two spacecraft on the Martian surface—but they had
viewed the experience from seven different perspectives.
James S. Martin. Support for his decisions from the space agency's top
management in Washington figured highly in Martin's recollections.
Postponing the Fourth of July landing had probably been one of his most
difficult moves. Martin had been "quite horrified" by the first photographs
of Chryse, remembering the rough dry river beds and uneven washes he had
walked over in Death Valley. And the river bed they had seen on Mars was
many times larger, with cliffs hundreds of meters high. It has been his
choice to make, and he had wanted a safer site. Martin remarked that even if
Viking had safely touched down on the Fourth of J tlly, the landing "would
have been lost among the Tall Ships," a reference to the publicity given the
bicentennial parade of ships in New York harbor. That historic date had
been chosen in 1970 after a preliminary trajectory analysis singled out the
first week in July 1976 for a landing, but the Red Planet had not cooperated.
The bicentennial was celebrated without a Viking on Mars.
If Martin were going to land a third Viking, he would make some
changes. He was unhappy with the data with which they had had to work. If
there were to be a next time, he wanted to equip the lander with a terminal-
hazard-avoidance device or a computer-controlled laser guidance system
that could evaluate the surface and pick the safest part of a general area in
which to land. Both kinds of hardware were available; the latter concept had
been used in "smart bombs" in Vietnam. Martin and all his colleagues
wanted more information guiding the next Viking on its final approach. A
terminal guidance system would eliminate any radar versus photography
controversy, Martin suggested, still skeptical about the use of radar.
I'm not con \ i aced that the radar told us anything useful at al I. But on the
other hand, I believe that it provided an input and a source of information
that [we] could not ignore....
I looked at the radar as a source of data. I frankly never did ... accept
it as an absolute.... But I've got to believe that when they get a pass, like
at that Northwest Site, and there's something screwy right in the middle of
a place that looks just like everything else [in the photographs], the radar
is seeing something. For all I know, it was seeing sand dunes ... it could
have been seeing something perfectly safe, but the fact that it was so
different scared me off.73
A. Thomas Young. Radar played a useful role, Young believed, as he
reviewed the background of using radar as an aid in landing site certifica-
tion. "When we went through the initial selection [process], radar played
no role, because we weren't smart enough to know how to use it." But
Young and Gerald Soffen had gone to Stanford University to confer with
Von Eshleman and Len Tyler.
NASA provided the funds for Tyler and his colleagues to develop the
means of interpreting radar data so this tool could be used to evaluate the
357
ON MARS
nature of proposed landing sites on Mars. Young's basic philosophy had
been: "Use whatever tools we had available to the maximum extent we
could, recognizing that none of them was good enough for absolute site
certification." He thought they had probably used this tool before they fully
understood what the signals meant. While the technique for interpreting
radar data had not matured to the extent that they had absolute confidence
in the results, he believed that the radar signals received from the A-1
northwest site did indicate that it was unsafe. Above all, Young commented,
they had to be responsible in how they used the data provided them.79
Gerald A. Soffen. As project scientist, Soffen was interested in the
process of scientists at work and concerned that that work be consistently
credible. Caught in a philosophical frame of mind after a few days' rest,
Soffen said he believed that the crisis over the landing sites had forced them
to study the planet with an intensity that would not have existed if Mars had
been as bland as Mariner 9 had led them to believe. Talking about the days
between 23 June and 21 August, Soffen said:
We learned about Mars in that period. And it is sad to say we will
probably never learn as much from the Orbiter pictures ... as we did
during that intensive period—because we had to. Because people were
forced around the clock to do work and integrate their efforts in a way that
unfortunately they don't do simply because they are inspired. Inspiration
works to a very small extent on any person. What drives us is necessity....
Soffen's observation was that, since only so much data could be collected
and since they were working against the clock, the scientists could not re-
treat into the familiar excuse "I need more data."
Because time was an element that we could not sacrifice, the energies
of the people and the brilliance, deduction, the thought, the concerted
effort, was as intensive as anything I have ever seen.... It was most
remarkable. Remarkable because I saw people who otherwise have to take
days off, have to take time off, have to relax. Their adrenalin kept them
going in a way that I have never seen.... That was the moment in which
the true concept of a team met its test. It was like an army that was
desperately fighting for its life. It was either going to win or it was going to
lose. It is not a question of "Maybe I'll survive and they won't." We're all
in the same space program.
Soffen believed some important lessons were learned during the search
for sites. First of all, they had erred in trusting the Mars maps based on
Mariner 9 findings. He suspected that if someone had shown the Landing
Site Staff the actual photographs or had verbally described the surface of the
planet to them using the raw data, they would not have had such confi-
dence. "But seeing the U.S. Geological Survey maps, the straight lines and
real numbers and real elevations, gave it an air of credence...." A second
lesson was that real-time decision-making had to be a combination of effort
358
 SITE CER'I IFICATION AND LANDING

between mission specialists and managers. Before Viking arrived at Mars,

Soffen had formed a four-man landing site advisory group—Josh Leder-
berg, Brad Smith, Toby Owen, and Carl Sagan—to listen to the site certifi-
cation deliberations and advise Soffen, Young, and Martin. But events
moved too fast. There was no time to reflect and cogitate; decisions had to be
made; Landing Site Staff meetings never followed a neat pattern .75
Hal Masursky pointed to the same problem. Mosaics, just recently
pasted together, were often brought into meetings in progress. There he
was, faced with interpreting completely new information on the spot, with
everyone waiting for his words of wisdom so a decision could be made.
"That's hard to do," he noted. "Emotionally and managerially it's not the
right way to do it. You need to work, digest, come to conclusions by arguing
and then pass on a recommendation." But there was never time. For
example, the team would schedule 8 days for the analysis of a particular
issue, but the specialists might be able to devote only 10 seconds of wits-
gathering to the problem. Pressure from the mission schedule made the
scene tense, and too often general scientists, members of the landing site
advisory group, for example, had to defer to specialists. Masursky, among
others, was not as concerned about the pace as he was with the precipitous
nature of their decision-maki ng. But they had committed themselves to the
real-time game, and decisions had to be made on schedule.76
One other observation Soffen made dealt with spheres of influence.
Position in the project heirarchy had little to do with power of influence
over Jim Martin, "an absolute dictator," in Soffen's words. If any one
person—regardless of rank—had an idea that made good sense to Martin, he
listened and acted accordingly. During early J uly, it had been Tyler who had
held center stage with his radar data. "A week earlier we dismissed what Len
Tyler had to say, as though we weren't interested," Soffen recalled. The
activity of so many intense individuals working closely together gave the
site selection-site certification process a dynamism typical of the entire
Viking effort. 77 Such a human endeavor needed discipline.
B. Gentry Lee. If Jim Martin were the dictator, as many had suggested,
Gentry Lee was the intellectual disciplinarian. From his vantage point as
science analysis and mission planning director, Lee noted that "we went
into thesite certification process with two distinctly different views of how it
was going to operate. ,, Many project personnel members—Lee, Martin, and
Young among them—did not want to deviate from the previously selected
sites unless it were absolutely necessary, since they were relatively certain
they had found the best sites available. All the mission operating plans were
designed for those targets, with time and money arguing against changes.
But a second group, primarily scientists, wanted to search for even better
sites during the certification process. Caught between the two were men like
Mike Carr and Hal Masursky, who simply wanted to see that the spacecraft
landed safely in a scientifically valid location. Probably the only thing that
avertedopen controversy was the terrible nature of the prime Chryse region.
359
ON MARS
Lee found himself in the role of interlocutor. Even more important, it
was his task to ensure that the operational people and the scientists under-
stood each other's needs and limitations. Lee participated in the Landing
Site Staff meetings not only to translate for each group the other's goals and
problems, but also to make certain that the discussions remained germane
to the issues at hand. When they did not, he turned disciplinarian, "trying
to get people back where they belonged."
After Lee looked over the photographs of the Martian surface sent back
from the two landers, he concluded that if the flight team had seen the sites
that clearly before the landings, it would not have certified them as safe. The
team had sought zones that were 99 percent "landable," and to Lee the sites
they had chosen now appeared to be hazardous at best. "But the thing that
we don't know is how much worse the areas may have been that we
rejected." Without the rigorous search-certification operation, they would
have had no hope of a successful landing. Lee and Martin agreed that a third
Viking landing using the same certif ication tools would have no guarantee
of touching down safely. Before another craft was sent to Mars, Lee hoped
they would have a better understanding of radar and infrared thermal
mapping. He also had hopes that the low-altitude photography planned
for the extended Viking mission, with periapsides as low as 300 kilometers,
would give them a totally new look at the surface, including hazards of the
15- to 20-meter scale.78
Michael H. Carr. Mike Carr also had something to say about low-level
photography. Commenting on the gap between the 100-meter-resolution
orbiter imaging photographs and the Lander photographs, the leader of the
orbiter imaging team said:
We've got to bring the orbiter down in the extended mission to 200, 300,
400 kilometers and use the scan platform for image [motion] compensa-
tion. [We must] squeeze the maximum resolution we can out of the orbiter
cameras over significant areas, so that we're getting data at a much finer
scale in anticipation of the next [mission].... There will only be one next
one—a rover. We just can't afford to have it crash.
Even though cameras would be on board any future spacecraft, Carr
believed that the site selection team ought to be armed with data at a scale
relevant to the lander. Better photography and a clearer understanding of
radar and the infrared system would make the job easier. 79 Both Carr and
Masursky thought that image-motion compensation was necessary for any
future low-altitude orbital photography of Mars, to prevent the images
from smearing.
Harold Masurssky. The leader of the landing site certification team said
he would like to attach a mechanical image-motion compensator to the
Viking cameras. With this device, he knew how he would fly a third
mission. The spacecraft would be inserted into low Mars orbit, to take
higher resolution site certification pictures. From these low-altitude
360
 SITE CERTIFICATION AND LANDING
images, the flight team would be able to avoid hazards of a smaller scale and
select key topographical features to which the lander could guide itself,
using either laser or television. After a site was approved, the orbiter would
obtain a higher altitude and release the lander. All the technology Masursky
wanted to use was available. What they did not have was NASA's approval
for a third flight—and the funds.8"
Coming down to Earth, Masursky commented on the effort made by
Martin and Young to maintain the scientific integrity of the Viking mis-
sions. No matter what problems came up, the management kept reminding
everyone that the primary objective was scientific investigation after a safe
landing. With many critical issues facing them daily, Martin and Young
never forgot the main goal.81
Carl Sagan. As a scientist, Sagan was impressed by how "remarkably
willing to listen the project manager was." If anything, Sagan had been
prepared for resistance to such items as postponing the 4 July landing and
taking a closer look at radar data. But Martin had kept an open mind. "It
sounds like a reasonable thing for a project manager to do, but that's not
always been the case in past missions.1182
Martin and Young had listened. They had not always accepted the
advice given them, but considering the immense task they had faced and
their success they must have made the right decisions. They had safely
landed two out of two spacecraft, and luck had had very little to do with it.
Martin would continue to believe that hard work and discipline were better
bets than luck. The site selection-site certification process had been time-
consuming, tension-filled, and seldom an "exact" science, but it had
worked—and worked on a planet 348 million kilometers from Earth. With
two successful landings behind them, the Viking team could turn to the real
reasons for its labors—the scientific examination of the Martian surface and
the search for possible life forms on the Red Planet.

361
Page intentionally left blank
 I
On Mars

As anticipated, the information relayed to Earth by the Viking space-

craf t has greatly affected man's perceptions and understanding of the planet
Mars. The increase in basic, directly confirmed knowledge of the Red
Planet began even before the landings. Once in orbit, the spacecraft began
transmitting the first of tens of thousands of images of the planet and its
satellites.

IMAGES FROM ORBIT

Heterogeneity was the most striking aspect of Mars as scientists iden-
tified a greater variety of terrains than known to exist on the moon or
Mercury. Conway B. Leovy, a member of the meteorology team, noted:
"Unlike the moon, whose story appears essentially to have ended one or two
billion years ago, Mars is still evolving and changing. On Mars, as on the
earth, the most pervasive agent of change is the planet's atmosphere, itself
the product of the sorting of the planet's initial constituents that began
soon after it condensed from the primordial cloud of dust and gas that gave
rise to the solar system 4.6 billion years ago.
Some information about the nature of the Martian atmosphere had
been derived from telescopic observations and from earlier Mariner mis-
sions, but those sources of data were "unverifiable and subject to misinter-
pretation." With the exception of its significantly different composition
and its being "less than a hundredth as dense as that of the earth," the
atmosphere of Mars behaves much like that of our own planet. "It trans-
ports water, generates clouds and exhibits daily and seasonal wind pat-
terns." Responding to seasonal changes in the heat generated by solar
radiation, localized dust storms occur and sometimes grow in strength until
they cover the entire planet, a fact with which Mariner and Viking special-
ists were familiar. Global dust storms appear to be a phenomenon unique
to Mars, which lacks large bodies of water that would prevent their buildup.
Atmospheric weathering of the primitive crystalline rocks on Mars has
reduced them to fine particles that have oxidized and combined chemically
with water to produce the reddish minerals so apparent in the color images
363
ON MARS
returned from the Viking landers. Whereas on Earth the dominant weather-
ing process has been from the movement of liquid water, on Mars the
primary agent of change has been the wind. It erodes the landscape, trans-
ports the dust, and deposits it elsewhere on the planet. The Viking landing
sites appear to have been "severely scoured by winds." In addition, pictures
taken by the orbiter cameras reveal deep layers of wind-borne sediment in
the polar regions, while dunefields of Martian dust and sand much larger
than those on Earth were observed near the north pole.2
The geologic history of Mars, according to orbiter imaging team leader
Michael H. Carr, "shows evidence of floods and relatively recent volcanic
eruptions, at least in the hundreds of millions of years that geology uses as a
measure." There are also features that resemble terrestrial river systems.
"Apparently tremendous floods occurred many times over Mars' history,
indicating that the planet must have been drastically different in the past. "3
Earlier Mariner flights indicated the presence of volcanoes on Mars;
Viking measured their extent and variety. A large portion of the northern
hemisphere is covered by volcanoes, some spreading broad lava fields for
hundreds of kilometers. Others, such as Olympus Mons and Arsia Mons,
rise some 27 km above the reference surface level of the planet. Distinct lava
flow patterns can be seen 300 km from their source in Arsia Mons, with the
general pattern of the terrain indicating that the lava may have traveled up
to 800 km, the distance from Washington, D.C. to Cincinnati, Ohio.'
Geologists who have studied the Viking photographs believe that the
nature of volcanic activity on Mars is essentially the same as that on
Earth—the movement of a basaltic, low-viscosity lava. One kind of volcano
appears to be unique to Mars: the patera, or saucer-shaped, volcano with a
low profile covering a vast area. Alba Patera, with a maximum diameter of
1600 km, is probably the largest such volcano on the planet. A similar
volcano centered on Denver would have spilled its lava across all of Colo-
rado, Wyoming, Utah, large parts of New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, South
Dakota, and corners of Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Scientists think that the caldera—the crater formed by the collapse of the
central part of the volcano—of a Patera is the result of simultaneous lifting
and collapsing of the sides of the volcano, probably repeated many times
over a long period. According to Carr, "the total volumes of lava erupted to
produce single flows are orders of magnitudes greater than they are in
terrestrial lava flows, and the total volumes of lava erupted from essentially
a single-vent volcano are enormous."' Production of sufficient magma
(molten rock) for such lava flows cannot be explained, but as Carr pointed
out, the plains regions appear to have been formed several billion years ago
by this movement of lava.6
In addition to lava, the movement of water also has affected Martian
topography. The large riverlike channels are one of the big Martian
puzzles. Carr and his colleagues believe there are two major kinds of water
features:
364
 ON MARS

There are the large flood features and then there are dendritic or branch-
ing drainage features that resemble terrestrial river systems. It appears
from the crater counts that the fine terrestrial-like river channel systems
are older than the flood features. It appears that the large flood features
came in middle Mars history. There was a period of vast floods, then the
flooding for some reason ceased or became less frequent because we don't
have flood features with crater counts comparable to those we find on the
Tharsis volcanoes. Very early in Mars' history, dendritic drainage patterns
developed; in Mars' middle history it had a period of flooding, and then
mostly after that the volcanics of Tharsis accumulated. This general
picture has come out of the Viking data.
A lot of skeptics didn't believe there had been any period of surface
drainage. Some said all those things could easily have been formed by
faulting and so on. The Viking pictures are full of examples of dendritic
channels. I can't believe there are many skeptics left. I think we have really
established that there was this early period of surface drainage. There can
be very little doubt about that.'
The scientists are still left with explaining where all the water for the floods
and rivers came from. More important, where did it go?
Because of low atmospheric pressure at the surface, there are no con-
temporary large pools, rivers, or collection basins filled with water, and
because of low temperatures the atmosphere cannot contain much water.
However, there is probably a great quantity in the permanent polar caps
and within the surface. The low pressure permits water to be present only in
the solid (ice) or gaseous (water vapor) state. One possible explanation for
the apparently contradictory vision of rushing rivers on Mars was presented
by Gerald A. Soffen: "Broad channels formed when subsurface water-ice
(permafrost) was melted by geothermal activity from deep volcanic centers.
When the melting of the permafrost reached a slope the interstitial water
suddenly released great flows, sometimes a hundred kilometers wide that
modified the channels." 8 Seasonal heating of the permafrost may have
occasionally released large flows of water, as well—a possible explanation
for the channels that originate in box canyons and spill onto the plains.
The easiest method of accounting for the dendritic channels is to conj Lire up
a Martian rainstorm, but that suggestion raises many problems, all of
which hinge on the basic question: "How is it possible that these ancient
rivers could [have] existed and there be none today?" Obviously, atmos-
pheric pressure would have to have been different during such a period.
This hypothesis seems to be supported by studies of the Martian atmos-
phere encountered by Viking.
If the atmospheric pressure once was sufficient to permit the formation
of liquid water, how long ago was that? This is still a subject of some debate.
Harold Masursky and his colleagues estimated the relative age of the chan-
nels by counting the number and judging the age of the craters in and near
the channels. The different kinds of channels appear to have been created in
365
r^

A4
rj

Olympus Mons 27 km high

72 kilometers

J Mount Everest 9 km high

♦ Mauna Kea 10 km high

Ocean— ...se :.r...-.. _ -..-...,..

_ floor Cale exaggerated 2- times • mom;,_;

The Martian volcano Olympus Mons, at

a top, was photographed by the Viking 1
orbiter 31 July 1976 from a distance of
8000 km. The 27-km-high mountain is
wreathed in clouds extending 19 km up
its flanks. The clouds are thought to be
principally water ice condensed as the
atmosphere cools. The crater is some 80
km across. At left, Arsia Mons, called
South Spot during the Mariner 9 mis-
sion, is shown in a mosaic of photos
taken 22 August. The crater is 120 km
across, and the peak rises 16 km above the
,f
Tharsis Ridge, itself 11 km high. Vast
amounts of lava have flooded the plains.

11 117^

.F'
i^
 r , r ,
.
r-O
r s

T ^'

r ^.

"•?^ ,
W

A 9 July mosaic of Viking 1 orbiter photos above

shows lava flows broken by faults forming ridges.
Apparently a small stream once flowed northward •
(toward upper right) from Lunae Planum, crossed
the area, and descended toward the east. In places :. ^•
water may have formed ponds behind ridges before
cutting through. At right, a fresh young crater about
30 km across, in Lunae Planum, is near a dry river s
channel running alongside a cliff in possible lava
flows (Kasei Valley). Below, an oblique view across
Argyre Planitia (the relatively smooth plain at top
center of the photo)shows surrounding heavily cra-..
tered terrain. Brightness of the horizon to the right
(with north toward upper left) is due mainly to a
thin haze. Above the horizon are detached layers of -
haze 25 to 40 km high, thought to be crystals of
carbon dioxide (dry ice). Both the lower photo mosa-
ics were taken 11 July.

Nie

r- W.,
',..^'
yr y ^ }. ^P • ^
ON MARS
different epochs, or episodes, and all of them at least 50 million years ago
and perhaps as long ago as several billion years.9
In addition to the effects of lava and water, shifting of the permafrost
also is believed to have influenced the texture of the planet's surface.
Investigators assume the existence of permafrost, sometimes to the depth
of several kilometers and generally thought to have been present for billions
of years. Carr stated:
To me one of the more exciting things we've observed is the abundant
evidence of permafrost. The most striking features indicative of perma-
frost occur along the edge of old crater terrain. They form by mass
movement of surface material probably aided by the freezing and thawing
of ground ice. Another possible indicator of ground ice is the unique
character of material ejected from impact craters that is quite different
from the pattern on the Moon and on Mercury. We interpret the difference
as due to ground ice on Mars. The impact melts the ground ice and
lubricates the [ejecta] that is thrown out of the crater so when it lands on
the ground it flows away from the crater in a debris flow and forms the
characteristic features we have observed.
Slow movement and a freeze-thaw cycle could account for the chaotic,
jumbled terrain seen over vast stretches of the Martian surface. Irregular
depressions caused by localized collapsing of the crust when permafrost
thawed could have formed the flat-floored valleys in Siberia and the table-
lands of Mars. Large polygonal-patterned regions on Mars resemble the ice
wedges in terrestrial glacial areas.10
The Martian class of lobate craters is distinct. Unlike lunar craters and
those photographed on Mercury, which have radial sunburst patterns
caused by ejected debris, on Mars debris apparently flowed smoothly away
from the points of impact of many craters. Craters on the moon and
Mercury typically had a coarse, disordered texture close to the rim that
became finer farther out, grading almost imperceptibly into dense fields of
secondary craters. "The most distinctive Martian craters have a quite differ-
ent pattern. The ejecta commonly appears to consist of several layers, the
outer edge of each being marked by a low ridge or escarpment." Recognized
in Mariner 9 photographs, the shape was attributed to erosion caused by the
wind. With improved-resolution Viking photographs, the geologists have
changed their minds; they theorize that on Mars objects also struck the
surface with explosive force, but the difference lay in the heating of the
permafrost. Resulting steam and momentarily liquid water transported
surface materials away from the point of impact and created the distinct
lobate flow patterns around the central point. Where the crater ejecta
patterns do resemble those on the moon and Mercury, geologists believe
that the permafrost was too far below the surface to have been heated, or else
possibly absent."
On a planet that has many spectacular features, one of the most
interesting is the Valles Marineris, the Grand Canyon of Mars. First
368
 ON MARS

observed by Mariner 9 cameras, only the gross proportions of the canyon

system were appreciated at the 1- to 1.5-km resolution. A small sample of
higher resolution Mariner 9 photographs (100-150 meters) hinted at the
huge landslides and related features that would be seen on the canyon walls
and floors. The images from Viking were much better (resolution of objects
as small as 40 meters), and many parts of the 4000-km-long canyon system
were photographed in stereo, the combination permitting geologists to
understand more precisely the processes that formed it. Significantly,
neither volcanic activity nor erosion caused by flowing water seems to
account for the changes in the Valles Marineris. After examining the Viking
photos, Karl R. Blasius and his colleagues believe that tectonic shifting of
the planet's crust may have enlarged the canyons. Volcanism was not seen
in the Viking images, they point out, and evidence of fluvial activity was
only indirect, from chaotic terrain. But tectonic activity appeared to have
been prolonged, deepening canyons and offsetting erosion and deposits
that would have broadened and filled them. Vertical adjustment of crustal
blocks under north-south and east-west extensional stresses appeared to
have been the primary process. Some blocks may also have tilted, forming
"peculiar slopes near canyon rims and on the intratrough plateau and
possibly causing the formation of strings of collapse pits." The history of
canyon erosion and deposits was also more complex than had been realized.
"Layered materials, including some very regularly imbedded sediments
first recognized in the Viking images," were highly diverse and wide-
spread. 12
One of the basic reasons for studying the Valles Marineris was an
interest in the interrelations through time of the volcanic and tectonic
forces that produced the large volcanoes to the west—Olympus Mons and
the Tharsis craters, which include Arsia Mons—and the development and

Material appears to have flowed out of

the Arandas crater on Mars, rather
than being blasted out by the meteorite
impact. Radial grooves on the surface
of the flow may have been eroded dur-
ing the last stages of the impact pro-
cess. Photographed 22 July 1976 by the
Viking 1 orbiter at 43°N latitude, 15°
longitude, Arandas is about 25 km in
diameter.
 atfl
r ^ ^^s; :7.•!^ r
• 3^ _^^ .. ^^.. it i.\^ ^^

IN.^

tt ' `

^' ^ ^^

More than 100 photos form the

top mosaic mapping Valles Mari-
neris, huge Martian complex of
Grand Canyon canyons. Taken by the Viking 1
29 km wide, 1.6 km deep orbiter 23-26 August 1976, they
are centered at 5° south latitude,
I "% 85° longitude, with north at the
top. Ten photos taken 22 August
K' Valles Marineris 250 km wide, 6-9 km deep —» form the center mosaic of the
western end of the canyon. The
Vertical scale exaggerated 4 ti mes volcanic plateau is deeply dis-
sected into connected depressions.
 ON MARS
evolution of the canyon lands. Both geological regions are young in terms
of the life of the planet, and changes in both areas likely have continued to
the present. Mars and Earth may thus be more alike in geological terms than
previously expected. The Viking images have contributed to a new field of
study called comparative planetology. Undoubtedly, the wealth of new
information gathered by the cameras on the orbiter was ample reward to the
people who had fought so strongly to send an improved imaging system to
Mars to complement the scientific instruments. As Mike Carr and his
associates had predicted in October 1970, "The high-resolution imaging
system may be considered as the `meat and potatoes' low-risk but guaran-
teed-significant-gain experiment in the mission. "13
Further analysis of the photographs taken over the Chryse and Cydo-
nia regions during and after landing site certification had indicated that
many of the assumptions specialists had made on the basis of Mariner 9
photography had to be changed. Viking science investigators benefited
from approaching the planet at a time when it was far from the sun, since
lower solar radiation nearly eliminated the worry about dust storms." The
clarity of the Viking orbiter images indicated that the Martian atmosphere
probably had never cleared during the Mariner 9 mission. Viking I arrived
at Mars just before the beginning of summer in the northern hemisphere
and soon after aphelion. Every Viking scientist reaped benefits from the
clear orbiter images, and Ronald Greeley and his geologist colleagues had
specific comments about the importance of the Viking orbital pictures in
the Chryse and Cydonia regions: "High-resolution Viking orbiter images
show Chryse Planitia to be much more complex than had been suspected
from Mariner 9 images. Ancient heavily cratered terrain appears to form the
basement for the basin. Much of its heavily cratered terrain is mantled with
deposits that may be of aeolian, fluvial, or volcanic origin. " 15 They were
certain that the Mariner 9 view of Mars had been "simplistic." From a close
examination of the southern hemisphere, scientists had made some false
assumptions about the northern half of the planet. "From Viking photo-
graphy it is suggested that not only is the northern hemisphere more com-
plicated than was expected, but as ... predicted, although the present
surfaces are young, some of the rocks exposed at the surface may be old.""
Orbiter photographs coupled with data from the infrared thermal
mapper (IRTM) gave scientists a new understanding of the polar caps, too.
The Martian poles change dramatically with the seasons. When the Viking
craft arrived at the planet, the northern cap had shrunk to its minimum size,
revealing the permanet cap, which—contrary to some expectations—
consisted of water ice. The part that had dissipated had been made of solid
carbon dioxide, dry ice. Meanwhile, the southern ice cap expanded. The
northern polar region displayed terraced deposits, indicating an episodic
pattern of rapid erosion and deposition of materials. "An unconformity
within the layered deposits suggests a complex history of climate change
during their time of deposition."
371
ON MARS
Table 52
Geological Evolution
of Martian North Polar Region

Stage 1 Onset of polar activity.

Moderate aeolian modification of ancient volcanic terrains.
Stage 2 First depositional period.
Layered deposits of silicate dust and possibly interbedded ice accumulate to
thickness of several kilometers.
Stage 3 First erosional period.
Erosional attack of layered deposits results in landscape of gently curving
scarps and channels with terraced slopes.
Stage 4 Second depositional period.
More layered deposits accumulate unconformably on top of units formed in
first depositional period.
Stage 5 Second erosional period.
Further erosional attack of layered deposits results in exhumation of earlier
formed landscapes and reveals unconformable contacts between deposits of
first and second depositional period. Some eroded material reaccumulates as
girdle of sand dunes between 75°N and 80°N.
Stage 6 Recent period.
Ice in permanent polar cap assumes its present form and distribution.

While this scenario might not represent a completely accurate explanation

of the manner in which the polar terrain evolved, James A. Cutts, Karl
Blasius, and associates argue that "it does offer a credible framework ...
against which further observations and theoretical models may be tested. "17
Meanwhile at the south pole, the infrared thermal-mapping team had
observed some interesting temperatures. In their first report in Science,
Hugh H. Kieffer and his colleagues noted that "areas in the polar night
have temperatures distinctly lower than the CO 2 condensation point at the
surface pressure." From the atmospheric pressure of 6 millibars at the south
pole, the mapping team had anticipated temperatures of about -125°C, the
equilibrium temperature for carbon dioxide at that pressure, but, when
initial results came in, temperatures as low as -139°C were recorded. The
infrared specialists decided that this extra cooling was attributable to a
freezing out of the carbon dioxide, leaving a higher concentration of non-
condensable gases (such as nitrogen and argon) than is normal for the
atmosphere elsewhere. Since these gases would not condense into solid
form at -139°C, that could explain the cooling, but other questions were
raised by this theory." How did the noncondensable gases concentrate in
the polar region? What did this phenomenon mean for global circulation
patterns? What did it tell scientists about the movement of carbon dioxide
and other gases from one pole to the other during the change of seasons?
372
 ON MARS
Once again, new knowledge raised as many interesting questions as it
answered.
By the end of the primary mission, the infrared thermal-mapping team
had begun to devise theories to answer some of the questions. Large-scale
patterns in the temperatures of Mars appear to be similar in size to continen-
tal weather patterns on Earth. Viking scientists believe that these patterns
may be associated with cloud patterns. As team leader Hugh Kieffer put it,
"It's possible we're seeing what I call continental scale weather." Tempera-
tures shortly before dawn in some places are much cooler than expected.
Over the Valles Marineris, the temperatures were unexpectedly quite warm
before dawn. Kieffer noted that "the temperatures just before dawn are more
directly related to the physical properties of the surface because there is no
solar energy being absorbed during the 12 hours of night. This means the
temperatures are a good indication of how well the surface can hold its
heat. "19
Infrared thermal-mapping measurements indicated wide daily tem-
perature variations on Mars. The typical day-night variation on Earth is 5°
to 10°C, but on Mars the temperature can go from a low of -133° to a high of
4°C. The reason for this wide range is not yet fully understood, nor is the
tendency of the temperatures in the afternoon to drop much more quickly
than expected. Keiffer reported that in several regions on Mars temperatures
begin toward the middle of the afternoon to drop more rapidly than pre-
dicted until just before dusk. They may be 10 to 15 degrees cooler than
expected. Then they "cease to drop so rapidly and slowly merge with the
predictions for the evening." In the afternoon, "the only atmospheric
regions that are cooler than the surface are very high and thus we don't
know what process at the moment is causing this rapid surface cooling."
The process "may be related to clouds in some way, but most of the
atmosphere near the ground, where one expects clouds to form, is, in fact,
warmer than the surface just before sunset."20
A more important contribution from the infrared thermal-mapping
experiment was the discovery of the nature of the polar ice cap. One of the
major questions posed by the Mariner 9 data was the composition of the
residual polar cap left when the winter polar cap, made of frozen carbon
dioxide, retreated in midsummer. A major controversy existed over whether
this summer cap was also frozen carbon dioxide or was frozen water.
According to Viking data, the temperatures of the residual cap are near -68°
to -63°C, making a case for water frost. Also, the brightness of the frost
"indicates it has a lot of dirt mixed in with it. The dirty nature of the ice had
also been seen now by the orbital imaging system." Apparently there is no
permanent reservoir of carbon dioxide in the polar regions of Mars, a
finding that tends to rule out the theory of a rapid climate change induced
by the instability of the carbon dioxide on the planet. "This means we still
don't have an adequate explanation of how the atmosphere could have been
of sufficient density to sustain the liquid water that appears to have flowed
at one time in streams and rivers on the surface of Mars," said Kieffer.21
373
ON MARS

MEASURING THE ATMOSPHERE

The water-vapor-mapping investigation was designed to map the dis-

tribution of water vapor over the planet and to determine the pressure of the
atmosphere at the level where vapor is present. Understanding the distribu-
tion of water vapor is crucial to understanding the geological features of
Mars and the possibility of the existence of life. Viking's measurements of
water vapor varied, depending on the location, season, and time of day.
Specialists discovered a direct correlation between elevation and the
amount of water vapor present, with the lowest points on the planet having
the greatest concentrations and the highest features the minimum. More
water vapor was found during the summer season than during winter,
when it was barely perceptible. In regions of rough terrain, there were
marked daily variations in water vapor, and C. Barney Farmer and his team
believed the variations were attributable to local phenomena—shifting
wind patterns, dust, or a thin cloud or haze that is present at dawn but
dissipates by noon. For example, early in the first mission one site was
monitored over a six-hour period. The water vapor content in the atmos-
phere rose steadily from dawn until noon. This water could have been
brought into the area from another region by the wind, or the haze or dust in
the air could have affected the instrument's measurements. Whatever the
cause for the change, the increase would be considered minute when com-
pared to Earth's atmosphere with 1000 times as much moisture.22
During the Viking primary mission, the Martian water vapor under-
went a gradual redistribution, the latitude of the maximum amounts mov-
ing from the north polar region toward the equator. Interestingly, while the
amounts of vapor at some latitudes changed dramatically, the total global
water remained almost constant at the equivalent of about one cubic
kilometer of ice. The largest amounts observed were found over the dark
polar region, which is inaccessible to Earth-bound observers. Maximum
vapor column abundances of about 100 precipitable micrometers were
measured adjacent to the residual cap itself—"a very large amount consid-
ering the temperature of the surface and atmosphere in this region." The
Mars atmospheric water detector also confirmed the conclusion that the
residual cap is made of frozen water and that the atmosphere above it is
saturated with vapor during the polar summer .23
Orbital science investigations had given a better grasp of the global
nature of Mars, and the entry science experiments provided the first direct
measurements of the physical and chemical composition of the planet's
atmosphere. The scientists were for the first time "getting their hands on"
some more tangible data. Entry science investigations consisted of mea-
surements by the retarding potential analyzer, the upper-atmosphere mass
spectrometer, lander accelerometers, the aeroshell stagnation-pressure
instrument, and the recovery temperature instrument. The analyzer had
been designed to study the nature of the ionosphere. The mass spectrometer
was to provide mass spectra for the constituents of the upper atmosphere.
374
 ON MARS
Three of the instruments—the lander accelerometers, the aeroshell stagna-
tion-pressure instrument, and the recovery temperature instrument—made
up the lower-atmosphere structure experiment, which measured the den-
sity, temperature, and pressure profile of the atmosphere as the lander
approached the surface. As with other experiments and Viking hardware,
the entry investigations had been based on the common "Mars engineering
model" adopted early in the project. That model described the nature of the
planet as it was believed to be, from the best knowledge then available. As
Jerry Soffen recounted, the model was developed to set the boundaries for
design, prescribing the atmospheric envelope, the variety of possible sur-
faces, range of textures, radiation environment, etc. This "working man-
ual" was constantly reviewed by scientists both within and outside the
project and used by all the engineers. The Mars engineering model "was an
excellent crossroads for scientists and engineers." With the mission defini-
tion, it "truly spelled out what we were trying to do and the planetary
constraints we believed existed. "24
The lander's mode of descent altered several times before touchdown,
and the entry instruments operated during different phases of the entry
process. At separation, the lander capsule—consisting of the aeroshell and
basecover surrounding the lander—was deorbited by ignition of the deorbit
engines. The capsule began the first part of its descent trajectory through
the undisturbed interplanetary medium of ions and electrons. The inter-
planetary medium streams away from the sun at hypersonic velocities in
what is called solar wind. Closer to the planet, the lander capsule passed
through a disturbed region where the solar wind is diverted to flow around
and past Mars. Beneath this zone of interaction lay the Martian ionosphere,
a region of charged atomic particles. It was in the ionosphere, 3 minutes
after the completion of the deorbit burn, that the retarding potential ana-
lyzer began 18 sampling sequences, during which 71 seconds of data were
collected.
Entry has been arbitrarily defined as starting at 250 kilometers,
although the atmosphere is only readily apparent from about 91 kilometers.
From separation to entry required about 3 hours. At entry, the lander
capsule was oriented with the aeroshell and its heatshield facing the direc-
tion of travel; before the atmosphere exerted an appreciable drag, the
capsule would accelerate to about 16 000 km per hour. Almost 1 hour
before the lander reached the 250-km mark, the upper-atmosphere mass
spectrometer was turned on for a 30-minute warmup period. The spec-
trometer and the retarding potential analyzer would continue to take
measurements until the capsule system sensed 0.05 gravity, at which time
they would shut down. The capsule-mounted temperature sensor was then
deployed. With pressure sensors (deployed 10 minutes before entry), it
would continue to function until the aeroshell was jettisoned (12 seconds
after the radar altimeter sensed an altitude of 5.9 km).
At about 27 km above the surface, the capsule reached its peak decelera-
tion and for a time its path leveled off into a long glide, because of the
375
ON MARS
aerodynamic lift provided by the aeroshell. As the effects of atmospheric
friction and gravity overcame the lift, the capsule resumed descent. By the
time its radar altimeter indicated an altitude of 6.4 km, the capsule was
traveling slowly enough (an estimated 1600 km per hour) to deploy the
parachute. Seven seconds later, the aeroshell separated from the lander, and
the remaining lift in the lightened aeroshell permitted it to drift well away
from the landing site. Twelve seconds after aeroshell separation, the lander
legs were deployed, at which time the footpad temperature sensor began
collecting data, doing so until touchdown.21
From the retarding potential analyzer, new information about the
Martian ionosphere was collected through measurements of the solar wind
electrons and ionospheric electrons, the temperatures of the electrons, and
the composition, concentrations, and temperatures of positive ions. At the
higher altitudes, the analyzer examined the interaction of the solar wind
and the upper atmosphere. The planet's weak (or nonexistent) magnetic
field permits the solar wind to penetrate closer to the surface of Mars than it
does to Earth's surface. Data obtained during descent indicates that singly
ionized molecular oxygen (O„+) is the major element of the upper atmos-
phere, with peak concentration at an altitude of 130 km. Singly ionized
molecular oxygen is about nine times as abundant as singly ionized carbon
dioxide (CO,+), the primary ion produced by the interaction of sunlight
with the Martian atmosphere. This new finding lends support to theoreti-
cal analyses by M. B. McElroy and J. C. McConnell, which call attention to
the reaction of atomic oxygen with CO„+ that would produce carbon
monoxide and the more stable ion O_+. The temperature of the observed
ions at 130 km was about - 113°C. 26 Viking measurements of O+ ions
moving away from the planet coupled with Mariner 9 observations of
hydrogen escaping from the planet's upper atmosphere suggest that the
planet has been losing the basic ingredients for water for billions of years.
Perhaps some of the water that once carved the massive channels on the
surface of Mars slowly escaped in the form of ionized hydrogen and oxygen.
The upper-atmosphere mass spectrometer obtained data about the
identities and concentrations of the various gases from 230 to 100 km. As
expected, the main constituent of the upper atmosphere is carbon dioxide,
with small amounts of nitrogen, argon, carbon monoxide, oxygen, and
nitric oxide. Taken together, what do these upper atmospheric measure-
ments suggest? The discovery of nitrogen was a particularly pleasant sur-
prise. As Tobias Owen of the molecular analysis team commented, the
search for nitrogen in the Martian atmosphere goes back several decades,
and he was "delighted” that they finally had found it. When he first became
interested in Mars during the 1950s, "it was an established doctrine that the
pressure on Mars was eighty-five millibars, plus or minus three millibars,
and that the atmosphere was well over ninety-five percent nitrogen.” As
time passed, predictions changed; both the surface pressure and the amount
of nitrogen decreased. As the estimated amount of carbon dioxide grew to
more than 95 percent of the gas in the atmosphere, detection of any nitrogen
376
 ON MARS

seemed unlikely. This outlook was disheartening to the exobiologists who

believed that nitrogen was an essential ingredient in any environment in
which life might have evolved. But the upper-atmosphere mass spectrome-
ter did detect nitrogen. Happily, Toby Owen said, "And now we finally got
it; it's really there. "27
Michael McElroy of the entry science team went even further. Accord-
ing to him, Mars was a very "cooperative" planet, and it had given the
Viking scientists some bonus information. Beyond defining the chemical
composition of the atmosphere, they discovered some "clues as to the
evolution of the planet from its isotopic abundance." Mars has more of the
heavy form of nitrogen than does Earth, which allows specialists to theo-
rize that Mars is "remarkably Earth-like although it has gone through a
different evolutionary history." McElroy explained that there are two
abundant isotopes of nitrogen: Mass 14, which is the common form, and
Mass 15, which is less common. They are both present in Earth's atmos-
phere and in the Martian atmosphere, but Mars has rather more of the heavy
component than does Earth. The implication is that Mars must have lost
the light material over time. The initial amount of nitrogen on Mars was
apparently similar to the initial amount on Earth, but slightly lower
gravity on Mars allowed the lighter nitrogen to escape. Perhaps Mars has
"evolved to a larger extent than the Earth because of this escape process. "28
While the presence of 2.5 percent nitrogen in the atmosphere opened
the door for speculation about possibilities of organic material, the levels of
argon led to other theories, some of which were contradictory to the one
used to explain the presence of nitrogen. Argon was measured at 1.5 per-
cent, considerably less than indicated by the indirect measurements made by
the Soviet Union with its Mars 6 mission in 1974. The discovery that Soviet
scientists were mistaken was welcome to Klaus Biemann and his colleagues
on the molecular analysis team, because it relieved their worry that argon
might choke the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer. The low amount
of argon in the atmosphere would not prevent that instrument from
performing a series of atmospheric analyses on its way to the surface before
it could be contaminated by organic compounds from the Martian s011.29
A low concentration of argon also had significant implications when it
came to reconstructing the early Martian atmosphere. The two common
isotopes of argon are argon-36 and argon-40. The former is an inert element
produced in the interior of stars such as our sun, and the latter is created
during the radioactive decay of potassium-40. Both isotopes have been
released over time from the rocks of planets, and it is generally held that the
relative amount of the two says something about how the atmosphere
evolved. For Mars, this theory poses some interesting problems and ques-
tions. Toby Owen proposed the following scenario during a 28 July 1976
Viking science symposium at JPL. Using the Earth's atmospheric history
as a guide, Owen argued that one could by analogy plot the evolution of the
Martian atmosphere back over time. One way to make this analysis for the
two planets was to use argon-36 as the common piece of information. It was
377
ON MARS
assumed that Earth and Mars were formed at the same time and from the
same inventory of gases in the solar nebula. If that is true, then Earth and
Mars should have about the same ratio of argon-36 and argon-40 in their
atmospheres. They do not. Earth is relatively poor in argon-36; it is held
that this gas was lost early in the evolution of the terrestrial atmosphere.
Scientists thought that they could deduce from the amount of argon-36 in
the Martian atmosphere the gases that have been lost. Viking measurements
indicate that the planet should have lost 10 times the amount of carbon
dioxide and nitrogen now measured in the atmosphere. But the loss was not
out into space; it was hidden in some form on the planet itself. Ten times the
present amount of carbon dioxide constitutes a considerable amount of
material to hide. Owen reported: "I'm suggesting that somewhere between
1 and 10 times the present amount of CO, is missing on Mars ... and some
fraction could still be present in the form of CO, trapped in the [polar] caps.
The other part of this reconstruction, which is interesting, is that it implies
a couple of tens of meters of water on the surface which must also be
sequestered somewhere."30 The water could have become permafrost, but
this explanation disagrees with the theory that the water left the planet in
the form of ionized hydrogen and oxygen.
Although no general agreements have been reached on how the upper
atmosphere of Mars was formed, one point seems certain: that atmosphere
was significantly different in the past. Just as the evolution of Earth's
atmosphere helped determine the nature of its environment, the evolution
of Mars is linked with the development of its atmosphere. As Jerry Soffen
concluded: "It appears that there was a considerably denser atmosphere in
the past, somewhere between 10 and 50 times the present value of 7.5
millibars at the surface. This denser atmosphere would account for the
possibility of the ancient river [beds] seen from the orbiter. 1131 Whatever
explanation the scientific community comes to accept, Viking has made
two points very clear—the Red Planet's environment has not been static,
and in the past was very dynamic.
The lower atmosphere structure experiment provided vertical profiles
of the density, pressure, and temperature of the atmosphere from an altitude
of 90 km to the surface. Accelerometers, part of the lander's inertial reference
unit, acted as sensors for the initial measurements from which the density
profile was derived. The profile was determined by observing the retarda-
tion of the capsule's descent by atmospheric drag. Pressure and temperature
measurements came at first from the two instruments in the aeroshell.
Because of the high initial velocities of the lander capsule, the pressure
sensor determined the pressure of the atmospheric molecules against the
aeroshell surface; the actual pressures were determined analytically later. In
a similar fashion, the temperature probe, near the outer rim of the aeroshell,
measured the temperature of molecules flowing around the aeroshell.
During the parachute phase of the descent, after the aeroshell had been
jettisoned, the lander's pressure and temperature sensors provided this
information.
378
 ON MARS
Altitude data for construction of profiles came from the radar altime-
ter. A by-product of the radar altimeter measurements was information
about the terrain beneath the lander. The terminal descent and landing
radar system, which controlled the very last stage of the landing, also
measured the extent to which the lander drifted because of winds above the
point of touchdown. Pressure and temperature variations were measured by
the two landers at selected intervals during the descent (table 53). The
temperature in the region between 200 and 140 km above the surface
averaged about -93°C; for the region between 120 and 28 km it was -130°C.
At touchdown, the Viking 1 atmospheric temperature was about -36°C, and
Viking 2's reading was -481C.32
Table 53
Structure of Martian Atmosphere

Viking 1 Viking 2
Altitude
(km)
Pressure Temperature Pressure Temperature
(mb) (°C) (mb) (°C)

120.0 0.000 004 14 -136.85 0.000 001 99 -157.15

108.0 0.000 018 40 -126.75 0.000 013 00 -152.05
96.0 0.000 080 20 -127.25 0.000 066 00 -122.95
84.0 0.000 387 00 -128.95 0.000 288 00 -131.75
72.0 0.002 050 00 -134.05 0.001 68000 -142.25
60.0 0.009 11000 -127.65 0.008 540 00 -135.85
48.0 0.044 50000 -124.55 0.039 200 00 -102.45
36.0 0.198 000 00 -107.05 0.158 000 00 -108.75
28.0 0.483 000 00 - 89.35 0.404 000 00 - 99.95
4.5 5.160 000 00 - 51.05* 5.222 000 00 - 51.95
4.0 5.390 000 00 - 50.53 5.483 000 00 - 51.55
3.5 5.635 000 00 - 48.45 5.747 000 00 - 51.05
3.0 5.885 000 00 - 46.65 6.015 000 00 - 50.55
2.5 6.150 000 00 - 44.85 6.282 000 00 - 50.05
2.0 6.427 00000 - 43.05 6.564 000 00 - 49.55
1.5 6.707 00000 - 41.35 6.853 000 00 - 49.15
1.0 6.994 000 00* - 39.45* 7.160 000 00* - 48.55*
0.5 7.301 000 00* - 37.65* 7.480 000 00* - 48.05*
0.0 7.620 000 00* - 35.85* 7.820 000 00* - 47.55*
*Extrapolated.
SOURCE: Alvin Seiff and Donn B. Kirk, "Structure of the Atmosphere of Mars in Sumner at Mid-
Latitudes," Journal of Geophysical Research 80 (30 Sept. 1977): 4367, 4371.
379
ON MARS
Compared to the scientific instruments aboard the orbiter or the
lander, the entry experiments were very short-lived. They operated only
during the descent to the surface. Still, these instruments provided investi-
gators with several new insights into the Martian environment and clues
that, when coupled with orbital and landed data, would help frame new
hypotheses about the evolution of the planet.
As interesting as the orbital pictures and measurements were and as
informative as the entry data instruments were, the best was to come.
Science aside for a moment, the reception of the first pictures from the
lander cameras had to be the most exciting event for many project partici-
pants, scientists and engineers alike. For the public, the surface pictures
were certainly the main event.
ON THE SURFACE

The first lander's first picture, of footpad 3 (a 60° high-resolution

image), demonstrated to everyone that the craft was safely down on the
surface. Minutes later, camera 2 began taking a real-time picture, a 300°
panoramic view of the scene in front of the lander. These shots had been
planned to provide the maximum amount of immediate information so
that images of value would already have been collected should something
unforeseen terminate the operation of the lander. Thomas A. Mutch, lander
imaging team leader, recalled, "The planning for these first two frames was
exhaustive." Characteristically, everyone had some advice about the best
photographs to take. More than a year before the landing, team members
had been called to Washington to brief NASA Administrator James
Fletcher on camera strategy. "In the event of a botched landing, the first two
images might constitute our only pictorial record of Mars." The pictures
would be sent to the orbiter in the first 15 minutes after landing and thence
to Earth. Not for 19 hours, including the first night on Mars, would it be
possible to communicate again with the lander.
Some of Mutch's associates argued with the decision to photograph the
footpad and then the view in front of the lander. One challenged, "If you
were transported to an unknown terrain, would you first look down at your
feet?" Mutch had to agree that the common mental image of the explorer
was that of an individual shading his eyes with his hand looking far away to
the horizon. He records that his counter argument was rather pedestrian.
He thought—in the terms of a photogeologist—that the first picture of the
footpad would be technically the better of the two:
A primary photogeologic goal, perhaps because it is so easily quantifia-
ble, is increase in linear resolution. Looking straight down, the slant
range was abut 2 m, yielding a linear resolution of approximately 2 or 3
mm. Looking toward the horizon, nominally 3 km distant, the linear
resolution would have been reduced toward two or three orders of
magnitude.
Our logic would have been persuasive if the surface of Mars had been
generally flat, but covered with small objects of unusual form. As it turned
380
 ON MARS
out, this was not the case. The rock-littered surface in the near field is
relatively undistinguished, but the undulating topography and diverse
geology of the middle and far field is spectacular. From both an explora-
tory and scientific perspective, the panorama to the horizon is the more
impressive of the first two pictures."
This self-effacing evaluation is characteristic of many of the Viking
scientists, but especially of Tim Mutch. Seated in the "Blue Room" as the
first electronic picture data began appearing on the television monitors
throughout the Jet Propulsion Laboratory facilities, Mutch in almost a
boyish manner commented, "The neat thing about pictures is that everyone
can do their own analysis. We're really quite superfluous here." The images
from the lander were reconstructed, picture element (pixel) by picture
element from left to right, just as they had been taken by the camera on
Mars. After going through the decoding process in the ground reconstruc-
tion laboratory, the image was shown throughout JPL a few lines at a time.
From left to right, the first pictures of Mars began to evolve on the monitors.
Reactions were varied, but nearly all were happy ones. For Tim Mutch, it
was "a geologist's delight." Jim Martin saw the first picture in very practi-
cal terms—Viking was so far a success. He expressed his appreciation to the
entire Viking team and to the "10 000 people across the country who deserve
a part of the credit given to me." Mission Director Tom Young was also
pleased with the performance of his spacecraft. As for the pictures, he said,
"quality was consistent with what we should get, but they have exceeded my
expectations." The quality was very good, and Young added that "Mars has
demonstrated that it is photogenic! "39
The Colors of Mars
The first two photos of Mars received on 20 July 1976 were followed by
a color photograph on the 21st. A lot of people would not forget that first
color picture. Mutch tells the tale as well as anyone. During the first day
following the early morning landing of Viking 1, his team was preoccupied
with analysis and release of those first two images, "which, in quality and
content, had greatly exceeded our expectations." So much were they con-
centrating on the black and white pictures, that they were "dismally," to use
Mutch's word, "unprepared to reconstruct and analyze the first color pic-
ture." Mutch and his colleagues on the imaging team had been working
long hours, along with everyone else, during the search for a landing site.
Despite enthusiasm, people were tired. Many of the Viking scientists in the
upcoming weeks would have to learn to present instant interpretations of
their data for the press. For the first color photograph, haste led to process-
ing the Martian sky the wrong color.
In a general fashion, Mutch and his team understood that a thorough
preflight calibration of the camera's sensitivity to the colors of the spectrum
was necessary. They also knew that they would need computer software
programs to transform the raw data efficiently into an accurate color
381


t lt 1 ^.

L' * ^..
♦

6 .

The first photograph (above) from the surface of Mars, taken minutes after the
Viking 1 lander touched down on 20 July 1976. Center of the image is about 1.4
meters from the lander's camera no. 2. Both rocks and finely granulated material are
visible. Many foreground rocks are flat with angular facets. Several larger rocks
have irregular surfaces with pits, and the large rock at top left shows intersecting
linear cracks. A vertical dark band extending from that rock toward the camera may
have been caused by a one-minute partial obscuring of the landscape by clouds or
dust. The large rock in the center is about 10 centimeters across. At right is a portion
of the spacecraft's footpad, with a little fine-grained sand or dust deposited in its
center at landing.

Below is the first panoramic view by Viking 1 on the surface. Horizon features are
about 3 km away. A collection of fine-grained material at left is reminiscent of
sand dunes. Projections on or near the horizon may be rims of distant craters. Some
of the rocks appear to be undercut on oneside and partially buried by drifting sand
on the other. The housing of the sampler arm, not yet deployed, and the low-gain
antenna are at left. In the right foreground are the color charts for camera calibra-
tion, a mirror for the magnetic properties experiment, and part of a grid on top of
the lander body. At upper right is the high-gain antenna for direct communication
between the lander and Earth.

R r ++ a^

^^ t^ a ^ t y

^y
4f
A4., ` ^r•a^ ^Q,.`R^J

;Q -
 ON MARS
representation. "What we failed to appreciate were the many subtle prob-
lems which, uncorrected, could produce major changes in color. Further-
more, we had no intimation of the immediate and widespread public
interest in the first color products—for example, intuitively corrected color
images were shown on television within 30 minutes following receipt of the
data on Earth." Although they resisted at first, the lander imaging team was
obliged to release the first color prints within 8 hours of having received the
image.3s
Instinctive reactions and intuition can lead to mistakes when dealing
with an alien world. Here is Tim Mutch's first public reaction to the color
photograph:
Look at that sky—light blue sky—reddish hue. It's a very exciting thing to
see this distinct reddish coloration to the surface. These are subtle hues.
It's a geological scene, a natural scene. Even in the deserts here on Earth
the reds are not crayon reds as painted by a child. This is a surprisingly
terrestrial-like desert scene.36
But to borrow Carl Sagan's phrase, to see this picture in terms of deserts on
our own planet was an "Earth chauvinism." The photo was of Mars, not of
Earth; the sky should have been red. When James A. Pollack of the imaging
team told a press conference on July 21 that the Martian sky was pink, he
was greeted with some friendly boos and hisses. Sagan, in a way that only he
could, chided the newspeople the following day: "The sort of boos given to
Jerry Pollack's pronouncement about a pink sky reflects our wish for Mars
to be just like the Earth."37
There were three sensors with blue, green, and red filters in the focal
plane of the camera to record the radiance of the scene in blue, green, and
red light. The multilayer, interference filters used in the lander cameras
(filters that could withstand the rigors of sterilization) have an irregular
spectral response. The blue channel, for instance, responds slightly but
significantly to light in the infrared portion of the spectrum. The unwanted
part of the signal must be subtracted, "so that the absolute radiances at three
specific wavelengths in the blue, green and red are represented." Subse-
quently, color prints were produced by exposing conventional color film to
ON MARS
individually modulated beams of blue, green, and red laser light, scanning
the film with the same geometry employed in the camera.
Before the flight, the cameras had been calibrated and the sensitivity of
each sensor-filter combination determined. "Qualitative tests indicated
that simple normalization of the voltages for the three color channels .. .
was sufficient to produce reasonable color images. In making that judg-
ment our attention was generally directed to saturated colors in the natural
scene and test target." When the first color data were received, Mutch's
specialists used the same normalization techniques to calibrate the image.
"The result was surprising and disquieting. The entire scene, ground and
atmosphere alike, was bathed in a reddish glow. Unwilling to commit
ourselves publicly to this provocative display, we adjusted the parameters in
the calibration program until the sky came out a neutral gray." The soil and
rocks demonstrated good contrast, and the colors "seemed reasonable."
This was the picture released eight hours later. "But to our chagrin," Mutch
recalled, "the sky took on a bluish hue during reconstruction and photo-
reproduction. The media representatives were delighted with the Earth-like
colors of the scene."
While the television and newspaper reporters hurried to get this color
print before their respective audiences, continued analysis supported the
reality of an orangish tint throughout the scene. The atmospheric colora-
tion was due to the presence of suspended soil particles in the thin air.
Mutch recalled: "Several days after the first release, we distributed a second
version, this time with the sky reddish. Predictably, newspaper headlines of
`Martian sky turns from blue to red' were followed by accounts of scientific
fallibility. We smiled painfully when reporters asked us if the sky would
turn green in a subsequent version." Experience with color imaging over
the next year indicated that the colors of Mars might vary, but the sky would
retain its reddish hue. "In summary," Mutch said, "the color of the Martian
scene, perceived by the necessarily abnormal eyes of Viking, is elusive. In
response to the inevitable question: `Is that exactly how it would look if I
were standing on Mars?' a qualified `yes' is in order. "38

A Real World
No matter what the color of the sky, the Viking pictures created a new
reality for many people. Jerry Soffen said that, if any one thing stood out ill
his mind, "Mars had become a place. It went from a word, an abstract
thought, to a real place." Soffen doubted that he would ever have an
adventure like climbing Mount Everest, but he knew that it existed because
other people had been there and had taken pictures of it, just as people had
been to other extraordinary places on Earth. And now, their "guy" had
made it to Mars. "He was not a person, but he was a close friend." For many
associated with the Viking project, the lander had become personified. "It is
like a person invented by a committee. And we sent him there and he did his
thing...." Before the Viking missions Mars was a fictional or fantasy
384
 W. w,

L-

Two variations of the first color photo from the Viking 1 lander, taken on
the Mars surface 21 July 1976. The blue-sky version above was released the
same day. Below is the true red-sky version released 26 July. The red cast is
probably due to scattering and reflection from sediment suspended in the
lower atmosphere. To assist in balancing the colors, a photo was taken of a
test chart mounted on the rear of the spacecraft and the calibration then
applied to the entire scene.
The two photographs above were taken with the Viking landercamera during tests
in the summer of 1979. At the top is a panoramic shot from a site overlooking the
Martin Marietta Corporation factory in Denver. The lower photo was taken at the
Great Sand Dunes National Monument in southwestern Colorado. The lander
camera is a facsimile camera, different in design from the television and film
cameras which have been used on many space missions. The field of view is not
imaged simultaneously. Instead, adjacent vertical lines are successively scanned.
Ref lected light from each of the "picture elements" in the line is recorded on a very
small photodiode in the focal plane of the camera. Twelve diodes are available for
use, each optimized for a different distance and a different part of the visible
near-infrared spectrum.
Photos permit comparison of the color
of the Viking lander on Mars (at left)
and Earth (above)—especially the or-
ange cables. Tim Mutch used this
guide to show that the red-sky rendi-
tion of the Mars landscape was the cor-
rect one. In the Earth photo, Jim Mar-
tin stands beside the science test lander
in the Von Korman Auditorium at Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.
Photos taken by the Viking Lander camera provide comparison of an Earth scene
(above) and one on Mars (below). In a photo taken near the Martin Marietta Denver
facility during tests in 1974, tan and reddish sedimentary rocks have been tilted and
eroded to form prominent cliffs. Data from three diodes (blue, green, and red) were
combined for the color picture. Colors have not been balanced; the blue contribu-
tion is unnaturally large. For mission photos, colors were carefully calibrated. The
Martian horizon stretches across nearly 200° in the composite of three color photos
taken 4 September 1976 (center), 5 September (right), and 8 September (left). A thin
coating of limonite (hydrated iron oxide) colors the surface predominantly rusty
red, although some dark volcanic rocks can be seen. The horizon is f lat because the
photo has been rectified to remove the effects of the 8° tilt of the spacecraft.
 ON MARS

place—the planet of Flash Gordon or some world peopled by Edgar Rice

Burroughs. School children learn about the orderly progression of planets,
and one of them has the same name as the world of many science fiction
dramas. One Mars had physical, scientific properties like Earth; the other
was a fantasy land. Now they could think of Mars as a genuine world. The
shift from an object to be studied to a real place might not have been
important scientifically, but it was a big change intellectually.39
Soffen pointed out that his personal involvement with the planet was
not unlike that of the other Viking scientists. It had been eight years since
the beginning of Viking. With the landing, the investigators were hungry
for every bit of knowledge, any new speculation that would lead to a better
understanding of the nature of Mars. Before the first photographs were
received from the lander, Mars was more a scientific problem than an actual
planet. When scientists talked about atmospheric conditions, they were
describing numerical quantities that had an engineering significance for
the designers. But it was difficult to think in terms of real clouds, real winds,
real temperatures in the way we discuss our own weather. As the science
fiction writers had built imaginary worlds on which their stories could take
place, the scientists too had created a Mars that seemed to fit their assump-
tions. But the planet created from earlier known scientific facts had very
little similarity to the Mars that the orbiter and lander cameras portrayed.
Mars as a real place was much more complex and interesting than any that
had been conjured up in the minds of scientists. The new Mars of Viking
has as many complicated processes at work as does Earth.
Geologist Tim Mutch also had some personal reflections on what they
had found awaiting them on Mars:
If you were to tell a geologist that you were going to go out to two
places on Earth with your little Brownie to take one or two rolls of film at
each locality and then were to come back and from this interpret the
history of the planet, he would think you were out of your mind, the most
absurd thing he had ever heard of. In a sense it is. So one should not
overestimate the exclusive model that you can generate from pictures.
But one thing that could be said definitively was that the terrain of Mars was
not bland. A complicated history is exposed particularly in the photo-
graphs taken at the Viking I site. "From a geological point of view, there is
clearly a sequence of events represented.... involving fundamentally dif-
ferent processes—for example, impact, wind, volcanic activity, possibly
fluvial activity and possibly ground ice."
The specialists confirmed a diversity of rock types on Mars, indicating
several petrographic types; that is, rocks that probably have different min-
eralogy and at least have different texture. More boulders seem to be on the
surface than can be accounted for by impact processes; perhaps the weather-
ing of bedrock or the deposition of rocks by fluvial mechanisms account for
them. And the bedrock visible in the Viking images indicates that some
389
ON MARS
process, either fluvial or alluvial, is stripping off the soil to reveal the rock.
At the Viking 2 site, the rocks are more homogeneous. "They are highly pit-
ted, due either to volcanic vesiculation or to some peculiar process we simply
do not understand," reported Mutch. Some scientists think Viking2landed
on a widespread, fine-grain sediment mantle—the polar mantle. The boul-
ders littering the scene were probably imposed, either as broken lava flows or
as ejected boulders from a nearby crater.40
Seeing another planet up close opened the way for a comparison of two
evolving worlds. With the passing of the romantic Mars and the gradual
acceptance of the new Red Planet has come both excitement and disap-
pointment. Looking at a tangible place is far more exciting than rumina-
tions about abstract places, but the absence of life was a blow to many who
had hoped to discover life or who had hoped that life might have had a
chance to evolve. The biological and organic investigations indicated that
the prerequisites for life on Mars were not evident at either landing site.41

SCIENCE ON MARS
Weather
When Viking touched down on the surface, weather reports started
streaming their way to Earth. Martian weather was clear, cold, uniform,
repetitious. Seymour L. Hess, meteorology team leader, reported on condi-
tions at Chryse Planitia on sols 2 and 3:*
Winds in the late afternoon were again out of a generally easterly
direction but southerly components appeared that had not been seen
before. Once again the winds went to the southwesterly after midnight
and oscillated about that direction through what appears to be two cycles.
The data ended at 2:17 PM (local Martian time) with the wind from the
ESE, instead of from the W as had been seen before. The maximum mean
wind speed was 7.9 meters per second (18 mph) but gusts were detected
reaching 14.5 meters per second (32 mph).
The minimum temperature attained just after dawn was almost the
same as on the previous Sol, namely -86°C.... The maximum measured
temperature at 2:16 PM was -33°C.... This [was] 2° cooler than measured
at the same time on the previous Sol.
The mean pressure was 7.63 mb, which is slightly lower than pre-
viously. It appears that pressure varies during a Sol, being about 0.1 mb
higher around 2:00 AM and 0.1 mb lower around 4:00 PM.42
During the course of the Viking lander experiments, Hess and his
fellow meteorologists discovered two interesting facts about Martian
weather patterns. One was the extreme uniformity of the weather, presum-
"Sol is used to designate the Martian day, which is 39.6 minutes longer than an Earth day; 20 July
was listed as sol 0 because j ust a few hours were left in the sol (local lander time) at the time of landing.
Sol 1 began late on 20 July, at the first lander 1 midnight.

390
 ON MARS

Table 54
Mars and Earth Temperatures
21 July 1976

Mars Earth United States

Lowest -85.5°C -73°C 2.7°C

temperature (Soviet Vostok Research (Point Barrow,
Station, Antarctica) Alaska)
Highest -30.0°C 47.2°C 42.7°C
temperature (Timimoun, (Needles,
Algeria) California)

ably due to the Martian atmosphere, which is much simpler than Earth's.
The Red Planet has only very, very small amounts of water vapor and no
oceans—makers of extreme weather on Earth. Earth's atmospheric and
surface water contribute substantially to the variability of its weather. The
second discovery was the seasonal variation of pressure. When Viking first
landed, its instruments detected a steady decrease in the mean pressure from
day to day. But in the extended mission, the pressure at both landing sites
reached its lowest value seasonally and began to rise again. The Viking
meteorologists think this variation is due to the condensation of carbon
dioxide on the winter cap and its release as spring comes to the northern
hemisphere. This process would remove a major constituent from the
atmosphere at a certain rate, changing the pressure accordingly.
At the second Viking site, 48° north, the temperatures dropped as
expected during the Martian winter. Early in the mission, the minimum
temperature was about -87°C, but during winter the minimum temperature
at dawn was - 118°C. Frost on the surface was first observed in mid-
September 1977. At the time, the second lander was recording nighttime
temperatures of -1 13°C, and a photo of the frost was taken at -97°C. With
winter, the wind speeds increased slightly, especially at the Viking 1 site,
with several interruptions in what had been a regular pattern of wind
Active wind
sensors
Wind ambiguity sensor
Wind-
temperature
reference
sensor
Low-levbient -
perature
Interface bracket /sensor
/

Viking lander's meteorology boom

and sensors in deployed configura- hanism
tion.
Electrical cable
Viking lander body
ON MARS
direction. There were several periods of northerly winds all day for several
days in a row, associated with temporary drops in temperature—Martian
cold fronts. Hess and his colleagues had thought winter, with the fallout of
carbon dioxide, would greatly increase wind speeds and variability. There
were some wind directional changes and gusts, but no noticeable changes of
patterns in wind direction or speed were recorded.43
Hardware Problems
While Hess and his meteorological colleagues began to compile
weather data for the Viking I landing site, other experimenters were having
their difficulties. First, the seismometer was not functioning. Its seismic
sensor coils had been "caged" mechanically to prevent damage to these
sensitive components during the shock of landing. Following touchdown,
a fusible pin-pulling device was to have detonated, unlocking the seis-
mometer so it could begin full operation. For some reason, perhaps a
broken or misconnected wire, the fusible device failed to work, and the
instrument remained in the caged position. While the Viking 2 seismom-
eter performed satisfactorily, the Viking I failure prevented the seismology
team from locating the approximate origin points of recorded seismic
activity.94
Don Anderson and his colleagues on the seismology team was afraid
that the sensitive seismometer on Viking would be hampered by the high
winds on Mars. But during the night from about 6 p.m. through the next
morning, the winds die down to about virtually zero and there are essen-
tially no seismic background noises. During that time, the seismometer can
be operated "at a very high sensitivity." Marsquakes as small as a magni-
tude of 3 at a distance of about 200 kilometers can be recorded. By compar-
ing a Marsquake with a similar Earthquake, the specialists estimated the
mean crustal thickness at the Viking 2 landing site to be about 14 to 18 km,
about half the thickness of the crust in the continental parts of Earth and
about 50 percent greater than the average thickness of the oceanic crust.
Viking scientists think the crust on Mars may be as thick as approximately
80 km, much thicker than the crust under continental regions on Earth.
An unexpected result of the seismic experiment was a great amount of
information about the winds on Mars. A very sensitive wind detector, the
seismometer picks up the wind pressure on the lander, from which charac-
teristics of the wind can be determined. Like the meteorologists, the seis-
mology team detected the cold fronts. The wind pattern "changed very
rapidly on the 131st Martian day. The winds ... started to blow all night
until 2 or 3 a.m. indicating a substantial change in the weather patterns. If
very high winter winds had continued at night, they could have generated
the massive dust storms we have observed in the winter time." However,
orbiter photographs have shown only a few isolated dust storms, with none
reaching the magnitude of the planetwide dust storm of 1971.45

392
 ON MARS

Another cause for concern for the Viking team appeared on the second
day of landed operations. The lander's UHF transmitter had been designed
to operate at three different power levels-1 watt, 10 watts, and 30 watts—
depending on the rate of data transmission required. During the relay-link
portions of the mission, the 30-watt power level was scheduled for use, to
permit the transmission of the maximum amount of scientific data. From
the observed performance of the initial landed relay link, confidence in the
system was high. During the first relay, approximately 30 million bits of
data were transmitted to the orbiter, recorded, and subsequently transmitted
to Earth, all within a few hours after the information left the surface of
Mars.* Success, however, was short-lived.
On 22 and 23 July, the UHF transmitter switched over to the 1-watt
power level without instructions to do so. Tom Young told the press, "In
the one-watt mode you can get slightly over seventeen minutes' worth of
data from the Lander to the Orbiter." The mission had been designed so
that slightly more than 18 minutes of data would be transmitted to the
orbiter as it passed overhead, so the problem was not a critical one, but it did
pose a vexing limitation. At the 30-watt level, the lander could transmit
telemetry to the orbiter for 30 to 32 minutes.46
On the morning of 24 July, the UHF transmitter switched back to the
30-watt power level. Tom Young reported this second mysterious power
change at the news briefing that day: "When we had the relay [of informa-
tion] today, to and behold, it came up in the 30-watt mode, operating as we
would like for it to. So our statistics, to date, are two relay periods in the
1-watt mode, two periods in the 30-watt mode. We are continuing the
analysis of this particular anomaly. 47 The radio specialists suspected that
the problem lay in the power-mode control-logic subassembly of the UHF
transmitter. To counteract this trouble, commands had been prepared to
order the guidance control and sequencing computer to eliminate the
electronic "noise" causing the problem. Before this command was sent up,
the tansmitter switched back to the 30-watt power level. The change sup-
ported the theory that the problem was associated with noise susceptibility.
Following the self-correction, the UHF transmitter performed as expected
until one week before the end of Viking I's primary mission. At that time,
telemetry indicated that there were potentially new problems with the
30-watt level. To avoid a catastrophic failure and to extend the transmitter's
life for use in the "follow-on" mission, the lander performance analysts
decided to use the 10-watt power mode for the last sols of the basic mission.48
The landed relay communications for Viking 2 did not demonstrate
any anomalies. On sol 21 of the second landed mission, orbiter 1 was moved
into position over lander 2 to provide a relay link. This maneuver permitted
mission planners to send orbiter 2 on an extended "walk" around the
planet, to photograph the poles and other regions of Mars and scan them
"The relay links for the first 11 sols were pre-programmed for redundant playback and transmission
to Earth of the lander-recorded data so as to prevent loss of any important information.

393
ON MARS
with the infrared thermal mapper and the Martian atmospheric water
detector. Orbiter 1 continued to provide the communications link for the
second lander during the remainder of Viking 2's primary mission.49
A more serious problem emerged in the first days after Viking 1's
touchdown when the surface sampler arm became stuck. On Thursday, 22
July, the surface sampler assembly was rotated so that the protective shroud
covering the sample collector head (scoop) could be jettisoned. During this
operation, the sampler boom was to be extended a few centimeters and then
returned to the stowed position. Extending the boom was no problem, but
on retraction it stuck. At first, Jim Martin and crew thought the problem was
one of electronics. At 6:30 p.m. on the 22d, Martin told reporters prelimi-
nary indications were that perhaps the soil-sampler control assembly—the
receiver for computer commands—had "some kind of an electronic prob-
lem." He could switch to a redundant soil-sampler control assembly if that
was the problem, but, "the concern I have at the moment is that unless we
can solve or understand this problem and solve it in fairly short order we are
likely to run the risk of impacting the soil acquisition sequence on Sol 8. "50
By 10 p.m. on the 22d, Martin's team had arrived at a new theory.
Prefacing his remarks to the media with, "It has been a very busy day,"
Martin addressed the problem of the sampler. Everyone knew that loss of
the sampler would be a major setback for Viking science activities. Without
it, no samples would be delivered to the biology instrument, the gas chro-
matograph-mass spectrometer, or the x-ray fluorescence spectrometer. Mar-
tin believed that his people, who had worked all evening, had "isolated the
most probable cause of the problem. It turns out, contrary to my expecta-
tion, not to be an electrical problem." Instead, it was apparently a simple—
if anything can be simple when working with a piece of equipment mil-
lions of kilometers away—mechanical hangup. Martin pointed out "that
there is a locking pin that is part of the shroud latching system"; that pin
was supposed to drop to the Martian surface during the boom exten-
sion.... It now appears that the extension that had been commanded in the
sequence was not long enough to allow this pin to drop free."
Martin had observed a duplication of the difficulty on the science test
lander, which was housed in a glass-walled room next to the auditorium in
which the press briefings were held at JPL. Commenting on the fishbowl
atmosphere in which his people had been working, Martin told the report-
ers, "I went in and looked at it myself when some of you weren't looking."
The stuck pin was "certainly a plausible and possible failure mode." To test
this theory, "we plan to send up a new command sequence on the Sol 5
command load which will go up at around midnight Saturday night," 24
July. Mission analysts thought that extending the boom to about 35 cen-
timeters would let the pin fall. Martin added, "If by some chance the pin
was retained within the mechanism, which I really believe is doubtful, we
don't ever intend to retract it as far as we did in the original sequence." That
way, they would avoid another difficulty; at a certain point the boom
extraction motor would clutch on purpose and then shut itself off to avoid
394
 ON MARS

damage to the motor. If the pin did not drop free this time, the boom would
be ordered to extend far enough so that the "no-go" signal would not be
given."
Two photographs taken by the lander camera on sol 5, 25 July, showed
that the retaining pin did fall free, landing on the ground in front of the
craft. 52 The apparent ease with which this problem had been diagnosed and
corrected hid the months of training and preparation for such mission
operations. Subsequently, more serious troubles were to plague the soil-
sampler assembly, but each time training and ingenuity permitted the team
to work out solutions and keep the mechanism functioning. Adaptability
was one of the key elements of Viking's landed operations.
Communicating with the Spacecraft
Before separation from the orbiter, the lander had been given an initial
computer load (ICL, or "ickel"), which contained all the computer com-
mands necessary for a basic 60-day mission, even if there were no further
communications from Earth. With normal communications between the
spacecraft and mission control, the mission programmers could modify the
initial computer load as needed to get the most out of the lander. Com-
mands were "uplinked" to the lander from JPL through the stations of the
Deep Space Network to the orbiter and then to the guidance, control, and
sequencing computer. The command uplinks, made in three-day cycles,
were the responsibility of the lander command and sequencing team of the
lander performance and analysis group.
Agreeing on the commands to be sent to the lander, programming
them, and checking them out through simulations was a complex series of
tasks, which required a great deal of work and interaction among many
persons. An example is the decision to photograph the sampler boom
immediately after acquisition of a sample. The requirement would first be
sent to the lander imaging team, which had three three-person squads who
handled such requests. These uplink squads, plus a "late-adaptive squad"
responsible for last-minute alterations, would investigate the picture called
for and determine if it could be combined with others or if it had to be taken
by itself. The series of pictures for a given sol was then described and
combined into a science requirement strategy that was passed on to the
Lander Science Systems Staff, which had the difficult task of matching
wants (requirements) with the constraints imposed by the lander systems
and the other tasks that had to be accomplished.
The Lander Science Systems Staff received the uplink plans in the form
of computer printouts called science instrument parameters—specific
commands to the guidance, control, and sequencing computer. Lander
imaging had 56 commands available, and each could be adapted to special
requirements. Once approved by the Lander Science Systems Staff, the
parameters were passed on to the lander computer simulations personnel,
who ran through the commands to see if there were any software or hard-
395
ON MARS

Viking Surface Sampler

The Viking lander's chemical and biological investigations all
used samples of surface materials excavated by the surface
sampler. In addition, as the experience with lunar Surveyor
spacecraft demonstrated, there was much to learn about the surface
simply by digging in it. In the Viking mission, digging was part of the
physical properties and magnetic properties investigations.
The surface sampler consisted of a collector head attached to the
end of a three-meter retractable boom. The arm housing the boom
could be moved both horizontally and vertically. The boom itself was
constructed from two ribbons of stainless steelwelded together along
the edges. When extended, the two layers opened to form a rigid
tube. When retracted, the boom flattened. A flat cable sandwiched
between the boom layers transmitted electrical power to the collec-
tor head.
The collector head was basically a scoop with a movable lid and
a backhoe hinged to its lower surface. Where the scoop is attached to
the end of the boom, a motorized rotator acted as a mechanical wrist
to permit manipulation of the collector head, To fill the scoop, the lid
was first raised and then the boom was extended along or into the
surface. Once full, the lid closed. The top of the lid had holes two
millimeters in diameter, which formed a sieve. When the collector
head was positioned over one of the inlets for the instruments, it was
inverted and vibrated. Only particles smaller than two millimeters
were delivered to the instrument inlets. Coarser samples could be
delivered to the x-ray fluorescence spectrometer, if desired. The gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer and the biology instruments had
their own filters to control the size of material introduced into their
sample processing assemblies.
The surface sampler could also dig trenches, by lowering the
backhoe to place the sampler head on the surface, and then retract-
ing the boom. Excavated materials could be scooped up for sam-
pling. A brush, magnets, temperature sensor, and other instrumen-
tation also provide data concerning the physical properties of the
materials.

ware conflicts. Considerations such as elect rical energy required or the

thermal impact of a command were also determined. Following simula-
tions, the request was codified into a "lander sequence." After all the
necessary changes (massaging) were completed, the command was entered
into the ground-based computer and relayed to the Deep Space Network for
transmission to Mars.
Uplink teams preparing lander sequences worked about two weeks
ahead of the time the command was to be executed. Changes could be made
in the planned uplink until about 48 hours before it was loaded into the

396
 Inflight retaining tab Surface-contract switch
Rotation-position switch
Solenoid
Primary sieve (2000µ) actuatorly

Disaggregation teeth
Lid
Secondary sample
retention area
rotation-- Backhoe
>r (internal) retainer
Lid-open-indicator
switch
Squeegee
180 1 head brush
rotation
Temperature Magnetic
sensor (external) array

i
Lander body Camera no. 1
1
Camera no. 2 + + —'
This area i i ,Lower limit of camera
obscured from i 36 in. r ''
1 _ on landed surface
camera
by sampler--
arm housing , Boom i
A premission photo, above, shows 120 in. '
movement
limit yi
how the surface-sampler collec- 120 0 ' •i ^
tor head deposits its contents :c f`
into the biology-instrument pro- ^. Nominal sample- .
• acquisition area ' This area
cessor and distributor assembly. ` obscured from
8.9 sq m
The collector head and the area camera no. 2
of the sampler arm's operation ` by sampler-

are sketched at right. Below, proj- ' arm housing

ect scientist Gerald Soffen exam-
ines the collector head on the Sampler-Arm Area of Operation
science test lander at JPL.
ON MARS

computer. Obviously, uplinking was a precise, demanding business. Mis-

takes were totally inadmissable. Although out of the limelight, the people
responsible for talking with the lander had a difficult task. Occasionally,
nerves wore thin when the requirements of different science teams con-
flicted. The uplinkers were expected to satisfy everyone's needs, and for the
most part they did.13
Sampling the Martian Surface
Scientifically, the most important experiments aboard the lander were
those which sampled the planet's surface. Of these, the chemical analyses
were interesting, but the biological experiments were a disappointment. As
with other investigations, Mars again turned out to be a more complex
riddle than anticipated and, while there is still disagreement over the exact
causes of some of the reactions observed, most—but not all—of the Viking
scientists have come to the opinion that detection of life on Mars is a very
unlikely prospect.
The first soil samples were acquired on sol 8, 28 July. Four samples
were dug, with the first being deposited into the biology instrument dis-
tributor assembly, the next two into the GCMS processor, and the fourth
into the funnel of the x-ray fluorescence spectrometer. All the commands
were successfully executed, but there was no positive indication that the gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer processor had been properly filled. A
second acquisition attempt still did not provide a "sample level detector
`full' indication." The sampler system, having completed its programmed
sequences in a normal manner, parked the boom as planned. On Earth, the
lander performance specialists began to analyze the possible causes of the
anomaly: (1) insufficient sample acquired in the collector head because the
same sample collection site had also been used for the biology sample;
(2) insufficient time allowed for the sample to pass from the funnel through
the sample grinding section and then through the fine (300-micrometer)
sieve into the metering cavity of the instrument; (3) grinder stirring spring
not contacting the sieve; or (4) sample-level-detector circuit faulty. Since
the "level-full" detector consisted of a very fine wire stretched across the
cavity to which the sample material was delivered, it was also possible that
it had broken when the soil was dropped into the funnel.59
An anomaly team headed by Joseph C. Moorman, who had worked
closely with the builders of the GCMS, went to work on this problem. While
preparations were made for another sample to be collected on sol 14, 3
August, Martin and Young had to decide whether to proceed on the
assumption that the GCMS had actually been filled and chance wasting one
of the two remaining ovens on an empty chamber (the specialists had
determined that one of the ovens was inoperable during the GCMS in-flight
checkout) or pick up another sample on sol 14. Conservatism and caution
argued for the latter decision, and the managers chose that option. But the
boom did not cooperate. It jammed.
398
 ON MARS
The surface-sampler control-assembly sequences performed normally
through the 12th command. During the execution of the 13th (boom
retraction to 26.7 centimeters), trouble showed up; when the computer
issued the 14th command, the assembly would not respond. Examination of
photos taken on sol 14 revealed that the sampling trench had been dug as
ordered, but the collector head was not over the GCMS funnel where it was
supposed to be. An image received on sol 15 showed the back of the boom.
Three possible reasons for this new anomaly were considered: (1) failure of
the surface-sampler control-assembly electronics; (2) failure of the boom
motor or related equipment; or (3) jamming of the boom, precluding
proper retraction. Causes 1 and 2 were rejected after analyzing the proper
performance through the first 12 commands. Jamming had most likely
caused the difficulty since the failure appeared to be similar to the "no-go"
response encountered with the sol 2 shroud-pin jam.
Frozen carbon dioxide or surface material were rejected as possible
causes of jamming the boom, because of the absence of a slowly increasing
motor load, which the investigators would have detected. Discussion of the
anomaly with the boom designers revealed that a similar problem had
occurred during early test phases, and they believed it was caused when a
series of successive retract (or extend) commands had been issued. In testing,
the successive commands tightened the boom element on the storage drum,
and the boom element tended to wind around the drum in a 5- or 6-sided
configuration rather than in a perfect circle. This arrangement caused
intermittent high loading when the "points of the hexagon" passed under
the boom restraint brake shoes. The reliability of the system was further
weakened when operated at low temperatures; the motor torque limiter
finally decoupled, and movement of the boom ceased. Two major operating
procedures were proposed to meet the problem: (1) All sequences were to be
revised to eliminate successive extend or retract commands, avoiding exces-
sive tightening of the boom element on the drum. The command reversals
would cause the extend or retract "flip-flop" gear to disengage the load
during each cycle, allowing the motor to attain full speed and operating
torque before it reengaged the load in the opposite direction. (2) Future
operations were to be performed within one to two hours of the peak
temperature during the Martian sol. An uplink diagnostic sequence was
designed for sol 18; the boom would be used in each axis of operation—
extend, retract, up elevation, down elevation, clockwise, and counterclock-
wise. The sequence was executed properly and no anomalies were met. Fol-
lowing Martin Marietta's instructions, all activities of the sampler arm were
redesigned "to exclude, wherever possible, successive extend or retract
commands, and to perform these operations during the warmest part of the
sol." The Viking team had no further problems with the sampler boom on
either lander, and operating temperature restrictions were eventually
waived because of the need to acquire early morning biology samples.
Preflight testingand the documentation of thoseprocedures had paid off.ss

399
ON MARS

The sol 14 anomaly forced Martin and Young to reconsider their decision
not to analyze the "possible" sample acquired on sol 8. Influenced by early
results from the biology experiments, the molecular analysis team urged
that the contents of the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer be analyzed.
Jim Martin and Tom Young agreed.
Biology. At the 1:30 p.m. news briefing on 31 July 1976 (sol 11), Jim
Martin made an announcement. Prefacing his remarks with, "I wanted to
state that it's been project policy for seven years to make data available to the
media when we have [them]," Martin noted that this day was "no excep-
tion. We have received biology data that we believe to be good data."
Engineering telemetry indicated that the biology instrument was perform-
ing "extremely well," perhaps too well, since early reactions from the
gas-exchange and labeled-release experiments were very positive. That could
possibly be the consequence of biological activity, but Martin was cautious:
"I think Chuck Klein will continue to caution you that the biology experi-
ment is a complex one. We've seen that Mars is a complex planet. There are
many things that we do not understand." The scientists were proceeding
systematically and methodically.-"
Biology Team Leader Harold P. Klein and his colleagues had already
conducted a number of tutorials for the news people covering the Viking
mission, and at each session where they presented analytical details they
took time to explain the experiment in question. The biologists started
with the basics. Each Viking lander carried an integrated biology instru-
ment, which contained three experiments designed to detect the metabolic
activity of microorganisms should they be present in the soil sampled. First,
the gas-exchange experiment would determine if changes caused by
microbial metabolism occurred in the composition of the test chamber
atmosphere. Second, the labeled-release experiment, also known as Gul-
liver, would determine if decomposed organic compounds were produced
by microbes when a nutrient was added. Third, the pyrolytic-release exper-
iment would detect, from gases in the chamber, any synthesis of organic
matter in the Martian soil. A change could be the result of either photosyn-
thetic or nonphotosynthetic processes.
On 31 July, Klein told the press: "What we are proposing to do for you
today [is] to give you a status report on the three experiments and we'd like
to then focus on one of the experiments, the labeled release experiment, a
little more closely since some of that data is exciting and interesting." First,
all three instruments were working normally. "We have no anomalies, no
problems despite what some of the press or other news media have said." He
had heard rumors that the biology instrument was "sick, dead in the water."
The truth was that the instrument was in good shape, and he had two
important, unique facts.
First, the gas-exchange experiment had given them reason to believe
that "we have at least preliminary evidence for a very active surface mate-
rial.... We believe that there's something in the surface, some chemical or

400
 ON MARS

physical entity which is affording the surface material a great activity." But,
adding a word of caution, he noted that the reaction observed in the
gas-exchange experiment might be mimicking some aspects of biological
activity. Second, the labeled-release experiment's radioactivity counters
were measuring "a fairly high level of radioactivity which to a first approx-
imation would look very much like a biological signal." The highly active
nature of the soil, however, caused the biology team members to be cau-
tious. "That second result must be viewed very, very carefully in order to be
certain that we are, in fact, dealing with a biological or non-biological"
phenomenon.
Klein reported on the sequencing of the three biology experiments.
Norman Horowitz's pyrolytic-release experiment had been started first.
After the soil had been injected into the test chamber and carbon 14-
labeled carbon dioxide added, the xenon lamp had been turned on;
incubation would last until at least sol 14, when the first results might be
available. Vance Oyama's gas-exchange experiment had also received its
soil sample on 28 July, but the incubation process was not begun until the
morning of the 29th, when the chamber containing the soil and Martian
atmosphere was injected with a mixture of carbon dioxide, krypton, and
half a cubic centimeter of nutrient. About two hours later, gas in the
chamber was analyzed—a calibrating measurement against which all sub-
sequent analyses would be measured. Calling for the lights in the Von
Karman Auditorium to be turned off, Klein had a chromatogram based on
the first gas exchange results projected on the screen behind him:
Soil-processor
adapter plate Upper mounting
PR illuminator plate assembly
assembly
Soil-distribution assembly
Thermoelectric
coolers _ Soil entry port
C 14 detector - Vertical actuator assembly
assembly ILRI HeIKOCO2 reservoir
O - _

Pyrol ytic- )-\ I Nutrient valve

release block assembly
experiment —
Module assembly
Dump cell
Test cell Gas-exchange
experiment
Biology instrument Organic vapor
Heater
trap - ^,
Heaters Test cell
Dump cell Dump cell
Test cell Q I Thermostat
Carousel ) Stainless steel
tubing (15 m)
Labeled- Gas
release chromatograph
experiment ) ^
i

Nutrient
reservoir

Enclosure

Electronic
subsystem
ON MARS
What we saw were five peaks—little tiny peaks: neon, over here on your
left and that's explainable by the neon that we used in the nutrient
chamber itself and that's our indication that we, in fact, injected nutrient
and that's fine—there's nothing unusual about that. Then you see nitro-
gen and that amount of nitrogen can be accounted for by the nitrogen in
the atmosphere and a small amount of nitrogen that we know was con-
taminating our CO, krypton mixture. Then we see this oxygen peak
which I will come back to in a moment. And then as a shoulder beside the
oxygen, you see a small peak and that's a combination of argon and
carbon monoxide and that amount of gas would be consistent with
current estimates of argon and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere.
A large krypton peak, Klein explained, was present because they had added
krypton in a specifically known amount to provide a standard reference for
determining the amount of other gases that might be present. He turned
back to the oxygen peak: "You will see at the base of that oxygen peak, a
little bar—that's the amount of oxygen down there that we can account for,
or could account for from all known sources in the atmosphere or in the
contamination of our gas mixture." But the instrument on Viking 1 was
indicating 15 times more oxygen than the scientists could account for from
known sources. The results from the second measurement made 24 hours
later showed that all the gases had remained the same except oxygen. It had
increased by 30 percent. After ruling out all other possible causes, the
scientists concluded that the oxygen had to be coming from the soil itself.
While one possible explanation for the increase was biological activity,
other explanations were possible, too.57
A possible alternative answer to why the initial amount of oxygen had
been released lay in the desert area of landing site; the Martian samples
contained peroxides and superoxides, which when exposed to abnormal
(non-Marslike) humidity in the instrument quickly released oxygen. The
related release of carbon dioxide suggested that the samples had an alkaline
core. Although such reactions had not been witnessed on Earth, the scien-
tists believed that the intense ultraviolet radiation bombarding the surface
of the Red Planet could have produced unique photocatalytic effects. Still,
there was much to be explained, including the reactions observed from the
labeled-release investigation.
Gulliver was sending back some surprises. As with the gas-exchange
experiment, the labeled-release experiment added a small amount of nu-
trient to the soil sample. It also produced a large amount of gas after that
injection. Where the gas-exchange produced a spectrum of the gases, the
labeled release measured the amount of radioactivity produced by the
carbon-14 "labeling" material in the nutrient. Shortly after the addition of
the nutrient, the radiation counts rose sharply, leveling off at about 10 000
counts per minute.
Gil Levin gave the audience at JPL a brief resume of the activities since
the injection of the nutrients, which had occurred at about 1:45 p.m. PDTon
402
 ON MARS
30 July. That injection had consisted of about 0.1 milliliter, or about 2
drops, of liquid. As Levin noted, "If any organisms are present that can
Utilize the nutrient and if these organisms behave biochemically—roughly
as terrestrial organisms do—they should imbibe the nutrient and exhale a
radioactive gas." Resulting radioactivity was measured periodically by a
radiation detector. The result on Mars was very interesting. It was similar to
ones encountered with living organisms detected in terrestrial soil, but
Levin warned, "We are far too early in the game to say that we have a
positive response." There were too many factors that had to be weighed and
tested. "All we can say at this point is that the response is very interesting, be
it biological or non-biological, it is unanticipated."
As in the gas-exchange experiment, there was a possibility that the soil
itself contained catalysts, minerals, inorganics that produced some break-
down of the radioactive compounds. "The effect of water introduced into
the dry Mars soil may cause violent chemical reactions that would disinte-
grate a portion of our medium." As a consequence, Levin thought that any
speculation about the biological or nonbiological nature of the response
would have to await further data.58
By I August, the production of oxygen in the gas-exchange experiment
had decreased considerably, thus supporting the belief that the release was
the function of oxides in the soil. In a 2 August update on the labeled-release
experiment, Levin noted that they had examined the radioactivity curve
very carefully. They had found no evidence of any doubling of cells. No
growth appeared to be taking place, but the curve did not seem to behave as
scientists would have expected it to for chemical reactions either. "We find
that the chemical reaction took place at a very rapid rate initially, and then
uncharacteristically slowed down and took a long time to plateau." The
curve detected with the labeled-release experiment did not agree with
known responses for either chemical or biological reactions."
Data returned by the pyrolytic-release experiment and reported by
Norman Horowitz on 7 August were equally confounding. Once again, the
specialists had detected a reaction, but they did not know what it meant.
"There's a possibility that this is biological," Horowitz said, but "there are
many other possibilities that have to be excluded." The results obtained the
night before were interesting but he emphasized that they were not ready to
say that they had discovered life on Mars. "The data point we have is
conceivably of biological origin, but the biological explanation is only one
of a number of alternative explanations." He told the press:
We hope by the end of this mission to have excluded all but one of the
explanations, whichever that may be. I want to emphasize that if this were
normal science, we wouldn't even be here—we'd be working in our
laboratories for three more months—you wouldn't even know what was
going on and at the end of that time we would come out and tell you the
answer. Having to work in a fishbowl like this is an experience that none
of us is used to.
403
ON MARS
He also cautioned the reporters that they were being included in the analy-
sis phase of the experiments. They were "looking over the shoulder of a
group of people who are trying to work in a normal way in an abnormal
environment. ­ 60 The scientist's caution was prompted by his knowledge
that "we well might be wrong in anything we say. Anyone who has carried
out a scientific investigation knows that the pathway of science is paved not
only with brilliant insights and great discoveries, but also with false leads
and bitter disappointments. And nobody wanted to be wrong in public on a
question as important as that of life on Mars. "61
Later in a November 1977 Scientific American article, Horowitz was
able to speak more authoritatively about the results that had been observed
in all three experiments. In the gas-exchange experiment, "the findings of
the first stage of the experiment were both surprising and simple." Imme-
diately following the addition of the moisture to the sample chamber—the
soil sample was not directly wetted—carbon dioxide and oxygen were
released. The evolution of gases was short-lived, but the pressure in the
chamber increased measurably. At the Chryse site, the amount of carbon
dioxide increased by about 5 times, and the amount of oxygen increased by
about 200 times in little more than one sol. At the landing site in Utopia, the
increases were smaller but still "considerable." Upon reflection, Horowitz
stated that "the rapidity and brevity of the response recorded by both landers
suggested that the process observed was a chemical reaction, not a biologi-
cal one." Horowitz felt that the appearance of the carbon dioxide was
readily explainable: "Carbon dioxide gas would be expected to be adsorbed
on the surface of the dry Martian soil; if the soil was exposed to very humid
atmosphere, the gas would be displaced by water vapor." The presence of
the oxygen was logical but harder to account for, since so much oxygen
would seem to require an oxygen-producing substance, not just the physi-
cal release of preexisting gas. There was just not that much oxygen availa-
ble in the atmosphere—past or present—to account for the quantities
measured. Horowitz argued that it was "likely that the oxygen was released
when the water vapor decomposed an oxygen-rich compound such as a
peroxide. Peroxides are known to decompose if they are exposed to water in
the presence of iron compounds, and according to the X-ray fluorescence
spectrometer ... the Martian soil is 13 percent iron."
At both sites, the second phase of the gas-exchange experiment was
"anticlimactic." When the sample was saturated with ilie aqueous nutrient,
more carbon dioxide and oxygen were produced. The additional evolution
of carbon dioxide was probably a continuation of the reaction observed in
the humid stage of the experiment. Horowitz believed that the amount of
oxygen then diminished because of its combination with the ascorbic acid
in the nutrient medium. "And so ... it became clear that everything of
interest happened in the humid stage of the experiment, before the soil
came in contact with the nutrient!" Thus, in November 1977, Horowitz
confidently stated that the gas-exchange experiment had detected "not
404
 ON MARS
metabolism but the chemical interaction of the Martian surface material
with water vapor at a pressure that has not been reached on Mars for many
millions of years."62
In the labeled-release experiment, there was a similar rapid surge of gas
into the test chamber when the nutrient solution was added to the soil. This
release tapered off shortly after the passage of one so]. Horowitz noted, "The
gas, undoubtedly carbon dioxide, was radioactive, showing that it had been
formed from the radioactive compounds of the medium and not from
compounds in the Martian soil." He also believed that other nonradioactive
gases were evolved when the water in the nutrient medium came in contact
with the sample, but that these could not be detected by the instrument.
"The production of radioactive carbon dioxide in the labeled-release exper-
iment is understandable in light of the evidence from the gas-exchange
experiment suggesting that the surface material of Mars contains perox-
ides." Formic acid, which was one of the compounds in the labeled-release
nutrient, is oxidized with relative ease. "If a molecule of formic acid
(HCOOH) reacts with one of hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O2 ), it will form a
molecule of carbon dioxide(CO2)and two molecules of water (H 2 0)." The
amount of radioactive carbon dioxide produced in the experiment was only
slightly less than would have been predicted if all the formic acid in the
nutrient had been oxidized in this manner.
Going a step further with his analysis, Horowitz said that if the source
of the oxygen in the gas-exchange experiment was peroxides in the soil
decomposed by the water vapor, then the labeled-release experiment should
have decomposed all of the peroxides with the first injection of nutrient.
The second injection should have produced no additional radioactive gas.
That was what happened. "When a second volume of medium was injected
into the chamber, the amount of gas in the chamber was not increased;
indeed, it decreased. The decrease is explained by the fact that carbon
dioxide is quite soluble in water; when fresh nutrient medium was added to
the chamber, it absorbed some of the carbon dioxide in the head space above
the sample."
In the labeled-release experiment, the stability of the reaction to heat-
ing at various temperatures was examined. Heating reduced and subse-
quently stopped the reaction. This result has been interpreted by some to be
evidence in favor of biological activity, but Horowitz, although conceding
that the effects of heating could be explained by biological activity, said that
these results were also consistent with a chemical oxidation in which the
oxidizing agent is destroyed or evaporated at relatively low temperatures.
"A variety of both inorganic peroxides and organic peroxides could proba-
bly have produced the same results. "61
The third biology experiment, pyrolytic release, differed from the
others in two basic respects. First, it attempted to measure the synthesis of
organic matter from atmospheric gases rather than the decomposition of
that matter. Second, it was designed to operate under pressure, temperature,
405
ON MARS
and atmospheric composition that were nearly the same as those on the
planet. During the actual operation of the pyrolytic-release investigation,
the temperatures ran higher than those normally encountered on Mars
because of heat generated within the lander. A sample of the soil was sealed
in the test chamber along with some of the planet's atmosphere. A xenon arc
lamp simulated the sun. Into this Martian microcosm, small amounts of
radioactive carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide were introduced. After
five days, the xenon lamp was turned off, and the atmosphere was removed.
The soil was then analyzed for the presence of radioactive organic matter.
Analysis of the soil began with heating it in the pyrolyzing furnace—
hence, the name pyrolytic release—to a temperature high enough to reduce
any organic compounds to small volatile fragments. Those "fragments
were swept out of the chamber by a stream of helium and passed through a
column that was designed to trap organic molecules but allow carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide to pass through." In this process, radioactive
organic molecules would be transferred from the soil to the column while
being separated from the remaining gases of the incubation atmosphere.
Any organic molecules would be released from the column by raising the
column's temperature. Simultaneously, the radioactive organic molecules
would be decomposed into radioactive carbon dioxide by copper oxide in
the column and transported to the radiation counter by the helium carrier
gas. If, as a result of this process, organic compounds had been formed,
there would be detectable radioactivity; if there were no organics, there
would be no radioactivity.
Horowitz noted that, surprisingly, "seven of the nine pyrolytic-release
tests executed on Mars gave positive results." The negative results occurred
with samples obtained at VikingTs Utopia site. The amount of radioactive
carbon dioxide obtained by the experiment was small; still, it was enough to
furnish organic matter for between 100 and 1000 bacterial cells. Signifi-
cantly, "the quantity is so small ... that it could not have been detected by
the organic-analysis experiment," the gas chromatograph-mass spec-
trometer (see below). Though small, the quantity was important, because as
Horowitz expressed it, "it was surprising that in such a strongly oxidizing
environment even a small amount of organic material could be fixed in the
soil." Even more important to him was the fact that "the pyroly tic-release
instrument had been rigorously designed to eliminate non-biological sources
of organic compounds." To encounter positive results from the Martian soil
in spite of all the precautions was in the biologist's word "startling."
However, on reflection, it appeared that the findings of the pyrolytic-
release experiment had to be interpreted nonbiologically. The reaction did
not respond to heat in a manner consistent with a biological reaction.
Martian microbes, accustomed to the very low temperatures on that planet,
would have been killed by the elevated temperatures experienced during the
test, the investigators thought. "On the other hand, it is not easy to point to
a non-biological explanation for the positive results." Investigations into
406
 ON MARS
this curious reaction have continued in terrestrial laboratories, and until
"the mystery of the results ... is solved, a biological explanation will
continue to be a remote possibility. "61
Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer (GCMS). While the results of
t Ile biology experiments did not seem as bleak in the summer of 1976 as they
have appeared subsequently, there was considerable concern during the
missions about the proper interpretation of the reactions being witnessed.
During August 1976, the Viking scientists believed that the GCMS was one
possible tool for deciding if the reactions observed in the biology instru-
ment were biological or chemical in origin.
As one observer noted, the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer was
the court of appeals in the event that the biological experiments did not
present a clear verdict. 65 With the initial uncertainties from the biology
experiments, the molecular analysis team decided to gamble that the GCMS
had received its sample on sol 8 (see pages 398-400) and made the first analy-
sis on 6 August (sol 17). Klaus Biemann reported to the press on the molecu-
lar analysis—"the first half of the first sample experiment of the organic
analysis"—the following day. The soil sample was there! And the oven had
worked as planned. There was always speculation among the news repre-
sentatives about what new hardware problems might appear, but this time
the scientists could report, "It did work as predicted, heated to 200° and
stayed there for thirty seconds. The entire gas chromatograph mass spec-
trometer worked well like all gas chromatograph mass spectrometers do."
Although the molecular analysis team was obviously pleased that its
instrument was working well, the results from the GCMS would be the
source of the most frustrating data for those exobiologists who were hoping
to find life on the Red Planet.
About 300 mass spectra, electronically provided graphs identifying the
molecules detected in the Martian soil sample, were returned by the first run
of the GCMS. The molecular analysis specialists were particularly inter-
ested in determining if carbon compounds were in the sample, since bio-
chemistry is largely the chemistry of carbon. The basic structure of the
carbon atom enables it to form large and complex molecules that are very
stable at ordinary temperatures. While no carbon compounds were detected
in the first sample analysis, there was no great concern, since it was believed
that the sample would have to be heated to 500°C before the organics would
be broken down and detected by the instrument. The only surprising aspect
of the first data was the very small amount of water released by the sample.66
On 12 August, the GCMS experiment was run again with the first
sample being heated to a maximum temperature of 500°C. Biemann
reported that this analysis "to our surprise, evolved a large amount of water.
Indeed so much that it gives us trouble in analyzing the data." Still, the
critical point of this analysis was that there were probably no organics. If
the reactions observed in the biology instrument were the consequence of
life, then it was expected that the GCMS would detect organic compounds
407
ON MARS
in the same soil. Neither this analysis nor the subsequent one at the Viking 1
site, nor those carried out at the Viking 2 landing area, produced traces of
organic compounds at the detection limits (a few parts per billion) of the
GCMS.61
Failure of the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer to detect organic
compounds was devastating for those who believed that life on Mars was
possible. For Jerry Soffen, the GCMS results were "a real wipe out." Once
he assimilated the fact that the GCMS had found no organic materials, he
walked away from where the data were being analyzed saying to himself,
"That's the ball game. No organics on Mars, no life on Mars." But Soffen
confessed that it took him some time to believe the results were conclusive.
At first, he argued with Tom Young that there must have been no sample
present in the GCMS, because there had to be organics of some sort oil the
planet. Soffen bet Young a dollar that the second analysis would prove that
the instrument had been empty. To his dismay, the data indicated instead
that there was a sample in the instrument and that the sample was devoid of
organics.
Klaus Biemann, the molecular analysis team leader, had some reflec-
tions on the search for organic compounds. Looking in the soil for com-
pounds made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen at the level of a
few parts per billion, they found none. The gas chromatograph-mass
spectrometer could have detected smaller concentrations of organic mate-
rials than are present in typical antarctic soil, which is low in organic
compounds because there is little vegetation and animal life on that part of
Earth. Compared to Antarctica, Mars is devoid of organic material, and a
number of conclusions could be drawn from that finding. First, no synthe-
sis of organic compounds is occurring on the surface, at least where the two
Vikings landed. Second, if millions of years ago organic compounds did
exist, they must have since been destroyed. Third, since organic compounds
must be arriving on Mars in the form of meteorites, that material must have
been imbedded in the surface very deeply or, more likely, destroyed by the
planet's harsh environment. Finally, says Biemann, "if we use terrestrial
analogies, we always find that a large amount of organic material accom-
panies living things—a hundred times, thousand times, 10 thousand times
more organic materials than the cells themselves represent." Since the
Viking instruments did not detect any large amounts of organic waste
material, it is difficult to see how microorganisms could be living at the
areas investigated "if they behave as terrestrial organisms do."
Of course, reminded Biemann, "this does not rule out a different kind
of living mechanism that would protect its organic constituents very well
and, therefore, avoid this waste of a scarce commodity." Martian organisms
could have evolved along those lines, and as the environment became
harsher and harsher they could have become more and more efficient in
using the organic materials they needed. Viking looked at only two samples
at each of the two landing si tes from depths of 5 to 10 centimeters. If organic
materials were produced millions or hundreds of millions of years ago, they
408
r

ON MARS
could be present at greater depths and protected there from the damaging
ultraviolet radiation. The Viking spacecraft could be sitting on an area
containing a deposit of organic material a few meters down. There could
also be other areas on the planet where the surface material is more pro-
tected or where organic material is now being synthesized and not de-
stroyed. To help answer these puzzling questions, Biemann and his col-
leagues had plans to study in their laboratories the rate of decomposition of
certain typical organics under Martianlike conditions, to determine how
fast organic materials might be destroyed at the surface .61

LIFE OR NO LIFE?

Soffen's disappointment was shared by others on the biology team. For

years, they had discussed the scientific possibilities of discovering life or the
prerequisites for life on the Red Planet, and Soffen recalled the long debates
with his colleagues on the subject. Some, like Wolf Vishniac, had argued
that a negative result—that is, no life—was as important scientifically as the
discovery of 1 ife. But such a discovery had not proved very exciting. Before
the Viking landings, Soffen had been very careful in all his public state-
ments to say that they would likely find nothing on the planet, but person-
ally he had wanted to find life.
While Soffen believed that it was possible for life to have developed on
Mars, he also thought it likely that the biology instrument, for a host of
reasons, had not been designed properly to detect it. However, he was also
very confident that if organic compounds had been present, the GCMS
would have detected them. For that reason, he had fought for the instru-
ment throughout the evolution of the Viking project. Soffen could have
accepted a negative biology result, if there had been a positive measurement
of organic compounds. But positive biology results could not be interpreted
as indicating the existence of life in the absence of organics. Others have
argued that perhaps Viking landed at the wrong places on the planet.
Nearer the poles where there was a higher moisture content in the soil and
atmosphere, life might exist. Or perhaps, as suggested by Carl Sagan and
Joshua Lederberg, there are Martian microenvironments where in small
oasislike areas life has evolved and survived. Soffen thought this unlikely
since the homogenizing effects of wind and dust storms would have likely
distributed any organic material all over the planet. He reluctantly con-
cluded that life on Mars was unlikely.69
The apparent absence of life on the Red Planet had a far-reaching
philosophical and emotional impact on members of the biology team. The
team had never been a cohesive group of investigators, and the results of the
biology and GCMS experiments served to accentuate their differences.
Norman Horowitz came to the opinion that there is no life elsewhere in the
solar system. While he did not rule out the possibility in theoretical terms,
he believes, practically speaking, that scientists will never be able to prove
the existence of life on another planet. Horowitz noted:
409
ON MARS
There are doubtless some who, unwilling to accept the notion of a lifeless
Mars, will maintain that the interpretation I have given is unproved.
They are right. It is impossible to prove that any of the reactions detected
by the Viking instruments were not biological in origin. It is equally
impossible to prove from any result of the Viking instruments that the
rocks seen at the landing sites are not living organisms that happen to look
like rocks.... The field is open to every fantasy. Centuries of human
experience warn us, however, that such an approach is not the way to
discover the truth.70
One man who is still not convinced is Gil Levin. He cannot rule out the
biological interpretation of the Viking biology experiment results. "The
accretion of evidence has been more compatible with biology than with
chemistry. Each new test result has made it more difficult to come up with a
chemical explanation, but each new result has continued to allow for
biology." Furthermore, Levin believed that all of the life-seeking tests
showed reactions that "if we had them on earth, we would unhesitatingly
have described as biological. " 71 But other members of the biology team were
not as easily convinced.
Vance Oyama, who fathered the gas-exchange experiment, publicly
stated in early 1977 that "there was no need to invoke biological processes"
to explain the results obtained from the experiments. While far from being
accepted by all his colleagues, Oyama's opinion is one more example of the
extent to which differing explanations can be made to account for the
puzzling data acquired by the biology experiments. Should Oyama's
explanation turn out to be valid, it would affect more than the biology
experiments. It would also help explain the nature of the magnetic particles
that adhered to the magnets on the sampler head, the interactions between
the atmosphere and the surface, and the early evolution of the planet. His
theory begins with a simple photochemical effect in the atmosphere: the
intense solar ultraviolet radiation breaks down atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO 2 ) into activated carbon monoxide (CO) and single atoms of oxygen
(0). As the ultraviolet radiation continues to bombard the atmosphere,
some of the carbon monoxide is further reduced to its constituents, carbon
and oxygen. Some of this single-atom carbon combines with carbon monox-
ide to produce carbene (C2 0). The carbene in turn combines with carbon
monoxide to form the first key element in Oyama's theory, carbon suboxide
(C3 02 ). Oyama postulated that the carbon suboxide molecules were united
to form a carbon suboxide polymer. Intriguingly, the resulting polymer has
a reddish cast.
Oyama's theory is consistent with data from the three biology experi-
ments. Looking first at the pyrolytic-release experiment, Oyama noted that
the carbon-14 isotope was an important factor in explaining the results
observed from this instrument. The decay of the carbon-14 isotope into
nitrogen-14 released a beta particle. The resulting energy was more than
sufficient to fracture carbon-carbon, carbon-hydrogen, and carbon-oxygen
410
 ON MARS
bonds. The breakdown would activate the red carbon suboxide polymer,
allowing it to incorporate the available carbon monoxide. Heating that
same polymer to about 625°C during pyrolysis would produce about four
percent of the original carbon suboxide, with a carbon-14 label. This single
carbon suboxide molecule (monomer) would tend to stick to the pyrolytic
release experiment's organic vapor trap and with subsequent heating
would be released as the critical "second peak" the specialists observed in
the experiment's data. Taking this another step, Oyama reported that the
presence of water vapor when the sample was exposed to the labeled atmos-
phere would lower the second peak.72
In Oyama's laboratory gas-exchange tests, the prominent release of
oxygen was also less the second time. But as Oyama said, the reason was very
different. In the Martian atmosphere, the same photochemical breakdown
(photodissociation) that led to the formation of carbon suboxide also led to
the creation of activated oxygen atoms, albeit by a different route. When
these oxygen atoms struck alkaline earths (for example, oxides of magne-
sium or calcium), they united to form superoxides that would release
oxygen upon exposure to water vapor. Oyama argued that less oxygen was
released at the Utopia site than at the Chryse site because the greater amount
of water vapor in the more northerly landing site had previously freed some
of the oxygen in the superoxides near the surface.
In describing the reasons for the results observed in the labeled-release
experiment, Oyama presented the following scenario. Hydrogen peroxide
formed photochemically in the atmosphere reacted with a catalyst on the
soil-grain surfaces to release oxygen, which diffused into the grains, react-
ing with the alkaline earths and metals to form other superoxides. Atmos-
pheric water vapor could readily convert the superoxides to peroxides,
which in turn could combine with water in the nutrient to form hydrogen
peroxide, H 2O,,, which would oxidize the labeled components of the nut-
rients to release the labeled CO,,. John Oro of the molecular analysis team
also suggested very early that the results from the gas-exchange tests and
labeled release were due to the presence of peroxidelike materials in the
surface of the planet. To explain the process, Oyama used the example of
chemical reactions in human beings. When hydrogen peroxide (H„O,,), a
commonly used disinfectant, is applied to a wound, it bubbles. This,
Oyama said, is caused by the presence of iron in the enzyme catalyst. When
the iron combines catalytically with the hydrogen peroxide, it releases
bubbles of oxygen. Oyama believed that a similar process is at work on the
surface of Mars.
Having searched for possible Martian catalysts, Oyama concluded that
there is one likely candidate—a form of iron oxide known as gamma Fe203,
or maghemite. On Earth, this is usually found only around the edges of
hydrothermal or magnetic activity, where the temperatures range between
300° to 400°C. The abundance of water on Earth has converted much of the
maghemite into a noncatalytic form, but on Mars this material has survived
411
ON MARS
virtually unaltered. Oyama thinks that it probably was produced either by
an episode of volcanic heating or by heating that accompanied a period of
meteoritic impacts. While this probably occurred early in the planet's
history, he believes that it took place after the large quantities of water
others suspect once existed had disappeared. Otherwise, the maghemite
would have been rendered noncatalytic, just as it has been here on Earth.
This explanation is a complex one, but as Jonathan Eberhart, writing for
Science News, has reported: "Oyama's theory will have to stand the test of
time, additional data and competing theories. But it does show that looking
for life on other worlds has the potential for making valuable contributions
in other fields as well. "73
That there is still disagreement over the Viking biology results has
caused some hard feelings among members of the biology team. Summariz-
ing the situation after the results were in, Jerry Soffen said that he would
expect the following responses if Horowitz, Oyama, Levin, and he were
asked to participate in another Mars-bound biology investigation: Horo-
witz would not want to participate; Viking had satisfied his curiosity on the
subject. Oyama would probably take part, but he would not expect to
discover life. Gil Levin still believed that life may be discovered on the Red
Planet. He had started with the goal of proving that there was life on Mars,
and for him it was an engineering problem: How do you prove that there is
life on Mars? To some of his colleagues, this was the attitude of an engineer,
not the professional skepticism of the scientist. Examining his own posi-
tion, Soffen said that he had never been certain about the possible existence
of life on Mars, but he had hoped that it might be found. At no time,
however, had he committed himself to proving that it actually existed.
Horowitz, on the other hand, had always had such strong doubts about
finding life that on several occasions members of the team wondered aloud
why he had remained with the group. For Soffen, disappointments aside, he
would like to return to Mars and look beyond the horizon shown in the
lander photos—looking not for life but for whatever was there .14
Biology team leader Chuck Klein also had some thoughts on the search
for life. "Before we landed on Mars we had a variety of opinions, ranging
from those who expected to see no life on Mars to those who expected to see a
rather flourishing—maybe not terribly advanced, but at least a flourishing
life on Mars." Judging from all the Viking mission's findings, there is no
visible flourishing life. But Klein suggested that the scientists must look
more carefully at Mars "and ask whether the sophisticated biology and the
chemistry instruments have given us clues as to whether there might be
some less obvious kind of life on Mars." Klein believed that they could reject
their pre-Viking model of Martian microbial life, "namely the Oyama
model, which says that Mars should have micro-organisms similar to large
numbers of soil bacteria on this planet." At neither site was there any
indication to support that kind of concept of Martian biology. That means
that either there are no organisms or any existing organisms do not fit that
model.
412
 ON MARS
Even though two of the biology experiments gave indications that
could be interpreted on first inspection as being the result of some simple
organisms being present, the molecular analysis team found no detectable
organic compounds in the soil samples. The absence of organics made the
biology team very suspicious; the weak-to-moderate signals in the two
experiments might not be due to biological processes at all. "However, the
lack of organics, in and of itself, does not rule out the possibility of
organisms but makes that whole idea much less attractive," said Klein. As
was noted by other Viking scientists, there is evidence that the surface
material of Mars contains chemicals that are highly oxidizing and could
interfere with the biological tests and mimic them. "Just as a living orga-
nism can, let us say, decompose a steak by eating it and digesting it, the steak
can also be decomposed by being thrown into sulfuric acid, with roughly
the same end products." The equivalent to the sulfuric acid in the case of the
Viking biology experiments could be an inorganic nonbiological oxidizing
material. Since this kind of nonorganic material seems to be present on
Mars, it could be the cause of the confusing experiment results. "We tried a
few tricks on Mars to see if we could devise some experiments that might
definitely rule out the possibility that the decomposition seen is due to
biology. We have not been able to do that so far." Although the two landing
sites were more hostile than the biologists had anticipated, Klein points out
that the Viking data do not really say there is no life on Mars.
We can certainly say that it is not rampant, but we can't be sure there isn't
some scraggly form of life for which we just haven't found the right
nutrients or the right location or the right incubation temperature or the
right environment within which to show its presence. That's why it's
going to be very difficult for me, at least, to come out and say that there is
no life on Mars. I think that would not be a scientific conclusion.
Klein, for one, wanted to go back to Mars.75
The planetary scientists agree that Mars is a fascinating place, and
Soffen believes it is significant that no one has criticized Viking or the men
who brought it about because life was not found there. Philip Abelson,
editor of Science, stated categorically in February 1965 that "we could
establish for ourselves the reputation of being the greatest Simple Simons of
all time" if NASA pursued the goal of looking for extraterrestrial life on
Mars. 76 His editorial in Science in August 1976 that reported on the initial
results of Viking 1 did not repeat this complaint, however, nor did he make
it in either of the two subsequent issues that dealt with the Mars findings.77
Some writers complained that the Martian microbes had not been given a
decent chance—after all, the same ultraviolet radiation that caused the
various photochemical reactions postulated by Oyama could also have
destroyed the organic remains of many if not all of the Martian microbes—
but none faulted the space agency for having made the search.78
A November 1976 editorial in the New York Times was typical of the
press reaction. Noting that Mars had gone behind the sun earlier in
413
ON MARS
November, interrupting for a time communications between Earth and the
Viking spacecraft, the editorial suggested that the "temporary halt in the
receipt of new data permits a preliminary evaluation of what has been
accomplished since last summer's historic landing." It appeared that "the
whole field of Martian studies has been revolutionized and provided with
an abundance of new data that will take years to assimilate fully." Findings
on Mars would, in turn, force a reconsideration of the hypotheses concern-
ing the origins of life on Earth. Referring to the postulated superoxides in
the Martian soil, the Times noted, "Now the possibility is being discussed
that such a superoxide existed here on Earth in the primeval years and that
it is this wierd substance that provided the oxygen that now makes Earth
such a hospitable planet for human and other familiar life forms. The
classic explanation that the plant life produced most of earth's free oxygen
is now being re-examined." Even the experiments of Miller and Urey in the
early 1950s regarding the synthesis of prebiotic molecules could be ques-
tioned in light of the Viking investigations: "... the data from Mars have
reminded scientists that electric discharges and accompanying ultra-violet
radiation can also break down and destroy complex organic molecules as
well as form them. All of a sudden the conventional wisdom about the
development of life on Earth seems neither so certain nor so inevitable as it
did before the Viking landings last summer." Although most scientists
would not agree that the results of Viking were sweeping away the founda-
tions for the studies of the origins of life, they would agree that "the Viking
experiments have already been even more fruitful than their backers
expected. " 79 Perhaps the basic reason that there were no serious complaints
about the Viking missions was that Mars had turned out to be a far more
interesting place than anyone had predicted and more exciting than genera-
tions of scientists had expected.

OTHER RESULTS
Viking's explorations and discoveries did not stop with the search for
life. The great disappointment felt by the biologists was tempered to a
degree by the wealth of other findings.
Radio Science
One group of Viking investigators who did not have any scientific
instruments of their own* on the four spacecraft but whose work assisted
many scientists was the radio science team led by William H. Michael of the
Langley Research Center. By analyzing the radio beams sent from Viking to
Earth, specialists could determine precisely where the landers touched
down and certain atmospheric and ionospheric properties of Mars, as well
as gather data about the surface and internal properties of the planet and
*An X-band downlink on the orbiters was added specifically to enhance radio science capabilities
and to conduct communications experiments.

414
 ON MARS
about the solar system. The team's work can be divided into three general
areas, as shown in table 55.
Table 55
Viking Radio Science Investigations

I. Dynamical, surface, and internal properties of Mars

Spin-axis orientation and motion
Spin rate
Gravity field
Figure
Surface dielectric constant
2. Atmospheric and ionospheric properties of Mars
Pressure, temperature, and density-altitude profiles
Electron-number density-altitude profiles
3. Solar system properties
Ephemerides' of Mars and Earth
Masses of Martian satellites
Interplanetary medium
Solar corona
Tests of general relativity
"Ephemerides are tabular sta tetnents of the predicted positions
of celestial bodies at regular intervals.

Investigations of the locations of the Viking landers and the dynamical

properties of Mars use primarily radio tracking of the landers, with some
reliance on radio tracking of the orbiters for calibration. Determination of
the gravity field and atmospheric and ionospheric properties use radio
tracking of the orbiters, while the solar system and surface properties
investigations rely on combinations of orbiter and lander radio tracking
data. On Earth, the scientists use the transmitting, receiving, and data
collection facilities of NASA's Deep Space Network at the 64- and 26-meter
stations in California, Australia, and Spain.80
Although radio science operations began during Viking's cruise to
Mars when the orbiter high-gain antenna was activated and tracking data
were received, this activity was mostly related to checkout procedures, with
some effort devoted to data and systems calibration. More immediately
useful work began after the first landing, as doppler and range data became
available for the first time between Earth and a spacecraft on another
planet. From the first few days of tracking, the radio science specialists were
able to ascertain "the location of the lander, the radius of Mars at the
landing site, and the orientation of the spin axis of Mars." Additional data
from both landers led to an initial determination from Viking findings of
the spin rate of the Red Planet. After analyzing signal amplitude data from
the lander-orbiter relay link, Michael and his colleagues were even able to
suggest that the surface material around the first lander had electrical
properties similar to that for pumice or tuff, a volcanic rock.
415
ON MARS
The precision of future Mars maps will be improved considerably,
especially in the 30° south to 60° north latitudes, as a result of the radio
science team's work during the extended mission's low-al(itude gravity
survey. As the second orbiter assumed a lower orbit (about 300 kilometers),
the scientists measured the effect Martian gravity had on orbiter accelera-
tions. They noted that Olympus Mons produced a very large gravitational
acceleration, while prominent, though smaller, perturbations were ob-
served over Tharsis Montes and Elysium Planitia. Results from a bistatic
radar experiment will also help specialists identify Martian features,more
accurately by shedding light on surface reflectivity, surface roughness,
slopes at various scales, and electrical properties of the surface in regions
not accessible to Earth-based radar. These surface parameters are derived
"from spectral analyses of signals transmitted toward specific locations on
Mars from the orbiter antennas, reflected from the surface of Mars, and
received at the Earth tracking stations." Besides being useful for mapping
and geological interpretations, these findings will simplify the identifica-
tion of future landing sites on Mars.81
Other questions include confirming the Einstein theory of relativity by
a time-delay test—measuring how much the spacecraf t signals are slowed as
they pass near the sun and how the precession rate of Mar's orbital perihel-
ion varies. During conjunction, data were gathered for studies of the solar
corona. The team was also interested in more accurately measuring the
distance between Earth and Mars and in determining the masses of Martian
moons Phobos and Deimos. Viking's extended mission promised to be a
busy time for the radio science experimenters, as did the period immediately
following actual data acquisition. It would take many years to analyze all
the results.
Physical Properties
The physical properties team was to draw conclusions from a compo-
site of data from other experiments, to define the physical properties of the
Martian soil. Richard W. Shorthill, team leader, stated that the team had
been successful in describing the characteristics of the soil. But what it
encountered was unlike any soils on Earth.
At the Viking I site were two kinds of surfaces to investigate, the
so-called rocky flats and the sandy flats. The bulk density (the number of
grams per cubic centimeter) in the rocky flats area was slightly higher than
in the sandy flats. At the second landing site, the bulk density was higher
than the sandy area. The team determined the properties of the Martian soil
by examining photographs of the trenches dug by the surface sampler.
Cohesion (how the particles stick to each other) was ascertained by taking
the dimensions of the trenches and the heights of the side walls and noting
the collapsed state of the walls. The cohesion exhibited in the Martian
trenches was similar to that found on Earth in a trench dug in wet sand.
However, since the Martian soil is so very dry, the cohesion must have been
416
 ON MARS
caused by the electrical properties of the soil. Adhesion (tendency of the
particles to stick to other objects) was determined by observing the soil that
stuck to the sides of the surface sampler head before and after it vibrated.
"We actually did some laboratory accelerometer tests on the vibrator at
Martin Marietta while we were still on the surface of Mars to get a calibra-
tion of the adhesive forces," remarked Shorthill. By pushing the surface
sampler into the surface until the force of the action turned on a micro-
switch, the soil's penetration resistance could also be measured.82
Magnetic Properties
The magnetic properties experiment produced some interesting data,
too. This investigation revealed an abundance of magnetic particles on the
Martian surface, in both the soil and the very fine dust. On Earth, the most
common magnetic particles are either iron metal or iron oxides, indicating
that the red coloration of Martian soil may be caused by a highly oxidized
iron, which is normally nonmagnetic on Earth. Robert B. Hargraves, leader
of this experiment team, noted that two kinds of iron oxide exist on
Earth—magnetite and hematite. Since hematite is nonmagnetic, perhaps
the red mineral on Mars is magnetite with a coating of red hematite. But
Mars is not Earth. "From what we've seen from the Martian imagery, these
magnetic particles themselves appear red and they appear virtually indis-
tinguishable from the average surface material on Mars." Hargraves admits
that they have no direct information with which to resolve the mystery of
the magnetic red soil, but the specialists planned to continue studying
supporting data from other experiments in the hope of determining its
properties more accurately.83
Inorganic Chemistry
In the inorganic chemistry investigation, scientists analyzed the chem-
ical elements in the Martian soil with an x-ray fluorescence spectrometer.
Lander 1 acquired five soil samples successfully, three collected during the
primary mission and two during the extended mission; the second lander
acquired four samples for a combined total of 620 cubic centimeters of
Martian soil. Each sample was sifted through a funnel to measure the
precise size of the sample and then charged with high-velocity particles
from an x-ray source.
When the spectrometer was supplied with a sample, the data were
sufficient to detect the presence of iron (12-16%, maximum limits), calcium
(2-6%), silicon (15-30%), titanium (0.1-1%), aluminum (1.5-7%), magne-
sium (0-8%), sulfur (2-7%), cesium (0-2%), and potassium (0-2.5%).
Lander 2 attempted to retrieve rock samples three times and failed, because
what appeared to be rocks in lander images were actually small crustal
particles that crumbled when disturbed. The scientists believe there are
pebbles but were unable to analyze one."

417
 ON MARS
Benton C. Clark, deputy team leader of the inorganic analysis team,
commented that the "most striking factor between the two Viking landing
sites is that the soil composition [chemical] is extremely similar in both
cases. This is true for all elements we can detect in the soil including the very
high" sulfur content, almost 100 times greater than the amount of sul-
fur found in Earth or lunar soil. One specialist remarked that they would
be hard pressed to find such a closely matched pair of samples at such widely
divergent sites on Earth, or even on the moon. The chemists think the giant
dust storms that occur approximately every two years probably have mixed
tip the soil very efficiently and distributed it all over the planet as a fairly
uniform mixture.
Despite the similarity of the soil from the two sites, different samples
from the same location did indicate some differences in soil chemistry. "In
one case, we get a higher sulphur content when we pick up a 1 ittle dirt clod.
In other cases, when we push a rock aside and sample the surface directly
beneath it, we in general get a lower iron content and a somewhat higher
sulphur content." Perhaps the soil under the rock was an older soil, whereas
material out in a free area may have been the result of more recent dust
storms—"recent in this case meaning the last thousands to millions of
years." The chemists' findings have led them to believe that the Martian soil
may have been derived from rocks with a very high magnesium and iron
con ten t.85

Sp
fur

^r
tion

Calibration
flag X-ray fluorescence spectrometer
Windc
sampl(
Electronics
Source anc chamber
detector ari

Dump
mechi

)ump
;avity

cables
 ON MARS

The Media
Public interest may have been diminished by the failure to detect life,
but many science writers continued to pursue the Viking science results.
Almost weekly until the end of the prime mission in November when Mars
disappeared behind the sun during conj unction, the press carried reports of
scientific news from Mars. As Jerry Soffen told reporters at the second
Viking science forum in August 1976, he and his colleagues were gratified
by "the splendid coverage" they were getting, and he did not mean just the
voltime, which was considerable. The scientists had been impressed by the
quality, as well:

All of us really want to thank you and tell you how grateful we are for the
remarkable clarity that has emerged as a result of this very open style that
we are developing right now.... We have tried to each time answer your
questions as clearly as we could and I know how difficult it is, as a
reporter, to try to cover and clarify issues that seem to emerge one day and
sometimes ... appear to be contradictory on the next day.86

One example of the coverage given Viking is a series of articles in Science

News by Jonathan Eberhart, the journal's correspondent in residence at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory during the primary mission. Respected by all
his colleagues, Eberhart had a way of making understandable the complexi-
ties of science on Mars. Eberhart reported, among other accounts, efforts to
move one of the rocks with the second lander's sampler arm, to find soil that
had not been exposed in recent time to harsh ultraviolet radiation. As with
all other maneuvers of the arm, the preparations took more than three
weeks of consultations with more than a dozen specialists. The first attempt
was a failure. The rock, blocking the first sample-acquisition site, refused to
budge. Some persons thought that the rock might be frozen in place, but
Priestley Toulmin of the inorganic analysis team argued that it was probably
just the "tip-of-the-iceberg"; more of the rock was likely hidden below the
surface. "Mr. Badger,"*` the second candidate for displacement, was success-
fully moved. As the Viking lander team continued its investigations of the
immediate region around the landers—pushing rocks, digging trenches,
taking pictures, and measuring their findings—the science writers con-
tinued to report on the events.87
All the Viking mission activities prompted Gerald Soffen to comment
in his Dryden lecture at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-
nautics' 16th Aerospace Science Meeting in Huntsville, Alabama, in Janu-
ary 1978, "How remarkable! We are performing chemical and biological
experiments as though in our own laboratories. Taking pictures at will,
listening for seismic shocks and making measurements of the atmosphere
*Henry J. Moore II named four large Martian rocks after characters—Mr. Badger, Mr. Mole, Mr.
Rat, and Mr. Toad—from Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame.

419
ON MARS
and surface. All ofth is from the first spacecraft ever to be landed successfully
on Mars. "88
Management
At the end of the primary mission in November 1976, some major
changes took place within the management structure of the Viking Project
Office. Several persons who had led Viking since its inception moved on to
new positions. Jim Martin left NASA to become vice president of advanced
programs and planning at Martin Marietta Aerospace in Bethesda, Mary-
land. 89 Tom Young, who had been serving both as Viking mission director
and as Martin's deputy for JPL operations, took the post of director of lunar
and planetary programs at NASA Headquarters. 90 For a time, Soffen main-
tained his position as Viking project scientist, but he was often called on to
be a roving ambassador for the Mars project, traveling around the world
telling scientific and lay audiences about the "real Mars" they had discov-
ered. When Viking entered the extended mission phase in mid-December
1976, following the end of solar conjunction, however, many familiar faces
still remained to complete the project. G. Calvin Broome had become
project manager and mission director, and Conway Snyder, formerly orbi-
ter scientist, first acted and then assumed full authority as project scientist.91
With the start of the extended mission, one phase of Mars exploration
had come to an end. The goal of landing and successfully operating an
unmanned scientific laboratory on the surface had been achieved, and vast
archives of new and exciting information about the Red Planet had been
amassed. The extended mission properly belongs to the post-Viking era, a
period of evaluation and appraisal. With this initial scientific reconnais-
sance over, the issue facing the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration was, What next? Viking, scientists hoped, was only a first step. The
debate over subsequent steps would require decisions about not j ust explor-
ing Mars but also how exploring Mars fitted into the overall scheme of
NASA's planetary programs. One chapter closed, it was time to begin a new
one.

420
 Epilogue
Viking was a success, both as a flight project and as a scientific investi-
gation. Excellent hardware performance was the key to a fruitful mission.
Project specifications called for a return of scientific data from the landers
for a minimum of 90 days; but by the end of the primary mission on 15
November 1976, at solar conjunction, Viking lander 1 had been operating
on the surface for 128 days, Viking lander 2 for 73 days. After a month-long
rest while Mars disappeared from Earth's view as the planet swung behind
the sun, the landers were awakened in mid-December 1976 for the extended
mission, which lasted until 1 April 1978. The extended mission gave Viking
scientists time to collect additional data on nearly every aspect of Mars
science for which the landers had been programmed.'
April and May 1978 were months of transition for the Viking project.
Under NASA management directives, the project was transferred to the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory by the Viking staff at Langley Research Center. Old
Viking hands, like G. Calvin Broome, project manager and mission direc-
tor for the extended mission, left the project, and personnel from JPL took
their places. Kermit Watkins, recognized for his role in preparing the
Viking orbiter for flight, became project manager for what was called the
continuation mission. Viking project scientists Gerald Soffen, who had
accepted a new position at NASA Headquarters, was replaced by Conway
Snyder.
Original plans had called for terminating the Viking mission after
completion of the extended phase, but the spacecraft were functioning so
satisfactorily in the spring of 1977 that the agency reconsidered the request
of Viking science teams for an extension of the mission's activities. A
continuation mission also received the strong endorsement of the Science
Steering Group at its June 1977 meeting, but the major problem was
money. Mission managers would have to reduce expenditures to a level that
would continue operations without any additional funds in fiscal 1978.
Once again, everyone tightened fiscal belts, and the project moved forward.'
Hardware problems on the Viking spacecraft began in the fall of
1977. In September, the second traveling-wave-tube amplifier on Viking
lander 2 failed, and without this amplifier unit it could not communicate
with Earth through the orbiter. Then a gas leak developed in the attitude
control system of Viking orbiter 2, which required disabling half the
control system to prevent further propellant loss. In February 1978, a more
serious leak developed, losing about 22 percent of the remaining gas. A
121
ON MARS
third leak in March further depleted the supply. Later that month, the flight
controllers placed orbiter 2 in a roll-drift flight mode to prevent any further
problems of this sort. Some atmospheric water observations were made by
orbiter 2 in June and July, but on 25 July the spacecraft began to drift out of
alignment with the sun, and no propellant was left to correct its attitude. At
6:01 a.m. UMT on 25 July 1978 (11:01 p.m. PDT, 24 July), orbiter 2 ceased
operating during orbit 706-1049.5 days after launch from Earth.'
Lander 2 could communicate with Earth only via orbiter 1, while
lander 1 could make direct contact. According to the continuation mission
team, with these capabilities the landers could continue responding until
December 1978, the start of another solar conjunction. But the scientists
wanted to squeeze still more from the hardware. Mike Carr and his col-
leagues on the orbiter imaging team, the most vocal advocates of continu-
ing the mission, wanted to obtain more high-resolution photographs of
potential landing sites for the next Mars mission. Remembering just how
harrowing the site selection and certification process had been for Viking,
they argued that they needed to get as many images of the surface as the
hardware would permit. In addition, they wanted to study Martian weather
and atmosphere closely from January to April 1979, because this season
would be similar to the one in which they had observed dust storms during
1977.^
Two serious limitations affected extending Viking any further than
December 1978. Funds, of course, were critical, as they had always been, but
also the communications loads imposed on the Deep Space Network by the
Pioneer-Venus and Voyager-Jupiter missions meant that Viking could
have only a limited amount of time on the air to transmit scientific informa-
tion from Mars to Earth. The ability of JPL's mission control center and its
Deep Space Network to squeeze the Viking transmissions into the schedule
became one of the overriding factors in the continued life of Viking. In
April 1979, Conway Snyder, in a memorandum to all the Viking scientists,
projected that operations would come to an end in July of that year. He
noted that the mission had provided the team "with a long and interesting
road," and he was pleased that they had all been able to travel it together.
But he also suggested that the mission might "afford us a few more surprises
yet before the end."'
The end did not come in 1979. Viking lander 2 was shut down on 12
April 1980 after 1316.1 days on the surface. Orbiter 1 was silenced by a
command from JPL on 7 August 1980, because it, too, was about out of fuel.
Three of the four spacecraft were silent, but lander 1 remained active and
would likely continue its transmissions to Earth for some years. Each week,
the team at JPL would query the spacecraft for weather infor-
mation and periodically ask for surface pictures so the specialists could
monitor the Martian landscape in front of the lander for any changes .6
Statistical evidence of success includes 51 539 orbital images of the Red
Planet and more than 4500 images from the landers. About 97 percent of the
422
 EPILOGUE
planet was photographed at a resolution of about 300 meters, while 2
percent of the planet was seen at a resolution of 25 meters or better.
Together, the two landers returned more than 3 trillion weather reports by
August 1980. Total orbital infrared observations exceeded 100 million. For
generations, discussions about Mars had included such traditional topics as
canals, waves of darkening, and blue clearings. But with NASA's explora-
tions of Earth's near neighbor, man had at his disposal "a plethora of hard
data about the large variety of geological features on the planet, about the
composition of the surface, the atmosphere, and the polar caps, and about
many aspects of Martian meteorology, including temperatures, pressures,
tides, dust storms, and the abundance and transport of water vapor."
Scientists, mission planners, and hardware specialists expected to spend
much of the 1980s analyzing this information and preparing for another
mission to Mars in the 1990s that would yield "as great a quantum jump in
our understanding of this complex and fascinating planet" as did Mariner
and Viking.'

423
Page intentionally left blank
 Appendixes
Bibliographic Essay, Source Notes
Index
Page intentionally left blank


Appendix A
Orbital Relationships of Earth and Mars

The following is a brief explanation of planetary motions and, in particular,

the relationships of the orbits of Earth and Mars. Mercury is the planet closest to the
sun. Venus, Earth, Mars, the asteroids, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto, in that
order, are farther out. All move around the sun in the same direction. If the solar
system were viewed from far above Earth's northern hemisphere, the planetary
motion would appear to be counterclockwise. The planetary orbits lie in very
nearly the same plane. The paths of the planets, if seen from the sun, would all
describe the same circle, except for Mercury and Pluto, which have tilted orbits—
the innermost and outermost of the sun's satellites.
The planets move in the same direction and most of them occupy a common
plane, but the distance between any two planets varies considerably with time.
Figure 1 illustrates the perihelia (points of closest approach to the sun) and aphelia
(farthest points from the sun) of Mercury and Mars. Earth and Venus have more
nearly circular orbits.
Since Earth and Mars travel around the sun in orbits of different lengths with
different velocities, the distance between the planets varies constantly. About every
780 days (the actual interval ranges from 765 to 810 days), Earth overtakes its slower
neighbor in their unending orbiting of the sun. (Kepler pointed out in his third
law: The square of the period of a planet's complete revolution around the sun is
proportional to the cube of its mean distance from the sun.) Seen from the sun, the
two planets will momentarily lie along a straight line. Seen from Earth, Mars is in a

Earth
Mars
a
of Venus
n
Fig.]. Orbits of the inner planets I
of the solar system are drawn to
scale (although the sizes of the
planets are not). Orbits of Venus *Sun ^
i
and Earth are nearly circular.
Mercury and Mars orbits are ec- Q Mercury
centric. Perihelion points of Mer-
cury and Mars are indicated by 7r
and aphelion by a.
 Conjunction

/ I
i
I
I
Sun
Earth
i lstationaryl
Fig. 2. At conjunction of Mars and Earth, Eastern _ _ Western
Mars becomes invisible in the sun's rays. quadrature quadrature
Best observation period is from quadrature \ I
to quadrature. Samuel Glasstone, The Book
of Mars, NASA SP-179,1968. Opposition

direction directly opposite that of the sun; Mars and the sun cannot be seen at the
same time because they are on opposite sides of the Earth. This positioning,
illustrated in figure 2, is called opposition. During opposition, Mars and Earth
come closest together—between 55 and 102 million kilometers.

Distances between the Two Planets

Date Kilometers
30 Dec. 1960 90 606 067
4 Feb. 1963 100 101 196
9 Mar. 1965 99 779 328
15 Apr. 1967 89 801 395
31 May 1968 71 615 808
10 Aug. 1971 56 166 105
25 Oct. 1973 65 017 497
15 Dec. 1975 84 329 625

As Earth keeps racing ahead and Mars falls behind, there are instances when
the two planets form a straight line, with the sun interposed between them. Mars
disappears from Earth's view behind the disk of the sun; the planets are in conjunc-
tion. Mars is as far away from Earth as it can be—more than 350 million kilometers.
One other position in the Earth-Mars relationship is also important. When the
sun, Earth, and Mars describe a right angle, Mars is said to be in quadrature. In this
position, Mars does not appear as a round disk to Earth-based observers. Instead, it
looks like the gibbous moon, between half- and full-moon phases. What we do not
see is the night side of Mars blending with the black sky.
If an opposition takes place along the line marked 0° on figure 1, an observer
on Earth would look across a shorter distance to Mars than during a 180° opposi-
tion. An opposition at Mars perihelion would offer the best opportunity for
observations and spaceflight, since the distance between Earth and Mars at that
point would be the shortest. Of the more recent oppositions, the one in 1924 came
the closest to being at perihelion, while the 1933 opposition was almost precisely at
aphelion.
For further information, see Samuel Glasstone, The Book of Mars, NASA
SP-179 (Washington, 1968), and Willy Ley and Wernher von Braun, The Explora-
tion of Mars (New York: Viking Press, 1956).

428
 15 Dec. 1975

25 Oct. 1973

Nov.
Oec
22 Jan. 1978 Ocr
,ac
N
4

Mars Major axis of Mars orbit Mars

aphelion ° perihelion
Sun 10 Aug. 1971

9 Mar. 1965

o
i^ May
Ma ^ O^o o^

15 Apr. 1967
31 May 1969

Fig. 3. The orbits of Earth and Mars, showing the times of opposition and the
separation at opposition. Samuel Glasstone, The Book of Mars, NASA SP-179,
1968.

429
 Appendix B
Voyager Project Highlights, 1966-1967

22 Dec. 1965 First Voyager flight deferred to 1973.

3-5 Jan. 1966 NASA management explained to spacecraft contractors ra-
tionale for changes in Voyager plans.
12 Jan. 1966 Don Hearth and Don Burcham discussed Voyager plans for
next 18-24 mos.
24 Jan. 1966 First major meeting of top Space Science Office and JPL man-
agers on revised planetary program.
11 Feb. 1966 NASA Hq. authorized JPL to extend General Electric, Boeing,
and TRW phase IA study contracts in effort to keep those
contractors' Voyager teams together. Work identified as task C
of phase IA.
14 Feb. 1966 Planetary program review with Administrator Webb.
4 Apr. 1966 Voyager Project Guidelines revised.
7 July 1966 Viking Project Estimate 3, VPE-5, VPE-6, VPE-7, and VPE-8
presented to JPL Executive Council.
14 July 1966 VPE-5 and VPE-12 presented to Voyager Capsule Advisory
Group.
19 July 1966 Voyager Capsule Advisory Group evaluated proposed missions
and recommended:
1969—Mariner-class flyby.
1971—Mariner-class orbiter.
1973—Voyager-class orbiter, plus soft-lander with 45 kg of
landed scientific instruments.
1975—Voyager-class orbiter, plus soft-lander with 136 kg of
landed scientific instruments.
1977—Voyager-class orbiter, plus soft-lander with automated
biological laboratory.
22 July 1966 NASA-JPL management review of Voyager. VPE-5, VPE-12,
and VPE-13 presented. RFP for phase B Voyager procurement
for capsule system recommended for 1 Nov. 1966.
28 July 1966 Newell sent Pickering Revised Mission Guidelines letter call-
ing for orbiter and surviving capsule in 1973. Two spacecraft
with each launch vehicle in 1973 and 1975. Capsule would
soft-land using retropropulsion package to slow descent.
Aug. 1966 JPL proposed Mariner Mars 1971 flyby with atmospheric
probe.
430
 VOYAGER PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
14 Sept. 1966 Voyager presentation made to Office of Space Sciences (VPE-
14), including all Hq. recommendations. Two spacecraft on
one Saturn V for all missions, 1973-1979. Capsule-2270-2720
kg. All missions soft-landing.
23 Sept. 1966 Procurement plan for capsule system, phase B, submitted to
NASA Hq. by JPL. "Allowed to die."
26 Sept. 1966 Space Science Office and Office of Advanced Research and
Technology discussed breaking down capsule system into
delivery system and lander. Langley would work on former,
JPL on latter.
5 Oct. 1966 Revised Voyager Guidelines basically approved VPE-14 with
modifications. "Modifications open so broad a set of considera-
tions as to violate VPE-14."
17 Oct. 1966 VPE-14 presented to Associate Administrator Seamans.
19 Oct. 1966 JPL and Newell's staff discussed Langley part in development
of lander systems.
20 Oct. 1966 Newell and Nicks traveled to Huntsville to explore greater
Marshall Space Flight Center participation in Voyager.
3-4 Nov. 1966 Hq. meeting discussed management assignments for Voyager.
In addition to Space Science Office Staff, Webb, Seamans,
George Mueller (OMSF), Floyd Thompson (Langley), and
Wernher von Braun (MSFC) were present.
18 Nov. 1966 Revised Voyager Project Guidelines reaffirmed existing man-
agement assignments: JPL—project management and space-
craft; MSFC—launch vehicle. Langley likely to get landing
systems for lander; i.e., "capsule bus." Capsule system phase B
RFP rescheduled to 1 Jan. 1967.
1-16 Dec. 1966 JPL worked on several drafts of phase B procurement plan.
19-20 Dec. 1966 JPL representatives met at NASA Hq. with Space Science
Office staff to discuss consolidated Voyager management plan.
27 Dec. 1966 Approved phase B procurement plan for capsule systems dis-
tributed within NASA. Not released publicly until 17 Jan. 1967.
27 Jan. 1967 Project Approval Document for phase B signed. MSFC was
assigned management responsibility for both Voyager space-
craft and Saturn V launch vehicle. JPL and Langley to share
responsibility for lander.
Apollo 204 fire killed Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White II,
and Roger B. Chaffee.
31 Jan. 1967 RFP for phase B issued to 36 industrial contractors.
8 Feb. 1967 Webb postponed assignment of project management to Mar-
shall until summer 1967.

431
APPENDIX B
16 Feb. 1967 OSSA recommended establishment of Voyager Interim Project
Office until Iinal project management decision made.
23 Feb. 1967 Webb and Seamans approved Voyager Interim Project Office
(VIPO), established Voyager as separate division within OSSA.
28 Feb. 1967 Webb advised Congress of Voyager management changes.
2 Mar. 1967 Phase B capsule proposals submitted by Grumman Aircraft
Engineering Corp., Hughes Aircraft Co., Martin Marietta
Corp., and McDonnell Aircraft Corp. Evaluation begun.
14 Mar. 1967 Newell distributed Voyager Guidelines.
21 Mar. 1967 Newell described revised Voyager project to House Subcommit-
tee on Space Science and Applications.
22-23 Mar. 1967 First Voyager Management Committee meeting held in Pasa-
dena. Committee created to coordinate all VIPO and field
organization activities related to Voyager. (Met monthly there-
after.)
23 Mar. 1967 Rep. Karth and members of the House Space Science and
Applications Subcommittee visited JPL. Hearth briefed them
on VIPO activities.
12 Apr. 1967 Revised Project Guidelines. Surface lifetime of lander must be
at least 24 hrs.
5-6 May 1967 Nicks, Hearth, Fellows, and others attended Lunar and Plane-
tary Missions Board meeting at Stanford Univ. Board recom-
mended Voyager surface-laboratory science be done in-house by
a working group of its choice.
8 May 1967 Voyager quarterly review held at VIPO.
17 May 1967 Martin Marietta Corp. (Denver Div.) and McDonnell Aircraft
Corp. (Astronautics Co.) selected by NASA for a 90-day phase B
design study of landing capsule. Both companies received
$500 000. Contracts dated 1 June.
24 May 1967 Newell, Naugle, and Nicks made M2-hr. presentation on plane-
tary program to President's Science Advisory Committee.
9 June 1967 Seamans, Newell, and others from OSSA discussed two signifi-
cant issues: (1) limiting phase C procurement, fabrication of
Voyager spacecraft, to phase B contractors; (2) arrangement for
permanent project management assignment. Seamans estab-
lished committee to study contractor question. Seamans said
either Langley or Marshall could handle management of
Voyager "with most factors favoring Marshall." Decision
needed by end of Aug. 1967.
17 June 1967 Lunar and Planetary Missions Board examined scientific
aspects of Voyager. Plans established for advisory group that
would work with JPL in defining surface laboratory system.

432
 VOYAGER PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

19 June 1967 Nicks and Hearth met with Newell to review results of meeting
on 17 June; all agreed to examine ways of extending expected
lifetime of surface laboratory.
29 June 1967 Voyager Board of Directors meeting gave much attention to
project management question. Majority favored assignment to
either Langley or Marshall.
5 July 1967 Alternative budgets and programs developed by Hearth and
discussed with Cortright. "Options were determined for estab-
lishing strategy in the event congressional appropriations for
Voyager were less than requested."
10 July 1967 Revised Project Guidelines: 90-115-kg science subsystem must
have minimum operational life of 30 days after landing. Mortar
deployment of samples (as proposed for Gulliver) excluded.
13-14 July 1967 Lunar and Planetary Missions Board met at VIPO to discuss
Voyager surface laboratory and experiments to be included in
it.
19 July 1967 Cortright and Nicks reviewed Voyager plans, assignments, and
functions of Voyager Program Office.
31 July 1967 Congressional Conference Committee reported a $42-million
fiscal 1968 authorization instead of $71.5 million requested by
NASA.
3-4 Aug. 1967 Fifth monthly Voyager management meeting reviewed alterna-
tive programs possible with reduced fiscal 1968 authorization.
10 Aug. 1967 Voyager announcement of flight opportunity was distributed
to 5000 prospective scientific experimenters.
11-12 Aug. 1967 Lunar and Planetary Missions Board reviewed planetary pro-
gram. Despite lower authorization, Board endorsed Voyager as
prime means of landing large payloads on Mars. Orbital part of
mission was essential.
16 Aug. 1967 NASA advised that House Appropriations Committee reported
bill eliminating Voyager entirely and cutting lunar and plane-
tary programs budget by $6.9 million. Action left funds only for
Mariner 69 mission. No further projects funded.
24 Aug. 1967 NASA Public- Information Office notified all centers of con-
gressional cut-back.
30 Aug. 1967 Nicks notified all officers: "Because of a reduced FY1968 NASA
Budget, it is not planned to proceed with Voyager into Phase C
this fall as previously planned. All current Voyager Phase B
system contracts will, however, be completed as previously
planned." Voyager effectively ended on this date.

SOURCE: Several dozen documents, among which the most helpful was Donald P. Burcham, "Listingof
Voyager Important Documents & Meetings relative to Project Direction," Oct. 1967.

433
 Appendix C
Summary Data from
Mariner, Voyager, and Viking

Abbreviations
CC—Coded commands for program update.
DC—Direct commands for switch closures.
PC—Processor commands for computer control.
QC—Qualitative commands for positioning and deflection maneuvers.
RCS—Reaction control system.
RF—Radio frequency.
RTG—Radioisotope thermoelectric generator.
TM—Telemetry.
TWTA—Traveling-wave-tube amplifier.

MARINER A

Preflight designation: Mariner A

Flight designation: Not flown.
Project proposed: Study begun July 1960 at JPL.
Project approved: 15 July 1960 by T. K. Glennan.
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Centaur
Launch date: Canceled 30 Aug. 1961 because of projected unavail-
ability of suitable launch vehicle.
Program objectives: Initial plan called for a flyby of Venus in 1962.
Revised plan (February 1961) called for flights to
Venus in 1962, 1964, and 1965.
Spacecraft shape and Hexagonal frame derived from Ranger spacecraft
size: (dimensions not available).
Weight: Projected, 487-686 kg.
Program results: Canceled.
Duration of flight to Canceled.
target:

MARINER B
Preflight designation: Mariner B
Flight designation: Not flown.

434
 SUMMARY DATA
Project proposed: Study begun July 1960 at JPL.
Project approved: 15 July 1960 by T. K. Glennan.
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Centaur
Launch date: Project deferred to Mariner-Mars 1966 on 6 May
1963.
Program objectives: Mariner B went through a series of redefinitions:
1. Initial plans called for an instrumented land-
ing on Venus or Mars in 1964.
2. In February 1961, the Venus landing was
dropped from consideration.
3. On 9 Apr. 1962, the Venus landing was again
considered and the Mars landing dropped.
4. On 14 Mar. 1963, mission changed to pre-Voy-
ager checkout flight to Mars with lander.
5. Mission postponed and redesignated Mariner-
Mars 1966 on 6 May 1963.
Spacecraft shape and Several configurations proposed; none finalized.
size:
Weight: Projected, 400-600 kg.
Program results: Redesignated Mariner-Mars 1966.
Duration of flight to Redesignated Mariner-Mars 1966.
target:

MARINER-VENUS 1962
Preflight designation: Mariner R-1 and Mariner R-2.
Flight designation: Mariner 1 and Mariner 2
Project proposed: Study started August 1961 at JPL and proposed to
NASA Hq. by JPL 28 Aug. 1961.
Project approved: 30 Aug. 1961
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Agena B
Launch date: Mariner 1, 22 July 1962, 4:21 a.m. EST.
Mariner 2, 27 Aug. 1962, 1:53 a.m. EST.
Program objectives: Launch 2 spacecraf i to the near-vicinity of Venus in
1962; establish and maintain 2-way communication
with the spacecraft throughout the flight; obtain
interplanetary data in space and during Venus en-
counter; make scientific survey of planet's charac-
teristics.
Spacecraft shape and Hexagonal magnesium-frame base, 104 cm diago-
size: nally, 36 cm deep. Two solar panels attached to base
span 5.05 in deployed. Aluminum tubular
435
APPENDIX C
superstructure, mounted atop the base, supports
experiments and omnidirectional antenna. High-
gain antenna mounted below base. Attitude-control
jets mounted to base. Midcourse propulsion mount-
ed in base compartment. Overall height, 3.66 m.
Weight: Structures/mechanical 38.6
Electrical (RF, TM, Data) 32.2
Power 47.8
Computer command 5.1
Attitude control 22.2
Pyro and cabling 19.1
Propulsion (inert) 9.6
Thermal control 3.2
Science 18.4
Expendables 6.6
Launch weight 202.8
Control system: 10 N2 jets
3 gyros, Earth sensor
2 primary sun sensors
2 secondary sun sensors
Sungate and sensor
Electrical power: 9800 solar cells
Panels: 152 x 76 cm (2)
Total area, 2.3 m2
148 watts at Earth
222 watts at Venus
Silver-zinc battery, 1000 watts per hr.
Telecommunications: L-band transponder, 1-watt/3-watt output
Low-gain omnidirectional antenna
Dual low-gain turnstile/dipole antennas
High-gain parabolic antenna
Science and engineering data, 81/3 and 33 1 /3 bits per
sec
Propulsion: Monopropellant hydrazine
225 newtons thrust
Rate of velocity change, 0.2 m/sec to 60 m/sec
Total impulse, 9560 newtons per sec
4-jet vane vector control
Command system: DC-14
QC-3 @ 1 bit per sec
CC-0
Program results: Mariner 1—Booster deviated from course and was
destroyed by range safety officer 290 sec after launch.
Mariner 2—First spacecraft to scan another planet;
passed within 34 762 km of Venus on 14 Dec.; made
42-min instrument survey of atmosphere and sur-

436
 SUMMARY DATA
face before going into heliocentric orbit; made first
comprehensive measurements of properties of solar
wind. Transmissions from interplanetary experi-
ments received until 4 Jan. 1963 from 87.4-million-
km distance, establishing new communication rec-
ord.
Duration of flight to Mariner 1— destroyed shortly after launch.
target: Mariner 2 -109 days.
For additional information: JPL, Mariner-Venus 1962 Final Project Report,
NASA SP-59 (Washington, 1965).

MARINER-MARS 1964

Preflight designation: Mariner C

Mariner M (Mars)
Mariner C (Mariner 3 )
Mariner D'* (Mariner 4)
Flight designation: Mariner 3 and Mariner 4
Project proposed: July-August 1962
Project approved: November 1962 (tentative); project approval docu-
ment signed 1 Mar. 1963.
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Agena SLV-3
AA-11—Mariner 3
AA-12—Mariner 4
Latntch date: Mariner 3-5 Nov. 1964, 2:22 p.m. EST
Mariner 4-28 Nov. 1964, 9:22 a.m. EST
Program objectives: Flyby to study surface and atmosphere of Mars,
develop operational techniques, make scientific
measurements of interplanetary environment, pro-
vide engineering experience in spacecraft opera-
tions during long-duration flights away from the
sun.
Spacecraft shape and Octagonal magnesium-frame base, 127 cm diago-
size: nally and 45.7 cm deep. Four solar panels attached
to top of base span 6.88 in (including solar-
pressure-vane extensions). High-gain dish antenna
mounted atop base with low-gain antenna on top of
aluminum tube. Attitude-control jets mounted at
solar panel tips. Midcourse propulsion mounted on
side of octagon. Overall height, 2.89 m.
Weight: Structures/mechanical 49.4
Electrical (RF, TM, Data) 52.6
*Mariner D was also used fora short time in the winter of 1963 to refer to an Atlas-Centaur-launched
Mariner C bus with a small atmospheric capsule that was being planned for 1966.

437
APPENDIX C
Power 61.5
Computer command 5.4
Attitude control 29.0
Pyro and cabling 15.4
Propulsion (inert) 12.8
Thermal control 6.4
Science 15.8
Expendables 12.5
Launch weight 260.8
Control system: 12 N2 jets—redundant
3 gyros, Canopus sensor
Earth sensor
Mars sensor
2 primary sun sensors
2 secondary sun sensors
Electrical power: 28 224 solar cells
Panels: 176 x 90 cm (4)
Total area, 6.3 m2
310 watts at Mars
Silver-zinc battery, 1200 watts per hr.
Telecommunications: Dual, S-band, 7-watt cavity amp/10-watt TWTA
transmitter, single receiver
Low-gain omnidirectional antenna
High-gain parabolic antenna
Science and engineering data, 8 1/3 and 33 1/3 bits per
sec
Tape recorder, 5.24 million bits
Propulsion: Monopropellant hydrazine
225 newtons thrust
4-jet vane vector control
Command system: DC-29
QC-3 @ 1 bit per second
CC-0
Program results: Mariner 3—Shroud failed to jettison; battery power
dropped; no evidence that solar panels opened to
replenish power supply; communications lost; in
permanent heliocentric orbit.
Mariner 4—Spacecraft flew by Mars 14 July 1965,
with closest approach about 9844 km; discovered
densely packed lunar-style impact craters on Mar-
tian surface; ionosphere and atmosphere measured
somewhat less dense than expected; carbon dioxide
suggested to be major constituent in atmosphere.
Duration of flight to Mariner 3—Did not reach target.
target: Mariner 4-228 days
For additional information: JPL, Mariner-Mars 1964 Final Project Report,
NASA SP-139 (Washington, 1967).
438
 SUMMARY DATA
MARINER-MARS 1966

Preflight designation Mariner E

Mariner F
Flight designation Not flown.
Project proposed: May 1963
Project approved: 19 Dec. 1963
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Centaur
Launch date: Effectively canceled 28 July 1964; officially termi-
nated 4 Sept. 1964.
Program objectives Mars flyby spacecraft with small atmospheric probe
to replace more ambitious Mariner B.
Program results Replaced by Advanced Mariner 1969.

ADVANCED MARINER 1969

Preflight designation: Mariner-Mars 1969

Flight designation: Not flown.
Project proposed: Initial discussions January 1964
Project approved: Project approval document signed 2 Aug. 1964.
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Centaur
Launch date: Canceled 20 Nov. 1964.
Project objectives: Combination orbiter-lander mission designed to
replace Mariner-Mars 1966 Mars flyby.
Program results: Replaced by Mariner-Mars 1969 flyby mission.
For additional information JPL, "Mariner Mars 1969 Orbiter Technical Feasi-
bility Study," EPD-250, 16 Nov. 1964; and JPL,
"Mariner Mars 1969 Lander Technical Feasibility
Study," EPD-261, 28 Dec. 1964.

MARINER-VENUS 1967

Preflight designation: Mariner E

Flight designation: Mariner 5
Project proposed: By post-Voyager 1971 deferral, 25 Dec. 1965.
Project approved: 25 Dec. 1965
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Agena SLV-3
AA-23
Launch date: 14 June 1967, 2:01 a.m. EDT.
Program objectives: Venus flyby to within 3218 km to provide data on
atmosphere, radiation, and magnetic field envi-

439
APPENDIX C
ronment; to return data on interplanetary environ-
ment before and after planetary encounter; to pro-
vide first exercise of turnaround ranging technique
of planetary distance.
Spacecraft shape and Octagonal magnesium-frame base, 127 cm diago-
size: nally and 45.7 cm deep. Four solar panels attached
in High-gain
to top of base span 5.48
ellipse antenna mounted atop base along with low-
gain omnidirectional antenna and magnetometer
supported by 2.23-m-long tube. Attitude-control
jets mounted at solar panel tips. Midcourse propul-
sion mounted on side of octagon. Overall height,
2.89 m.
Weight: Structures/mechanical 49.4
Electrical (RF, TM, Data) 52.6
Power 57.4
Computer command 5.4
Attitude control 25.0
Pyro and cabling 15.4
Propulsion (inert) 12.8
Thermal control 4.5
Science 10.2
Expendables 12.2
Launch weight 244.9
Control system: 12 N2 jets—redundant
3 gyros, Canopus tracker
2 primary sun sensors
2 secondary sun sensors
Earth sensor
Venus sensor
Venus terminator sensor
Electrical power: 17 640 solar cells
Panels: 112 x 90 cm (4)
Total area, 4.0 m2
370 watts at Earth
550 watts at Venus
Silver-zinc battery 1200 watts per hr
Telecommunications: Dual, S-band, 6.5-watt/10.5-watt uausm1iter, single
receiver
Low-gain omnidirectional antenna
High-gain 2-position parabolic antenna
Science and engineering data, 8 1 /3 and 33 1/3 bits per
sec
Tape recorder, 1 million bits
Propulsion: Monopropellant hydrazine
225 newtons thrust
4-jet vane vector control
440
 SUMMARY DATA
Command system: DC-29
QC-3 @ 1 bit per sec
CC-0
Program results: Spacecraft passed within 4000 km of Venus, pro-
vided data on atmospheric structure, radiation, and
magnetic field; mass of Venus was further defined
by processing flyby trajectory data; solar-wind
interaction with Venus shown to be different from
Earth interaction.
Duration of flight to 127 days
target:
For additional information: JPL, Mariner-Venus 1967 Final Project Retort,
NASA SP-190 (Washington, 1971).

MARINER-MARS 1969
Preflight designation: Mariner F and Mariner G
Flight designation: Mariner 6 and Mariner 7
Project proposed: By post-Voyager 1971 deferral, 22 Dec. 1965.
Project approved: 22 Dec. 1965; project approval document signed 28
Mar. 1966.
Launch vehicle: Altas-Centaur SLV-3C
AC20 (spacecraft 69-3)—Mariner 6
AC19 (spacecraft 69-4)—Mariner 7
Launch date: Mariner 6-24 Feb. 1969, 8:29 p.m. EST
Mariner 7-27 Mar. 1969, 5:22 p.m. EST
Program objectives: Flyby of Mars at 3218 km to study surface and
atmosphere to establish basis for future experi-
ments in search for extraterrestrial life; develop
technologies for future Mars missions. Demonstrate
engineering concepts and technique required for
long-duration flight away from sun.
Spacecraft shape and Octagonal magnesium-frame base, 138.4 cm diag-
size: onally and 45.7 cm deep. Four solar panels span
5.79 in High-gain parabolic antenna
mounted atop base along with low-gain omnidirec-
tional antenna atop 2.23-m-long tube. Attitude-
control jets mounted at solar panel tips. Midcourse
propulsion system mounted in base compartment.
Overall height, 3.35 m.
Weight: Structures/mechanical 120.7
Electrical (RF, TM, Data) 62.1
Power 54.9
Computer command 10.9
441
APPENDIX C
Attitude control 37.2
Pyro and cabling 35.4
Propulsion (inert) 10.9
Thermal control 13.1
Science 57.6
Expendables 10.0
Launch weight 412.8
Control system: 2 sets of 6 N 2 jets
3 gyros, Canopus tracker
2 primary sun sensors
4 secondary sun sensors
Electrical power: 17 472 solar cells
Panels: 215 x 90 cm (4)
Total area, 7.7 m2
800 watts at Earth
449 watts at Mars
Silver-zinc battery, 1200 watts per hr
Telecommunications: Dual, S-band, 10-watt/30-watt transmitters, single
receiver
Low-gain omnidirectional antenna
Engineering data, 81/3 and 33 1 /3 bits per sec
Science data, 662/3 and 670 bits per sec
Tape recorder, 195 million bits
Propulsion: Monopropellant hydrazine
225 newtons thrust
Total impulse 20 900 newtons per sec
4-jet vane vector control
Command system: DC-53
QC-4 @ I bit per sec
CC-5
Program results: Mariner 6 —First Mariner launched with Atlas-
Centaur; performed flyby with Mariner 7; acquired
data on Mars with visual imager, ultraviolet spec-
trometer, infrared spectrometer, and temperature
sensors; obtained most detailed data on Mars to
da te.
Mariner 7—Same as above; flew at a different angle
from Mariner 6; obtained same data from different
areas of the planet. Together the 2 spacecraft trans-
mitted 143 analog pictures as they approached
Mars, plus 58 photos during flyby; closeups were
made of 20 percent of surface. Provided daytime and
nighttime surface temperatures; confirmed pres-
ence of CO2, ionized CO2, CO, atomic hydrogen,
and very slight traces of molecular oxygen. Con-
firmed ablateness estimates.

442
 SUMMARY DATA

Duration of flight to Mariner 6 -156 days

target: Mariner 7-133 days
For additional information: JPL, Mariner Mars 1969 Final Project Report, JPL
TR-32-1460, 3 vols. (Pasadena, 1970).

MARINER-MARS 197I

Preflight designation: Mariner H and Mariner I

Mission A and Mission B
Flight designation: Mariner 8 and Mariner 9
Project proposed: November 1967 by Office of Space Science staff fol-
lowing cancellation of Voyager.
Project approved: Project approval document signed 23 Aug. 1968;
NASA Hq. authorized JPL to begin work on
Mariner-Mars 1971 on 14 Nov. 1968
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Centaur SLV-3C
AC-24—Mariner 8
AC-23—Mariner 9
Launch date: Mariner 8-8 May 1971, 9:11 p.m. EDT.
Mariner 9 -30 May 1971, 6:23 p.m. EDT.
Program objectives: Orbit Mars for 90 days; provide 25-30 million bits of
scientific data; take total of more than 5000 TV
pictures; take scores of TV pictures of the 2 moons;
map more than 70 percent of surface; study tempera-
ture and composition of surface; study composition
and structure of atmosphere; determine pressure of
atmosphere.
Spacecraft size and Octagonal magnesium-frame base, 138.4 cm diag-
shape: onally and 45.7 cm deep. Four solar panels attached
to top of the base span 6.89 m. High-gain parabolic
antenna mounted on base along with low-gain
omnidirectional antenna on 1.44-m-long tube.
Attitude-control jets mounted on solar panel tips.
Midcourse propulsion mounted on top. Overall
height, 2.28 m.
Weight: Structures/mechanical 155.1
Electrical (RF, TM, Data) 60.8
Power 72.6
Computer command 10.4
Attitude control 39.4
Pyro and cabling 49.4
Propulsion (inert) 98.0
Thermal control 10.0
Science 63.1
Expendables 439.1
Launch weight 997.9
APPENDIX C
Control system: 2 sets of ACS jets, 6 jets each
Canopus star tracker
Cruise sun sensor
Sun gate
Electrical power: 14 742 solar cells
Panels: 215 x 90 cm (4)
Total area, 7.7 m2
800 watts at Earth
500 watts at Mars
Nickel-cadmium battery, 20 amp-hrs.
Telecommunications: Dual, S-band, 10-watt/20-watt transmitters, single
receiver
Low-gain omnidirectional antenna
Medium-gain horn antenna
High-gain, parabolic, 2-position antenna
Engineering data, 8 1/3 and 33 1/3 bits per sec
Science data, 16.2 kilobits per sec maximum
Tape recorder, 180 million bits
Propulsion: Monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide
1340 newtons thrust
5 restarts capability
Gimbaled engine ±9'
Command system: DC-86
QC-4 @ 1 bit per sec
CC-5
Program results: Mariner 8—With ignition of Centaur main engine
265 sec after launch, the upper stage began to oscil-
late and subsequently tumbled end over end. At
about 365 sec after launch, Centaur engine shut
down, and upper stage and spacecraft fell into
Atlantic about 560 km north of Puerto Rico.
Mariner 9 —Total useful lifetime was 515 days, with
349 days in Mars orbit. Transmitted total of 7329
TV pictures of Mars and its satellites and mapped
100 percent of planet; transmitted 54 billion bits of
science data (contrasting with 2 billion bits from all
previous Mars flights).
Duration of flight to Mariner 8—Did not reach target
target: Mariner 9 -167 days
For additional information: Chap. 10; and JPL, Mariner Mars 1971 Project
Final Report, JPL TR -32-1550, 5 vols. (Pasadena,
1972).

MARINER VENUS-MERCURY 1973

Preflight designation: Mariner J

444
 SUMMARY DATA
Flight designation: Mariner 10
Project proposed: June 1968 by the Space Science Board.
Project approved: Project assigned to JPL 30 Dec. 1969.
Launch vehicle: Atlas-Centaur SLV-3D/D1-A
Launch date: 3 Nov. 1973, 12:45 a.m. EST.
Program objectives: Flyby of Venus and encounter with Mercury (pri-
mary target) at an altitude of 1000 km; conduct
exploratory investigations by obtaining measure-
ments of environment, atmosphere, and body char-
acteristics for both planets. Perform experiments in
the interplanetary medium; obtain experience with
dual planet, gravity-assist mission.
Spacecraft size and Octagonal magnesium-frame base, 138.4 cm deep.
shape: Two solar panels attached to top of base span 6.55
m. High-gain parabolic antenna mounted on top
along with scan platform and one of the 2 low-gain
omniantennas. Other low-gain antenna mounted
on base. Attitude-control jets mounted on supports
from octagon faces. Midcourse propulsion system
mounted in base compartment.
Weight: Structures/mechanical 109.4
Electrical (RF, TM, Data) 60.8
Power 63.6
Computer command 10.4
Attitude control 29.9
Pyro and cabling 30.8
Propulsion (inert) 11.3
Thermal control 9.5
Science 78.2
Expendables 29.0
Launch weight 432.9
Control system: 2 sets of 6 N 2 jets
3 gyros, Canopus tracker
2 primary sun sensors
4 secondary sensors
Electrical power: 19 800 solar cells
Panels: 215 x 120 cm (2)
Total area, 5.2 m2
500 watts on Earth
820 watts on Venus
820 watts (tilted) on Mercury
Nickel-cadmium battery, 20 amp-hrs
Telecommunications: Dual, S-band, 10-watt/20-watt transmitter, single
receiver
2 low-gain omnidirectional antennas
445
APPENDIX C
High-gain parabolic antenna
Engineering data, 8 1/3 and 33 1/3 uncoded
Science data, 117.6 kilobits per sec maximum
Tape recorder, 180 million bits
Propulsion: Monopropellant hydrazine
225 newtons thrust
Total impulse 20 900 newtons per sec
4-jet vane vector control
Command system: DC-96
QC-4 @ 1 bit per sec
CC-5
Program results: First dual-planet mission; first mission to use grav-
itational attraction of one planet to reach another.
Venus encountered at 1:01 p.m. EDT, 5 Feb. 1974,
5800 km from surface. Some 4000 photos of Venus
revealed a nearly round planet enveloped in smooth
cloud layers with a slow rotational period (243
days) and only 0.05 percent of Earth's magnetic
field; atmosphere mostly hydrogen, resulting from
solar wind bombardment. Af ter Venus flyby, space-
craft trajectory bent in toward sun for first explo-
ration of Mercury. Mercury encountered at 4:47
p.m. EDT, 29 March 1974, 704 km from surface.
Photos revealed intensely cratered, lunarlike sur-
face. Atmosphere, mostly helium. High-iron-rich
core makes Mercury densest planet in solar sys-
tem; iron core also accounts for existence of mag-
netic field despite planet's extremely slow spin rate.
After Mercury flyby, spacecraft entered solar orbit.
Flew by Mercury again 20-23 Sept. 1974, coming
within 48 069 km. Photographed sun side of planet
and south polar region. Photographed total of 45
percent of Mercury's surface.
Duration of flight to 166 days to Venus
target:
For additional information: NASA, "Mariner Venus/Mercury: A Study in Cost
Control," Nov. 1973; and James A. Dunne and Eric
Burgess, The Voyage of Mariner 10: Mission to
Venus and Mercury, NASA SP-424 (Washington,
1978).

VOYAGER

Preflight designation: Voyager*

*The name Voyager was later given to 2 spacecraft launched in 1977 to fly by Jupiter, Saturn, and
perhaps Uranus.

446
 SUMMARY DATA
Voyager 71
Voyager 73
Flight designation: Not flown.
Project proposed: First mentioned in spring 1960; JPL preliminary
studies 1961-1962.
Project approved: Project approval document for preliminary studies
signed 21 Nov. 1962; phase I study approved 16 Dec.
1964 and revised 14 Jan. 1965 and 15 Oct. 1965.
Launch vehicle: Initially all studies centered on use of Saturn
IB-Centaur; when Saturn IB-Centaur terminated
in mid-Oct. 1965, Voyager shifted to Saturn V.
Launch date: Saturn IB-based Voyager 1971 mission canceled 22
Dec. 1965; Saturn V missions with 2 landers each for
Voyager 1973 canceled 29 Aug. 1967.
Program objectives: Originally planned as the large-weight class of
spacecraft to follow the Mariner class, Voyager was
scheduled to visit both Venus and Mars and release
landers. Successively redefined plans called for the
following missions: Venus 1967; Mars 1969, deferred
in 1964 and rescheduled for 1971; Mars 1971, de-
ferred 22 Dec. 1965 and rescheduled for 1973; Mars
1973, canceled 29 Aug. 1967.
For additional information: Chap. 4; app. B.

VIKING

Preflight designation: Viking 73

Viking 75
Viking A and Viking B
Flight designation: Viking I and Viking 2
Project proposed: November 1967-January 1968
Project approved: 4 Dec. 1968 by T. O. Paine; project approval docu-
ment signed 8 Feb. 1969.
Launch vehicle: Titan IIIE-Centaur
TC4—Viking 1 (spacecraft B), VLC-1 and VO-1
TC3—Viking 2 (spacecraft A), VLC-2 and VO-2
Launch date: Launch deferred from 1973 to 1975:
Viking 1-20 Aug. 1975, 5:22 p.m. EDT
Viking 2-9 Sept. 1975, 2:39 p.m. EDT
Program objectives: Soft-land on Mars; search for presence of life; com-
pare orbital and surface data. Orbiter: deliver lander
to Mars orbit; survey and select landing sites; relay
data from surface to Earth; conduct orbital science

447
APPENDIX C
investigations. Lander: search for possibility of life
forms; determine environment of surface.
Spacecraft shape and Orbiter: Mariner-style bus; octagonal ring45.72cm
size: high with alternate 139.7-cm and 50.8-cm sides.
Consists of 16 modular compartments, 3 on each of
the 4 long sides and I on each of the 4 short sides;
9.75 in from tips of extended solar panels.
Overall height, 3.29 in Lander attachment
points on bottom to launch vehicle attachment
points on top.
Lander: Hemispherical bioshield 360 cm diameter.
Conical 70' half-angle aeroshell/heat shield 350cm
diameter. Triangular 3-leg lander configuration
height 102 cm, width 284 cm (less instruments).
High-gain S-band parabolic, UHF, and low-gain
S-band antennas. Aeroshell, parachute, and termi-
nal descent propulsion (18 nozzles) for decelera-
tion.
Weight: Orbiter:
Structures and mechanisms 267
Communications 57
Data processing 8c storage 45
Power 129
Computer command 18
Attitude control inerts 59
Pyro 8e cabling 61
Propulsion inerts 174
Science instruments 73
Orbiter dry weight 883
Propellant 1426
Gas for propulsion 8e attitude control 20
Total expendables 1445
Orbiter launch weight 2328
Lander:
Structures & mechanisms 132
Propulsion inerts 49
Pyro and cabling 43
Thermal control 36
Guidance and control 79
Power 103
Communications and telemetry 57
Science instruments 91
Lander dry weight 590
Residual propellants at landing 22
Total VL weight at landing 612
448
 SUMMARY DATA
Propellant at launch 73
Lander launch weight 663
Viking lander capsule:
Aerodecelerator
Structures 46
Parachute 8c mortar 56
Thermal control 4
Miscellany 3
Total 109
Aeroshel l
Structures 120
Propulsion inerts 29
Thermal control 7
Cabling 7
Science instruments 9
Miscellany 9
Total dry weight 181
Propellants 88
Total loaded weight 269
Bioshield base
Structures 45
Thermal control 10
Power 15
Miscellany 4
Total 74
Bioshield cap
Structures 47
Thermal control 3
Miscellany 4
Total 54
Loaded capsule weight 1168
Orbiter 2328
Lander and capsule 1185
Capsule mounting adapter 14
Total launch weight 3527
Control system: Orbiter:
2 sets of N 2 ACS jets, 6 jets each
Canopus star tracker
Acquisition sun sensor
Cruise sun sensor
Sun gate
6 gyros, 2 accelerometers
Lander:
Inertial control
4 gyros
Aerodecelerator
449
APPENDIX C
Radar altimeter
Terminal descent and landing radar
Electrical power: Orbiter:
34 800 solar cells
Panels: 157 x 123 cm (8)
Total area, 15.4 m2
1400 watts on Earth
620 watts on Mars
2 nickel-cadmium, 30-amp-hr batteries
Lander:
Radioisotope thermal generator
2 RTG units, 90 watts
4 nickel-cadmium, 8-amp-hr batteries
Telecommunications: Orbiter:
S-band, 20-watt transmitter, 2 10- and 20-watt
TWTAs
High-gain antenna, 2-axis steerable
Low-gain antenna, fixed
Engineering data,8'/3 and 33 1/3 kilobits per sec
Science data, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 kilobits per sec
2 tape recorders, 128 x 10 7 bits
Relay radio, 381 MHz
Lander:
S-band, 20-watt transmitter, 2 20-watt TWTAs
High-gain antenna, 2-axis steerable
Low-gain antenna, fixed
Engineering data, 8 1 /3 and 33 1/3 kilobits per sec
Science data, 250, 500, and 1000 bits per sec
Tape recorder, 4 x 10 1 bits
Relay radio, 381 MHz, 30 watts, 4 and 16 kilobits
per sec
Propulsion: Orbiter:
Monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide
1323 newtons thrust
Rate-of-velocity-change (A V) capability 1480
meters per second
Gimbaled engine f9°
Lander:
RCS/deorbit: monomethyl hydrazine, 35 newtons
thrust, 12 nozzles, A V 180 teeters per sec
Terminal descent: monomethyl hydrazine, 2650
newtons maximum thrust, 3 (18-nozzle) en-
gines
Command system: Orbiter:
DC-171
CC— 40 @ 4 bits per sec
PC— 4 operator words
450


SUMMARY DATA

Lander:
DC-25 @ 4 bits per sec
6000-word (maximum) for command instruc-
tions
Program results: See chaps. 11 and 12.
Duration of flight to Viking 1 -304.1 days
target: Viking 2 -332.7 days
Martin Marietta Manpower Plan
2400
'73 Plan
2100

1800
1650

0 1500
CL

E
1200
0
.t '75 Plan
900
E
z
600

300

FY 70 FY 71 FY 72 FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 FY 77

JPL Manpower Plan

900
°
T

E
O
600 .............
i 538
'73 Plan
'75 Plan
° 300
E
z FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 FY 77
FY 70 FY 71 FY 72 FY 73

Number 143 200 Jju buU 5su s5o u 0
employed at
end of year

Shifting from a 1973 to a 1975 Viking launch brought changes in manpower levels.
Martin Marietta personnel numbers were significantly lower for the 1975 mission
(1650 vs. about 2200), although JPL figures were not significantly affected (538 vs.
about 600). From Langley Research Center, Viking Proj. Off., "Viking Project,
Resource Planning Report, July 1970," 30 July 1970.
 Martin Marietta Funding Requirement for Viking
400
Launch Encounter
360
360 — V............... ............

320

Lander
280 System
N CDR
240
O

O 200
C
O
160

120 Component.:'
PDR
80
Mission Mission
design PDR
40
review T

FY 70 FY 71 FY 72 FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 FY 77
1 12 13 14 11 12 13 14 1 1 1 2 13 14 1 1 12 13 14 1 1 1 2 13 1 4 1 1 12 1 3 14 1 1 1 21 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 13 14
24.5 24.5 110.0 107.7 59.0 25.5 5.0 3.3

JPL Funding Requirement for Viking

300

260
Arrival 257
Launch V ...............

220
N PTO
m` assembly
180

0
C 140
0 System CDR
100

60
System PDR
Mission PDR ^,.•''
20

0
FY 69 FY 70 FY 71 FY 72 FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 FY 77
1 1213141112131411121,11411 12131411 12 I'll 411 12131411 12131411 19131411121314
1.2 7.4 7.9 38.9 73.9 65.9 34.9 16.2 10.6

The graphs illustrate the major milestones for the Viking lander and orbiter and
the amount of money required for each phase of the project. From Langley
Research Center, Viking Proj. Off., "Viking 75 Project, Resource Planning Report,
July 1970," 30 July 1970. PDR = preliminary design review. CDR = critical design
review. PTO = proof-test orbiter.

452
 Appendix D
Mars Experiments, Science Teams,
and Investigators

SPACE SCIENCE BOARD'S PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

PLANETARY INVESTIGATION, 1968-1975

1. We recommend that the planetary exploration program be presented, not

in terms of a single goal, but rather in terms of the contribution that exploration
can make to a broad range of scientific disciplines (page 3).
2. We recommend that a substantially increased fraction of the total NASA
budget be devoted to unmanned planetary exploration (page 3).
3. (a) We recommend that duplicate missions for a particular opportunity be
undertaken only when a clear gain in scientific information will result from such
double launches (page 4).
(b) We recommend that NASA initiate now a program of Pioneer/IMP-
class spinning spacecraft to orbit Venus and Mars at every opportunity and for
exploratory missions to other targets (page 5).
(c) We recommend the following larger missions to Mars: A Mariner
orbiter mission in 1971, and a Mariner-type orbiter and lander mission, based on a
Titan-Centaur, in 1973 (page 5).
(d) We accord next priorities (in descending order) to a Mariner-class
Venus-Mercury fly-by in 1973 or 1975, a multiple drop-sonde mission to Venus in
1975, and a major lander on Mars, perhaps in 1975 (page 6).
4. (a, b) Rather than attempt to define in detail payloads to be carried aboard
high priority missions, we have selected several sample payloads (page 6).
(c) We recommend that with regard to Mars and Venus, NASA continually
reassess, in the light of current knowledge of the planets, its program, methods, and
mathematical model for meeting the internationally agreed objectives on planetary
quarantine (page 11).
5. (a) We recommend strongly that NASA support radar astronomy as an
integral part of its planetary program. In particular, we recommend that NASA
fund the development and operation of a major new radar observatory to be used
primarily for planetary investigation (page 12).
(b) We recommend that NASA planetary program planning be closely
coordinated with Earth-orbital telescopes being designed for the 1970's and with
the infrared aircraft telescopes now under construction (page 13).
(c) We recommend that the NASA program of ground-based optical
planetary astronomy continue to receive strong support and that opportunities for
planetary astronomical investigations be increased by:

Space Science Board, Planetary Exploration, 1968-1975, recommendations of June 1968 study,
published August 1968.

453
APPENDIX D
(1) Construction of an intermediate sized optical telescope in the
Southern Hemisphere
(2) Construction of an infrared telescope employing a very large col-
lecting area and permitting interferometric measurements at a dry site
(3) Development of new infrared devices, including improved detec-
tors and high resolution interferometers (page 14)
(d) We recommend that steps betaken to facilitate the analysis by qualified
investigators of the data secured by the photographic planetary patrol (page 14).
6. (a) We recommend that NASA openly solicit participation in all future
planetary missions by the issuance of flight opportunity announcements with
adequate time for response from the scientific community (page 15).
(b) We recommend that NASA develop a summer institute program
expressly designed to introduce interested scientists and engineers to the science,
technology, and administration of the planetary program (page 15).
7. We recommend that those resources currently intended for support of
manned planetary programs be reallocated to programs for instrumented investi-
gation of the planets (page 16).
8. We recommend a coordinated effort involving representatives of NASA, the
Department of State, and the National Academy of Sciences, for the purpose of
contacting knowledgeable Soviet scientists in an informal way with regard to the
possibility of joint planetary exploration (page 16).

EXCERPT FROM
VIKING "BIOLOGY SCIENCE INSTRUMENT TEAMS REPORT"

Introduction
This document is an attempt to synthesize several types of biological investigations in a
manner to permit their performance in an integrated package. It is subject to modification
which may result either from engineering evaluations or from scientific considerations as a
result of Mariner VI and VII results.
The examination of the Martian surface for living organisms is based upon the follow-
ing approaches: visual imagery, atmospheric analysis, chemical composition of the surface,
biochemical activity, and enumeration of active particles. In this context visual images
represent a high risk-high gain observation, in the sense that the detection of what is
unmistakenly a living organism would be highly conclusive, while the absence of such an
observation provides the biologist with no direct information on the presence or absence of
living organisms, though it contributes to his understanding of the environment....
After describing several types of measurements that can be conducted, an integrated
instrument is proposed which combines several of the measurements described, and the
directions in which the capability of such an instrument could be expanded should weight
and power considerations make such an expansion possible is [sic] indicated.

General Scientific Objectives

I. At the time of the first examination of the surface of Mars the structure of the
experiments must be based on an unavoidable minimum of geocentric assumptions. It is

From Langley Research Center, Viking Proj. Off., "Viking Lander Science Instrument Teams Report,"
M73-112-0, draft, July 1969.

454
 EXPERIMENTS, INVESTIGATORS
assumed that, should living organisms exist on Mars, their biochemistry is based on carbon
and water. While alternative assumptions are experimentally approachable, they are inap-
propriate for a first mission.
2. Measurements must be carried out more than twice... .
3. It is more important to repeat experiments in time rather than in space. That is, if
experimental capability is severely restricted, it is preferable to study a single sample site
repeatedly, hopefully in the course of seasonal variation, rather than examining many
sample sites a single time within a short period.
4. It is more important to examine a single sample by different principles, rather than
carry out a sample examination with refined variations of a single priliciple... .
5. The sensitivity of an observation should be directed primarily at the detection of any
life. The characterization of such life is at present of secondary importance.
6. In general experimental conditions should be close to the conditions of the Martian
environment, except that a variation in water content is contemplated, on the assumption
that water may be one of the most important limiting factors for life on Mars.
7. The observations chosen should complement each other in such a manner as to
confirm results and minimize ambiguities.
8. Stress has been laid on the formation or fixation of carbon dioxide. This stress results
partially from the present view of the composition of the Martian atmosphere, and partly
from the geocentric assumptions made. Each experiment which describes the fixation or
evolution of carbon dioxide is intended to include at the same time carbon monoxide in the
same proportion in which it exists in the Martian atmosphere....
9. The integrated package must withstand terminal sterilization....

Sampling
The biological interest is centered on samples taken from approximately the top three
centimeters. The instrument is designed to examine a mixture of the top three centimeters.
In the event that the sampling device is capable of reaching down several tens of centimeters,
it is required that the top three centimeters be examined separately....
The type of sample most useful for biological examination is loosely divided soil....
Particles up to two millimeters in size are ideal for the investigations....

VIKING SCIENCE TEAMS

Team As Announced Selected As of

25 Feb. 1969 15 Dec. 1969 Summer 1976

Active biology Norman H. Horowitz, Horowitz Horowitz

California Institute
of Technology
Joshua Lederberg, Lederberg Lederberg
Stanford University
Gilbert V. Levin, Levin Levin
Biospherics Research,
Inc.
Vance I. Oyama, Oyama Oyama
Ames Research Center
Alexander Rich, Rich Rich
MIT
455
APPENDIX D
Viking Science Teams, Continued

Team Feb. 1969 Dec. 1969 Summer 1976

Wolf V. Vishniac, Vishniac Harold P. Klein,

University of Rochester Ames Research Center
(team leader)
Lander imagery Alan B. Binder, Binder Binder,
Illinois Inst. of Tech- Science Applications
nology Research Inst. Institute

Elliot C. Morris, Morris Morris

U.S. Geological
Survey
Thomas A. Mutch, Mutch Mutch
Brown University (team leader)
Carl Sagan, Sagan Sagan
Cornell University
Friedrich Huck, Huck
Langley Research
Center
Elliott C. Levinthal, Levinthal
Stanford University
Andrew T. Young, James A. Pollack,
JPL Ames Research Center
Surface sampler- Duwayne M. Anderson, Anderson Anderson
pyrolyzer-gas U.S. Army Terrestrial
analysis (team Science Center
name changed to
Klaus Biemann, MIT Biemann Biemann
molecular analy-
(team leader)
sis, Dec. 1969)
Melvin Calvin,
University of
California, Berkeley
Leslie E. Orgel, Orgel Orgel
Salk Institute
John Oro, Oro Oro,
University of Houston Ames Research Center
Tobias Owen, Owen Owen,
Illinois Institute of State University of
Technology Research New York, Stony
Institute Brook
Garson P. Shulman, Shulman
JPL
Priestley Toulmin, Toulmin Toulmin
U.S. Geological
Survey, Reston
456
 EXPERIMENTS, INVESTIGATORS
Viking Science Teams, Continued

Team Feb. 1969 Dec. 1969 Summer 1976

Harold C. Urey, Urey Urey

University of
California, San Diego
Alfred O. C. Nier,
University of
Minnesota
Entry science Alfred O. C. Nier, Nier Nier
University of Minnesota (team leader)
Alvin Seiff, Seiff Seiff
Ames Research Center
Nelson W. Spencer, Spencer Spencer
Goddard Space Flight
Center
William B. Hanson, Hanson
University of Texas,
Dallas
Michael B. McElroy, McElroy
Harvard University
Meteorology Seymour L. Hess, Hess Hess
Florida State University (team leader)
Conway B. Leovy Leovy Leovy
University of
Washington
Jack A. Ryan, Ryan Ryan
McDonnell Douglas
Astronautics, Western
Division
Robert M. Henry, Henry
Langley Research
Center
James E. Tillman,
University of
Washington
Radio science Dan L. Cain, Cain Cain
JPL
Von R. Eshelman, G. Levy, C. T. Stelzried,
Stanford University JPL JPL
Mario D. Grossi, Grossi Grossi
Raytheon Company
William H. Michael, Michael Michael
Langley Research (team leader)
Center
457
APPENDIX D

Viking Science Teams, Continued

Team Feb. 1969 Dec. 1969 Summer 1976

Leonard G. Tyler, Tyler

Stanford University
Joseph Brenkle,
JPL
John G. Davies,
University of
Manchester
Gunnar Fjeldbo, Fjeldbo
JPL
Irwin I. Shapiro, Shapiro
MIT
Robert H. Tolson,
Langley Research
Center
Ultraviolet Charles A. Barth,
photometer University of Colorado
(experiment not
Charles W. Hord,
flown)
University of Colorado
Jeffrey B. Pearce,
University of Colorado
Seismology Don L. Anderson, Anderson Anderson
California Institute (team leader)
of Technology
Robert L. Kovach, Kovach Kovach
Stanford University
Gary V. Latham, Latham Latham,
Columbia University University of Texas
Medical Branch,
Galveston
Frank Press,
MIT
George H. Sutton, Sutton Sutton
University of Hawaii
N. Nafi Toksoz, Toksoz Toksoz
MIT
Physical Richard W. Shorthill
properties Shorthill, (team leader)
University of Utah
Research Institute
Robert E. Hutton, Hutton
TRW Systems Group
458
 EXPERIMENTS, INVESTIGATORS

Viking Science Teams, Continued

Team Feb. 1969 Dec. 1969 Summer 1976

Henry J. Moore II, Moore

U.S. Geological
Survey, Menlo Park
Ronald Scott, Scott
California Institute
of Technology
Magnetic Robert B. Hargraves,
properties Princeton University
(team leader)
Inorganic Priestley Toulmin III,
chemistry U.S. Geological
Survey, Reston
(team leader)
Alex K. Baird,
Pomona College
Benton C. Clark,
Martin Marietta
Klaus Keil,
University of New
Mexico
Harry J. Rose,
U.S. Geological
Survey , Reston

EXPERIMENT INVESTIGATORS

Mission
Scientist Experiment
Mariner Mariner Mariner Viking
1964 1969 1971 1975

Alexander, W. M.* Cosmic-dust detector X

Allen, R. D. Television X
Anderson, D. L. * Seismology X
Anderson, D. M. Molecular analysis X
Anderson, H. R. Ionization-chamber/
particle-flux
detector X
Anderson, J. D.* Celestial mechanics X X
Arthur, D. Television X
459
APPENDIX D
Experiment Investigators, Continued

Mission
Scientist Experiment
Mariner Mariner Mariner Viking
1964 1969 1971 1975

Baird, A. K. Inorganic chemistry X

Barth, C. A.* Ultraviolet
spectrometer X X
Batson, R. Television X
Baum, W. A. Orbiter imaging X
Berg, O. E. Cosmic-dust detector X
Biemann, K.* Molecular analysis X
Binder, A. B. Lander imaging X
Blasius, K. R. Orbiter imaging X
Borgeson, W. Television X
Born, G. Radio science X
Brenkle, J. P. Radio science X
Bridge, H. S.* Solar-plasma probe X
Briggs, G. Television;
orbiter imaging X X
Burke, T. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X
Cain, D. L. Occultation;
S-band occultation;
radio science X X X
Carr, M. H.* Television;
orbiter imaging X X
Chase, S. C. Infrared radiometer;
thermal mapping X X X
Clark, B. C. Inorganic chemistry X
Coleman, P. J., Jr. Helium magnetometer X
Conrath, B. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X
Cutts, J. Television;
orbiter imaging X X
Davies, D. W. Water-vapor mapping X
Davies, J. G. Radio science X
Davies, M. E. Television X X
Davis, L., Jr. Helium magnetometer X
Drake, F. Occultation X
Duennebier, F. Seismology X
Duxbury, T. C. Orbiter imaging X
Eshelman, V. R. Occultation X
Farmer, C. B.* Water-vapor mapping X
Fastie, W. G. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Fjeldbo, G. Occultation;
S-band occultation;
radio science X X X X
Frank, L. A. Radiation detector X

460
 EXPERIMENTS, INVESTIGATORS
Experiment Investigators, Continued

Mission
Scientist Experiment
Mariner Mariner Mariner Viking
1964 1969 1971 1975

Gause, K. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Greeley, R. Orbiter imaging X
Grossi, M. D. Radio science X
Guest, J. E. Orbiter imaging X
Hanel, R.* Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X
Hanson, W. B. Entry science X
Hargraves, R. B.* Magnetic properties X
Hartman, W. Television X
Henry, R. M. Meteorology X
Herr, K. C. Infrared spectrometer X
Herriman, A. G. Television X
Hess, S. L.* Meteorology X
Hord, C. B. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X X
Horowitz, N. H. Television;
biology X X
Hovis, W. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X
Howard, K. A. Orbiter imaging X
Huck, F. O. Lander imaging X
Hutton, R. E. Physical properties X
Jones, D. E. Helium magnetometer X
Keil, K. Inorganic chemistry X
Keiffer, H. H.* Infrared radiometer;
thermal mapping X X
Kelley, K. K. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Klein, H. P.* Biology X
Kliore, A. J.* Occultation;
S-band occultation X X X
Kovach, R. L. Seismology X
Krimijis, S. M. Radiation detector X
Kunde, V. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X
Lane, A. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Laporte, D. Water-vapor mapping X
Latham, G. V. Seismology X
Lazarus, A. Solar-plasma probe X
Lederberg, J. Television;
biology X X
Leighton, R. B.* Television X X

461
APPENDIX D

Experiment Investigators, Continued

Mission
Scientist Experiment
Mariner Mariner Mariner Viking
1964 1969 1971 1975

Leovy, C. B. Television;
meteorology X X X
Levin, G. V. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer;
biology X X
Levinthal, E. Television;
lander imaging X X
Levy, G. S. Occultation X
Liebes, S., Jr. Lander imaging X
Lorell, J.* Celestial mechanics X
Lowman, P. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X
McCauley, J. Television X
McCracken, C. W. Cosmic-dust detector X
McElroy, M. B. Entry science X
Mackey, E. F. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Martin, W. L. Celestial mechanics X X
Masursky, H.* Television;
orbiter imaging X X
Michael, W. H.* Radio science X
Milton, D. Television X
Miner, E. D. Infrared radiometer;
thermal mapping X X
Moore, H. J., II Physical properties X
Morris, E. C. Lander imaging X
Munch, G. Infrared radiometer;
thermal mapping X X X
Murray, B. C. Television X X X
Mutch, T. A.* Lander imaging X
Neher, H. V.* Ionization-chamber/
particle flux detector X
Neugebauer, G.* Infrared radiometer;
thermal mapping X X X
Nier, A. O. C.* Molecular analysis;
entry science X
O'Gallagher, J. Cosmic-ray telescope X
Orgel, L. E. Molecular analysis X
Oro, J. Molecular analysis X
Owen, T. Molecular analysis X
Oyama, V. I. Biology X
Pearce, J. B. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Pearl, J. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X

462
 EXPERIMENTS, INVESTIGATORS

Experiment Investigators, Continued

Mission
Scientist Experiment
Mariner Mariner Mariner Viking
1964 1969 1971 1975

Pimentel, G. C.* Infrared spectrometer X

Pollack, J. "Television;
lander imaging X X
Prabhakara, C. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X
Rasool, S. I. S-band occultation X X
Reasenberg, R. Celestial mechanics X
Rich, A. Biology X
Rose, H. J. Inorganic chemistry X
Ruehle, R. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Ryan, J. A. Meteorology X
Sagan, C. Television;
lander imaging X X
Schlachman, B. Infrared interferometer
spectrometer X
Scott, R. F. Physical properties X
Secretan, L. Cosmic-dust detector X
Seidel, B. S-band occultation X
Seiff, A. Entry science X
Shapiro, I. I. Celestial mechanics;
radio science X X

Sharp, R. P. Television X X X
Shipley, E. Television X
Shorthill, R.* Physical properties X
Simpson, J. A.* Cosmic-ray telescope X
Sjoren, W. Celestial mechanics X
Sloan, R. K. Television X X
Smith, B. A. Television;
orbiter imaging X X X
Smith, E. J. Helium magnetometer X
Snyder, C. W. Solar-plasma probe X
Soderblom, L. A. Television;
orbiter imaging X X
Spencer, N. W. Entry science X
Stelzried, C. T. Radio science X
Stewart, 1. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Sutton, G. Seismology X
Tillman, J. E. Meteorology X
Tokbz, N. Seismology X
Tolson, R. H. Radio science X
Toulmin, P., III* Molecular analysis;
inorganic chemistry X

463
APPENDIX D

Experiment Investigators, Continued

Mission
Scientist Experiment
Mariner Mariner Mariner Viking
1964 1969 1971 1975

Tyler, G. L. Radio science X

Urey, H. C. Molecular analysis X
Van Allen, J. A. • Radiation detector X
Vaucouleurs,.G. de Television X
Veverka, J. Television;
orbiter imaging X X
Wellman, J. B. Orbiter imaging X
Wildey, R. Television X
Wilhelms, D. Television X
Wilshusen, F. C. Ultraviolet
spectrometer X
Young, A. Television X X

Total experimenters per project 29 29 55 80

Grand total for all projects-193
1 scientist worked on all 4 projects
9 scientists worked on 3 projects
24 scientists worked on 2 projects
2 scientists worked on Mariner 1964 and Mariner 1969 exclusively
3 scientists worked on Mariner 1964, Mariner 1969, and Mariner 1971 exclusively
7 scientists worked on Mariner 1969 and Mariner 1971 exclusively
5 scientists worked on Mariner 1969, Mariner 1971, and Viking 1975 exclusively
14 scientists worked on Mariner 1971 and Viking 1975 exclusively
*Principal investigator.

464
 Appendix E
Launch Vehicles for Mars Missions

Atlas-Agena launch vehicles—used by NASA during the 1960s to launch a

variety of payloads to Earth orbit, the moon, and the near planets—sent Mariner
spacecraft (200-260 kilograms) on their way to Venus or Mars. The Agena upper
stage, developed by Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. for the Air Force, was capable
of restarting its engines, thus permitting the spacecraft to be positioned more
precisely. Paired with the Atlas booster, Agena B was used in 1962 for the first two
Mariner flights (the Atlas stage malfunctioned during the Mariner 1 launch).
Atlas-Agena D, with an improved upper stage that could accept a greater variety of
payloads, launched the next three Mariners in 1964 and 1967.
Advanced mission planners of the early 1960s had based their planetary explo-
ration schedules on the early availability of the high-energy Centaur upper stage.
Centaur, a liquid-hydrogen-fueled stage developed for NASA by General Dynam-
ics/Convair, did not go into service until 1966, however. It was 1969 before Atlas-
Centaur sent two 400-kilogram Mariners flying by Mars. In May 1971, a Centaur
failure led to the destruction of the next Mariner spacecraft. A second attempt weeks
later saw Mariner 9 (990 kilograms) off on its journey to Mars. In November 1973,
Atlas-Centaur boosted Mariner 10 (500 kilograms) to an interplanetary (Venus and
Mercury) trajectory.
Centaur also had a role in the Viking Mars landing project. Mated with a Titan
IIIE two-stage vehicle, the improved Centaur could boost the 3500-kilogram,
two-part Viking spacecraft to the Red Planet. NASA had used another model of the
Air Force Titan, the Titan II, for the manned Gemini program, 1965-1966. The
Titan IIIE, a modified version of i he Titan IIID used by the Air Force since 1971 as a
satellite launcher and made by Martin Marietta Corporation, was a powerful,
versatile vehicle. NASA's first test launch of Titan IIIE-Centaur in February 1974
ended in failure, however, because of the malfunction of a Centaur component.
Helios 1, a German satellite, was successfully launched by NASA with Titan-
Centaur the following December. The bulbous launch vehicle with its two power-
ful strap-on booster rockets performed equally well in 1975 for Viking.

465
APPENDIX E
Atlas-Agena B Characteristics

Characteristic 1st Stage, 2d Stage, Total with

Atlas Agena B Adapter

Height (m) 21.9 7.2 30.6

Diameter (m) 3 1.5
Launch weight (kg) 117 780 7022 124 802
Propulsion system
Powerplant MA-5 Bell
propulsion XLR-81-Ba-9
system (model 8081;
upgraded to 8096)
Thrust (kilonewtons) 1600 71.2 1670
Propellant LOX/RP-1 IRFNA/UDMH
Payload capacity (kg) 2627 to Earth
orbit
340 to escape
trajectory
204 to Mars
or Venus
Origin Uprated Atlas-Agena A
Contractors Consolidated Vultee Lockheed Missiles
Aircraft Corp. (prime). and Space Co. (prime).
North American Bell Aerospace (engine).
Aviation, Inc. (engines).
Program use Mariner, Ranger, and OGO.
Remarks Capable of engine restart.

a LOX/RP-1 = liquid oxygen and modified kerosene.

IRFNA/UDMH = inhibited red-fuming nitric acid and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine.

466
 LAUNCH VEHICLES
Atlas-Agena D Characteristics

Characteristic 1st Stage, 2d Stage, Total with

Atlas Agena B Adapter

Height (m) 21.9 7.2 30.6

23.2 (SLV-3C) 32.1
(w/SLV-3C)
Diameter (m) 3 1.5
Launch weight (kg) 117 780 7248 125 028
128 879 (SLV-3C) 136 127
(w/SLV-3C)
Propulsion system
Powerplant MA-5 Bell
propulsion XLR-81-Ba-9
system (model 8247;
upgraded to 8533)
Thrust (kilonewtons) 1600 71.2 1670
1750 (SLV-3C) 1820
(w/SLV-3C)
Propellant' LOX/RP-I N204/UDMH
Payload capacity (kg) 2718 to Earth
orbit
385 to escape
trajectory
250 to Mars
or Venus
Origin Uprated Atlas-Agena B
Contractors Consolidated Vultee Lockheed Missiles
Aircraft Corp. (prime). and Space Co. (prime).
North American Bell Aerospace (engihe).
Aviation, Inc. (engines).
Program use Mariner, OAO, Lunar Orbiter, and ATS.
Remarks The Agena D stage could accept a greater variety of payloads than
could the Agena B model.

a LOX/RP-1 = liquid oxygen and modified kerosene.

N20 4 /UDMH = nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine.

467
APPENDIX E
Atlas—Centaur Characteristics

1st Stage, 2d Stage,

Characteristic Atlas SLV-3C/ Centaur D-IA Total
Atlas SLV-3D

Height (m) 23.2 13 34

14.6 w/payload
fairing
Diameter (m) 3.05 3.05
Launch weight (kg) 128 879 17 145 146 024
Propulsion system
Powerplant MA-5 Pratt &
propulsion Whitney (2)
system RL-10
Thrust (kilonewtons) 1700/1900 133.4 1890/2050
Propellanta LOX/RP-1 LOX/LH,
Payload capacity (kg) 3857/4536 to
Earth orbit
1225/1882 to
synchronous
orbit
815/907 to
Venus or
Mars
Origin Air Force ICBM General Dynamics studies for a high-
energy second stage; development sup-
ported by NASA
Contractors General Dynamics/ General Dynamics/Convair
Convair (formerly
Consolidated Vultee
Aircraft Corp.) (prime).
North American
Aviation (engines).
Program use Surveyor, ATS, OAO, Mariner, Intelsat, Pioneer.
Remarks Centaur, the first U.S. launch vehicle to use liquid hydrogen as a
propellant, was originally scheduled for operations in the early
1960s for Mars and Venus probes. Because of delays in the vehicle's
development, however, it was not ready until 1966. One of the
serious problems with the stage's development was hydrogen loss;
heat transfer between the oxygen and hydrogen fuel tanks caused
the liquid hydrogen to evaporate..

-LOX/RP-1 = liquid oxygen and modified kerosene

LOX/LHZ = liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.

468
 LAUNCH VEHICLES

Titan IIIE - Centaur Characteristics

Stage 0 3d Stage, Centaur

Characteristic Solid-Fueled 1st Stage 2d Stage Centaur Standard Total
Rocket Titan Titan D-IT Shroud
Motors (2)

Height (m) 25.9 22.2 7.1 9.7 (17.7) 48.8

Diameter (m) 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 4.3

Launch weight (kg) 226 800 123 830 33 112 17 700 3092 631 334

Propulsion system
Powerplant United Aerojet Aerojet Pratt &
Technology YLR87-AJ-11 YLR9l-AJ-11 Whitney (2)
1205 RL- I OA-3-3
Thrust (kilonewtons) 10 680 2310 449.2 133.4 13 550
(combined)
Burn time (sec) 110 150 208 450 918

Propellant s powdered N2Ht- N,H,t- LH2/LOX

aluminum/ UDMH/ UDMH/
ammonium N2O1 N2O.1
perchlorate
Payload capacity (kg) 15 000 to Earth orbit
3 000 to synchronous orbit
3 400 to Mars

Origin Air Force Titan IIID modified to NASA

NASA requirements design
Contractors Chemical Martin Marietta Corp. General
Systems Div., Dynamics/
United Convair
Technologies
Program manager R. A. Mattson, NASA Hq.
Project manager Andrew J. Stofan, Lewis Research Center
Program use Viking, Voyager
Remarks In this configuration, the Centaur upper stage replaced the standard Titan
third stage, called the transtage; Centaur was capable of restarting its two
engines, a desirable characteristic for planetary missions. During Centaur's
coast phase, 14 small hydrogen peroxide thrusters controlled attitude. When
the two five-segment solid-fueled rocket motors, together known as "stage
0," were jettisoned, the Titan first stage ignited. These strap-on motors
provided more than four times the thrust of the Atlas booster at liftoff.

a
N2H.t -UDMH/N2O.1 = hydrazine-unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tenoxide
LH2/LOX = liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

469
 Appendix F
Major Viking Contractors and Subcontractors

Organization Location Responsibility

Bendix Aerospace Ann Arbor, Mich. Bendix was responsible to Martin Mari-
Systems Division etta for two of the entry science instru-
ments—the upper atmospheric mass
spectrometer and the retarding poten-
tial analyzer—and one Martian surface
instrument—the seismometer. Design,
fabrication, assembly, and testing were
conducted at the Ann Arbor facilities.
Celesco Industries Costa Mesa, Calif. Celesco Industries built the surface-sam-
pler arm, housing, and drive mechanism
that picked up the surface samples and
delivered them to the lander instru-
ments. Celesco acted as a subcontractor
to Martin Marietta.
Goodyear Aerospace Akron, Ohio Goodyear was responsible to Martin
Corporation Marietta for the decelerator system used
on the Lander. Goodyear personnel de-
signed, built, and tested the decelerator
system and managed subtier suppliers
and subcontractors.
Honeywell Aerospace St. Petersburg, Fla. Under contract to Martin Marietta,
Division Honeywell designed, manufactured, and
tested the lander guidance, control, and
sequencing computer and data-storage
memory.
Itek Corporation, Lexington, Mass. Itek was responsible to Martin Marietta
Optical Systems for all aspects of the lander camera sys-
Division tem. Itek produced and tested the cam-
eras and their supporting Earth-based
ground reconstruction sets. Itek also
provided the computer software neces-
sary to operate and control the cameras
and to drive the ground reconstruction
equipment in reconstructing the photo-
graphs.
Jet Propulsion Pasadena, Calif. JPL was responsible to NASA for the
Laboratory orbiter and the mission control center
(Space Flight Operations Facility). JPL
also operated the Deep Space Network.

470
 CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS

Organization Location Responsibility

Litton Industries, Woodland Hills, Calif. Litton contracted with NASA for the
Guidance and Control production and integration of the de-
Systems Division sign technology used in the gas chroma-
tograph-mass spectrometer.
Martin Marietta Denver, Colo. Martin Marietta was responsible to
Aerospace NASA's Langley Research Center for
the overall integration of the Viking
project and was prime contractor for the
lander and its subsystems (designing,
testing, and building the lander and
managing all lander subcontractors).
Martin Marietta also designed and built
the photo sensor array for the Viking
cameras, the temperature transducers,
and the x-ray fluorescence spectrome-
ter. In addition, Martin Marietta built
the Titan IIIE launch vehicles used in
the project.
RCA Astro-Electronics Princeton, N.J. As a subcontractor to Martin Marietta,
Division RCA designed, built, and tested the
lander communications subsystem, in-
cluding an ultrahigh-frequency radio
transmitter, an antenna for beaming
signals to the orbiter, an S-band an-
tenna for broadcasting directly to Earth,
and an S-band low-gain unit to receive
direct commands from Earth.
Rocket Research Redmond, Wash. Rocket Research, under contract to
Corporation Martin Marietta, was responsible for
developing and manufacturing the
throttleable, monopropellant-hydra-
zine, landing engines and the control
and deorbit engines.
Sheldahl. Inc. Northfield, Minn. For Martin Marietta, Sheldahl designed
and built four load-carrying high-alti-
tude balloons, which were used for the
balloon launch-decelerator test program
for the lander, and the disk-gap-band
parachute used as part of the decelerator
system. Sheldahl also fabricated the bio-
shields used to encapsulate the Lander
and the lander leg covers.
Space and Missile Los Angeles, Calif. SAMSO was the U.S. government agen-
Systems Organization cy responsible for developing the Titan
(SAMSO) III launch vehicle. The SAMSO 6555
Aerospace Test Wing at Cape Canav-
eral Air Force Station managed the Ti-

471
APPENDIX F

Organization Location Responsibility

tan launch facility and supported NASA

in launching the Titan III Centaur.
Teledyne Ryan San Diego, Calif. Teledyne Ryan subcontracted with
Aeronautical Martin Marietta as designer, tester, and
builder of the radar altimeter and the
terminal-descent and landing radar used
on the lander.
TRW Inc. Redondo Beach, Calif. As a subcontractor to Martin Marietta,
TRW built the biology and meteorol-
ogy instruments carried on the lander.

472
 Appendix G
Organization Charts
 i }°
` ¥/f
I
\\\
_ \o
\ a} ^\
^ a j
{E
\\\ > )!2
`®2
\\\\ \\\
\\E
FTI
\^ \) \_\\
e){\
: 7
2 \}
I _, 75
$/
^ ,Eƒ]/
< <\
2 ^
o
$
\\\\\ \^\
\ j }}F, EC }Cb ®~ ^\
~ 2 f{*®2 \\\
ƒ { /«w/:
c^ } o
o
E12 \^\\ \\
; 7 J 3) 7`
} ^ ^ \\ ;}
\ ^
& ^ \\} o
zZ
()# 0'D / {]{
2v^4
\\\\ r --/
\ (\ )/\
{/!f
2) ©I
r ^^(
I)^\ <2^
j }\f2 L—_±
E
{\\ ±a0
/[
^[ r §$/
\\
/G }7 ƒ#
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1 March 1962

Administrator
James E. Webb

Deputy Administrator
Hugh L. Dryden

Assistant to the Administrator

Franklyn W. Phillips

Associate Administrator
Robert C. Seamans, Jr.

Deputy Associate Administrator

Thomas F. Dixon

Office of
Space Sciences
Director
Chief Scientist Homer E. Newell
(Vacant)
Deputy Director
Edgar M. Cortright

Space Science
Steering
Committee

Director of
Director of
Program Review Ft
Grants Er Research
Contracts Resources
Thomas L. K. Smull Management
John D. Nicolaides

Director of
Director of
Geophysics Et
Lunar Et Planet ary
Astronomy
Programs
Programs
Oran W. Nicks
John F. Clark

Director of
Launch Vehicles Director of
Et Propulsion Bioscience
Programs Programs
Donald H. Heaton Orr E. Reynolds
 U c
O ^o O
a J N
a N N
Z) L) o
U)
m ^ c a
> .^ U d -2 0
U
m C
a1
C ^ C
c b E
3 m
^ m
> c
^2
E N
U
O C)
T
^ C)
Q)
^ O
(0
c o E
aN
O m
m E E J N
O7 a ?
Q1 V Cn
O
Cl N
m C :^
cc
C
O L
C
O U O
1l U
m 0 c.l O-
L N 0)
,C m U O C
Q 7
m> °' Z 0 "
: Z Q co E
U ^ Q m a) G)
co O o
w CO o N> m
O O
o
U
m
U
O ^
a J
da^ ^ a' ^ m `° m cn
rnLL E m a o E = v
N O in
U) = W > O
> N m a _o
U a) U
0 ^^ a ^ m
a
0
C O
^ m c m U
dd d E
N
m
E U
m N Q)
o c m E
a
a` ^' cn N cn
w
mLo
m ^
c .^ O
o ^
N ^
m c
^ J
W
w
.y
C
O
U
U C
O
E a
; E ^
m O U .N
L N U7 OU
d U) O 1 C N E
LL
J «O
s
 Voyager Management at Langley Before and After
Establishment of the Voyager Capsule Bus Management Office

LaRC Director's
OSSA Office
Voyager
Project
Mgt. Director — F. L. Thompson
Deputy — C. Donlan

Flight Reentry
Programs Office Chief, FVSD
E. C. Kilgore
Voyager
Focal Point
D. G. Stone

Langley 9 Engineers 20 Engineers

McNulty in
Research in Project n Preliminary
Engrs. Coordination both groups Design

Organization January 1967.

LaRC Director's
OSSA Office
Voyager
Project
Mgt. Director - F. L. Thompson
Deputy - C. Donlan

Flight Reentry Chief, FVSD

Manager, Capsule Programs Office
Bus System E. C. Kilgore
D. G. Stone
J. S. Martin Engineering
Research Design
Project Mgt. Programs

Organization June 1967.

 a
m c
U_ O
L ^
>^ ^^ a
°
^p c L 0
O
N
U J
C
O p
N
U _N
C
O
E a
N
J J J C
N
to a)
m c c
U Lo E
p C O N a) OD
p
_m m m U^ E m g ^
C m U c a) cp U.
^D .O c O
_ m N
Q ^d LLd ^ 3 c c
m m a) T
co 00 ° 3 m
a U E 0 7
^ ^ a) Q C
m a) Y m C co
C7 (n o E m 7
C mm Q N N C) Y C
`° C (n pI mT O C U U m
c 0) C:, U
C ' N
_) m C O C _m N0 O O^
C Cl-O C m E C N 'O J
c Q U a)
(nFU) a Lo
-o
tp C
E c
O N
Q) a E U c
N
C m C C T.O
—C O O (n iv N
m m U'^- O ,O
O
C n
U E Q)
7 C 7
NC
m
(`')
O
N
O N > _^ c̀ E E o ac)
v
y a)
cUUU ~ (n ^ O
-
a C C N N
O LLJ O C C U O
dm N L
d - m
m0
_o 'c Q)
U Ql
7 m` 0
C a) C 7
o a` Nc m: E
c
o LL a E E° m
y J N m ° 7 U a) O O L Q) a)
C
a ^7 (n H U d U) H cr 0
w N
S
N Q) _
m ^m ^ N C
0).0
M C C (D
m
m C N Q)
O _T .0 C
U N m—_
C QQWC
m N E N N
o o o E
U M om N
vNi _y NOa U E c
(n -0 7 0
cn w
0 0 c N
m v
C C C _U
O a) — C a)
a N U p) 7 7 m
U 7 m
Cu C .^ E N U E
C O
° 0
CL
7 UN
°- 3 7m
E
a) O p^ L
N dC7V) Ud(nF
Q
O_
_N m
N
C U Ln
0) Y N d c
m C 0- p
° m 2 N m c
o m: c
N U a 0 c °
O LOE70 C m
^,C
m CL Y ^_ Cd
^ O) co Q U ca
cc7
O. J LL 11 -O m O
O Q d U
 o
T
ccm ^
Y c
^ U
N N
CL L)
O a
v U)
c
co
2 J
N N
ON
.N E c
Q) Y
CL
0
U
c L
m U
d ^ ^ I
d
N C
C
N _ N
N 00 ^ O "O N 7 c0 .0 d
O T ^ z ffi E
O L
a C C:
C c c
Y C C c0
O U C
I c
U
rn
Y J ^ o UC70
C J .0 L
L U
Y U N
O 1 ^ co
d L N
U O
C ^
7 N
^ 3
J
d
C
(D
r ^
I ^N c0
J
O p
7
N
CL
a
U o
^Oa
c
J
N
N C
Lt
c'' E CE
U , N
ID m
UN
0 Q H
O a)
2
 C
L_N
J
N y 0 o
p
EW O E CO ¢
¢
C J Ol c C T 'N N
o tp 0I C 7 c (J7 y
U m a - O> o - m
co
Y c
vN a: mmmc s o y O y m m cN '- Ca' A W .>-. L
O U y >,Z«"!E
V O C
(n U YC tO E C 3 U
m C QC J E CO C I^ C CU o
do
N
Im
W m3^d^_ rnmm n> N ^m
y
U m'- U E o Mto
o
H C1 W O= (0 O U J Q .O Q¢ U^ a m LLl J
¢ ^JJIL ¢ Q^ UY^H d C7 w cr O OOC u)
Q
U
U C U
C
T NCLyN¢NN J UNC
Q (0 ^
Zy
Z ^ ^ Q p^ J VI
mawc
a tt
^ > Z c E o .^ Q U J
QU m
w 0 O O `° a Q
¢ c7^^^ O Lo r^ 0
O
M c
y m m
U >
c
lO C ^
y ^ O U C N d ^ O t
U
O^ II^
ci
CL 0
^ N o
CC N
CC Y
O .0 cr
y c0 U ^
U -C (n CC O
6 J^ Q a`
e m d
O ^ w Z 3 m
d y Ù : Y C Y
O ^Ze> ^^
> OY c ^
.y
.^ C ¢ -N YU
y l0
_N c
NN O) «n CIO y m U NT
^ C
UO C
D1 N W Q U E ^
a`> i' cm
'9 a U ao cc am
C a) Y oU N N c Y U ¢U
QW J y y m NI W ^
C ^ W
W ^
Q
O
W
M M
M
C
U O o T
N (n N
N 'N > U U UU^
= C n Z U UC
^p
UU > dJ
N > Z
UUFN V) M
U ^ c U
U a' C 2 >
« C tO
y C
do
C
- m m 'rn E O
Q m—c >
^ ^ rn o c ^wJ
cQ
w E^ F E o
O ,t ¢
cr
y d y ¢
0
J
cr _m
« U ^ jp U M
1] N C D
Oo w c
O
^ Q
y m
C O
¢ C U Wm
^
4l
¢ CO "O cc cc CC 01 rU
«a> m
ow ^c m
U 2mU p ^b o^.'? dcm Wc Y
L am
O Q m o d i y m rnN o c dO
co 02 ,N Q
Y m ^^
(n c m ^^ d ^^ a` m N 4
y^^ . mo w po p^ w j
^] r m DI m Q L c L O
OO W C Q W
O
>N
C d U
Y O O'O
>a
 Bibliographic Essay

This essay is designed to serve as a guide to the sources used in

preparing this history, rather than as an inclusive catalog. The source notes
are the main guide to the materials used, but some discussion about research
techniques and the items cited in the source notes will enhance the reader's
understanding of how the history was prepared. We also hope this note will
be useful to subsequent researchers. Much of this book was written very close
in time to the events described, and the subject deserves further study.
From the standpoint of sources, the book can be divided into two
parts—chapters 1 through 4 and chapters 5 through the Epilogue. In the
former, we relied heavily on traditional sources familiar to the historical
researcher: books, periodicals, newspapers, and occasional documents from
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Space
Science Board (SSB) of the National Academy of Sciences, and related
organizations. In the second part of the book we have used, for the most
part, internal NASA documentation: memorandums, letters, telexes, re-
ports, weekly activity reports, minutes of meetings. This NASA paperwork
represented the collective product of the Viking Program Office at NASA
Headquarters, the Viking Project Office at the Langley Research Center
(LaRC), the Viking Orbiter Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL),
and the industrial contractors. Similar documents for the Mariner and
Voyager projects were also used. Specific comments for each of the two parts
follow.

PRE-VIKING
Scientific interest in the Red Planet, always very keen, increased with
the coming of the space age. The literature on Mars is ever growing.
Researchers interested in the literature that has evolved since 1958 should
consult the following bibliographic aids:
NASA RECON (a computerized system for access to aerospace literature).
RECON permits a quick review of the technical periodicals and report
literature related to NASA engineering and science projects. The NASA
publication STAR (Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports) and the
American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics' International Aero-
space Abstracts duplicate in a printed version much of the bibliographical
information contained in RECON.
181
ON MARS
Icarus, international journal of solar system studies, 1962-present. Icarus is
the single most important journal for scientific studies related to Mars.
Many of the issues discussed in the planning for NASA flights to Mars were
first debated in the pages of this journal founded by Carl Sagan. Over the
years since 1962, most of the major findings of Martian research were
reported in Icarus, including the results of Soviet investigations.
Scientific and Technical Information Division. Extraterrestrial Life: A Bibli-
ography, 1952-1964. NASA SP-7015. Washington, September 1964. This
annotated bibliography contains 183 citations.
Shneour, Elie A., and Ottesen, Eric A., comps. Extraterrestrial Life: An
Anthology and Bibliography. NAS publication 1296A. Washington: Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, 1966. This collection of readings and biblio-
graphical entries was prepared to accompany the following publication.
Pittendrigh, Colin S.; Vishniac, Wolf; and Pearman, J. P. T., eds. Biology and
the Exploration of Mars: Report of a Study Held under the Auspices of the
Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research
Council, 1964-1965. NAS publication 1296. Washington: National Acad-
emy of Sciences, 1966. Part 3, the bibliography (Extraterrestrial Life: An
Anthology and Bibliography), contains more than 2000 selected references
to published literature through mid-1964, with an addendum of papers
published through the latter part of 1965.
Magnolia, L. R.; Gogin, S. A.; and Turley, J. A. Exobiology: A Bibliography.
Research bibliography 52. TRW STL Technical Library: Redondo Beach,
Calif., October 1964. The report contains 400 annotated citations with
indexes to authors, subjects, serials, and Defense Technical Information
Center (AD) and NASA (N) accession numbers. It can be retrieved on the
NASA/RECON system as document N 65-19834.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Mariner Mars 1964 Bibliography. Project Docu-
ment 67, Rev. 1. Pasadena, 7 November 1966. Intended primarily for inter-
nal use at JPL, the bibliography covers internal reports and other documen-
tation for the period 1962-1966.
JPL Bibliography of Voyager Spacecraft Related Documents. Pasa-
dena, 8 February 1967. This bibliography lists NASA, JPL, and contractor
documents for 1964 and 1967.
Magnolia, L. R. and Gogin, S. A. Manned Mars Missions: A Bibliography.
Research Bibliography 53. TRW STL Technical Laboratories: Redondo
Beach, Calif., April 1965. The bibliography contains 348 annotated referen-
ces to manned Mars flyby and stopover missions, unmanned preparatory
missions, and Earth-based studies of Mars for the years 1955 to January 1965.
Supplemental data on manned Mars missions can be found in the NASA/
RECON system.
Magnolia, L. R. The Planet Mars: A Selected Bibliography. TRW Systems
Group Special Literature Survey 61, 20 April 1973.

General publications that were useful in the preparation of chapters 1

through 4 include:
482
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY
Berkner, Lloyd V., and Odishaw, Hugh, eds. Science in Space. New York,
Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill, 1961. The first overview of the field of
space science, this book is an essential starting point for students of Ameri-
can scientific activities in space.
Blum, Harold F. Time's Arrow and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press, 1951.
Glasstone, Samuel. The Book of Mars. NASA SP-179. Washington, 1968.
Hall, R. Cargill. Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger. NASA SP-4210.
Washington, 1977.
Project Ranger: A Chronology. JPL /HR -2. Pasadena: Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, 1971.
Hoyt, William Graves. Lowell and Mars. Tucson: University of Arizona Press,
1976.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Exploration of the Moon, the Planets, and Inter-
planetary Space, ed. Albert R. Hibbs. JPL report 30-1. Pasadena: Jet Propul-
sion Laboratory, 1959.
Young, Richard S.; Painter, Robert B.; and Johnson, Richard D. An Analysis
of the Extraterrestrial Life Detection Problem. NASA SP-75. Washington,
1965.
Ley, Willy, and Bonestell, Chesley. The Conquest of Space. New York: Viking
Press, 1949.
and von Braun, Wernher. The Exploration of Mars. New York:
Viking Press, 1956.
Logsdon, John M. The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the
National Interest. Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press, 1970.
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. A Review of Space
Research: The Report of the Summer Study Conducted under the Auspices
of the National Academy of Sciences at the State University of Iowa, Iowa
City, Iowa, June 17-August 10, 1962. NAS-NRC publication 1079. Wash-
ington: National Academy of Sciences, 1962.
Newell, Homer E. Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science.
NASA SP-4211. Washington, 1980.
Phillips, Charles R. The Planetary Quarantine Program: Origins and
Achievements. NASA SP-4902. Washington, 1974.
Rosholt, Robert L. An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963. NASA
SP-4101. Washington, 1966.
von Braun, Wernher. The Mars Project. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois
Press, 1953.

The following document collections for chapters 1 through 3 are held by

the National Archives and Records Service:
Federal Records Center, Suitland, Md. (Washington, DC 20409).
483
ON MARS
NASA, Office of the Administrator, Secretariat.
Meetings, NASA participation (National Academy of Sciences/SSB et al.)
1958-1960: box 11, RG 255, accession 66-A-184.
Meetings of Space Science Board, beginning to 1963: box 63, RG 255,
accession 67-A-601.
Committees for NAS/Space Science Board et al., 1958-1969: box 17, RG 255,
accession 72-A-3070.
NASA, Office of Space Sciences (Office of Space Science and Applications,
1963-1971). Lunar and Planetary Programs Office.
Chronological files:
1962-1964: box 50, RG 255, accession 74-663.
1965-1971: box 51, RG 225, accession 74-663.
Mariner C, R, B files (reports, correspondence, etc.), 1964: boxes 3-8, RG
255, accession 65-A-836 (destroyed August 1973, and not available for
reference).
Voyager Phase IA reports and evaluations prepared by JPL June 1965 to
September 1965: box 1, RG 255, accession 66-A-1089.
Voyager spacecraft final technical reports, July 1965: boxes 1-6, RG 225,
accession 66-A-578.
Proposals for Voyager spacecraft system, February 1965: boxes 1-2, RG 255,
accession 66-A-1155.
Proposals for Voyager spacecraft system, January 1966: boxes 1-5, RG 255,
accession 67-A-785.
Voyager spacecraft phase B contractor reports, July 1965: boxes 1-5, RG 255,
accession 67-A-202.
Reports on Voyager studies, August 1965 to November 1967: boxes 1-17, RG
255, Accession 68-A-6256.
Reports on Voyager capsule phase B studies, August 1967: boxes 1-4, RG
255, accession 69-A-3065.
Federal Records Center, Bell, CA 90201.
NASA, Voyager Project Office, Pasadena.
Closeout records of Voyager Project Office, 1967 and earlier: boxes 35341
through 35364, RG 255, accession 68-A-746.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Voyager history files, 1962-1967: box 1, RG 255, accession 70-A-779.
THE VIKING ERA
The raw materials for the narrative of the evolution of the Viking
Project were found in the files of the Viking Project Office at Langley
Research Center. The files were maintained by the General Electric Corpor-
ation as part of a documentation support contract with that office. All
correspondence and reports were received by the General Electric personnel
stationed at Langley, who indexed the documents chronologically, coded
them for easy retrieval, and microfilmed them on a Kodak Recordak
microfilm-cassette format. The cassettes are stored (as of 1982) in the Lang-
484
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY
ley Research Center Technical Library. All the paper copies of the docu-
ments were disposed of in 1978, except some groups that the authors of this
history selected for their use. The papers they used in preparation of
chapters 5 through Epilogue were turned over to the NASA History Office
archivist in the summer of 1982. These documents ultimately will become a
part of the Historian's Source Files deposited at the Washington National
Records Center by the NASA Headquarters History Office.
In addition to the primary NASA documentation, which the source
notes cite, a number of more conventional publications were repeatedly
useful. These include:
Adelson, H. E., et al. The Viking Lander Biology Instrument. TRW Systems
Group Report 21020-6003-RU-00, August 1975. The report describes the
operation of each experiment of the biology instrument and the conversion
of the experimental concepts to space hardware.
American Geophysical Union. Scientific Results of the Viking Project.
Washington, 1977. Reprints of articles from Journal of Geophysical
Research 82 (30 Sept. 1975).
Biemann, Hans-Peter. The Vikings of '76. Hans-Peter Biemann, 1977.
Burgess, Eric. To the Red Planet. Irvington, N.Y.: Columbia University Press,
1978.
Collins, Stewart A. The Mariner 6 and 7 Pictures of Mars. NASA SP-263.
Washington, 1971.
French, Bevan M. Mars: The Viking Discoveries. NASA EP-146. Washington,
I977.
Goodell, Rae. The Visible Scientists. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown, 1975.
Hartmann, William K., and Odell Raper. The New Mars: The Discoveries of
Mariner 9. NASA SP-337. Washington, 1974.
Ley, Willy. Mariner IV to Mars. New York: New American Library, 1966.
Martin Marietta Corp. The Viking Mission to Mars. Denver, 1975.
Denver Division. "Viking Lander 'as Built' Performance Capabili-
ties." June 1976. This report was written for readers with a technical back-
ground and some familiarity with the Viking mission. Its intent is to
describe the "as-built" capabilities of the landers and compare them with
capabilities in the environments imposed during separation, entry, descent,
and landing. Subsystem components whose performance was essential to
mission success through landing are discussed. Particular emphasis is given
to items that required performance margins because of uncertainties in the
knowledge of Mars at the time.
Martin Marietta Corp. Viking: Mars Expedition 1976. Denver, 1978.
Morgenthaler, George W., ed. Exploration of Mars, Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Astronautical Society Symposium on the Exploration of Mars. Vol. 15,
Advances in the Astronautical Sciences. Denver, 1963.
485
ON MARS
Phillips, Charles R. The Planetary Quarantine Program: Origins and
Achievements, 1956-1973. NASA SP-4902. Washington, 1974.
Scientific and Technical Information Office, NASA. Mariner-Venus 1962
Final Project Report. NASA SP-59. Washington, 1965.
Spacecraft Sterilization Technology, Beckman Auditorium, Pasade-
na, California, November 16-18,1965. NASA SP-108. Washington, 1966.
Mariner-Mars 1964 Final Project Report. NASA SP-139. Washington,
1967.
Mariner-Mars 1969: A Preliminary Report. NASA SP-225. Washing-
ton. 1969.
Mariner-Venus 1967 Final Project Report. NASA SP-190. Washing-
ton, 1971.
Mars as Viewed by Mariner 9: A Pictorial Presentation by the Mariner
9 Television Team and the Planetology Program Principal Investigators.
NASA SP-329. Washington, 1974.
Viking 1: Early Results. NASA SP-408. Washington, 1976.
Viking Project Office, Langley Research Center. "Viking Flight Team Organ-
ization and Staffing." 23 June 1976.
"Viking Personnel Directory." July 1976.
and Viking Mission Operations, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Viking
Project Mission to Mars, Viking-I Mission Timeline." Rev. 1, 7 June 1976.
Viking Lander Imaging Team. The Martian Landscape. NASA SP-425.
Washington, 1978.
Washburn, Mark. Mars at Last! New York: Putnam, 1977.
Werber, Morton. Objectives and Models of the Planetary Quarantine Pro-
gram. NASA SP-344. Washington, 1975.

Some postmission documents will be essential reading for future scholars

interested in the history of the Viking Project:
Holmberg, Neil A.; Faust, Robert P.; and Holt, H. Milton. V1king'75 Space-
craft Design and Test Summary. NASA RP-1027. Washington, 1980. Vol. 1,
Lander Design; vol. 2, Orbiter Design; vol. 3, Engineering and Test
Summary.
Goddard Space Flight Center, National Space Science Data Center/
World Data Center A for Rockets and Satellites, Catalog of Viking Mission
Data, Robert W. Vostreys, ed. NSSDC report no. 78-01. Greenbelt, Md.,
May 1981. This document catalogs available scientific data acquired by
the Viking science teams. It is the starting point for anyone wishing to use
these materials.
Tucker, Robert. Viking Lander Imaging Investigation: Picture Catalog of
Primary Mission Experiment Data Record. NASA RP-1007. Washington,

486
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY
February 1978. A general reference for imaging data from Viking, the
volume presents results of procedures applied to the imaging data to pro-
duce an organized record as complete and as error-free as possible. It con-
tains all images returned by the two Viking landers during the primary
mission. Skyline drawings display the outlines of each image.

487
Page intentionally left blank
 Source Notes

Introduction
1. This introductory section is based on notes taken by the authors during the mission and tape
recordings of communications audio circuits. See Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), "Viking
Status Report," 2:00 a.m. PDT, 20 July 1976; and Roy Calvin, "Viking: Intellect and Ingenuity
Triumphant," Marlin Marietta Today, no. 3 (1976): 3.
2. Calvin, "Viking:Intellectand Ingenuity Triumphant," pp. 3-4;and "VikingStatus Report," 4:15
a.m. PDT, 20 July 1976.
3. Calvin, "Viking: Intellect and Ingenuity Triumphant," p. 4.

Chapter 1
I. A recent treatment of Lowell's work is William Graves Hoyt, Lowell and Mars (Tucson: Univ. of
Arizona Press, 1976). See Brian W. A]diss, Billion Year Spree: The True History of Science Fiction
(Garden City, N.Y.: Schocken Books, 1973); and Robert M. Philmus, Into the Unknown: The
Evolution of Science Fiction from Francis Godwin to H.G. Wells (Berkeley, Los Angeles: Univ. of
Calif. Press, 1970).
2. Robert Philmus and David Y. Hughes, eds., H. G. Wells: Early Writings in Science and Science
Fiction (Berkeley, Los Angeles: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1975), pp. 175-78.
3. Willy Ley and Chesley Bonestell, The Conquest of Space (New York: Viking Press, 1949), pp.
105-15; and Alfred Wallace, Is Mars Habitable? ( London: Macmillan and Co., 1907). Wallace
(1823-1913), best known for his independent anticipation of Darwin's work on the origin of
species, developed a cogent and amazingly accurate description of the climatic conditions on Mars.
He argued that the average temperature would be about -40°C and that few life forms could survive
such temperatures. He also predicted that the surface would be cratered and that the polar caps
consisted of frozen carbon dioxide.
4. Ernst Stuhlinger et al., eds., Astronautical Engineering and Science: From Peenemiinde to Plane-
tary Space, Honoring the Fiftieth Birthday of Wernher von Braun (New York, Toronto, London:
Mc Graw-Hill, 1963), p. 371; and Wernher von Braun, "Das Marsprojekt: Studie einer interplane-
tarischen Expedition," Weltraumfahrt, special issue, 1952, trans. as The Mars Project (Urbana,
Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1953).
5. Von Braun, The Mars Project, pp. 2-5, 65-66, 75-76.
6. Ibid, p. 78.
7. See von Braun, "Crossing 'the Last Frontier," Collier's 22 (March 1952): 22-29, one of a series of
articles; von Braun et al., Across the Space Frontier, ed. Cornelius Ryan (New York: Viking Press,
1952); and von Braun, F[red] L. Whipple, and W[illy] Ley, Conquest of the Moon, ed. Ryan (New
York: Viking Press, 1953).
8. Von Braun, with Ryan, "Can We Get to Mars," Collier's 30 (April 1954): 22-29.
9. Ibid., p. 23. Von Braun's plans for a Mars venture were elaborated in Ley and von Braun, The
Exploration of Mars (New York: Viking Press, 1956).
10. House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, The Next Ten Years in Space,
1959-1969, staff rpt., H. doc. 115, 86th Cong., 1st sess. (henceforth 86/1), 2 Jan. 1959, p. 211.
11. Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Development Operations Div., "Proposal: A National Integrated
Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program," rpt. D-R-37, 10 Dec. 1957, JSC History
Archives.
12. Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocean: A History
of Project Mercury, NASA SP-4201 (Washington, 1966), pp. 75-76.
13. NACA, Special Committee on Space Technology, Working Group on Vehicular Program, "A
National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program," 18 July 1958, JSC History
Archives.

489
NOTES TO PAGES 10-22
14. Robert L. Rosholt, An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963, NASA SP-4101 (Washington,
1966), pp. 19-70.
15. Eli Ginzberg et al., Economic Impact of Large Public Programs: The NASA Experience ( Salt Lake
City: Olympus, 1976), p. 83.
16. William D. Metz, "Report on Astronomy: A New Golden Age," Science 177 (21 July 1972): 247.
17. Ginzberg et al., Economic Impact, pp. 81-86ff; J. Tuzo Wilson, I.G.Y.: The Year of New Moons
(New York: Knopf, 1961), pp. 9-10; and Homer E. Newell interview by Edward C. Ezell, 25 May
1977.
18. Leo Goldberg, "Research with Solar Satellites," Astrophysical Journal 191 (1 July 1974): 1-37.
19. Ginzberg et al., Economic Impact, p. 90.
20. Singer's role in the IGY satellite project is detailed in Homer E. Newell's Beyond the Atmosphere:
Early Years of Space Science, NASA SP-4211, 1980; and Constance McLaughlin Green and Milton
Lomask, Vanguard: A History, NASA SP-4202 (Washington, 1970).
21. Green and Lomask, Vanguard, p. 23.
22. Newell discusses the satellite race in chap. 7 of his Beyond the Atmosphere.
23. Charles M. Atkins, "NASA and the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences,"
NASA HHN-62, Sept. 1966, p. 13; Hugh Odishaw to Detlev Brunk, 24 Dec. 1957, "Space Science
Board" file, NASA History Off.; and Lloyd V. Berkner and Odishaw, eds., Science in Space (New
York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill, 1961), p. 429. Unless otherwise stated, all unpublished
Space Science Board materials are in the NASA History Off. Archives.
24. Newell, Beyond the Atmosphere, chap. 8.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Space Science Board, "Minutes of the Second Meeting," 19 July 1958, pp. 14-15.
28. Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., Missile and Space Systems Div., "The Thor History," Douglas rpt.
SM-41860, May 1963, pp. 1-6; and Space Technology Laboratories, "Interplanetary Probes,
Tracking, and Communications," proposal 26-17, 27 June 1958, pp. 1-8.
29. Space Science Board ad hoc Committee on Interplanetary Probes and Space Stations, "Minutes,"
13 Sept. 1958, pp. 2-3.
30. Odishaw to T. Keith Glennan, 2 Dec. 1958, with encl., Odishaw to Admin. NASA, Dir. NSF, and
Dir. ARPA, "Memorandum Report," 1 Dec. 1958, p. 16.
31. R. Cargill Hall, Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210 (Washington, 1977),
p. 15; Harold C. Urey, The Planets: Their Origin and Development ( New Haven: Yale Univ. Press,
1952); and Robert Jastrow, Red Giantsand White Dwarfs: The Evolution of Stars, Planets and Life
(New York, Evanston, London: Harper and Row, 1967), pp. 3-4.
32. William H. Pickering to James R. Killian, 9 July 1958, NASA History Off. Archives; and
Pickering, "The Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the U.S. Space Program," draft (ca. 1958], box 15,
White House Off., Off. of Science and Technology, Eisenhower Papers, Dwight D. Eisenhower
Library, Abilene, Kans.
33. R. Cargill Hall, Project Ranger: A Chronology, JPL/HR-2 (Pasadena, 1971), pp. 14,46-47,56,60;
and Clarence R. Gates, "Mars Proposal," JPL, 19 Sept. 1958.
34. John F. Froehlich, " Minutes of Meeting on N.A.S.A. Space Program of October 27, 1958," memo,
28 Oct. 1958, JPL Library Archives.
35. Froehlich, " Minutes of Meeting No. 2 on N.A.S.A. Space Program Held October 28,1958," memo,
29 Oct. 1958, JPL Library Archives.
36. Froehlich, " Minutes of Meeting No. 3 on N.A.S.A. Space Program Held 29 October 1958," memo,
30 Oct. 1958, JPL Library Archives.
37. V. C. Larsen, Jr., to Abe Silverstein, 7 Nov. 1958, with encl., JPL, "Proposal for Space Flight
Program Study," JPLHF-2-260, 7 Nov. 1958; Homer J. Stewart interview, no. 13, 20 Sept. 1972, by
J. H. Wilson, JPL Library Archives; Ralph Green to G. W. Green, TWX, 18 Nov. 1958; Hall,
Proiect Ranger, p. 73; and J. D. McKenney, "Minutes of Meeting of the NASA Program Study
Committee wi th the Senior Staff, Held Dec.12,1958," memo, I5 Dec.1958, roll 211-2, JPL Vellum Collection
(JPLVC).
38. Newell, "Conference Report," memo for record, 18 Dec. 1958.
39. McKenney, "Minutes of the Meeting of the NASA Program Study Committee and the JPL Senior
Staff with Dr. Silverstein, Dr. Stewart, Dr. Newell, and Mr. Rosen of NASA ... January 12-13,
1959," memo, 16 Jan. 1959; and "Meetingof JPL," 12 Jan. 1959, in Newell, "Conference Notes,"
notebook, box 28, Newell papers.
40. Newell to Silverstein, "Hiring of Zavasky, Schilling, Berning, Mange, and Bordean," 1 I Dec. 1958,
with encl., "Objectives of Space Science Program," I I Dec. 1958. The disciplinary approach

490
 NOTES TO PAGES 22-33
continued to be reflected in the documents prepared by Newell's office for several years. See NASA,
Off. of Asst. Dir. for Space Sciences, "The NASA Space Sciences Program," 16 April 1959; and
NASA, Off. of Space Flight Programs, "Space Flight Programs," 1 Apr. 1960.
41. McKenney, "Minutes of the Meeting," 16 Jan. 1959.
42. Glennan to Hugh L. Dryden, 24 Dec. 1958; and Glennan to Homer J. Stewart, 16 Jan. 1959.
43. Rosh ol t, Adm in istra live History, pp. 130-31, details someof theagency's reluctance toreleaseeven
the confidential version. See JPL, Exploration of the Moon, the Planets, and Interplanetary Space,
ed. Albert R. Hibbs, JPL report 30-1 (Pasadena, 1959); NASA, "Minutes of Meeting of Research
Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight," 25-26 May 1959; and NASA, Off. of Program
Planning and Evaluation, "The Ten Year Plan of the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration," 18 Dec. 1959.

Chapter 2
1. Edgar M. Cortright to Ad Hoc Committee to Name Space Science Projects and Objects, "Revised
Suggestions for Lunar and Planetary Program," 18 May 1960.
2. Homer E. Newell, Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science, NASA SP-4211, 1980.
3. R. Cargill Hall, Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210 ( Washington, 1977),
pp. 6-10; Henry L. Richter, Jr., ed., Instruments and Spacecraft, October 1957-March 1965, NASA
SP-3028 (Washington. 1966), pp. 31-32, 34-35, 45-46, 81, 123-24, 146; and Peter L. Smolders,
Soviets in Space, trans. Marian Powell (Guildford, London: Lutterworth Press, 1973), pp. 220-21.
4. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1960,
hearings on S. 1582, 86th Cong., 1st sess. (henceforth 86/1), pt. 1, 7-10 Apr. 1959, p. 26; General
Dynamics Corp., Convair (Astronautics) Div., "Vega, Final Technical Report, Contract NASW-
45," report AP60-0294, 25 May 1960; and Jet Propulsion Laboratory, The Vega Program, report
30-6 (Pasadena, 1959).
5. Comptroller General of the U.S., "Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, House of
Representatives, Review of Cancelled Atlas-Vega Launch Vehicle Development, December
1958-December 1959," report 13133308, Apr. 1960, pp. 4, 10-12, 29-30, 32-37. See also Homer J.
Stewart to T. Keith Glennan, 28 Sept. 1959; Stewart to Glennan, 14 Oct. 1959, box 7, accession
70A5793, Record Group 255, Washington National Records Ctr., Suitland, MD; Paul Means,
"Vega-Agena-B Mix-up Cost Missions," Missiles and Rockets 6(20 June 1960):19-20; Evert Clark,
"Vega Study Shows Early NASA Problems," Aviation Week & Space Technology 72 (27 June
1960): 62-68; and George Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at the White House: The Private Diary of
President Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Science and Technology (Cambridge: Harvard Univ.
Press, 1976), p. 129.
6. Stewart to Glennan, "Consideration of Vega, Agena B and Centaur," 2 Oct. 1959; and R. Cargill
Hall, Project Ranger: A Chronology, JPL/HR-2 (Pasadena, 1971), p. 127.
7. Hall, Lunar Impact, p. 23; Newell, "Trip Report for the Visit to Jet Propulsion Laboratory on 28
December 1959 by Homer E. Newell, Jr., Newell Sanders, J. A. Crocker, Morton J. Stroller," memo
for record, 30 Dec. 1959; and Newell notes, "Meeting at JPL, 28 Dec 59, 0900."
8. Richard E. Horner to William H. Pickering, 16 Dec. 1959. The story of ABMA's transfer to NASA is
outlined in Robert L. Rosholt, An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963, NASA SP-4101
(Washington, 1966), pp. 45-47, 107-14.
9. Horner to Pickering, 16 Dec. 1959; and Rosholt, Administrative History, pp. 115-I6.
10. Horner to Pickering, 16 Dec. 1959.
11. Robert Jastrow to Newell, "Report on December 1 Meeting of the Lunar Science Group," 11 Dec.
1959; and Abe Silverstein to Pickering, 21 Dec. 1959, roll 614-167, JPLVC. See also Pickering,
interoffice memo no. 16, 16 Dec. 1969; and J. D. Bruker, memo, Jan. 1959, roll 211-4, JPLVC.
12. Newell, "Trip Report," memo for record, 30 Dec. 1959.
13. Ibid.; and Pickering to Silverstein, 29 Dec. 1959.
14. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA Scientific and Technical Programs,
hearings, 87/1, 28 Feb., 1 Mar. 1961, pp. 254-65.
15. House Comm ittee on Science and Astronautics, Centaur Program, hearings before Subcommittee
on Space Sciences, 87/2, 15 & 18 May 1962, p. 63.
16. Ibid., pp. 4-5, 63-66; John L. Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945-1959, NASA
SP-4404 (Washington, 1978), chap. 10; and Horner to Cmdr., Air Research and Development
Command, 17 Aug. 1959.
17. Silverstein to Ira H. Abbott, "Establishment of Centaur Project Technical Team," 17 Nov. 1959.

491
NOTES TO PAGES 33-43
18. Stewart to Glennan, "Considerations of Vega, Agena B and Centaur," 2 Oct. 1959; Senate Commit-
tee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1960, pp. 24-35;
Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen, chap. 12; and House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Centaur
Program, pp. 7-8.
19. Robert J. Parks, "Presentation of the Planetary Program," in JPL, "Planetary Program Briefing
Summary, July 8, 1960, Revised as Presented," 14 July 1960, pp. 1-2.
20. Ibid., p. 3.
21. Ibid., pp. 4, 20-22.
22. NASA, "Planetary Program Chronology," encl. to "Planetary Program Briefing-October 17,
1962."
23. JPL, "Mariner B Study Report," TM 33-34, March 1961, p. 7; and JPL, "Mariner B Capsule Study,
Mars 1964 Mission," Engineering Planning Document 79, 20 Apr. 1962.
24. Ibid.
25. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Instrumentation Laboratory, "A Recoverable Interplane-
tary Space Probe," rpt. R-235, 4 vols., 1 July 1959.
26. JPL, "Mariner B Study Report," pp. 8, 12.
27. NASA's outlook on Centaur in the spring of 1960 can be followed in: Horner to Herbert F. York
(draft retyped), 7 March 1960; Horner to Bernard A. Schriever, 18 March 1960, with encls.; and
Alfred J. Gardner, "Minutes of First Meeting of Centaur Working Committee, Headquarters,
NASA, Washington," 4 May 1960.
28. Don R. Ostrander to Glennan, "Centaur Program; Report of Explosion on Vertical Test Stand at
Pratt and Whitney," 17 Nov. 1960.
29. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Centaur Program, p. 8.
30. Cortright to Thomas F. Dixon, "Recommendations on the Centaur Program," 17 Jan. 1961. The
Able M design is described in Space Technology Laboratories, Inc., "Able Mars Feasibility Study
(NASW-246)," 24 July 1961.
31. NASA, "Planetary Program Chronology."
32. Oran W. Nicks to Edward C. Ezell, 6 June 1977. For Mariner R experiments, see: Charles P. Sonett
to Jack James, 16 Oct. 1961; Paul J. Coleman to Silverstein, "Notification for Mariner-A Experi-
menters of Project Cancellation," 17 Oct. 1961; Sonett to James, 26 Oct. 1961; and Coleman to
Newell, "Experiments and Experimenters for the 1962 Mariner-R Mission to Venus," 5 Dec. 1961.
33. NASA, "Planetary Program Chronology"; and Mariner-Venus 1962 Final Project Report, NASA
SP-59 (Washington, 1965), pp. 11-12.
34. Hall, Lunar Impact, p. 160.
35. Hall, Project Ranger, p. 340; Hall, Lunar Impact, pp. 160-77; Ronald J. Ostraw, "Mariner II's
Space Triumph Is Result of $13-Million Battle against Odds," Washington Post, 17 Dec. 1962; and
Jonathan Spivak, "Mariner Probe of Venus Called a Success; Power Failure Cuts Use of Relay
Satellite," Wall Street Journal, 17 Dec. 1962.
36. NASA, Mariner-Venus 1962 Final Project Report, pp. 12-15, 87-120; John E. Naugle, Unmanned
Space Flight (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965), p. 133; and Marcia Neugebaur et al.,
"The Mission of Mariner II: Preliminary Observations," Science 138 (7 Dec. 1962): 1095-100.
37. NASA, "Planetary Program Chronology"; and Fred D. Kochendorfer to Chairman, Space Sciences
Steering Committee, "Scientific Experiments for the 1964 Mariner C Mission to Mars," 18 Mar.
1963.
38. NASA, "Membership of Space Sciences Steering Committee and Subcommittees," circular 125, 7
Feb. 1961: and NASA, "Space Science and Applications Steering Committee," NASA Management
Instruction 11512.51, 5 Nov. 1973. See also Space Science Board, "Minutes of the First Meeting,
Committee on Chemistry of Space and Exploration of Moon and Planets of the Space Science
Board," 13 Nov. 1958; and Space Science Board, "Ad Hoc Committee on Chemistry of Space and
Exploration of the Moon and Planets," interim rpt., 8 Jan. 1959.
39. Newell to Hugh Odishaw, 10 Mar. 1961.
40. Odishaw to Newell, 31 Mar. 1961, with encl., "Mariner B Consideration Planetary Atmospheres
Study Group," 31 Mar. 1961.
41. The best single source on the Apollo decision is John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the
Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest (Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press,
1970).
42. Hall, Lunar Impact, p. 120.
43. Rosholt, Administrative History, pp. 197-239; and Hall, Lunar Impact, pp. 121-22. The changes

492
 NOTES TO PAGES 43-50

included: 1. All of the field centers, including JPL and the new Manned Spacecraft Center to be
established in Houston, reported directly to Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., on all
matters concerning institutional operations. 2. Headquarters program offices for Advanced
Research Programs (Ira H. Abbott), Space Flight Programs (Abe Silverstein), Launch Vehicle
Programs (Don Ostrander), and Life Science Programs (Charles Roadman) were abolished. 3.
Those offices were replaced by four new ones-Advanced Research and Technology (Abbott),
Space Sciences (Newell), Manned Space Flight (D. Brainerd Holmes, brought in from RCA), and
Applications (vacant). An agency-wide support office for Tracking and Data Acquisition
(Edmond Buckley) was also established. These program offices were to supervise the projects run
by the field centers in their areas of responsibility.
44. The Mariner B experiment selection process can be followed in the following representative
documents: Newell, memo, 7 Apr. 1961; Sonett to Pickering, 25 Apr. 1961; Roger C. Moore to
Silverstein, "List of Tentative Experiments and Experimenters Recommended for 1964 Mariner B
Mission to Mars (P-70)," 18 Oct. 1961; Silverstein to Pickering, 19 Oct. 1961; Moore and Coleman
to Sonett, TWX, 18 Oct. 1961; Moore to Silverstein, "Research Proposal for Mariner B Instrumen-
tation Support," 25 Oct. 1961; Coleman to Thomas L. K. Smull, "Disposition of Mariner B
Proposals," 2 Nov. 1961; Coleman to Smull, "Additional Rejected Mariner-B Proposals," 29 Nov.
1961; Sonett to Parks, 13 Dec. 1961; Moore to Newell, "Revised List of Experimenters Recom-
mended for 1964 Mariner Mission to Mars (P70 and P71)," 3 May 1962; Newell to Pickering, 4 May
1962; and Newell to Harry J. Goett, "1964 Mariner B Mission to Mars," 4 May 1962, with encls.
45. Sonett to Nicks, "Problems Requiring Clarification and/or Decisions," 19 Feb. 1962; and Newell
to Pickering, 4 May 1962.
46. Newell to Robert E. Bourdeau, 4 May 1962.
47. Kochendorfer to Parks, 10 May 1962; and Newell to Goett, "Proposed Project Development Plan
for Planetary Capsule," 14 May 1962.
48. Coleman to Nicks, "Status of the Scientific Payloads of the Mariner B Bus and Capsule (as of June
1, 1962)," 18 June 1962; Coleman to Newell," A Radio Propagation Experiment for the Mariner-B
Mission," 17 Aug. 1962; and Newell to Goett, "Electron Experiment for the Mariner-B Program,"
5 Sept. 1962.
49. NASA, "Planetary Program Chronology"; and NASA, Off. of Space Sciences, Mariner Project,
"Administrator's Progress Report," 31 Aug. 1962.
50. Glenn A, Reiff, "Mariner for Mars 1964 Meeting," memo, 17 Sept. 1962.
51. Parks to Nicks, 20 Sept. 1962.
52. [bid.
53. D. L. Forsythe to Newell, "Program Management for Light and Medium Launch Vehicles," 18
Sept. 1962. Also see Erasmus H. Kloman, "Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter; Case Studies of Project
Management," 30 June 1970, p. II-5, prepared under contract for the Off. of Space Sciences, MS. in
NASA History Off. Archives.
54. Wernher von Braun to Newell, 20 Sept. 1962; and Newell to von Braun, 29 Mar. 1961, in which
Centaur payload needs were clearly delineated.
55. Sparks to Newell, 13 Sept. 1962, encl.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
58. Sparks to Newell, 2 Oct. 1962; Thomas F. Dixon to Robert C. Seamans, Jr., "Implementation of
Centaur Transfer," 4 Oct. 1962; von Braun to Div. Directors and Off. Chiefs, "Centaur Transfer,"
16 Oct. 1962; Seamans to Silverstein and von Braun, "Centaur Development Project," 24 Oct. 1962;
J. R. Dempsey to "Full Supervision" distr., "Centaur Reorganization," General Dynamics/Astro-
nautics notice 19, 9 Nov. 1962; Kloman, "Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter," pp. I1-9,11-10; and Philip
Geddes, "Centaur: How It Was Put Back on Track," Aerospace Management 7 (Apr. 1964):24-29.
59. Newell to Sparks, 23 Oct. 1962.
60. Donald P. Hearth, "Voyager/ Mariner B Discussions, 17 December 1962," memo for record, 3 Jan.
1963.
61. Newell to Goett, "Study of Capsule Development for Mariner B," 21 Dec. 1962; and Nicks to Parks,
21 Dec. 1962.
62. Kochendorfer to Nicks, "Redirection of Mariner B," 4 Mar. 1963; and Kochendorfer to Nicks,
"Redirection of Mariner B, Addendum 1," 14 Mar. 1963.
63. Newell interview by Edward C. Ezell, 25 May 1977; and Kennedy Space Center, A Summary of
Major NASA Launchings, KSC Historical Rpt. 1, pp. B-6, B-10.

493
NOTES TO PAGES 51-60
Chapter 3
1. Charles Darwin letter in Melvin Calvin, "The Origin of Life on Earth and Elsewhere," Annals of
Internal Medicine 54 (May 1961): 956.
2. Ibid, pp. 956-57.
3. Stanley L. Miller, "Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,"
Science 117 (15 May 1953): 528-29.
4. Shirley Thomas, Men of Space: Profiles of Scientists Who Probefor Life in Space, 6 (Philadelphia,
New York: Chilton Co., 1963): 249.
5. Miller and Harold C. Urey, "Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth," Science 130
(31 July 1959): 245-46.
6. Thomas, Men of Space, 6: 250.
7. Ibid., p. 251.
8. Miller and Urey, "Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth," p. 251.
9. Joshua Lederberg, "A View of Genetics," Stanford Medical Bulletin 17 (Aug. 1959):123. Lederberg
cites A. J. Kluyver and C. B. van Niel, The Microbe's Contribution to Biology (Cambridge, Mass.,
1956), as the basic overview of comparative biochemistry. "A View of Genetics" was also published
in Science 131 (29 Jan. 1960): 269-76.
10. Lederberg, "Exobiology: Approaches to Life beyond the Earth," Science 132 (12 Aug. 1960): 398.
This article later appeared as chap. 9 in Lloyd V. Berkner and Hugh Odishaw, eds., Science in
Space (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 407-25, and was an adaptation of a talk given at the 1st
International Space Science Symposium, Nice, 13 Jan. 1960, and published in H. K. Kallman Bijl,
Space Research: Proceedings of the First International Space Science Symposium (Nice, January,
11-16,1960) (Amsterdam: North-Hollard Publishing Co., 1960), pp. 1153-70.
11. Lederberg, "Memo on Initial Planetary Quarantine," 2 Jan. 1976, from Lederberg's personal files.
12. Lederberg, "Lunar Biology?" Dec. 1957, letter to colleague from personal files; Lederberg, "Cos-
mic Microbiology," Jan. 1958, letter to colleague from personal files; Lederberg to Hugh L.
Dryden, 4 Feb. 1958; and Lederberg and Dean B. Cowie, "Moon Dust," Science 127 (27 June 1958):
1473-75.
13. National Academy of Sciences, "Minutes of the Council Meeting," 8 Feb. 1958; NAS, "Addendum
to Minutes of the Council of the National Academy of Sciences," 8 Feb. 1958; NAS-National
Research Council, A Review of Space Research: The Report of the Summer Study Conducted
under the Auspices of the National Academy of Sciences at the Slate University of Iowa, Iowa City,
Iowa, June 17-August 10, 1962 (Washington, 1962), p. 10-11; and Stewart Alsop, "Race for the
Moon," Washington Post, 21 Feb. 1958.
14. NAS-NRC, Review of Space Research, pp. 10 -12, 10-13; "Development of International Efforts to
Avoid Contamination of Extraterrestrial Bodies," Science 128 (17 Oct. 1958): 887-89; and Charles
R. Phillips, The Planetary Quarantine Program: Origins and Achievements, 1956-1973, NASA
SP-4902 (Washington, 1974), pp. 3-7, 9-11.
15. Space Science Board, "Minutes of the Fifth Meeting," 7-9 May 1959.
16. T. Keith Glennan to Odishaw, 13 Oct. 1959.
17. R. Cargill Hall, Project Ranger: AChronology, JPL/HR-2(Pasadena, 1971), p. 121; and Phillips,
Planetary Quarantine Program, p. 10.
18. NASA, "Report of National Aeronautics and Space Administration Bioscience Committee," 25
Jan. 1960.
19. Ibid. Harold Urey also pressed for the early flight of life detection devices to Mars; see Urey to
Homer E. Newell, Jr., 29 Mar. 1961.
20. Lederberg interview by Edward C. Ezell, 23 Aug., 1977.
21. Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1951).
22. Gerald A. Soffen interview by Ezell, 17 Nov. 1978 and 23 Dec. 1978.
23. Newell to Harry H. Hess, 20 Feb. 1964.
24. Richard W. Porter to Hess, 26 Feb. 1964. Porter, a staunch supporter of the U.S space program,
noted, "Although I personally consider the objective to be very important, I believe there would be
ample scientific reason to explore the planets even if we were sure that no evidence of extraterres-
trial life would be found."
25. Lederberg interview, 23 Aug. 1977.
26. For an understanding of both the 1964 Summer Study and the state of scientific knowledge on the
eve of the first Mariner flights, the report of the sessions is essential reading: Colin S. Pittendrigh,
Wolf Vishniac, and J. P. T. Pearman, eds., Biology and the Exploration of Mars: Report of a Study
Held under the Auspices of the Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences-National

494
 NOTES TO PAGES 60-69
Research Council, 1964-1965, NAS pub. 1296 (Washington, 1966; the quoted passage is on p. 5);
and Elie A. Shneour and Eric A. Ottesen, comps., Extraterrestrial Life: An Anthology and Bibliog-
raphy, NAS pub. 1296A (Washington, 1966).
27. Pittendrigh, Vishniac, and Pearman, Biology and the Exploration of Mars, p. 6.
28. Ibid., p. 7. William M. Sinton, "Further Evidence of Vegetation on Mars," Science 130 (6 Nov.
1969): 1234-37, argued for the presence of life on Mars but disputed the green color, believing it to
be "a complementary hue produced by the bright orange colors of the deserts."
29. Pittendrigh, Vishniac, and Pearman, Biology and the Exploration of Mars, p. 7; pt. 5 of this book is
devoted to "Some Extrapolations and Speculations," including a "Model of Martian Ecology,"
pp. 229-42, by Vishniac, K. C. Atwood, R. M. Bock, Hans Gaffron, T. H. Jukes, A. D. McLaren,
Carl Sagan, and Hyron Spinrod.
30. Ibid., p. 8.
31. Ibid., p. 8.
32. Ibid., p. 10.
33. Ibid., p. 12.
34. Robert F. Fellows to Abe Silverstein, "Supporting Information re Proposed Contract for the
Development of an Instrument for the Detection of Microorganisms on Other Planets," 25 Mar.
1959, from Newell reading file, box 11.
35. Thomas, Men of Space, 6:275; and Hall, Project Ranger, pp. 78-79. Vishniac, with his Latvian
parents and sister, escaped Germany in 1939 and came to America.
36. Thomas, Men of Space, 6: 276.
37. Richard S. Young, Robert B. Painter, and Richard D. Johnson, An Analysis of the Extraterrestrial
Life Detection Problem, NASA SP-75 (Washington, 1965), p. 4.
38. Ibid.
39. F. Jacob and J. Monod, Biological Organization at the Cellular and Supercellular Level, ed. R. J.
C. Harris (New York: Academic Press, 1963), p. 1.
40, H. J. Muller, "Genetic Nucleic Acid: Key Material in the Origin of Life," Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine 5 (Autumn, 1961): 11.
41. Young, Painter, and Johnson, An Analysis of the Life Detection Problem, p. 6.
42. Pittendrigh, Vishniac, and Pearman, Biology and the Exploration of Mars, p. 12. Lederberg
presented an early description of an automated microscope system in "Exobiology: Experimental
Approaches to Life beyond the Earth," in Berkner and Odishaw, Science in Space, pp. 420-21.
43. Young, Painter, and Johnson, Analysis of the Life Detection Problem, p. 6.
44. Pittendrigh, Vishniac, and Pearman, Biology and the Exploration of Mars, p. 13.
45. Freeman H. Quimby, ed., Concepts for Detection of Extraterrestrial Life, NASA SP-56 (Washing-
ton, 1964), with supplementary materials. See also NASA, Extraterrestrial Life: A Bibliography,
pt. 1: Report Literature. A Selected listing of annotated references to unclassified scientific and
technical reports, 1952-1964, NASA SP-7015 (Washington, 1964).
46. "Minutes of the Working Group Meeting of the Exobiology Summer Study," 15 June 1964, from
Lederberg's personal files.
47. Ames Research Center, Life Detection Team, "A Survey of Life-Detection Experiments for Mars,"
TMX-54946, Aug. 1963, pp. 29-43, N66-29419; Harold D. Watkins, "Ames Study Supports Mars
Life Theory," Aviation Week & Space Technology (18 Nov. 1963): 61, 65-66, 71; and Young to
Ezell, "Life Sciences Work at Ames," 20 June 1978.
48. Quimby, Concepts for Detection of Extraterrestrial Life, p. 11.
49. Ibid., p. 13; and Soffen, "Extraterrestrial Optical Microscopy," Applied Optics 8 (July 1969):
1341-47.
50. Ames Life Detection Team, "Survey of Life-Detection Experiments," p. 15.
51. Lederberg interview, 23 Aug. 1977, by Ezell.
52. Vishniac, "Extraterrestrial Microbiology," Aerospace Medicine 31 (Aug. 1960): 678-80, reprinted
in Shneour and Ottesen, comps., Extraterrestrial Life: An Anthology and Bibliography, pp.
282-84.
53. Ames Life-Detection Team, "Survey of Life-Detection Experiments," p. 14.
54. Lederberg, "Multivator: Proposal for Mariner B Experiment-Capsule," submitted in Lederberg,
"Cytochemical Studies of Planetary Microorganisms-Explorations in Exobiology," NsG 81-60, 1
Apr. 1960 to 31 Mar. 1961 (N102 172).
55. Ames Life-Detection Team, "Survey of Life-Detection Experiments," p. 12; and E. Levinthal, L.
Hundley, and Lederberg, "Multivator-A Biochemical Laboratory for Martian Experiments," in
M. Florkin and A. Dolfuss, eds., Life Sciences and Space Research II (Amsterdam: North-Holland
Publishing Co.; New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1964), pp. 112-23.

495
NOTES TO PAGES 69-81
56. Ames Life-Detection Team, "Survey of Life-Detection Experiments," pp. 12-13.
57. Gilbert V. Levin interview by Ezell, 31 Aug. 1977.
58. Ames Life-Detection Team, "Survey of Life-Detection Experiments," pp. 9-10; Levin and A.
Wendell Carriker, "Life on Mars," Nucleonics 20 (Oct. 1962): 71-72; Levin et A., " 'Gulliver'-A
Quest for Life on Mars," Science 138 (12 Oct. 1962): 114-21; Levin, "Rapid Microbiological
Determinations with Radioisotopes," Advances in Applied Microbiology 5 (1963): 95-133; and
Levin et al., "'Gulliver,' an Experiment for Extraterrestrial Life Detection and Analysis," in
Florkin and Dolfuss, Life Sciences and Space Research 11, pp. 124-32. See also Ira Blei and J. W.
Liskowitz. "Review of Concepts and Investigations for the Use of Optical Rotation as a Means of
Detecting Extraterrestrial Life," in Florkin, ed., Life Sciences and Space Research III (Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Co.; New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1965), pp. 86-94.
59. Pittendrigh, Vishniac, and Pearman, Biology and the Exploration of Mars, pp. 12-17.
60. Fred D. Kochendorfer to Newell, "Selection of Experiments for Mariner C," 8 Feb. 1963, Lunar and
Planetary Programs (SL) chron file.
61. NASA, Mariner-Mars 1964: Final Project Report, NASA SP-139 (Washington, 1967), prepared
under contract by JPL, provides the best summary of this project from conception to conclusion.
62. Ibid., p. 131; NASA, JPL, Report from Mars: MarinerIV,1964-1965, EP-39 (Pasadena, 1966), p. 21;
and Oran W. Nicks, memo for record, "Mariner '64 Bulletin No. 2," 18 Nov. 1964.
63. "Mariner III Agena Shroud," 2 March 1965, SL chron file.
64. NASA, Mariner-Mars 1964, pp. 132-54.
65. Robert B. Leighton to Glen A. Reiff, 11 Jan. 1965.
66. William Hines, "U.S. Plans Double-Barrel Mars Shot," Evening Star (Washington), 14 Aug. 1964.
67. A sample of Mariner 4 and related articles includes: "First of 2 Mars Shots Due Next Week,"
Evening Star (Washington), 29 Oct. 1964; Ronald Kotulak, "Space Probes to Mars Set within
Month: Seek to Learn if Life Exists." Chicago Tribune, 2 Nov. 1964; "Search for Life in Space:
Mars Called Prime Target," New York Herald Tribune, 17 Nov. 1964; Howard Simons, "Early
Search for Mars Life Urged," Washington Post, 17 Nov. 1964; J. Allen Hynek, "Probe May Clear
Age-Old Mars Mysteries," Indianapolis Star, 20 Nov. 1964; "Journey to July; Mariner IV,"
Newsweek 64 (7 Dec. 1964): 67; Walter Sullivan, "Panel Finds Mars Life Likely and Urges
Exploration by U.S.," New York Times, 27 April 1965; Simons, "Scientists Feel Mars Has Life;
Seek Probes," Washington Post, 27 April 1965; Simons, "Get Ready fora Peek at the Red Planet,"
Washington Post, 11 July 1965; and "Searching for Life: Mars and a Magnificent Flying
Machine," National Observer, 12 July 1965.
68. Sullivan, "First U.S. Rocket Aimed for Mars Is Ready for Launching Tomorrow," New York
Times, 3 Nov. 1964.
69. David Hoffman, "Mariner Takes First Mars Closeups Today," New York Herald Tribune, 14 July
1964.
70. NASA, "Initial Scientific Interpretation of Mariner IV Photography," news release 65-249, 29 July
1965.
71. Leighton et al., "Mariner IV Photography of Mars: Initial Results," Science 149 (6 Aug. 1965):
627-30, reprinted in Shneour and Ottesen, Extraterrestrial Life, pp. 307-12; and Richard K. Sloan,
"Scientific Results of Mariner Missions to Mars and Venus," in Virginia Polytechnic Institute,
Proceedings of the Conference on the Exploration of Mars and Venus, August 23-27, 1965
(Blacksburg, Va., 1965), pp. IX-I to IX-37.
72. John W. Finnery, "Biologist Backs Space Plan Foes," New York Times, 9 June 1963; Senate
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Scientists' Testimony on Space Goals, hearings,
88th Cong., 1st sess. (henceforth 88/1), 10-11 June 1963, pp. 3 ff.; and Thomas, Men of space, 6, pp.
1-27.
73. John Barbour, "Scientist Abelson Raps Race for Man on Moon," Evening Star, (Washington), 2
Sept. 1963.
74. Karl Abraham, "Scientist Attacks NASA's Proposed Project to Search for Life on Planet Mars,"
Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia), 28 Dec. 1964.
75. Philip H. Abelson, "The Martian Environment," Science 147 (12 Feb. 1965): 683; and Evert Clark,
"Scientist Decries Mars Life Search," New York Times, 13 Feb. 1965. For Abelson's earlier
involvement, see Thomas, Men of Space, 6, pp. 1-27; and Abelson to Clark T. Randt, 14 Oct. 1960.
76. Rae Goodell, The Visible Scientists (Boston, Toronto: Little Brown & Co., 1977), discusses the
general issue of scientists as public promoters and critics of science and the social, economic, and
political implications of conducting science in a democratic society.
77. "The Dead Planet," New York Times, 30 July 1965.
78. Pittendrigh, Vishniac, and Pearman, Biology and the Exploration of Mars, p. 19; and NAS-Na-
tional Research Council, Space Science Board, Biologyand theExploralion of Mars: Summary and
496
 NOTES TO PAGES 81-93
Conclusions of a Study Supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Washington, 1965). Academy President Frederick Sietz sent this report to NASA Administrator
James E. Webb 16 April 1965.
79. Pittendrigh, Vishniac, and Pearman, Biology and the Exploration of Mars, p. 20.
80. Ibid., pp. 20-21.

Chapter 4
1. Edgar M. Cortright to Ad Hoc Committee to Name Space Science Projects and Objects, "Revised
Suggestions for Lunar and Planetary Program," 18 May 1960; and Cortright, "Exploration of the
Moon, Planets, and Interplanetary Space," in NASA, NASA-Industry Program Plans Conference,
July 28-29, 1960 (Washington, 1960), p. 71.
2. NASA, Fourth Semiannual Report to Congress, April 1, 1960 through September 30, 1960 (Wash-
ington, 1960), p. 66.
3. Raymond A. Bauer and Richard F. Meyer et al., "NASA Planning and Decision Making, Final
Report," vol. 1, rpt. X70-90256, Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration,
ca. 1970, p. 111-4; JPL. "Advanced Planetary Spacecraft Study Report," vol. 1, Engineering
Planning Document (EPD) 139, 28 Dec. 1962, p. I-1; JPL, "Study of Mars and Venus Orbiter
Missions Launched by the 3-Stage Saturn CAB Vehicle," vol. 2, pts. 1 and 2, EPD-132, 1 Mar. 1963;
and JPL, "Study of Mars and Venus Orbiter Missions Launched by the 3-Stage Saturn CAB
Vehicle," vol. 3, pts. 1 and 2, EPD-139, 31 Dec. 1963.
4. Donald P. Hearth to Oran W. Nicks, "Voyager Review at JPL, November 1962," 19 Nov. 1962.
Unless noted otherwise, all letters, memos, and telexes are in the chronological files of Hearth's
office (NASA Hq. code SL), boxes 50 and 51, accession 255-74-663, record group 255, Federal
Records Ctr., Washington. In Nicks to Hearth, 4 June 1962, Hearth is offered the job of Staff
Engineer, Advanced Programs, Lunar and Planetary Programs Office.
5. Hugh L. Dryden to James E. Webb, "Current Status of Certain Programs," 31 July 1962.
6. Hearth to Nicks, "Proposed Industry Studies on Voyager in FY63," 19 Nov. 1962.
7. Forrest Hogg to Hearth, 22 Jan. 1963; E. F. Wilcomb to Hearth, 23 Jan. 1963; George N.
Mangurian to Hearth, 31 Jan. 1963; R. L. Winters to Hearth, 28 Jan. 1963; Robert W. Menzel to
Hearth, 11 Feb. 1963; and Hearth, "OSS Review—January 17, 1963 Advanced Programs Status
Report," 17 Jan. 1963.
8. Hearth, "OSS Review," 17 Jan. 1963; and Nicks to Homer E. Newell, Jr., "Proposed Industry
Studies on Voyager," 30 Jan. 1963.
9. Hearth, "Presentation for Administrator's Review-9 Feb. 63," n.d.
10. Nicks to Newell, "Proposed Industry Studies on Voyager," 30 Jan. 1963.
11. Carl M. Grey, "Request for Proposal No. 10-929, Voyager Design Studies," memo, 5 Mar. 1963,
with encl.
12. Ibid. The schedule and process for evaluating the proposals is outlined in Hearth, "Industry
Voyager Studies," memo, 6 Mar. 1963; Hearth to Grey, "Method for Technical Evaluation of
Proposals in Response to RFP No. 10-929," 12 Mar. 1963; NASA, "NASA Simplifies Names of
Saturn Launch Vehicles," news release 63-26, 7 Feb. 1963; and General Electric Co., Missile and
Space Div., Valley Forge Space Technology Center, "Voyager Design Study," vol. 1, "Design
Summary," doc. 63513801, 15 Oct. 1963, p. 1-1 (N65-32171).
13. Grey, "Request for Proposal Number 10-929, Voyager Design Studies."
14. Hearth to Grey, "Selection of Contractors for Voyager Studies," 5 Apr. 1963; Grey to Hearth,
"Technical Evaluation of Proposals Received in Response to RFP No. 10-929," 4 Apr. 1963;
Hearth, note of conversation with Grey and R. Wallace Lord, 4 April 1963; and Hearth and Andrew
Edwards, Jr., to Grey, "Technical Evaluation of Proposals Received in Response to RFP No.
10-929," 2 Apr. 1963.
15. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1964 NASA Authorization, hearings before Sub-
committee on Space Sciences and Advanced Research and Technology, 88th Cong., 1st sess.
(henceforth 88/1), pt. 3(a), Mar.-May 1963, pp. 1620-22; and "Voyager—A $700 Million Pro-
gram," Space Daily, 13 Mar. 1963.
16. Charles A. Taylor to Hearth, 7 May 1963.
17. Hearth to William P. Neacy, 28 June 1963; and Hearth to Taylor, 28 June 1963.
18. Hearth to Nicks, "FY Funding for Voyager," 26 June 1963.
19. Bauer and Meyer, "NASA Planning and Decision Making," 1: I11-4 to III-5.
20. Ibid., pp. III-5 to III-6.
21. Lewis D. Kaplan, Guido Munch, and Hyron Spinrad, "An Analysis of the Spectrum of Mars,"
497
NOTES TO PAGES 93-101
Astrophysical Journal 139 (1 Jan. 1964): 1-15; and Alvin Seiff and David E. Reese, Jr., "Defining
Mars' Atmosphere—A Goal for the Early Missions,"Astronautics & Aeronautics 3 (Feb. 1965):
16-21.
22. Nicks to Newell, "Changes to AVCO and GE Voyager Studies," 9 Aug. 1963; and Senate Commit-
tee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1965, hearings, 88/2,
pt. 1, Scientific and Technical Programs, 4 Mar. 1964, pp. 131-33.
23. Nicks, "Planetary Program," in NASA, "Briefing for the Administrator on Possible Expansion of
Lunar and Planetary Programs," 2 Dec. 1963; Nicks to Milton Rosen,"Centaur Success," 29 Nov.
1963; Newell to William H. Pickering, TWX, 19 Dec. 1963; and Urner Liddel to Chairman, Space
Sciences Steering Committee, "Mars 1966 Mission," 31 Dec. 1963.
24. Hearth to Nicks, "JPL's Plan to Suspend Their Voyager Study," 8 Aug. 1963.
25. Ibid.
26. Hearth, "Mariner Plan and Voyager Concepts," in NASA, "Briefing for the Administrator on
Possible Expansion of Lunar and Planetary Programs," 2 Dec. 1963, pp. 34-36.
27. GE Missile and Space Div., "Design Summary," p. 2-1.
28. Ibid., pp. 5-9 to 5-15; and AVCO Corp., Research and Advanced Development Div., "Voyager
Design Studies," vol. 1, "Summary," 15 Oct. 1963, pp. 67-74.
29. Hearth, "Mariner Plan and Voyager Concepts," p. 41.
30. Hearth, "OSSA Review—February 24, 1964: Advanced Studies Status Report," n.d.; and Liddel,
"OSSA Review, February 24, 1964, Mars 1966 Mission," n.d.
31. Nicks to Liddel et al., "Line Assignments for Mariner 66 Mission Definition," 6 Jan. 1964.
32. Seiff, "Call from Mr. Donald Easter, Office of Lunar and Planetary Programs, NASA Headquar-
ters to Set Meeting for Potential 1966 Mars Mission Experimenters," telephone memo, 7 Jan. 1964;
Liddel, "OSSA Review, January 23, 1964, Mariner 66 Mission Definition," n.d.; Seiff, "Call by Mr.
John Dimeff and Writer to Mr. Joseph Koukol, Chief, Communication System Development
Branch, JPL, concerning Capsule to Bus Communication System for 1966 Mars Mission," tele-
phone memo, 5 Feb. 1964; Liddel to Donald P. Burcham, TWX, 20 Feb. 1964; Liddel, "OSSA
Review, February 24, 1964, Mars 1966 Mission," n.d.; and Nicks to Newell, "JPL Manpower
Requirements," 13 March 1964.
33. NASA, "NASA Statement on Appropriation Bill," news release 64-221, ca. 30 Aug. 1964. For a
general discussion of NASA budgets from 1964 to 1969, see NASA, Preliminary History of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration during the Administration of President Lyndon
B. Johnson, November 1963-January 1969 (Washington, 1969).
34. Hearth to Nicks, "Mariner Missions to Mars in 1969," 18 Mar. 1964.
35. Ibid.; Hearth to Nicks, "Call from Dr. Newell Relative to Mariner'64 Occultation Experiment," I 1
May 1964; and Nicks to Chairman, Space Sciences Steering Committee, "Mars Atmosphere
Experiment for Mariner '64," 5 June 1964, with encl.
36. Hearth to Nicks, "Mariner Missions to Mars in 1969."
37. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Investigation of Project Ranger, hearings before
Subcommittee on NASA Oversight, 88/2, April-May 1964, pp. 211-46. See also R. Cargill Hall,
Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210 (Washington, 1977), pp. 240-55.
38. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., to NASA Management Committee, "Outline for Discussion—Probable
Contributing Factors to Project Schedule Slippage," 17 June 1964.
39. For the story of Mariner-Mars 69, consult: Donald P. Burcham, "Listing of Voyager Important
Documents & Meetings Relative to Project Direction," 14 Dec. 1964, rev. 14 March 1967 and Oct.
1967; Newell to Pickering, 7 Aug. 1964; Newell to Pickering, TWX, 9 Sept. 1964; Newell to
Seamans, "Voyager Program and the Fiscal Year 1966 Budget," 25 Sept. 1965; Hearth, "Discussion
of Planetary Programs with the Associate Administrator, September 23,1964," memo for record, 30
Sept. 1964; Hearth, "Current Actions and Guidelines on the Post-1964 Mars Program," memo for
record, 13 Oct. 1964; Nicks to Alvin R. Luedecke, 19 Oct. 1964; Hearth, "OSSA Review of
November 3, 1964: Mariner Mars 69," 5 Nov. 1964; Newell to Pickering, 7 Jan. 1965; Lockheed
Missiles 8c Space Co., "Final Report, Mariner Mars 1969 Orbiter Study Contract No. JPL 950877,"
report M-29-64-1, 4Oct. 1964 (N65-21458); JPL, "Mariner Mars 1969 Orbiter Technical Feasibility
Study," EPD-250, 16 Nov. 1964 (N65-27875); and JPL, "Mariner Mars 1969 Lander Technical
Feasibility Study," EPD-261, 28 Dec. 1964.
40. Seamans to Donald F. Hornig, 14 Dec. 1964; and James O. Spriggs to Newell, "Voyager 1969," 7
Dec. 1964.
41. Hearth to Nicks, "Proposed Headquarters Organization for Voyager," 14 Dec. 1964; Hearth to
Pickering, TWX, I Jan. 1965; Newell to Pickering, 7 Jan. 1965; and Nicks to staff, "SL Organiza-
tion" 29 Jan. 1965.

498
 NOTES TO PAGES 101-105
42. NASA, "NASA Asks Proposals on Mars Voyager Design Definition," news release 65-15, 15 Jan.
1965.
43. Cortright to Pickering, TWX, I Jan. 1965; Hearth, "Mr. Hilburn's Suggestion Relative to Submis-
sion by Voyager Phase IA Proposers of Fully Expected Contracts," memo for record, 8 Jan. 1965;
George J. Vecchietti to Seamans, "Voyager Procurement Plan," 12 Jan. 1965; Cortright to Picker-
ing, TWX, 13 Jan. 1965; Hearth, "Status of Voyager RFP," memo, 25 Jan. 1965; Newell to Paul
Ross, 28 Jan. 1965; Earl D. Hilburn to Newell, "Voyager Procurement Plan," 8 Feb. 1965; Hearth
to Carl Schreiber, "Contractor Performance Information on Voyager Proposers," 16 Feb. 1965;
Hearth to Nicks, "Status of Voyager Proposals and Evaluation," 24 Feb. 1965; Hearth to C. W.
Cole, 10 Mar. 1965; NASA, "NASA Selects Three Firms for Voyager Design," news release 65-135,
22 Apr. 1965; and Hilburn to Newell, "Fixed-Price Contract for Phase IA of the Procurement of a
Voyager Spacecraft System by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory," 26 Apr. 1965.
44. William J. Normyle, "Space Sciences Receive Budget Reprieve," Aviation Week & Space Technol-
ogy 82 (18 Jan. 1965): 23-24; NASA, "Background Material and NASA FY 1966 Budget Briefing, 23
January 1965," news release, 25 Jan. 1965; John W. Finney, "99.7 Billion Budget Puts Emphasis on
Broader Aid for Schools and Welfare," New York Times, 26 Jan. 1965; "Still in the Space Race,"
New York Times, 30 Jan. 1965; George C. Wilson, "Johnson Maps Strong Aerospace Efforts,"
Aviation Week & Space Technology 82 (1 Feb. 1966): 16-18; and Robert Hotz, "The Aerospace
Budget," Aviation Week & Space Technology 82 (1 Feb. 1965): 11.
45. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1966 NASA Authorization, hearings, 89/1, pt. 1,
Feb. and Apr. 1965, pp. 43-44, 278, and pt. 2, Mar. 1965, p. 947; and House Committee on Science
and Astronautics, 1966 NASA Authorization, hearings before Subcommittee on Space Science and
Applications, 89/1, pt. 3, Mar. 1965, pp. 154-55.
46. Arvydas J. Kliore et al., "The Mariner 4 Occultation Experiment," Astronautics & Aeronautics 3
(July 1965): 72-80.
47. Nicks to Newell, "Voyager Capsule Coordination," 23 Mar. 1965; Newell to Pickering, 31 Mar.
1965; Newell to Floyd L. Thompson, "Voyager Capsule Coordination Group," 7 Apr. 1965;
Newell to Wernher von Braun, "Meeting on Martian Capsule Technology," 28 Apr. 1965; and
Hearth, "Meeting on Martian Capsule Technology, May 11, 1965," memo, 30 Apr. 1965.
48. Newell, "Establishment of the Voyager Capsule Advisory Group," memo, 14 July 1965.
49. Robert Lindsey, "Mars Atmospheric Probe Proposed," Missiles and Rockets 16 (8 Feb. 1965): 13;
Rex Pay, "Experts at Odds over Mars Goals," Missiles and Rockets 16 (22 Feb. 1965): 39; Michael
Yaffe, "Martian Atmosphere Experiment Urged for 1969 Voyager Vehicle," Aviation Week it
Space Technology 82 (8 Feb. 1965): 61-62; Temple W. Neumann, "The Automated Biological
Laboratory," in George W. Morgenthaler and Robert G. Morra, eds., Unmanned Exploration of
the Solar System, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 19 (North Hollywood: American
Astronautical Society, 1965), pp. 237-51; and Seiff and Reese, "Defining Mars' Atmosphere—A
Goal for the Early Missions," pp. 16-20.
50. Bruce C. Murray, 'A Martian Horror Story: Requirements vs. Capabilities for the Photographic
Exploration of Mars," in Morgenthaler and Morra, Unmanned Exploration of the Solar System,
pp. 153-73. The volume contains several other articles pertaining to Mars exploration. The Cal
Tech-JPL Planetary Exploration Study Group studied the Mars exploration program 1964-1965
in an effort to influence NASA policy. A collection of documents is available as "B. C. Murray-
NASA-CIT Voyager Dialogue, 1964-1965," JPLHF 3-481.
51. Pay, "Experts at Odds over Mars Goals;" and Irving Stone, "Mariner Data May Limit Voyager
Payload," Aviation Week & Space Technology 83 (2 Aug. 1965): 55, 57, 60.
52. John E. Naugle to Newell, Nicks, and Hearth, "Interim Report of the Voyager Capsule Advisory
Group," 20 Aug. 1965; and Paul Tarver, memo, "Summary Minutes of Meeting No. 1," 27 July
1965.
53. Newell to Pickering, 10 Sept. 1965; and Hearth, "Meeting with Dr. Seamans, Mr. Hilburn, Mr.
Rieke on September 3, 1965," memo for record, 14 Sept. 1965.
54. NASA, "NASA Considers Saturn V for Voyager Program," news release 65-328, 14 Oct. 1965;
"Major Reorganization Upcoming in Voyager Program," Missile/Space Daily 15 (1 Oct. 1965):
151-52; Hal Taylor, "Voyager Program Facing Reorganization," Missiles and Rockets 17 (4 Oct.
1965): 14; Howard Simons, "NASA Weighs Major Changes in Voyager's Mission to Mars,"
Washington Post, 9 Oct. 1965; and Seamans to Newell, 8 Oct. 1965.
55. Donald E. Fink, "NASA Reorients Lunar, Planet Missions," Aviation Week & Space Technology
83 (27 Dec. 1965): 20; Taylor, "Seamans Crystallizes Voyager Plans," Missiles & Rockets 17 (25 Oct.
1965): 17; Fink, "NASA Revamping Voyager Development," Aviation Week & Space Technology
83 (1 Nov. 1965): 20; Stone, "Atmosphere Data to Alter Voyager Design," Aviation Week & Space

499
NOTES TO PAGES 105-113
Technology 83 (22 Nov. 1965): 66-67,69; "War to Limit NASA Budget, Teague Says," Houston
Post, 30 Aug. 1965; Hearth, — Revisions to Planetary Program (Discussions with NASA)," 17 Dec.
1965; and Nicks, "Discussion with Mr. Fink of 'Aviation Week,' on Oct. 7,1965," memo for record,
14 Oct. 1965.
56. General Electric, Missile and Spacecraft Div., Spacecraft Dept., "Voyager Spacecraft System Study
(Phase I—Titan IIIC Launch Vehicle), Final Report," vol. 1, "Summary," doc. 64SD933, 7 Aug.
1964 (N65-24896); and General Electric Co., "Voyager Spacecraft System Study (Phase II, Saturn V
Launch Vehicle), Final Report," vol. 1, "Summary," doc. 64SD4376, 9 Dec. 1964 (N66-15824).
57. Newell interview by Edward C. Ezell, I I Jan. 1978; C.ortright to Seamans, "Launch Vehicles for
Voyager," I 1 Jan. 1965; and V. L. Johnson to Rosen, "Proposed Statement on Launch Vehicle for
Voyager," 21 Jan. 1965.
58. Hearth, "Presentation for Administrator's Review," 9 Feb. 1965; and "Saturn V May Boost Two
Voyagers," Missiles and Rockets 17 (18 Oct. 1965): 15.
59. Seamans to E. C. Welsh, 2 Dec. 1965.
60. Newell interview, I1 Jan. 1978.
61. Bauer and Meyer, "NASA Planning and Decision Making," vol. 1, pp.III-11 to 11I-12.
62. Ibid., p. III-14. See also Burcham, "Voyager Notes," 23 Jan. 1966, JPL History File (JPLHF) 3-270,
JPL Library, for detailed JPL comments on changes in the Voyager project.
63. NASA, "NASA Defers Voyager: Schedules Three Mariners," news release 65-389,22 Dec. 1965; JPL
Off. of Public Information, "NASA Defers Voyager; Schedules Three New Mariners," 22 Dec.
1965, JPLHF 3-165, JPL Library; and Newell to Luedecke, TWX, 22 Dec. 1965.
64. Fink, "Fund Bite Halts Voyager Bus Work: Lander Capsule Design to Continue," Aviation: Week
& Space Technology 84 (3 Jan. 1966): 24; and Hearth, "Voyager Plans," memo for record, 14 Jan.
1966.
65. Bauer and Meyer, "NASA Planning and Decision Making," vol. 1, p. III-I6; Newell interview, 11
Jan. 1978; James E. Webb to Clinton P. Anderson, 2 May 1966; and House Committee on Science
and Astronautics, 1967 NASA Authorization, hearings before Subcommittee on Space Science and
Applications, 89/2, pt. 3, Feb.-Mar. 1966, pp. 22-23, 223-24.
66. Bauer and Meyer, "NASA Planning and Decision Making," vol. 1, pp. III-I6 to 111-17; [Hearth],
"Webb Review, Planetary Program." 14 Feb. 1966; and [Hearth], "Answers to Nasty Questions,
Planetary Programs," 15 Feb. 1966.
67. JPL, "Voyager Presentation to Executive Council," 7 July 1966; JPL, "Voyager Project Study—
Backup Data," 7 July 1966; JPL, "Voyager Project Study—Backup Data," 12 July 1966; JPL,
"Voyager Mars Mission Science Models," 19 July 1966; JPL, "Voyager Project Study Presentation
to NASA—Backup Data," 21 July 1966; JPL, "Voyager Project Study—Presentation to NASA," 14
Sept. 1966; and Newell to Pickering, 5 Oct. 1966.
68. JPL, "Voyager Project Study—Presentation to NASA (Seamans)," 12 Oct. 1966; and Burcham,
"Listing of Voyager Important Documents & Meetings Relative to Project Direction," 14 Dec.
1966, and revisions.
69. [Hearth] "Voyager Project Management Chronology," 9 June 1967.
70. Hearth, "Chronology of Voyager Management Decisions," memo for record, 1 1 Jan. 1967; Hearth,
"Chronology of Voyager Management," memo for record, 12 Jan. 1967; Hearth to David G. Stone
and Burcham, TWX, 13 Jan. 1967; NASA, "Memorandum of Agreement between OSSA and
OMSF on the Voyager Project," 9 June 1967; and Newell to Webb and Seamans, "Voyager
Management Decisions," 21 Feb. 1967.
71. Newell to Webb and Seamans, "Voyager Management Decisions"; and NASA, "NASA Organizes
Management for Voyager Project," news release 67-40, 28 Feb. 1967.
72. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1968 NASA Authorization, hearings before Sub-
committee on Space Science and Applications, 90/1, pt. 3, Mar.-Apr. 1967, pp. 539-40; and Bauer
and Meyer, "NASA Planning and Decision Making," vol. 1, p. III-27. The lengthy discussions of
the impact of managing Voyager on the size of the JPL staff are documented in JPL, "File on
Manpower-Management Negotiations with OSSA, Oct.-Dec. 1966," n.d., JPLHF 3-271, JPL
Library.
73. Bauer and Meyers, "NASA Planning and Decision Making," vol. 1, p. I11-27.
74. William Hines, "Apollo Fire May Delay Mars Probe till 1979," Washington Evening Star, 3 Feb.
1967• See also Jane Van Nim men and Leonard C. Bruno with Robert L. Rosholt, NASA Historical
Data Book, 1958-1968, vol. 1, NASA Resources, NASA SP-4012 (Washington. 1976), p. 118.
75. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1968,
hearings, 90/1, pt. 1, Apr. 1967, p. 30.
76. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1968 NASA Authorization, hearings before the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications, 90/1, pt. 3, Mar.-Apr. 1967, p. 1061.
500
 NOTES TO PAGES 114-123
77. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1968,
90/1, rpt. 353, 23 June 1967, p. 35.
78. The fate of the NASA budget authorization for fiscal 1968 can be followed in the Congressional
Record; NASA, "Chronological History, Fiscal Year 1968 Budget Submission," 8 Nov. 1967; and
the press. For the press, see "Budget Looks to Era beyond Moon-Landing," Chicago Tribune, 25
Jan. 1967; "Mars Can Wait," Chicago Tribune, 5 Mar. 1967; Philip H. Abelson, "The Future Space
Program," Science 155 (17 Mar. 1967): 1367; "Space Budget Request Kept Nearly Intact by House
Unit, but It Faces Tougher Tests," Wall Street Journal, 17 May 1967; "Space Agency's Budget
Faces House Challenges," Washington Evening Star, 22 June 1967; J. V. Reistrup, "House NASA
Budget Cut Doubled by Senate Group," Washington Post, 24 June 1967; Hines, "NASA Meets the
Budget Ax," Sunday Star, 25 June 1967; Jerry Kluttz, "NASA Budget Cut $23 Million," Washing-
ton Post, 27 June 1967; "House and Senate Cut NASA Request," New York Times, 29 June 1967;
"House and Senate Approve Separate Space Budgets," Wall Street Journal, 29 June 1967; "Space
Funds Cut Deeply by House, Senate," Aviation Week & Space Technology 87 (3 July 1967): 28;
Luther J. Carter, "Space Budget: Congress Is in a Critical, Cutting Mood," Science 157 (14 July
1967): 170-73; and Edward C. Welsh, "Selling the Space Program," Aviation Week & Space
Technology 87 (24 July 1967): 11.
79. Hotz, "The Turbulent Summer," Aviation Week & Space Technology 87 (31 July 1967): 11; and
David Tarr, "Civil Rights," in Congressional Quarterly Service, Congress and the Nation, vol. 2,
1965-1968 (Washington, 1969), pp. 354-55.
80. Senate Committee on Appropriations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Appro-
priations for Fiscal Year 1968, hearings before the Subcommittee, 90/1, [26 July] 1967, pp. 73-77;
Katherine Johnsen, "Webb Refuses to Choose Program for Cuts," Aviation Week it Space Tech-
nology 87 (31 July 1967): 20; Louis Harris, "Space Programs Losing Support," Washington Post,
31 July 1967; and " 'Our Priorities Are out of Balance,' " Washington Post, 31 July 1967.
81. MSC contracting officer to prospective contractors, "Request for Proposal No. BG721-28-7-528P
... Planetary Surface Sample Return Probe Study for Manned Mars/Venus Reconnaissance/Re-
trieval Missions," 3 Aug. 1967.
82. L. R. Magnolia and S. A. Gogin compiled Manned Mars Missions: A Bibliography, research
bibliography 35, for TR W Space Technology Laboratories (Redondo Beach, Calif., 1965), contain-
ing 348 entries. Several hundred more recent references can be obtained through NASA's RECON
computerized information retrieval system. See also Robert B. Merrifield, "A Historical Note on
the Genesis of Manned Interplanetary Flight," paper XVE 3, Joint National Meeting, American
Astronautical Society (15th Annual) and Operations Research Society (35th National), 17-20 June
1969.
83. Normyle, "Priority Shift Blocks Space Plans," Aviation Week & Space Technology 87 (11 Sept.
1967): 27.
84. NASA Public Affairs Off., to field centers, TWX, 24 Aug. 1967; Hotz, "New Era for NASA,"
Aviation Week & Space Technology 87 (7 Aug. 1967): 17; Carter, "Space: 1971 Mariner Mission
Knifed by Budget Cutters," Science 157 (11 Aug. 1967): 658-60; "Fund Cuts Redirect Space Plans,"
Aviation Week & Space Technology 87 (21 Aug. 1967): 23; "NASA Budget Cut $500 Million by
House," Washington Post, 23 Aug. 1967; "House Votes Fund for Space Agency," New York
Times, 23 Aug. 1967; and "White House Stand Blocks NASA Budget Restoration," Aviation Week
& Space Technology 87 (28 Aug. 1967): 32.
85. Thomas O'Toole, "Some of Cut Funds Regained by NASA," Washington Post, 4 Oct. 1967;
Reistrup, "Senate Boosts NASA Funds," Washington Post, 7 Oct. 1967; and Albert Sehlstedt, Jr.,
"Conferees Vote 4.5 Billion to NASA, None for Voyager," Baltimore Sun, 26 Oct. 1967.
86. "People," Electronics 40 (4 Sept. 1967): 8, 10.

Chapter 5
1. Unless otherwise noted, this section is based on James F. McNulty, "The Definingof Mars Project
Viking," unpublished typescript [ca. 1976], pp. 27 ff.
2. Ibid., p. 32.
3. Leonard Roberts, "Entry into Planetary Atmospheres," Astronautics & Aeronautics 2 (Oct. 1964):
22-29. Also see Roberts, "Probe and Lander Design Problems," Proceedings of the Conference on
the Exploration of Mars and Venus, August 23-27,1965, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Engineer-
ing Extension Series Circular 5 (Blacksburg, Va., I965), pp. xvi-I to xvi-10. For background
information on studies related to Mars missions, see the following Langley Working Papers
(LWP): Lawrence D. Guy, "Tension-Shell Configurations for Low-Density Entry Vehicles,"
501
NOTES TO PAGES 123-125
LWP-51, 4 Nov. 1964; Perry A. Newman, "Tables of Thermodynamic Properties of the Six
Proposed Mars Atmospheres, VM-1 to 6," LWP-149, 14 Sept. 1965; William M. Adams, Jr., and J.
W. Young, "Study of an Unmanned Mars Mission Beginning with Separation of a Lander
Capsule from a Fly-by Bus and Ending Near the Surface of Mars," LWP-205, 6 May 1966; Richard
N. Green and John F. Newcomb, "A Parametric Analysis of Orbital Geometry for Mars Voyager,"
LWP-248, 22 July 1966; Richard J. Bendura and Charles H. Whitlock, "A Dispersion and Motion
Analysis of the Balloon Launched Phase of the Planetary Entry Parachute Project," LWP-290, I
Oct. 1966; L. D. Guy and M. S. Anderson, "Technology Programs in Supersonic Decelerators,"
LWP-307. Oct. 1966; staff, Flight Reentry Programs Off., Langley Research Ctr., "Guidelines for
Phase B LRC Voyager Capsule Bus Mission Mode Study," LWP-366, 15 Feb. 1967; Vernon L.
Alley, Jr., and Raye C. Mathis, "An Analysis and Computing Program for Three-body Parachute
Deployment Dynamics with Specific Applications to the PEPP (Balloon) Program," LWP-398, 20
April 1967; J. L. Humble and W. W. Fernald, "Voyager/Mars Aerodynamic Decelerator Trajecto-
ries," LWP-401, 25 April 1967; and Langley Research Ctr. Inhouse Study Team, "Voyager Capsule
Bus System Baseline and Mission Mode Description-1973 Mission on Saturn V," LWP-478, 28
Sept. 1967.
4. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 44-47, describes the details of the statement of work.
5. "Voyager Components Must Withstand 293F," Aviation Week & Space Technology 82 (26 April
1965): 100; Hal Taylor, "J PL. to Manage Voyager Lander," Missiles and Rockets 16 (3 May 1965):
14; and "AVCO Will Perform Two Separate Studies ...," Astronautics & Aeronautics 3 (June
1965):108. Also see AVCO, Research and Development Div., "Mars Probe Final Oral Presentation
to Langley Research Center,. . . Contract No. NAS1-5224," 1 March 1966, Viking Project Off. Files
(VPOF). Unless otherwise noted, letters, memos, telexes, and related documents are from VPOF or
Code SL cbron. files.
6. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," p. 75.
7. Parachute deployments at high speeds were tested using test vehicles launched by balloons and
Honest John-Nike rockets. The full-scale tests lifted a 4.6-meter simulated entry body to about
40 000 meters, the point at which Earth's atmosphere approached the 10-millibar pressure of Mars.
At that altitude, the shell would be released. Twelve small rockets would accelerate it to mach 1.2.
The 26-meter test chute would then be deployed and, with an instrument package, would subse-
quently be separated from the shell. John C. McFall of Langley was NASA project manager for the
Planetary Entry Parachute Project. The balloons were launched by the Air Force Cambridge
Research Laboratory at the balloon launch facility, Holloman Air Force Base, N. Mex., and Walker
Air Force Base, N. Mex. The balloons were fabricated by G. T. Schjeldahl Co., Northfield, Minn.
Overall cost of the project was far below that projected for similar tests using the Little Joe 11
rocket. Honest John-Nikes were launched at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
Consult the following documents: H. Lee Dickinson to Richard T. Mittauer, "AFCRL to Launch
Largest High Altitude Balloon Made for NASA's Voyager Program," 14 Apr. 1966; NASA, "NASA
to Explore Use of Parachutes for Mars Landing," news release 66-90, 27 Apr. 1966; "Launch of
Huge Balloon Delayed," Washington Evening Star, 22 June 1966; Walter Sullivan, "Giant
Balloon Is Lofted in Test for Mars Landing," New York Times, 19 July 1966; NASA, "Martin to
Build Planetary Entry Parachute Units," news release 66-229,25 Aug. 1966; NASA, "First Plane-
tary Parachute Test Planned Aug. 29," news release 66-225, 26 Aug. 1966; NASA, "Parachute Test
in New Mexico Complete Success," news release 66-241, Sept. 1966; NASA Off. of Advanced
Research and Technology (DART), "Post-Launch Preliminary Report for Small Flight Project,
... Planetary Entry Parachutes," 7 Sept., 18 Nov., and 21 Nov. 1966; "Chuting for Mars,"
Newsweek 68 (12 Sept. 1966): 59; NASA, "Parachute Entry Experiment Fails in WSMR Launch
[rocket flight]," news release 66-292, 10 Nov. 1966; NASA, "Soft-Lander Parachute Testa Success,"
news release 67-120, 10 May 1967; NASA, "Parachute Tests Reach Halfway Point," news release
67-162, 20 June 1967; NASA, "Large Balloon to Launch NASA Parachute Test," news release
67-170, 6 July 1967; and "Voyager Parachute Test Completed at White Sands," Space Business
Daily, 23 Oct. 1967.
8. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," p. 79.
9. Homer E. Newell, Jr., to William Pickering, 14 July 1965.
10. Donald P. Burcham to Roberts, 29 June 1965.
11. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 80-82.
12. Floyd L. Thompson to R. W. May, Jr., "Redirection of NASA Contract NAS 1-5224, 'Comparative
Studies of Conceptual Design and Qualification Procedures for a Mars Probe/Lander,' " 18 Nov.
1965.
13. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 87-88; "Impact of Voyager upon the OART Program,"
ca. 22 Oct. 1965; and Donald E. Fink, "Fund Bite Halts Voyager Bus Work; Lander Capsule Design
502
 NOTES TO PAGES 125-139
to Continue," Aviation Week & Space Technology 84 (3 Jan. 1966): 24.
14. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 96-97; and AVCO, "Mars Probe Final Oral Presenta-
tion," 1 Mar. 1966.
15. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 114-16; and McNulty, Daniel B. Snow, and Roberts,
"Modal and Conceptual Design Comparisons for the Voyager Capsule," Langley Working
Paper-326, 2 Dec. 1966.
16. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 118-26; and Donald P. Hearth, "Chronology of Voyager
Management Activities and Decisions since September 1966," memo for record, 7 Feb. 1967.
17. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 137-38; [NASA], "Biographical Data—James S. Martin,
Jr.," n.d.; and Bruce K. Byers, Destination Moon: A History of the Lunar Orbiter Program, NASA
TMX-3487 (Washington, 1977), pp. 51, 208-10.
18. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 137-40.
19. McNulty, "Minutes of the Twenty-fifth Meeting of the Planetary Missions Technology Steering
Committee, 1st Session, September 6,1967-... [and] 2nd Session, September 11, 1967," n.d.; Oran
W. Nicks to Charles J. Donlan, TWX, 29 Aug. 1967; Nicks to H. Julian Allen, 31 Aug. 1967; and
Nicks to Mac C. Adams, "Assistance from NASA Centers in Planning a Planetary Program," 1
Sept. 1967.
20. Eugene S. Love to Clifford H. Nelson, "Comments on In-House Feasibility Study Items in
Hand-out of 8/31/67 relating to near Planet Exploration," I Sept. 1967.
21. Ibid.
22. Hearth, "Minutes, Voyager Management Committee, September 7, 1967," [8 Sept. 1967].
23. McNulty, "Minutes of the Twenty-fifth Meeting"; and Clifford H. Nelson, "In-House FeasibiliiN
Studies—Planetary Exploration Program," rev, 8 Sept. 1967. Also see Anthony J. Calio to R. J.
Parks, E. C. Draley, D. G. Newby, and Roberts, TWX, I 1 Sept. 1967.
24. James S. Martin, Jr., to Donlan, "OSSA Proposed Planetary Programs," 5 Oct. 1967; and "Plane-
tary Program Extension FY 1968-1969 Program Issues and Options," 9 Oct. 1967.
25. "Planetary Program Extension," 9 Oct. 1967.
26. Ibid.; Hearth to Nicks, "Work Assignments," 180ct. 1967; Nicks to Thompson and Martin, TWX,
19 Oct. 1967; Eugene Love to Martin, "Comments on Role of Planetary Missions Technology
Steering Committee," 19 Oct. 1967; Martin, "Planetary Projects—Implementation Information,"
memo, 30 Oct. 1967, with encl., C. W. McKee and R. N. Parker, "Proposed Project Organization
and Procurement Implementation Plans for Selected Planetary Programs," 25 Oct. 1967; Hearth to
Earle J. Sample and Parks, TWX, 30 Oct. 1967; and Nicks to Webb, "Planetary Program Discus-
sion with the Congress," 7 Nov. 1967.
27. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, NASA's Proposed Operating Plan for
Fiscal Year 1968, hearing, 90th Cong., 1st less. (henceforth 90/1), 8 Nov. 1967, p. 16; and Luther J.
Carter, "Planetary Exploration: How to Get by the Budget-Cutters," Science 157 (24 Nov. 1967):
1025-28.
28. Carter, "Planetary Exploration"; William J. Normyle, "NASA Pushes Planetary Program,"
Aviation Week & Space Technology 87 (27 Nov. 1967): 16-17: and Normyle, "Planetary Program
Support Seen Lacking," Aviation Week it Space Technology 87 (11 Dec. 1967): 32-33.
29. "NASA FY 1969 Budget Reclama of BOB Tentative Allowance," 30 Nov. 1967; and [Hearth],
"Reclama to FY 1969 Bureau of the Budget Mark," 1 Dec. 1967.
30. "Planetary Exploration Program: Collection of Comments, Policy Statements, etc. (Excerpts from
NASA Press Conf. on FY69 Budget, Jan. 29, 1968)," n.d.
31. Ibid.; and Newell to Hugh Odishaw, 10 Mar. 1961.
32. Naugle to Donlan, TWX, 9 Feb. 1968.
33. McNulty, "Defining Project Viking," pp. 164-65; "Fourteen Bids in on New Mars Mission
Studies," Space Business Daily, 18 Mar. 1968; Martin, "Procurement Planning—Mars '73
Mission," memo, 13 Feb. 1968; Charles W. Cole to Martin, 17 Feb. 1968; McNulty, "Minutes of the
Twenty-eighth Meeting of the Planetary Missions Technology Steering Committee," 21 Feb. 1968;
A. J. Kullas to John Naugle, 12 Feb. 1968; Hearth to Naugle, "Letter from Martin Marietta
Corporation Dated February 12, 1968," 23 Feb. 1968; Martin to LOPO staff, "Mars'73 Mission—
Coordination Meetings with JPL," 27 Feb. 1968; Israel Taback, "Coordination Meeting with JPL
Personnel regarding Tasks Required for Defining the 1973 Mars Mission," memo for record, 4 Mar.
1968; William J. Boyer to Martin, "Analysis of Proposed Assignment of the Operations System for
the Mars'73 Project to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory," 19 Mar. 1968; E. B. Lightner, "Minutes of
Mars'73 Mission Planning Meeting, March 26, 1968," 27 Mar. 1968; Martin, "Oral Presentations
for Mars '73 Study Contracts," memo, 4 Apr. 1968; Martin to LOPO staff, "Mars 1973 Mission
Definition Report No. M73-101-0," 8 Apr. 1968, with encl.; Pickering to Donlan, 17 Apr. 1968;
503
NOTES TO PAGES 139-145
Langley Research Ctr., "Mars '73 Mission Status: Material Discussed with OSSA/SL on April 17.
1968," n.d.; and Martin, "Mars '73 Statement of Work," memo, 13 June 1968, with encl.
34. Pickering to Donlan, 17 April 1968.
35. Draley, "Langley Research Center Management Proposal for 1973 Mars Mission." memo, 18 Apr.
1968.
36. [Langley Research Ctr.], briefing charts, 20 Apr. 1968.
37. "NASA-LRC/JPL Management Agreement for Advanced Planetary Mission Technology Mars
Lander-Mission Study," Aug. 1968; Martin to Edgar M. Cortright, "Meeting with JPL
Representatives to Discuss Management Options for the Mars'73 Mission, May 21, 1968." 22 May
1968; Cortright to Draley, "Mars '73 Management," 21 May 1968; Langley Research Ctr.,
Announcement 29-68, "Change in Organization in the Office of Assistant Director for Flight
Projects," 7 Juae 1968; Martin to Draley, "Mars 73 Mission Design Steering Committee," 10 June
1968; and A. Gustaferro, "Minutes, Mars '73 Mission Design Steering Committee June 5th, 1968,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California," [I I June 1968].
38. "NASA Hopes to Remain in Orbit by Selling Congress on Mars, Venus, Mercury Probes," Wall
Street Journal, 26 Jan. 1968; NASA. "Background Material, NASA FY 1969 Budget Briefing,"
news release, 29 Jan. 1968.
39. Philip M. Boffey, "LBJ's New Budget: Another Tight Year for Research and Development,"
Science 159 (2 Feb. 1968):509; William Leavitt, "A Dreary Season for NASA," Air Force and Space
Digest 51 (Feb. 1968): 72-76; "Physicist Says Space Budgets Cuts 'Kill' Scientific Exploration,"
Neu York Times, 24 Apr. 1968; and Joel A. Strasser, "Tight Budget Spurs New Look at Low-Cost
Planetary Plans," Aerospace Technology 21 (6 May 1968): 22-25.
40. NASA Off. of Admin., Budget Operations Div., "Chronological History Fiscal Year 1969 Budget
Submission." 14 Oct. 1968; Carter, "Space Budget: Down 20 Percent in 1 Year—at Least," Science
160 (10 May 1968): 634; "President Limits NASA to $4.008 Billion Appropriation," Space Business
Daily, 20 May 1968; Jerry Kluttz, "NASA, Glamor Gone, Becomes Pet Target for Economy Cuts,"
Washington Post, 27 May 1968; Richard D. Lyons, "NASA Will Drop 1,600 Men and Cut Projects,"
New York Times, 9 Aug. 1968; John B. Campbell, "Is NASA Viable?" Space/ Astronautics 52 (July
1968): 45; Victor Cohn, "U.S. Science Is Feeling Budget Pinch," Washington Post, 4 Aug. 1968;
Neal Stanford, "Budget Cuts Abort U.S. Space Plans," Christian: Science Monitor, 12 Aug. 1968;
"War's Effect on U.S. Budget to Continue for Years after Peace, Humphrey Is Told," Wall Street
Journal, 14 Aug. 1968; and Executive Off. of the President, Bureau of the Budget, "Summer Review
of the 1969 Budget," Sept. 1968.
41. NASA. "NASA Interim Operating Plan," news release 68 -141, 8 Aug. 1968.
42. Hearth to Naugle, "Background on Titan Mars '73 for Congressional Hearings on the Interim
Operating Plan." [ca. Sept. 19681; Martin to Draley, "Mars 73 Mission and Related Items Discussed
during Telephone Conversation with Mr. Don Hearth on June 28, 1968," 28 June 1968; and
Martin. "FY69 Planetary Program Information," memo for record, 26 June 1968.
43. Harry H. Hess to Webb, 3 Nov. 1967; and Peter L. Smolders, Soviets in Space, trans. Marian Powell
(Guildford, London: Lutterworth Press, 1973), pp. 227-28.
44. Hess to Webb, 3 Nov. 1967, and 14 Dec. 1967. See Webb to Hess, undated letter not sent; Jim Long to
Nicks, 7 Feb. 1968; Nicks to Hearth, 12 Feb. !968; and Naugle to Webb, "Comments on Letters of
Dr. Hess from the Space Science Board (SSB) concerning NASA Programs," 16 Feb. 1968.
45. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Planetary Exploration 1968-1975:
Report of a Study by the Space Science Board, (Washington, 1968); "Space Science Board
Recommends Expanded Planetary Effort," Space Business Daily, 15 Aug. 1968; "Academy Renews
Its Stand against Manned Exploration," Space Business Daily, 16Aug. 1968; "Space Science Board
Emphasizes Mars Surface Studies," Space Business Daily, 19 Aug. 1968. More detailed comments
on relations between NASA and the scientific community are found in Raymond A. Bauer,
Richard F. Meyer, et al., "NASA Planning and Decision Making, Final Report," vol. 1, rpt.
X70-90256, Harvard Univ. Grad. School of Business Admin. [ca. 1970], pp. III-37 to III-39.
46. Webb to Norman F. Ramsey, 14 Jan. 1966. See "NASA Ad Hoc Science Advisory Committee
Report to the Administrator," 15 Aug. 1966, pp. 27-30, OSSA files, for a list of issues that Webb
asked Ramsey's committee to address itself to. For a general overview of the Lunar and Planetary
Missions Board's history see Barry Rutizer, "The Lunar and Planetary Missions Board,"
HHN-138, 30 Aug. 1976, NASA History Off. Archives.
47. "NASA Ad Hoc Science Advisory Committee Report," pp. 1-25.
48. For discussion of the reaction, see Rutizer, "Lunar and Planetary Missions Board," p. 12. See also
Newell, "Interim Response to the Report of the Ad Hoc Science Advisory Committee," 7 June
1967, OSSA files.

504
 NOTES TO PAGES 145-152

49. Rutizer, "Lunar and Planetary Missions Board," pp. 13-14.

50. Ibid., p. 16.
51. Ibid., p. 19 and note 72.
52. John W. Findlay to Newell, 11 Oct. 1967; Newell to Findlay, 24 Oct. 1967; and Findlay to Webb, 2
Nov. 1967.
53. Wolf Vishniac to Findlay, 7 Nov. 1967; Lester Lees to Findlay, 10 Nov. 1967; Gordon J. F.
MacDonald, 13 Nov. 1967; Findlay to Webb, 11 Dec. 1967; Webb to Findlay, n.d.; and Jesse L.
Greenstein to Findlay, 15 Dec. 1967, personal files of Findlay and OSSA files. See also Carter,
"Planetary Exploration: How to Get by the Budget-Gutters," p. 1026, for a summary of the
NASA-Mission Board disagreement. Carter's article in Science (note 27) reflects one disgruntled
member of the board.
54. A. Thomas Young to Martin, "Mars Panel Meeting Summary,"14 June 1968; and George C.
Pimentel to Martin, 5 June 1968, with encl.
55. Taback and Young to Martin, "Mars Panel Meeting, June 28,1968," 2 July 1968; Young to Martin,
"Report on Lunar and Planetary Missions Board Meeting," 19 July 1968; Young to G. C. Broome
and J. C. Moorman, "Candidate Objectives for Mars'73 Mission," 19 July 1968; Young to Martin,
"Report on Lunar and Planetary Missions Board Meeting, September 5 and 6,1968," 10 Sept. 1968;
Hearth to Naugle, "Solicitation to the Scientific Community for Participation in the Development
of Instruments for Mars Landers," 10 Sept. 1968; and Findlay to Newell, 17 Sept. 1968 and 11 Oct.
1968.
56. "Mars Panel Report," 5 Oct. 1968, with encl., Young, "Science Critique Meeting, October 3, 1968,"
memo for record, 18 Oct. 1968; and Young, "Lunar and Planetary Missions Board Meeting,
October 4-5, 1968," memo for record, 18 Oct. 1968. For discussion of the launch vehicle and the
lander decision, see Gustaferro, "Minutes of July 29, 1968, Briefing on Mars '73 Mission Planning
Status to Mr. Edgar M. Cortright," memo for record, 31 July 1968; Martin to R. N. Conway, "Mars
'73 Research and Development POP 68-2 Funding Requirements for OSSA," 13 Aug. 1968; G. W.
Brewer to Martin, "Request for SRT Support of a Study for Assessment of Technical and Cost
Impact of a Mars'73 Hard Lander," 20 Aug. 1968; C. F. Mohl, "Minutes of the 3d Orbiter Design
Team Meeting Held 29 August 1968," memo, 30 Aug. 1968; Gustaferro, "Minutes of August 29,
1968, Briefing on Titan Mars'73 Mission Planning Status to Mr. Edgar M. Cortright," memo for
record, 3 Sept. 1968; Cortright to Naugle, "Titan/Mars '73 FY 1969 Project Approval Document
(Code 84-840-815)," 7 Oct. 1968; M. G. Died, "Minutes of the 7th Orbiter Design Team Meeting
Held on 10 October 1968," memo, 11 Oct. 1968; and Hearth to Naugle. "Solicitation to the
Scientific Community for Participation in the Development of Instruments for Mars Landers," 10
Sept. 1968, with encl., "Solicitation for Participation in the Development of Instruments for Mars
Landers," draft, 3 Sept. 1968.
57. Boeing Co., "Study of Powered Spacecraft for Mars Missions," D2-140028-5, 2 vols., Sept. 1968,
68N34279; General Electric Co., Missile and Space Div., "Titan/Mars Hard Lander," 68SD7041, 2
vols., 6 Jan. 1969, 69N]9165-6; General Electric Co., Missile and Space Div., "Mars Hard Lander
Capsule Study," 68SD952-1-8, 4 vols., 31 July 1968, 68N35980-7; General Electric Co., Missile and
Space Div., "Final Report Direct Versus Orbital Entry for Mars Mission," 68SD4293, 3 vols., 1 Aug.
1968, privately funded rpt.; Hughes Aircraft Co., Space Systems Div., "Mars Spinning Support
Module Study," NASI-8638, contractor rpt. CR66732-1, CR66732-2, 2 vols., 31 Jan. 1969, 69NI9945-
6; Martin Co., "Study of Direct Versus Orbital Entry for Mars Missions," NASI-7976, 6 vols., Aug.
1968, 68N31831-6; McDonnell Douglas Corp., McDonnell Astronautics Co., "Soft Lander Mars
Lander Capsule Study (Envy from Orbit), Final Report" [prelim. draft], G346, 1 July 1968;
McDonnell Douglas Corp., McDonnell Astronautics Co., "Soft Lander," NASI-7977, 9 pts., Sept.
1968, 68N34050-8; Martin Co., "Study of a Soft Lander/Support Module for Mars Missions,"
NASI-7976, vols. 1-3, 7, Jan. 1969, 69N15600-2, 68N37340.
58. Young, "Titan Mars'73 Mission Mode Meetings Summary," memo for record, 14 Nov. 1968, with
encl., "Summary Titan Mars'73 Mission Mode Meeting, November 8-9,1968, at Langley Research
Center," n.d.: Langley Research Ctr., "Titan Mars '73 Mission Mode Briefing, November 7-8,
1968," 7 Nov. 1968; and W. I. Watson, "Viking Project Phase B Report," M63-110-0 [Circa Nov.
19681.
59. Young, "Titan Mars '73 Mission Mode Meetings Summary," 14 Nov. 1968.
60. Naugle interview by Ezell, 17 Apr. 1978. See also Hearth to Parks, TWX, 12 Nov. 1968; Naugle,
"Review of Titan Mars 73 Options," memo, 12 Nov. 1968; Naugle to Thomas O. Paine, "Repro-
gramming of FY 1969 Funds for Titan Mars 1973," 13 Nov. 1968; Hearth, memo, 18 Nov. 1968,
with encl., "Actions Required That Have Been Deferred Pending Resolution of FY70 Budget," 18
Nov. 1968; Martin to multiple addressees, TWX, "ASPO Review of the Draft Copy of the JPLTask

505
NOTES TO PAGES 152-168
Order Dated November 11, 1968," 25 Nov. 1968; Julian Scheer to Paine, 2 Dec. 1968; NASA,
"Scientific Payloads For Mars'73," news release 68-207,5 Dec. 1968; Naugle to Scheer, "Titan Mars
1973 Orbiter/Lander," 22 Nov. 1968; and Naugle, "Project Viking," 23 Dec. 1968.
61. Robert F. Allnutt to Joseph E. Karth, 4 Dec. 1968.
62. Bauer and Meyer, "NASA Planning and Decision Making," vol. I, p. III-45.
63. Allnutt to Karth, 4 Dec. 1968.
64. Langley Research Ctr, Announcement 60-68, "Establishment of Interim Viking Project Office," 6
Dec. 1968

Chapter 6
1. Allen E. Wolfe and Henry W. Norris, "The Viking Orbiter and Its Mariner Inheritance," in
Proceedings of the Twelfth Space Congress: Technology Today and Tomorrow (Cocoa Beach,
Fla., 1975), pp. 6-17 and 6-27.
2. The initial project is described in Jet Propulsion Laboratory, "Mariner Mars 1969 Orbiter Techni-
cal Feasibility Study," EPD-250, 16 Nov. 1964, N65-27875; and JPL, "Mariner Mars 1969 Lander
Technical Feasibility Study," EPD-261, 28 Dec. 1964. See also NASA, "NASA Defers Voyager:
Schedules Three New Mariners," news release 65-389,22 Dec. 1965; and Homer E. Newell to Alvin
R. Luedecke, TWX, 22 Dec. 1965.
3. JPL, Mariner Mars 1969 Final Project Report: Development, Design and Test, vol. 1, JPLTR32-
1460 (Pasadena, 1976), p. 199.
4. Ibid., pp. 7-8; and William R. Corliss, "A History of the Deep Space Network," NASA CR-15195,
Nov. 1976, p. 199.
5. JPL, Mariner Mars 1969 Final Project Report, 1: 9.
6. James H. Wilson, Two over Mars: Mariner V1 and Mariner V11, February to August 1969, NASA
EP-90 (Pasadena: JPL, 1971), pp. 11-12.
7. Ibid., p. 13; and JPL, Mariner Mars 1969 Final Project Report, 1: 12-13.
8. NASA, "Background Material NASA FY 1969 Budget Briefing," news release, 29 Jan. 1968; NASA,
"NASA Interim Operating Plan," news release 68-141, 8 Aug. 1968; and NASA Off. of Administra-
tion, Budget Operations Div., "Chronological History Fiscal Year 1969 Budget Submission," 14
Oct. 1968.
9. NASA, "JPL Building Mariners," news release 68-196,14 Nov. 1968.
10. Oran W. Nicks, "Applying Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter Techniques to Mars," paper, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics meeting, Washington, D.C., 5 Dec. 1968.
11. Robert A. Schmitz to A. Thomas Young, "Wave of Darkening," 20 May 1969, with encl., Schmitz,
"Martian Seasonal Darkening," 9 May 1969; James S. Martin, Jr., "Martian Wave of Darkening
Phenomena," memo, 27 May 1969; Duwayne M. Anderson to Martin, 4 June 1969; Melvin Calvin,
5 June 1969; Schmitz to Young, "Martian Wave of Darkening Phenomena relative to the Mars 1973
Mission," 31 July 1969; and Gerald A. Soffen, "Information on the Martian Wave of Darkening
Requested at June 10-11, 1970 Science Steering Group Meeting," memo, 26 June 1970.
12. Schmitz to Young, "Position of Martian Polar Caps during the Period January-August 1974," 26
Aug. 1969.
13. JPL, Mariner Mars 1971 Project Final Report: Project Development through Launch and
Trajectory Correction Maneuver, vol. 1, JPLTR32-1550 (Pasadena, 1973), pp. 2-3, N73-20855; and
E. S. Travis, Mariner Mars 1971 Mission Specification and Plan: Mission Specification, vol. 1,
PD-610-16, rev. A, change 1 (Pasadena: JPL, 1971).
14. Nicks, "Applying Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter Techniques to Mars."
15. JPL, Mariner Mars 1971 Project Final Report, 1: 3.
16. Ibid., pp. 3-4; and Dan Schneiderman et al., "The First Mars Orbiters," Astronautics & Aeronau-
tics 8 (April 1970): 65.
17. Casper F. Mohl telephone interview by Edward C. Ezell, 24 Oct. 1978; Mohl, "Minutes of the 1st
M73 Orbiter Design Team Held 8 August 1968," memo, 12 Aug. 1968; and Mohl, "Minutes of the
2nd Orbiter Design Team Meeting Held 22 August 1968," memo, 23 Aug. 1968.
18. Mohl, "Minutes of the 2nd Orbiter Design Team Meeting"; Mohl, "Minutes of the 3rd Orbiter
Design Team Meeting Held 29 August 1968," memo, 30 Aug. 1968; Martin G. Diet], "Minutes of
the 7th Orbiter Design Team Meeting Held 10 October 1968," memo, 11 Oct. 1968; and Died,
"Minutes of the 9th TM'73 Out-of-Orbit Design Team Meeting Held 21 November 1968," memo, 4
Dec. 1968.
19. JPL, "Titan Mars 1973 Orbiter: Option I Minimum Orbiter Study," 9Oct. 1968; and JPL, "Titan
Mars 1973 Orbiter Option IL" 30 Oct. 1968.
506
 NOTES TO PAGES 168-174
20. Charles W. Cole to Martin and Donald P. Hearth, TWX, 12 Nov. 1968; and Diet], "Minutes of the
10th TM'73 Out-of-Orbit Design Team Meeting Held 5 December 1968." memo, 6 Dec. 1968.
21. Cole to Martin, "Viking Baseline Orbiter Conceptual Design Description Document," 7 Feb. 1969;
and JPL, "Viking Project Orbiter System Visual Presentation," 13-14 Feb. 1969.
22. L. I. Mirowitz to Martin, "Viking Orbiter Presentation, February 14, 1969" [21 Feb. 1969].
23. A. J. Kullas to Martin, 21 Feb. and 28 Feb. 1969; and T. T. Yamauchi to Martin, "Informal
Comments on Orbiter-Lander Interfaces," 19 Mar. 1969.
24. See enclosures to S. R. Schofield, "Minutes of the 17th Viking 1973 Orbiter Design Team Meeting
Held 20 March 1969," memo, 24 Mar. 1969.
25. JPL news release, 17 April 1969; and JPL, "Henry W. Norris, Biographical Sketch," n.d.
26. JPL news release, 17 April 1969; and "Conway W. Snyder, Biographical Sketch," 1 June 1976.
27. Norris, "Viking Project Meeting Minutes," memo, 1 Apr. 1969.
28. Cole to Martin, "JPL Resource Requirements for Viking Project," 10 Feb. 1969.
29. Schofield, "Minutes of the 17th Viking 1973 Orbiter Design Team Meeting"; Norris, "Viking
Project Meeting Minutes, April 9,1969," memo, 1 I Apr. 1969; idem for April 16, dated 21 Apr. 1969;
William H. Pickering to Edgar M. Cortright, 21 Apr. 1969; Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff
Meeting, Minutes of May 7, 1969," memo, 9 May 1969; idem for May 14, dated 19 May 1969, and for
May 21, dated 26 May 1969.
30. Norris, "Viking Orbiter Staff Meeting, Minutes of June 4, 1969," memo, 9 June 1969; Rolf C.
Hastrup and Richard Case, "Minutes of 26th Viking 1973 Orbiter Design Team Meeting Held 12
June 1969," memo, 17 June 1969; Donald H. Kindt to Raymond S. Wiltshire, "Action Items 3, 5
and 8 from the Spacecraft Interfaceand Integration Working Group Meeting of June 10 and 11," 23
June 1969; and Joseph Shaffer, Jr., to Wolfe, "Action Item 1 I (Possible Reduction of VLV/VO
Dynamic Envelope) from Spacecraft Interface and Integration Working Group Meeting of 10-1 1
June 1969," 24 June 1969.
31. Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff Meeting, Minutes of August 27, 1969," memo, 29 Aug. 1969.
32. Martin to Viking Project Management Council (VPMC), "Establishment of VPMC," 10 Mar.
1969; and Martin, "Transmittal of Minutes of the Viking Project Management Council," memo,
29 Sept. 1969, with encl., Fred W. Bowen, Jr., "Minutes, Viking Project Management Council
Meeting, Denver, Colorado, August 18-19, 1969," n.d.
33. Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff Meeting, Minutes of August 20, 1969," memo, 22 Aug. 1969.
34. Langley Research Ctr., Viking Project Off. (VPO), "Viking Project Mission Definition No. 2,"
M73-112-0, Aug. 1969. Following is a summary of the revisions of this document through Aug.
1969:
Revision Date Description
5/22/68 Table of Contents and Introduction added. Other
sections amplified, including minor modifications. Land-
er lifetime requirements changed.
8/12/68 With exceptions of sections 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, document
completely revised in accordance with new guidelines.
3 1/21/69 Document almost completely revised to reflect selec-
(Mission Definition No. 1) tion of mission mode for Viking Project. Cover and
title sheet revised to reflect establishment of Viking
Project Office.
4 6/23/69 Sections 3, 4, 6, and 12 revised to reflect action of Viking
(Mission Definition No. 2) Science Steering Group. Section 5 added. Section 10
revised to include 3 85-foot dish antennas. Section 2 and
11 updated to reflect events since last revision. Table of
Contents and Preface revised accordingly.
5 8/11/69 Sections 1 and 2, minor word changes. Section 3 revised
(Mission Definition No. 2) to include last listed orbiter objective and necessary
discussion of objective. Section 4 revised to include
orbiter science requirements. Sections 4 and 5 revised to
include modifications of entry and lander science
requirements based on July Science Steering Group
meeting. Section 6changed landing zone to 20°S-30°N.
Date for Mission Definition no. 2 changed in section

507
NOTES TO PAGES 175-188
35. VPO, "Viking Project Definition No. 2," p. 18; and VPO, "Viking Lander Science Instrument
Teams Report," M73-112-0, Aug. 1969.
36. Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff Meeting, Minutes of August 27, 1969," memo, 29 Aug. 1969.
37. VPO, "Viking Project Definition No. 2," pp. 18-19; and Hastrup, "Minutes of 7th Orbiter Mission
Design Team Meeting of 2 September 1969," memo, 3 Sept. 1969.
38. NASA, "Progress Report—Mariner Mars 1969 Mission (Mariner 6 and Mariner 7)," transcript of
press conference, 11 Sept. 1969.
39. Robert B. Leighton, Norman H. Horowitz, Bruce C. Murray, Robert P. Sharp, Alan H. Herriman.
A. Thomas Young, Bradford A. Smith, Merton E. Davies, and Conway B. Levoy, "Mariner band 7
Television Pictures: Preliminary Analysis," Science 166 (3 Oct. 1969): 49-67 (also idem, "Televi-
sion Observations from Mariners 6 and 7," Mariner Mars 1969: A Preliminary Report, NASA
SP-225 ( Washington: 1969), pp. 37-82). See also Leighton et A., "Mariner 6 Television Pictures:
First Report," Science 165 (15 Aug. 1969): 684-90.
40. Leighton et al., "Mariner 6 and 7 Television Pictures."
41. NASA, "Progress Report."
42. Ibid.
43. Leighton et al., "Mariner 6 and 7 Television Pictures." pp. 66-67.
44. R. A. Schmitz, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting in Washington, D.C., on
September 11, 1969."
45. JPL, "NASA Viking Orbiter Science Briefing," 12 Sept. 1969.
46. Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff Meeting, Minutes of Sept. 10, 1969," memo, 12 Sept. 1969.
47. Martin Marietta Corp., Denver Div., "Viking Project Quarterly Review Held October 79c 8, 1969 at
Langley Research Center: Presentation Material," PM-3700005, Oct. 1969.
48. Harper E. Van Ness to Martin, "The Center Directors' Meeting on October 9, 1969," 15 Oct. 1969;
Van Ness to Martin, "Viking Project Management Council Meeting on October 9, 1969," 15 Oct.
1969; and Bowen, "Minutes, Viking Project Management Council Meeting Langley Research
Center, October 9, 1969" [21 Oct. 1969].
49. Walter Jakobowski, "LPMB Meeting on September 13, 1969," memo, 19 Sept. 1969, with encl.,
"Attachment B [resolution adopted by Lunar and Planetary Missions Board, 13 Sept. 1969]."
50. Nicks to John E. Naugle, "Discussion with Dr. Paine on the Viking Program, May 29, 1969," 4
June 1969; and Jakobowski, "Briefing to Dr. Paine on May 28, 1969: Viking Funding Estimates,"
memo for record, 2 June 1969.
51. Andre J. Meyer, Jr., notebooks on advanced planning, 31 July 1969, JSC History Archives.
52. Homer E. Newell, "Conference Report of Space Task Group Meeting of March 22," 25 Mar. 1969;
NASA, "America's Next Decade in Space," draft, 9 July 1969, pp. i-iii; NASA, America's Next
Decades in Space: A Report for the Space Task Group, Sept. 1969; and Hearth to Newell, "Study of
Manned Planetary Program Alternatives," 8 Apr. 1969. The language in NASA's draft report for
the Space Task Group said," ... we recommend that the United States begin preparing for a
manned expedition to Mars at an early date." In the published version, the sentence was changed
to, "Manned expeditions to Mars could begin as early as 1981." A series of articles and editorials
was submitted by Rep. Ryan to Congressional Record, 13 Aug. 1969: "After Apollo—Mars?" New
York Times, 18 July 1969; John A. Hamilton, "Meanwhile, back on Earth," New York Times, 28
July 1969; and "Poll Finds Public Cool to Mars Trip—Opinions Split by Age, with Young Adults
in Favor," New York Times, 7 Aug. 1969. See also Clinton P. Anderson, "Future Space Goals,"
Congressional Record, 29 July 1969, p. S8739.
53. Space Task Group, The Post-Apollo Space Program: Directions for the Future (Washington,
1969); "Nixon Backs Mars Flight but Rejects All-Out Drive," New York Times, I6 Sept. 1969; and
William Leavitt, "A Muted Martian Manifesto," Air Force/Space Digest 52 (Nov. 1969): 51-54.
54. Naugle to Cortright, "The Cost of the Viking Project," 26 Aug. 1969.
55. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Supplemental Review—NASA—OSSA Projects,
hearings before Subcommittee on Space Scienceand Applications, 91st Cong., 1st less. (henceforth
91/1),16 Oct. 1969, pp. 6-7,11-12,20; Thomas O. Paine to Clinton P. Anderson, 31 Dec. 1969; and
Robert P. Allnutt to Henry M. Jackson, 12 Jan. 1970. See also Jakobowski, "Briefing to Dr. Paine on
May 28.1969," memo for record; and Thomas Campbell to William E. Lilly and Joseph F. Malaga,
"Review of Viking Project Costs," 12 Aug. 1969.
56. Paine to Robert P. Mayo, 5 Dec. 1969; Hearth to Naugle, "Headquarters Controls on the Viking
Program," 26 Nov. 1969; Naugle to Nicks, "Importanceof Controlling Viking Costs," 8 Dec. 1969;
George M. Low to Naugle, "Control of Viking Costs." 19 Dec. 1969; Low to Naugle, "Questions
on the Viking Program," 19 Dec. 1969; Nicks to Hearth, "Viking Program Management," 24 Dec.
1969; and Naugle to Low, "The Viking Program," 30 Dec. 1969.

508
 NOTES TO PAGES 188-203
57. NASA Off. of Administration, Budget Operations Div., "Chronological History Fiscal Year 1968
Budget Submission," 8 Nov. 1967; idem for FY 1969, 14 Oct. 1968; for FY 1970,5 Dec. 1969; for-FY
1971, 11 June 1971; and "NASA FY 1971 Budget Reclama of BoB Tentative Allowance" [ 17 Nov.
1969].
58. Naugle, "Decision to Reschedule Viking to 1975," memo for record, 4 Jan. 1970; Victor Cohn,
"Scientists Cite Social Needs; Cut in Space Program Urged," Washington Post, 29 Dec. 1969; and
Walter Orr Roberts, "After the Moon, the Earth," Science 167 (2 Jan. 1970): 11-16.
59. Paine statement at press conference, release, 13 Jan. 1970; and NASA, "NASA Future Plans Press
Conference," transcript, 13 Jan. 1970.
60. Naugle, TWX, 13 Jan. 1970.
61. Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff Meeting, Minutes of January 13 and 14,1970." memo, 19 Jan.
1970.
62. Ibid.
63. Low to Naugle, "Priority of Viking," 6 Feb. 1970; Naugle to Cortright, TWX, 10 Feb. 1970; and
Norris, "Viking Orbiter Staff Meeting, Minutes of February 18, 1970," memo, 20 Feb. 1970.
64. Paine to Philip Handler, 24 Dec. 1969.
65. Naugle to Paine, Low, et al., 18 Mar. 1970, with encl., "Viking Review Panel Statement," draft,
Mar. 1970; and Handler to Paine, 31 Mar. 1970, with encl., "Viking Review Panel Statement," 24
Mar. 1970.
66. Joseph R. Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 9 Feb. 1973.
67. Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff Meeting, Minutes of February 4, 1970," memo, 6 Feb. 1970;
idem for March 4, dated 6 Mar. 1970; and Bowen, "Minutes, Viking Project Management Council
Meeting, Martin Marietta Corporation, Denver, Colorado, February 26, 1970" [11 Mar. 1970].
68. See R. Cargill Hall, Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210 (Washington,
1977), pp. 34-37, for comments on early NASA reactions to the JPL organizational structure.
69. Norris, "Review Meetings kith Viking Project Manager," memo, 25 Mar. 1970.
70. Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff Meeting, Minutes of April 8, 1970," memo, 13 Apr. 1970.
71. Van Ness to Cortright and Nicks, "Viking Weekly Highlights Report," 28 Oct. 1971.
72. Van Ness to Cortright and Nicks, "Weekly Report, Week of July 9, 1973," 19 July 1973; and Van
Ness to Martin, "Summary of Executive Session following the Orbiter CDR," 30 July 1973.
73. The progress of the orbiter can be followed in Norris, "Viking Orbiter Project Staff Meeting
Minutes," 1972-1973; Goudy, "Weekly Report," 1972-1973; JPL, "Viking 75 Orbiter System
Monthly Progress Report," 1972-1973; VPO, "Viking 75 Project Quarterly Review, Presentation
Material," PM-370233,15-16 Feb. 1972; VPO, "Viking 75 Project Quarterly Review, Presentation
Material," PM-3720276,14-15 June 1972; VPO, "Viking Project Status Presentation to Dr. George
M. Low ... and Dr. John E. Naugle... ," 23 Apr. 1973; VPO, "Viking Project Status Presentation
to ... Low ... and ... Naugle. . . 11 May 1973; and Jack E. Harris to Martin, "Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) Status Summary," 7 Feb. 1973.
74. Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 10, 24, and 31 Aug. and 14 Sept. 1973; JPL, "Viking 75 Orbiter
System Monthly Progress Report, August 1973." 31 Aug. 1973.
75. Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 26 Oct. and 9 Nov. 1973 with encl., R. Glaser and M. Trummel
to R. Malgren, "VO'75 DTM Pyro Shock Data," 8 Nov. 1973; and E. L. Leppert, B. K. Wada, and R.
Miyakawa, Modal Test of the Viking Orbiter, JPL TM-33-688 (Pasadena, 1974).
76. JPL, "Viking 75 Orbiter System Monthly Progress Report, December 1973" [1 Jan. 19741 and
"January 1974," [Feb, 19741; Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 5 Apr. and 3 May 1974.
77. Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 10, 17, and 24 May 1974; and JPL, "Viking 75 Orbiter System
Monthly Progress Report, May 1974" [June 1974].
78. JPL, "Viking 75 Orbiter System Monthly Progress Report, June 1974" [June 19741; idem for Jul%
and Aug. 1974; and Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 5, 12, 19, and 26 July and 2 Aug. 1974.
79. Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 27 Sept. 1974; and JPL, "Viking 75 Orbiter System Monthly
Progress Report, September 1974" [Sept. 1974].
80 Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 4 Oct. 1974.
81. Goudy to Martin, "Weekly Report," 10 and 31 Jan. 1975; and JPL, "Viking 75 Orbiter System
Monthly Progress Report, February 1975" [Feb. 19751.
82. Carl D. Newby telephone interview by Ezell, 8 July 1979.

Chapter 7
I. "The Authors of the 1973 Viking Voyage to Mars," Astronautics & Aeronautics 7 (Nov. 1969): 59;
and Gerald A. Soffen interview by Edward C. Ezell, 17 Nov. 1978.

509
NOTES TO PAGES 204-211
2. James S. Martin to Eugene C. Draley, "Weekly Reports," 19and 30 Aug., 16 and 30 Sept., 14 Oct., 8
Nov., and 16 Dec. 1968.
3. Martin, TWX, "Establishment of Science Instrument Working Group (SIWG), "27 Aug. 1968; and
C. H. Stembridge, "Minutes, Meetingof Science Instrument Working Group, September 4, 1968,"
5 Sept. 1968.
4. Martin to [Langley Research Center Deputy Director], "Mars '73 Mission—Project Scientist," 27
Feb. 1968; and Soffen interview, 17 Nov. 1978.
5. Edgar M. Cortright to William H. Pickering, "Request for JPL Support for Mars 73 Mission
Planning," 30 Aug. 1968; Angelo Guastaferro, "Report of September 12, 1968, Briefing on
Titan/Mars '73 Mission Planning Status to Mr. Edgar M. Cortright," memo for record, 16 Sept.
1968; and Soffen interview, 17 Nov. 1968.
6. Soffen interview, 17 Nov. 1968.
7. "Authors of the 1973 Viking Voyage to Mars," p. 59.
8. Martin to Draley, "Weekly Reports," 19 Aug. 1968.
9. Soffen, "Mars '73 Science Instrument Team Selection," memo, 3 Dec. 1968, with encl., "Selection
Criteria for Team Membership," n.d.
10. Ibid.; Viking Lander Imaging Team, The Martian Landscape, NASA SP-425 (Washington, 1978),
p. 7; Maynard D. MacFarlane, "Digital Pictures Fifty Years Ago," Proceedings of the IEEE 60 (July
1972): 768-70; and Rafael C. Gonzalez and Paul Wintz, Digitallmage Processing (Reading, Mass.,
1977), pp. 1-11.
11. Klaus Biernann, "Detection and Identification of Biologically Significant Compounds by Mars
Spectrometry," in M. Florkin, ed., Life Sciences and Space Research III, a Session of the Fifth
International Space Science Symposium, Florence, 12-16 May 1964 (Amsterdam, 1965), pp. 77-85;
and Biemann to Monte D. Wright. "'The Exploration of Mars, 1958-1978' by Edward and Linda
Ezell," 13 Apr. 1978.
12. Soffen. "Mars '73 Science Instrument Team Selection."
13. John E. Naugle, "Solicitation for Participation in the Development of Instruments for Mars
Landers," 27 Sept. 1968; Langley Research Ctr., Viking Project Off. (hereafter VPO), "Viking
Science Management Plan," M73-105-1, 21 Aug. 1969, pp. 6-7, 21; and Milton A. Mitz to Space
Science and Applications Steering Committee, "Scientists Selection for the 1973 Viking Mars
Lander," 22 Jan. 1969.
14. The conflict between scientists and engineers can be studied in: R. Cargill Hall, Lunar Impact: A
History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210 (Washington, 1977), pp. 57, 74-76, 223-28; and W.
David Compton and Charles D. Benson, "History of Skylab," in process, of which chap.3 deals
with science in manned spaceflight before Skylab and pp. 115-16 the different outlooks of scientists
and engineers.
15. Martin to Joshua Lederberg, 11 Feb. 1969; and file copy of Martin to Lederberg, I 1 Feb. 1969, with
38 other addressees listed.
16. Martin, "Meeting of Science Instrument Teams for the Viking Project," memo, 12 Feb. 1969, with
encl.; "Minutes, Viking Project Science Steering Group Meeting," 21 Feb. 1969; Martin to Leder-
berg, 5 Mar. 1969; and "Minutes of Viking Biology Instrument Team Meeting," 19-20 Feb. 1969.
17. NASA, "Viking Scientific Teams," news release 69-31,25 Feb. 1969. Possible conflict of interest on
the part of nongovernment scientists whose companies might subsequently bid on instrument
contracts (e.g., Jack A. Ryan, Gilbert Levin, and Mario D. Grossi) was examined by persons at
NASA Headquarters, whodecided that it was not a real concern. See George J. Vecchietti to Donald
P. Hearth, "Selection of Scientists to Participate in the Development of Instruments for the Viking
Project," 12 Mar. 1969.
18. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Project Science Steering Group Meeting," 28-29 Apr. 1969.
19. Evolution of the "science definition" is described in "Minutes, Viking VPO, Project Science
Steering Group Meeting, May 27-28, 1969," 13 June 1969.
20. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Project Science Steering Group Meeting, June 17-18,1969," 11 July 1969.
21. Donald G. Rea to Naugle, "Plan for Viking Investigator Selection," 22 Apr. 1969; Walter Jako-
bowski to Martin, "Plans for Viking Instrument Selection," 3 July 1969; VPO, "Viking Science
Management Plan," pp. 27-35, includes Naugle, "Opportunities for Participation in Space Flight
Investigations Memorandum Change 23, Viking 1973 Mars Missions, " memo change 23 in NHB
8030. IA, 15 July 1969; and VPO, "Viking Lander Science Instrument Teams Report," M73-112-0,
draft, July 1969.
22. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Project Science Steering Group Meeting, July 17-18,1969," 12 Aug. 1969;
Walter Jakobowski, "Viking Science Review," memo, 15 Aug. 1969; and Hearth to Naugle,
"Viking Science Constraints," I I Sept. 1969.

510
 NOTES TO PAGES 212-225
23. Mitz to Soffen, "Selection of Scientists for Viking 1973 Mars Mission," 16 Dec. 1969, with encl.;
Mitz to Martin, "Project Support for Viking Science Proposal Evaluation by the Subcommittees of
the Space Science and Applications Steering Committee," 10 Oct. 1969; MiItz, "Record of Meeting
Held on September 28, 1969, on Evaluation of Viking Proposals," memo, 13 Oct. 1969; and Israel
Taback, memo, "Assessment of Science Proposals," 16 Oct. 1969.
24. Martin to Cortright, "Final VPO Assessment of Proposed Science Payload for Viking 73," 8 Dec.
1969.
25. Hearth to Naugle, "Viking Science Constraints," I 1 Sept. 1969.
26. Martin to Cortright, "Final VPO Assessment of Proposed Science Payload for Viking 73," 8 Dec.
1969.
27. Richard S. Young to Lederberg, 24 Feb. 1969.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Thomas O. Paine, "Selection of Contractor for Viking Lander System and Project Integration,
Langley Research Center" [26 Aug. 19691.
31. NASA, "Viking Contract Award," news release 69-82, 29 May 1969.
32. David B. Ahearn telephone interview by Ezell, 22 Nov. 1978; and NASA Audit Div., "Report on
Audit of Viking Program Project Initiation to Contractor Selection, Langley Research Center,
Hampton, Virginia," rpt. LR-DU: 33-70, 18 Dec. 1969, p. 17.
33. Ahearn telephone interview, 22 Nov. 1978.
34. VPO, "Viking 75 Project Planning Status Report, Presentation Material," 3 Feb. 1970.
35. Harper E. Van Ness to Draley, "Weekly Reports," 19 Jan.; 2, 9, 13, and 20 Feb.; 2 and 24 Mar.; 28
Apr.; 5 May; and 13 July 1970; Clarence A. Robins, Jr., to Martin, "Weekly Report for Week of
January 5, 1970," 19 Jan. 1970; idem for "Week of January 12, 1970," 26 Jan. 1970; "Week of
January 19, 1970," 27 Jan. 1970; and VPO, "Viking 75 Project, Resources Planning Report, July
1970," 30 July 1970.
36. Martin to Ahearn, "Proposed Contracts for Science Team Leaders," 10 Dec. 1969; Martin to
Ahearn, "Proposed Contracts for Science Team Principal Investigator," I I Dec. 1969; Martin to
Ahearn, "Procurement of Services from Other Government Agencies," 1 I Dec. 1969; Guastaferro
to Frank W. McCabe, "NASA Contract NASI-9000. Provisions for VPO and Science Team Review
and Comment on Proposals Received in Response to Request for Proposal Associated with WB S
4.0, Science Instruments," 30 Dec. 1969; Soffen, letter, 2 Jan. 1970; Van Ness to Draley, "Weekly
Reports," 9 and 19 Jan. 1970.
37. Soffen, "Viking 1975," memo, 21 Jan. 1970.
38. Guastaferro to McCabe, "NASA Contract NAS1-9000, Technical Discussions of Scientific
Instrument Specifications prior to Subcontract Negotiations between Martin Marietta Corporation
and Selected Vendor," 19 Feb. 1970.
39. Martin Marietta, "Viking Science Newsletter," no. 1, 3 Apr. 1970, pp. 1-2.
40. Soffen, "Science Review for the Viking Project," memo, 11 Mar. 1970; Martin, "Minutes of Special
Viking Science Meetings," memo, 7 May 1970; Andrew T. Young to Soffen, 20 Apr. 1970; and
"Viking Science Newsletter," no. 2. 24 Apr. 1970.
41. Martin to Charles W. Coles, 28 Aug. 1968; VPO, "Viking Project Viking Lander Science Insrument
Teams Report," 30 July 1969, pp. 46-57.
42. Dale R. Rushneck et A., "Viking Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer," Review of Scientific
Instruments 49 (June 1978): 817-34.
43. VPO, "Viking Science Activities," no. 6, 19 June 1970; no. 7, 9 July 1970; no. 8, 31 July 1970; and
no. 9, 21 Aug. 1970.
44. G. Calvin Broome to Martin, "VPO/JPL Management Meeting, Inputs relative to GCMS
Management Problems," 3 Sept. 1970.
45. Van Ness to Cortright and Oran W. Nicks, "Viking Project 'Highlights' Report," 16 Feb. 1971.
46. Ibid.
47. Robins to Martin, "Activity Report for Week of March 1, 1971, " 8 Mar. 1971; and VPO, "Minutes,
Viking Science Steering Group Meeting, 2-3 March 1971," 19 Mar. 1971.
48. Van Ness to Cortright and Nicks, "Viking Project 'Highlights' Report." 8 Mar. and 20 July 1971.
49. Van Ness to Cortright and Nicks, "Viking Project 'Highlights' Report," 22 Mar. 1971.
50. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting, June 2-3, 1971," 24 June 1971; and
Joseph C. Moorman. "Preliminary Report: Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS)
Requirements Review Panel," 21 May 1971.
51. VPO, "Viking Science Symposium, April 19-20,1971," 19 Apr. 1971; Joel S. Levine, "Notes on the
Viking Science Symposium on Mars Held at the NASA Langley Research Center, April 19-20,
1971," memo, 4 May 1971; and VPO, "Viking Science Activities," no. 23, 5 May 1971.
511
NOTES TO PAGES 226-240
52. Harold P. Klein to Martin, 23 Sept. 1971.
53. Don L. Anderson to Soffen, 24 Sept. 1971. Other reactions can be found in M. Nafi Toksoz to
Anderson, 22 Sept. 1971; Richard W. Shorthill to Soffen, 28 Sept. 1971; Hugh Kieffer to Soffen, 24
Sept. 1971; Robert B. Hargraves to Soffen, 28 Sept. 1971; Welcome W. Bender to Soffen, 27 Sept.
1971; and William H. Michael, Jr., to Soffen, 1 Oct. 1971.
54. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meetings," 19 Sept. and 6-7 Oct. 1971.
55. Van Ness to Cortright and Nicks, "Viking Weekly Highlights Report," 12, 20, and 28 Oct. and 3
Nov. 1971; Martin to John J. Paulson, 26 Oct. 1971; Paulson to Martin, "Viking Gas
Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) Objectives for the Period December 1971 through
May 1972," 5 Nov. 1971; and Martin to Robert J. Parks, 16 Dec. 1971.
56. Alfred O. C. Nier to Soffen, 20 Sept. 1971.
57. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting, February 16-18,1972," 3 Apr. 1972; Van
Ness to Cortright and Nicks, "Viking Weekly Highlights Report, Week of January 24, 1972," 3
Feb. 1972; idem for "Week of February 2,1972," 2 Mar. 1972; "Week of February 28, 1972," 10 Mar.
1972; "Weeks of March 6 and 13, 1972," 22 Mar. 1972; Naugle to George M. Low, "Status of the Gas
Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS)," 8 Mar. 1972; and Naugle to Pickering, TWX, 10
Mar. 1972.
58. Fred S. Brown, "The Biology Instrument for the Viking Mars Mission," Review of Scientific
Instruments 49 (Feb. 1978): 139-82; TRW Systems Group, "Hybrid Life Detection Instrument
Design Review Data Package," 3 vols., 30 June 1969; and Bendix Aerospace Systems Div., "Viking
Integrated Life Detector Instrument Final Report," BSR 2797, 2 vols., Dec. 1969.
59. Loyal G. Goff, "Viking Biology Instrument Narrative History," 8 Nov. 1974.
60. Klein, Lederberg, and Alexander Rich, "Biological Experiments: The Viking Mars Lander,"
Icarus 16 (Feb. 1972): 139-46.
61. Rodney A. Mills to Jakobowski, "Visit to TRW regarding Biology Instrument," 22 Feb. 1972.
62. Martin, "Viking '75 Malfunction Protection Policy," Viking Project Directive 6, 1 July 1971.
63. Van Ness to Cortright and Nicks, "Viking Weekly Highlights Report, Week of 4 October 1971," 12
Oct. 1971; and TRW, "Viking Lander Biology Instrument Preliminary Design Review," 2 vols.,
4-6 Oct. 1971.
64. Langley Research Ctr. "Viking Project Manager's Presentation to Physics Panel of SPAC," 22
Nov. 1971; VPO, "Viking Science Activities," no. 32,3 Dec. 1971; and Van Ness to Cortright and
Nicks, "Viking Weekly Highlights Report, Week of January 31, 1972," 9 Feb, 1972.
65. Jakobowski, "Viking Instruments Status Report No. 8," memo, 3 Feb. 1972; "Minutes, Viking
Science Steering Group," 16-18 Feb. 1971; Young, "Memo of Telephone Conversation with Dr. N.
Horowitz ... Re: Deletion of Vishniac Experiment (Light Scattering) from Viking'75 Payload,"
memo for record, 13 Mar. 1972; Young to Naugle, "Letter-Telephone Dictated on 15 March from
Dr. Lederberg and Dr. Rich concerning the Deletion of the Light Scattering Experiment from
Viking Biology Package," 15 Mar. 1972; Lederberg to Young, 15 Mar. 1972; Naugle to Wolf V.
Vishniac, 17 Mar. 1972; and Lederberg interviciv by Ezell, 23 Aug. 1977.
66. Klein to Naugle, 22 Mar. 1972; and VPO, "Minutes of the Viking Biology Team Meeting, March
19, 1972," 30 Mar. 1972.
67. Vishniac to Naugle, 6 Apr. 1972.
68. Naugle to Vishniac, 20 Apr. 1972; and Naugle to Klein, 20 Apr. 1972.
69. Vishniac to Soffen, 16 Mar. 1973.
70. Horowitz, Roy E. Cameron, and Jerry S. Hubbard, "Microbiology of the Dry Valleys of
Antarctica," Science 176 (21 Apr. 1972): 242-45.
71. Terry Dillman, "Death in Frozen Wasteland," Times-Union (Rochester), 12 Dec. 1973; "Mars
Landing Instrument to Be Tested," Houston Chronicle, 12 Dec. 1971; "Mars Instrument Test in
Antarctica Hikes Confidence," Chicago Sun-Times, 30 Mar. 1972; and Lederberg interview, 23
Aug. 1977.
72. Martin to Cortright, "Meeting at TRW on July 20, 1973, to Discuss Status of V'75 Biology
Instrument-Schedule. Cost, Management," 20 July 1973.
73. Cortright to George Solomon, 15 Oct. 1973.
74. Martin to Walter O. Lowrie, "Top Ten Problem," 26 Oct. 1973; Cortright to Solomon, 31 Oct.
1973; Cortright to Richard D. DeLauer, 14 Nov. 1973; and DeLauer to Cortright, 4 Dec. 1973.
75. Loyal G. Goff to Jakobowski, "Viking Biology Instrument," I Feb. 1974; and Broome to Martin,
"Management Interface Problems between VPO/MMA Resident Team at TRW," 7 Feb. 1974.
76. Martin to Lowrie and Norris, "Viking Contingency Planning," 21 June 1974; Cortright to
DeLauer, 22 July 1974; Martin to Lowrie, 17 Dec. 1974; Broome to Martin, "Residual Top Ten
Problems," 28 May 1975; Martin to Lowrie, 6 June 1975; and Jakobowski telephone interview by
Ezell, 11 Dec. 1978.
512
 NOTES TO PAGES 240-260
77. VPO, "Viking Science Activities, no. 83," 14 Mar. 1975.
78. Jakobowski telephone interview, 11 Dec. 1978.

Chapter 8
1. John D. Goodlette, "Challenge of the Viking Mars Lander System," in Proceedings of the Twelfth
Space Congress: Technology Today and Tomorrow (Cocoa Beach, Fla.: Canaveral Council of
Technical Societies, 1975), p. 6-3. Unless otherwise noted, the first part of this chapter is based on
this article.
2. James S. Martin to Henry Norris, "Viking Top Ten Problems," 4 May 1970; identical letters were
also sent to John J. Paulson and Albert J. Kullas. See also Harper Van Ness to Edgar M. Cortright
and Oran W. Nicks, "Viking Project 'Highlights' Report, Week of December 14, 1970," 21 Dec.
1970; Van Ness, "Procedures for 'Statusizing' Viking Project Top Ten Problems," memo, 3 Aug.
1971; Langley Research Ctr., Viking Project Office (hereafter VPO), "Viking Top Ten Problems,"
Viking Project Directive 7,4 Oct. 1971; and Martin to Cortright, "Viking Top Ten Problems," 20
Apr. 1972.
3. Cortright to John E. Naugle, 18 Jan. 1973, with encls. describing problems and suggested materials
for letters; Cortright to Naugle, 6 Feb. 1973; and James C. Fletcher to George A. Roberts, 2 Feb.
1973; similar letters were sent by Fletcher to Russell D. O'Neal, Hudson Drake, Harry J. Gray,
Barry J. Shillito, Stephen F. Keating, and Frauldin A. Lindsay.
4. Gray to Fletcher, 14 Feb. 1973; O'Neal to Fletcher, 19 Feb. 1973; Fletcher to O'Neal, 8 Mar. 1973;
Lindsay to Fletcher, TWX, 6 Mar. 1973; Frank J. Madden to Cortright, 20 Mar. 1973; Fletcher to
Lindsay, 4 Apr. 1973; Fletcher to Roberts, 16 Mar. 1973; Roberts to Fletcher, 10 and 27 Apr. 1973;
Shillito to Fletcher, 2 Mar. and 17 May 1973; Martin to Shillito, 20 Aug. 1973; Fletcher to Charles B.
Thornton, 7 Mar. 1973; Thornton to Fletcher, 15 Mar. 1973; and Fred W. O'Green to Fletcher, 17
Apr. 1973.
5. [VPO], "Development History of the Viking Lander Computer," 26 Nov. 1974.
6. Fletcher to John W. Anderson, 8 Mar. 1973.
7. Anderson to Fletcher, 22 Mar. 1973; George M. Low to Anderson, 9Apr. 1973; Martin to Cortright,
"GCSC Computer Development at Honeywell," 16 Aug. 1973; Sherwood L. Butter to Nolan I.
Jones, "Guidance and Control and Sequencing Computer (GCSC)," 3 Oct. 1973; Martin to Walter
O. Lowrie, "Computer (GCSC) Contingency Plans," 16 Oct. 1973; Low to Fletcher, "Status of the
Viking Lander Computer," 29 Jan. 1974; Robert S. Kraemer to Low and Noel W. Hinners, "Status
of the Viking Lander Computer," 29 July 1974; Hinners to Low, "Status of the Viking Lander
Computer," 14 Aug. 1974.
8. [VPO], "Development History of the Viking Lander Computer," 26 Nov. 1974.
9. Cortright to Low, 30 Oct. 1973.
10. [VPO], "Development History of the Viking Lander Computer," 26 Nov. 1974.
H. Lowrie to Martin, "Computer," datafaz, 15 Jan. 1975.
12. Unless otherwise noted, this section is based on Henry Caruss, "Testing the Viking Lander,"
Environmental Sciences 20 (Mar.-Apr. 1977): 11-17.
13. Stanley Barrett, "The Development of Sine Wave Vibration Test Requirements for Viking Lander
Capsule Components," in Institute of Environmental Sciences, comp., Cost Effectiveness in the
Environmental Sciences: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting (Mount Prospect, Ill.,
1974), pp. 77-82; and R. E. Snyder et al., "Specification and Correlation of the Sine Vibration for
Viking 75," paper, Society of Automotive Engineers, National Aerospace Engineering and
Manufacturing Meeting, San Diego, 1-3 Oct. 1974.
14. A. F. Leondis, "Viking Dynamic Simulator Vibration Testingand Analysis Modeling," Shock and
Vibration Bulletin, no. 45, pt. 3, n.d., pp. 103-13; and H. N. McGregor, "Simulation of Viking
Spacecraft Acoustic Environment," in Cost Effectiveness in the Environmental Sciences, pp.
183-85.
15. Stanley Barrett, "The Development of Pyro Shock Test Requirements for Viking Lander Capsule
Components," in Institute of Environmental Sciences, comp., Proceedings, 21st Annual Technical
Meeting, 2 (Mount Prospect, Ill., 1975): 5-10.
16. R. P. Parrish, Jr., "Performance and Operating Characteristics of a 4.48-M Diameter Solar
Simulator for Viking Space Simulation Tests," Goddard Space Flight Center, comp., 8th
Conference on Space Simulators (Greenbelt, Md., 1975), pp. 409-17; T. Buna, "Special Techniques
of the Viking Lander Capsule Thermal Vacuum Test Program," in 8th Conference on Space
Simulators, pp. 419-33; T. R. Tracey, Theodore F. Morey, and David N. Gorman, "Thermal
Design of the Viking Lander Capsule," paper, AIAA 12th Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
513
NOTES TO PAGES 260-268
Washington, D.C., 30 Jan.- l Feb. 1974; Tracey and Buna, "Thermal Testing of the Viking Lander
Capsule System," paper, Intersociety Conference on Environmental Systems, 29 July-1 Aug, 1974
(place not known); Morey and Gorman, "Development of the Viking Mars Lander Thermal
Control Subsystem Design," paper, AIAA and ASME Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Con-
ference, Boston, 15-17 July 1974; Buna and T. C. Shupert, "Cost Effectiveness as Applied to
the Viking Lander Systems-Level Thermal Development Test Program," in Cost Effectiveness in
the Environmental Sciences, pp. 133-37; and Gorman and Morey, "Thermal Design, Analysis, and
Testing of a Full-Size Planetary Lander Model," paper, AIAA Thermophysics Conference. San
Francisco, I6-18 June 1969.
17. NASA, "Viking Parachute Tests Scheduled," news release 72-118, 8 June 1973; "Balloon
Launching Delayed," New York Times, I 1 June 1973; NASA White Sands Test Facility, "NASA
News," news release, 26 July 1972; Buna and H. H. Battley, "Thermal Design and Performance of
the Viking Balloon-Launched Decelerator Test Vehicle (BLDTV)," paper, AIAA and ASME
Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, Boston, 15-17 July 1974; James L. Raper,
Frederick C. Michel, and Reginald R. Lundstrom, "The Viking Parachute Qualification Test
Technique," paper, AIAA Fourth Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Conference, Palm Springs,
21-23 May 1973; Sy Steinberg et al., "Development of the Viking Parachute Configuration by
Wind Tunnel Investigation," idem; N. N. Murrow, "Development Flight Tests of the Viking
Decelerator System," idem; Richard D. Moog et al., "Qualification Flight Tests of the Viking
Decelerator System," idem; Clarence L. Gillis, "The Viking Decelerator System—An Overview,"
idem; and Jesse D. Timmons, "Viking Balloon Launched Decelerator Tests," IAF paper 76-155,
27th International Astronautical Federation, Anaheim, Calif., 10-16 Oct. 1976.
18. Buna and J. R. Ratliff, "Operation of a Large Thermal Vacuum Chamber at Martian Pressure
Levels," in J. C. Richmond, ed., Space Simulation: Proceedings of a Conference Held at NBS,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, September 14-16,1970, National Bureau of Standards Special Publica-
tion 336 (Washington, 1970), pp. 725-48; and Buna, "Thermal Testing under Simulated Martian
Environment," paper, AIAA Third Thermophysics Conference, Los Angeles, 24-26 June 1968.
19. Frank W. McCabe to David B. Ahearn, "Contract NAS 1-9000, End-to-End Systems Level Science
Testing," 18 Oct. 1973; Arlen F. Carter, "Science 'End-to-End' Test (SEET) Objectives,
Requirements, and Success Criteria," memo, 21 Jan. 1974, with draft, "Science End-to-End Test
Objectives," 17 Jan. 1974; and Carter, "Science End-to-End Testing (SEET), Test Requirements
Outline," memo, 24 Jan. 1974, with encl.
20. Craig Covault, "Mars Lander Proof Vehicle Passes Tests," Aviation Week &Space Technology 101
(4 Nov. 1974): 44-46.
21. VPO, "Viking Science End to End Test (SEET) Bulletin No. 1," 26 Aug. 1974; No. 3, 6 Sept. 1974;
No. 6, 16 Sept. 1974; No. 7. 17 Sept. 1974; No. 8, 18 Sept. 1974; No. 9, 19 Sept. 1974; No. 10, 20 Sept.
1974; No. 11, 22 Sept. 1974; and No. 13, 24 Sept. 1974.
22. Welcome W. Bender to Gerald A. Soffen, 26 Oct. 1971; "Summary Minutes: Ad Hoc Subcommittee
to Evaluate Viking Inorganic Instruments—The Alpha Backscatter (ABS) and X-ray Fluorescence
(XRF) Spectrometer," 4 Jan. 1972; Kraemer to Naugle, "Viking Science Payload Changes," 14
Mar. 1972; Naugle to Anthony L. Turkevich, 17 Mar. 1972; Stephen E. Dwornik to Walter
Jakobowski, "Viking Inorganic Analysis Experiment," 4 Apr. 1972; Fletcher toTurkovich, I 1 May
1972; and Naugle to Fletcher, "Inorganic Analysis Experiment for Viking," 8 May 1972.
23, Priestley Toulmin III to Soffen, 9 Sept. 1974.
24. Toulmin to Martin, 7 Oct. 1974.
25. G. Calvin Broome to Martin, "Considerations relative to Post-Launch End to End Biology Test on
PTC Lander," 30 June 1975; VPO, "Viking Science End to End Test (SEET) Bulletin No. 15," 9
Oct. 1974; Carter to Soffen, "Preparation of the Unknown Sample for GCMS Analysis during
Biology Performance Verification Test," 7 Feb. 1975; VPO, "Viking BIO PV/GCMS End to End
Test Bulletin No. 1," 12 Feb. 1975; No. 3, 19 Feb. 1975; and No. 4, 27 Feb. 1975.
26. H. E. Adelson et al., "The Viking Lander Biology Instrument," TRW report 21020-6003-RU-00,
Aug. 1975, pp. II-1 to 11-3.
27. Carter to Harold P. Klein [29 Sept. 19751; and Martin to Hinners, 7 Oct. 1975.
28. Klein to Martin, 17 Nov. 1975; and Jakobowski to Hinners, "Viking Biology Instrument Testing
Program," 1 Dec. 1975.
29. Martin to Klein, 9 Dec. 1975.
30. Martin to Hinners, "Closure of All Open Items relative to Further Prelanding Biology Testing," 9
Dec. 1975; and Hinners to Naugle, "Viking Biology Testing," 30 Dec. 1975.
31. NASA, "NASA Reorganization and Key Personnel Appointments," special announcement, 5 Mar.
1974; and NASA, "Naugle Named Associate Administrator at NASA," news release, 75-297, 21
Nov. 1975.
514
 NOTES TO PAGES 269-284
32. VPO, "Monthly Financial Report, January/February/March," 3 Apr. 1974.
33. Rocco A. Petrone to Hinners, "Viking Management Plan," 16 Oct. 1974; VPO, "Viking Project
Status Presentation to Dr. Rocco A. Petrone, Associate Aministrator," 23 May 1974; VPO, "Viking
Project Cost Status Presentation, September 5, 1974, to Dr. Noel W. Hinners, Associate
Administrator for Office of Space Science," 5 Sept. 1974; and VPO, "Viking Project Program Plan
and Cost Management Presentation, October 22, 1974, to Dr. Noel W. Hinners, Associate
Administrator for Office of Space Science," 22 Oct. 1974.
34. Langley Research Center, "New Director at NASA Langley," news release 75-19, 11 July 1975; and
NASA, "Appointment of New Director of JPL," announcement, key personnel change, 23 June
1975.
35. House Committeeon Scienceand Astronautics, Viking Project, hearings before Subcommitteeon
Space Science and Applications, 93d Cong., 2d sess. (henceforth 93/2), 1974, passim.
36. VPO, "Minutes of the Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 7 Oct. 1974; Hinners to Cortright,
"Viking Budget Guidelines," 3 Oct. 1974; and Covault "Orbiter, Backup Lander Cut from
Viking," Aviation Week & Space Technology 101 (28 Oct. 1974): 18-19.
37. VPO, "Mission Operations Status Bulletin," no. 3, 25 Apr. 1975; and Hinners to Jakobowski, 17
Sept. 1974.
38. VPO, "Mission Operations Status Bulletin," no. 4, 9 May 1975.
39. VPO, "Mission Operations Status Bulletin," no. 5,26 May 1975; and W. R. Durrett, "Lightning—
Apollo to Shuttle ... Case Histories and Spacecraft Protection," in Canaveral Council of
Technical Societies, comp., Technology for the New Horizon: Proceedings of the Thirteenth
Space Congress, Cocoa Beach, Florida, April 7-9, 1976 (Cocoa Beach, 1976), pp. 4-27 to 4-32.
40. "Mission Operations Status Bulletin," no. 9, 29 July 1975.

Chapter 9
1. Langley Research Ctr., Viking Project Office (VPO), "Minutes, Viking Project Science Steering
Group Meeting at Langley Research Center," 21 Feb. 1969, p. 2. Mars orbital imaging had been a
topic of discussion fora number of years. For an early view of the site selection problem, see Paul R.
Swan and Carl Sagan, "Martian Landing Sites for the Voyager Mission," Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets 2 (Jan.-Feb. 1965): 18-25. See also J. W. Kiefer, "The Influence of Visual Imaging
Experiments on Unmanned Mars Spacecraft Missions," paper, 104th Technical Conference of the
Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 10-15 Nov. 1968; this 16-page paper was
prepared by McDonnell Douglas Corp. under contract 952 000 for JPL as part of its studies for
Project Voyager.
2. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Project Science Steering Group Meeting at Stanford University," 20-21
Mar. 1969, p. 3.
3. James S. Martin, "Landing Site Group," memo, 20 Aug. 1970.
4. VPO, "Minutes, Viking'75 Project Landing Site Group Meetingat MIT," 2 Sept. 1970, pp. 1-5.
5. John E. Naugle, "Decision to Reschedule Viking to 1975," memo for record, 4 Jan. 1970; and
Victor Cohn, "Scientists Cite Social Needs; Cut in Space Program Urged," Washington Post, 29
Dec. 1969.
6. VPO, "Minutes, Viking '75 Project Landing Site Group Meeting at NASA Ames Research
Center," 26-27 Oct. 1970, p. 5.
7. VPO, "Minutes, Viking '75 Project Science Steering Group Meeting at Jet Propulsion Labora-
tory," 10-11 June 1970, pp. 5-6; and "Viking Science Activities," 7 July 1970, p. 2.
8. Orbiter Imaging Team, "An Assessment of Viking Orbital Imaging and a Comparison of the
Viking and MM71 Camera Systems" [Oct. 19701, encl. to Michael H. Carr to Martin, "Orbiter
Imaging Review," 13 Oct. 1970; and Harold Masursky telephone interview, 21 Oct. 1976, by
Edward C. Ezell.
9. Orbiter Imaging Team, "An Assessment of Viking Orbital Imaging."
10. VPO, "Minutes, Landing Site Group Meeting," 26-27 Oct. 1970, pp. 5-6; and VPO, "Minutes,
Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 28-29 Oct. 1970, p. 3.
11. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 19 Sept. 1971 and 6-7 Oct. 1971; and
Masursky telephone interview.
12. VPO, "Minutes, Landing Site Group Meeting," 26-27 Oct. 1970, pp. 6-9; Robert S. Kramer,
"Coordination of Mars Investigation Programs," memo, 25 May 1970; Earl W. Glahn to Dan
Schneiderman, 28 Jan. 1971; and Steve Z. Gunter to John Newcomb, Edward Hinson, and Jim
Hardy, 20 June 1973, with encl., N. R. Haynes et al., "Mariner Mars 1971 Adaptive Mission
Planning," AIAA paper 72-944, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference, Palo Alto, Calif., 11-12
Sept. 1972.
515
NOTES TO PAGES 285-291
13. Sagan, "Provisional Criteria for Viking Landing Site Selection," n.d., encl. to "Minutes, Viking
Landing Site Group Meeting," 2-3 Dec. 1970; and Glahn to Kraemer, "Radar Studies of Mars for
Topographic Data," 30 Mar. 1970.
14. Sagan, "Provisional Criteria for Viking Landing Site Selection"; and Alan Binder, "Viking
Lander Site Criteria," n.d., encl. to Binder to A. Thomas Young, 23 Sept. 1970.
15. Sagan, "Provisional Criteria for Viking Landing Site Selection."
16. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 15-16 Dec. 1970.
17. "Mariner Mars 1971 Project Office/Viking Project Office Memorandum of Agreement for Viking
Program for Viking Participation in Mariner'71 Mission Operations," 2 Feb. 1971, encl. to VPO.
"Minutes, Fourth Viking '75 Project Landing Site Group Meeting at NASA, Langley Research
Center," 21 Apr. 1971.
18. VPO, "Minutes, Landing Site Group Meeting," 21 Apr. 1971; Martin, "Membership to the Viking
Data Analysis Team for Participation in the Mariner Mars '71 Mission Operations," memo, 19
July 1971; and Angelo Guastaferro to Frank W. McCabe, 17 Aug. 1971.
19. JPL, Mariner Mars 1971 Status Bulletin 2, "Mariner 8 Lost at Sea," 10 May 1971, and Bull. 3,
"Mariner I Launch Scheduled 29 May '71," 25 May 1971; George M. Low to James C. Fletcher,
"Mariner I Launch Readiness," 27 May 1971; JPL, Mariner Mars 1971 Status Bull. 4, "Mariner
9—Right on!" 1 June 1971; Naugle to Fletcher, "Mariner 9 Post Launch #1, " 2 June 1971; and
JPL, Mariner Mars 1971 Status Bull. 17, "Mariner 9 MOI—How Sweet It Is!" 15 Nov. 1971.
20. Unless otherwise noted, the information on the Mariner 9 mission is taken from William K.
Hartmann and Odell Raper, The New Mars: The Discoveries of Mariner 9, NASA SP-337
(Washington, 1974). See also the following press accounts: Eric Burgess, "First Maps Produced of
Martian Weather System," Christian Science Monitor, 24 June 1971; John Noble Wilford, "Thick
Dust Shown on Mars," New York Times, 16 Nov. 1971; Walter Sullivan, "Mars: The Strange
Storms of the Red Planet," New York Times, 21 Nov. 1971; and Sullivan, "Mars: Threat of a' Major
Scientific Disaster,' " New York Times, 12 Dec. 1971.
21. Hartmann and Raper, The New Mars, pp. 39-42; Peter Smolders, Soviets in Space (New York:
Taplinger Publishing Co., 1974), pp. 230-35; and VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group
Meeting," 8-9 Dec. 1971, pp. 4-5, in which C. W. Snyder summarized what the Soviets had told
Sagan and what they had released to the press: "l. The Soviet Mars 2 and 3 spacecraft were
identical. 2. The Mars orbit inclination for both spacecraft was 40 degrees. 3. There was some
difficulty with one spacecraft and it might not orbit." From this, Snyder hypothesized the
following: "1. Soviet Mars 3 had trouble in achieving orbit as evidenced by its I I-day orbit period.
2. The lander from Soviet Mars 2 said by the Russians to have landed a pennant on the surface had
crashed. 3. The lander from Soviet Mars 3 had landed successfully but transmitted (through its
orbiter) only a part of a picture." See Charles F. Capen and Leonard J. Martin, "The Developing
Stages of the Martian Yellow Storm of 1971," Lowell Observatory Bulletin 7 [Jan. 19721: 211-16;
JPL, Mariner Mars 1971 Status Bull. 20, "Mariner 9TV Pictures," 10 Dec. 1971, and Bull. 22, "Dust
Storm Dying," 12 Jan. 1972; and William A. Baum to Robert A. Schmitz, 10 Feb. 1972.
22. V. V. Prokof'eva and V. A. Fenchak, "O zaktukhanii global'noi pylevoi buri 1971 g. na Marse"
[Subsiding of the 1971 global dust storm on Mars], Astronomicheskii Vestnik 9 (Oct.-Dec. 1975):
201-09, trans. as "Dying Down of the 1971 Global Storm on Mars." Solar System Research 9 (April
1976): 165-71; Peter J. Gierasch, "Martian Dust Storms," Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics
12 (Nov. 1975): 730-34; Barney J. Conrath, "Thermal Structures of the Martian Atmosphere
during the Dissipation of the Dust Storm of 1971," Icarus 24 (1975): 36-46; and Baum, "Results of
Current Mars Studies at the IAU Planetary Research Center," in A. Woszgzyk and C. Iwaniszewska,
eds., Exploration of the Planetary System (Dordrecht, Holland, Boston, 1974), pp. 241-51. See also
A. B. Whitehead, "Reports on Russian Mission," memo, 27 Sept. 1972, with encl., trans. of 25 Aug.
1972 Pravda article, "Initial Results of Mars Probe Analyzed"; Young, "Transmittal of USSR
Technical Papers relating to the Mars 2 and 3 Missions," memo, 26 June 1973, with encls., V. I.
Moroz, "Rabochaya model' atmosfery Marsa" [Working model of theatmosphereof Mars], NASA
TT F-14 906, Apr. 1973; M. K. Rozhdestvenskiy and V. I. Shkirina, "Mars-3: Otsenka parametrov
atmosfery v meste posadki sa" [Mars 3 estimate of parameters of the atmosphere at the landing
point of the spacecraft], NASA TT F-14 907, Apr. 1973; Moroz, "Orbital'nyye apparaty Mars-2 i
Mars-3; Rezul'taty issledovaniy poverkhnosti i atmosfery Marsa" [Mars 2 and Mars 3 orbital
spacecraft; Results of studies of the surface and atmosphere of Mars], NASA TT F-14 908, Apr.
1973; and Gerald A. Soffen to Viking Scientists, "Pravda Article by Dr. I. Koval," 15 Aug. 1973.
23. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 7-8 Dec. 1971; "Minutesof Viking Data
Analysis Team Meetingat JPL," 16 Dec. 1971; Schmitz, "Viking Data Analysis Report Number I,"
memo, 28 Jan. 1972; Baum, "Where Will the Martian Dust Be When Viking Arrives," paper, AAS

516
 NOTES TO PAGES 291-303
Div. of Planetary Sciences Meeting, Kona, HI, 20-24 Mar. 1972; JPL, Mariner Mars 1971 Status
Bull. 23, "Pits, Spots, Cracks and Ril les," 14 Jan. 1972 and Bull. 24, "Unique Martian Landform,"
20 Jan. 1972.
24. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 16-18 Feb. 1972.
25. NASA, "News Conference on Mariner 9," news release, 2 Feb. 1972. For an evaluation of the
Mariner 6 and 7 television science team work, see special issue, Journal of Geophysical Research 76
(10 Jan. 1971): 293-472, which includes Robert B. Leighton and Bruce C. Murray, "One Year's
Process and Interpretation—An Overview," 293-96, Murray et al., "The Surface of Mars:
1. Cratered Terrains," 313-30, Robert P. Sharp et al., "The Surface of Mars: 2. Uncratered
Terrains," 331-42, James A. Cutts et al., "The Surface of Mars: 3. Light and Dark Markings,"
343-56; Sharp et al., "The Surface of Mars: 4. South Polar Cap," 357-68. See also J. A. Stallkamp,
A. G. Herriman, and the Mariner Mars 1969 Experimenters, Mariner Mars 1969 Final Project
Report: Scientific Investigations, JPL Technical Rpt. 32-1460, vol. 3 (Pasadena, 1971); and
Whitehead to MM 71 Investigators, "Bruce Murray Seminar," 2 Oct. 1972, with encl., "A New
View of Mars," 28 Sept. 1972.
26. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 16-18 Feb. 1972; VPO, "Viking Science
Activities," no. 29, 23 Sept. 1971, p. 5; and Schmitz, "Viking Data Analysis Report Number I."
27. Soffen to Science Steering Group, "Meetings during the Week of February 14, 1972," 9 Feb. 1972.
28. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 16-18 Feb. 1972, pp. 6, 8-10.
29. C. Howard Robins, Jr., "Review of M75-140-0, Viking'75 Project Landing Site Selection Plan,"
memo, 10 Feb. 1972, with draft plan encl.
30. VPO, "Coordination Copy, M75-141-0, Viking 75 Project Landing Site Selection Plan," n.d.;
Masursky to Martin, 28 July 1971; Harold F. Hipsher, "Mapping Coverage of Mars with Mariner
Mars '71 (MM'71)," memo for record. 4 June 1971; Martin to Vincent McKelvey, 3 Sept. 1971;
Martin to McKelvey, "Mars Mapping Support for Viking Project," 18 Oct. 1971; Guastaferro to
John 11 . Campbell Jr., "Mars Mapping Support for Viking, Purchase Request 06.000.155," 12 Nov.
1971; Masursky to George Recant, "Viking Cartography," 3 Nov. 1971; Masursky to N. J. Trask,
"Viking Cartography," 29 Oct. 1971; Masursky to Robins, 8 May 1972; and U.S. Geological
Survey, Branch of Astrogeologic Studies, "Proposal to Conduct Geologic Mapping in Support of
the Viking '75 Landers," 8 May 1972.
31. Thomas A. Mutch to Schmitz, 1 June 1972, with encl., Mutch, "VDATTerrain Analysis," 30 May
1972; VPO, "Minutes, Viking Data Analysis Team Meeting, Jet Propulsion Lab," 15 March 1972;
Schmitz to Viking Data Analysis Team Members, "VDAT Final Report on Participation in the
Mariner Mars '71 Mission," 16 May 1972; and Schmitz, "Viking Data Analysis Team Report on
MM'71 Participation," memo, 13 July 1972, with encl., "Viking Data Analysis Team Report,"
prelim., M75-144-0, n.d.
32. VPO, "Minutes, Viking 75 Project Landing Site Working Group Meeting at Jet Propulsion
Laboratory," 25 Apr. 1972.
33. Recant, "Rating of Viking Target Areas to Be Photographed by Mariner 9," memo, 30 May 1972.
34. Robins to Landing Site Working Group, "Revision to Near-Term Selection Activities Schedule,"
25 May 1972.
35. Recant, "Rating of Viking Target Areas."
36. Schmitz to Martin, "Status of Planning for Coverage of Viking Targets in the Mariner 9 Extended
Mission," 6 June 1972.
37. Masurskyetal.toSchmitz, "Additional Viking Targeting Sites forExtendedMariner9Mission,"9
June 1972.
38. VPO, "Viking Science Activities," no. 42. 23 June 1972, p. 4; Mutch to Naugle, 10 July 1972; and
VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 13 June 1972.
39. Young, "Transmittal of Mariner 9 Data on Viking Target Sites," memo, 19 July 1972; George P.
Wood to Martin, "Some Inferences from Martian Crater Trails," 13 July 1972; Young, "August 4-5
Meeting," memo, 13 July 1972; and Kraemer to Naugle, "Viking Landing Sites," 31 July 1972.
40. Young, handwritten notes from 4 Aug. 1972 meeting.
41. VPO, "Minutes, Viking 75 Project Landing Site Working Group Meeting at Langley Research
Center," 4-5 Aug. 1972; anti Young. "Rcgionsof Interest for Landing Sites," memo, 15 Aug. 1972.
42. Henry W. Norris to Martin, " 'North Polar Region' Landing Site Impact," 22 Sept. 1972; Joshua
Lederberg to Robins [26 June 1972], with encl., Lederberg to James D. Porter, "LSWG" [26 June
1972], both items handwritten.
43. Young to Landing Site Working Group, " 'Polar Region' Landing Site Study," 25 Aug. 1972; and
Young to Martin, 17 Aug. 1972.
44. VPO, "Minutes, Viking 75 Project Landing Site Working Group Meeting at Langley Research

517
NOTES TO PAGES 303-315
Center," 28 Sept. 1972; and "Viking Project Science Steering Group Minutes for Meeting Held
September 29, 1972 at the Langley Research Center," 29 Sept. 1972.
45. Young to Landing Site Working Group. "Candidate Landing Site Locations," TWX, 19 Oct.
1972; Masursky to Robert H. Steinbacher, 19 Oct. 1972; Young to Sagan, 20 Oct. 1972; Young to
Porter, 24 Oct. 1972; Young to L. Kingsland, Jr., 24 Oct. 1972; and Leonard V. Clark to Young,
"LSWG Comments regarding Hal Masursky's Suggested Changes to Candidate Landing Site
Locations," 25 Oct. 1972.
46. Naugle to Fletcher, "Mariner Mars '71 Programs, Assessment of Extended Mission; Post Launch
Mission Operation Report No. S-819-71-01/02," 4 Dec. 1972; Low to Naugle, "Viking Landing
Site," 13 Nov. 1972; VPO, "Landing Site Selection Status and 'North Polar Region' Landing Site
Study," presentation to Fletcher, 22 Nov. 1972; and Martin to Kraemer, "Viking Landing Sites," 29
Nov. 1972.
47. VPO, "Minutes, Viking 75 Project Landing Site Working Group Meeting at Kennedy Space
Center," 4-5 Dec. 1972; VPO, "Viking Project Science Steering Group Minutes for Meeting Held at
Martin Marietta Aerospace Orlando Facility," 7 Dec. 1972; and Soften and Young to Science
Steering Group and Landing Site Working Group, "Joint Meeting in December 1972," 10 Nov.
1972.
48. Young, "Candidate'North Polar Region' Sites," memo, 15 Dec. 1972, and "Candidate Backup'A'
Site," memo, 26 Dec. 1972; Don L. Anderson to Soften, 21 Dec. 1972; and Alfred O. C. Nier to
Soften, 22 Dec. 1972.
49. Michael H. Carr to Soften, 26 Dec. 1972.
50. Richard W. Shorthill to Soften, 5 Jan 1972; Seymour L. Hess to Soften, 13 Feb. 1973; and Hess to
Soften, 22 Dec. 1972.
51. Harold P. Klein to Soften, 9 Jan. 1973.
52. Mutch to Soften, 10 Jan. 1973.
53. Robert B. Hargraves to Soften, 10 Jan. 1973; Hugh H. Kieffer to Soften, 10 Jan. 1973; Kieffer to
Young, 1 I Jan. 1973; C. Barney Farmer to Soften, I 1 Jan. 1973; and Klaus Biemamr to Soften. 12
Jan. 1973.
54. Sagan to Young, 12 Jan. 1973; and Sagan to Martin, 3 Feb. 1973.
55. VPO, "Minutes, Viking 75 Project Landing Site Working Group Meeting at Langley Research
Center," 8 Feb. 1973; and Sof fen and Young to Science Steering Group and Landing Site Working
Group, "Viking Landing Sites," 12 Feb. 1973.
56. Naugle to Fletcher, "Viking Landing Sites in Polar Latitudes," 1973; and Naugle to Fletcher,
"Viking Landing Sites in Polar Latitudes." 7 Mar. 1973.
57. Naugle to Fletcher, "Viking Landing Sites in Polar Latitudes" [6 March 1973].
58. VPO, "Minutes, Viking 75 Project Landing Site Working Group Meeting at Langley Research
Center," 2-3 Apr. 1973.
59. Wolf V. Vishniac to Lederberg, 1 Mar. 1973. Discussion of water, biology, and temperature can be
followed in: Leighton, "The Richtmyer Memorial Lecture: A Physicist Looks at Mars," American
Journal of Physics 40 (Nov. 1972): 1569-75; Sagan to Farmer, 13 Feb. 1973; Michael C. Malin to
Soften, 20 Feb. 1973; Soften, "Ad Hoc Meeting on February 28,1973," TWX, 21 Feb. 1973; Conway
B. Leovy to Farmer, 22 Feb. 1973; Sagan to Farmer, 26 Feb. 1973; Masursky, "Statement of Mariner
9 Volatiles Working Group on the Probable Distribution of Liquid Water on Mars," draft, 27 Feb.
1973; Lederberg to Sagan, 2 Mar. 1973; Leslie E. Orgel to Soften, 5 Mar. 1973; Lederberg to Farmer,
6 Mar. 1973; Klein to Walter Jakobowski, 8 Mar. 1973; Leovy, "Exchange of Water Vapor between
the Atmosphere and Surface of Mars," Icarus 18 (1973): 120-25; Lederberg to Klein, 12 Mar. 1972;
Mutch to Soften, 4 Apr. 1973; and Norman L. Crabill to Young, "Viking 75 Mission B Site
Selection Process," 6 Apr. 1973.
60. NASA, "News Conference on Mariner 9," news release, 2 Feb. 1972, p. 29.
61. Lederberg to Klein, 12 Mar. 1973; VPO, "Minutes, Landing Site Working Group," 2-3 Apr. 1973;
and Soften to Martin, "Landing Site Recommendation," 3 Apr. 1973.
62. Young interview by Ezell, 9 Sept. 1976.
63. Masursky telephone interview by Ezell, 15 Nov. 1976.
64. NASA, "News Conference on Viking Landing Site Selection," news release, 7 May 1973, and
"Viking Landing Sites," news release 73-91, 2 May 1973. Press reactions included: Marvin Miles,
"1st Viking Spacecraft Targeted to Land on Mars July 4, 1976," Los Angeles Times, 8 May 1973;
Harold M. Schmeck, Jr., "2 Mars Sites Chosen for Unmanned Landings in'76," New York Times,
8 May 1973; and Vern Haugland, "Mars Probe Aims at Canyon Mouth," Washington Post, 8 May
1973.

518
 NOTES TO PAGES 317-320

Chapter 10
1. Langley Research Ctr., Viking Project Office (VPO), "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group
Meeting Held at Viking Project Office, Langley Research Center," 16-17 Aug. 1973.
2. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting," 13-14 Feb. 1974, p. 2; and Robert C.
Blanchard, "Draft Copy of Landing Site Certification Strategy," memo, 4 Sept. 1973, with encl.
3. "Viking Site Planners Expect Data from New Soviet Mars Probes," Aerospace Daily, 14 May 1973,
p. 79; Kenneth W. Gatland, "Russians Renew Search for Life On Mars," Christian Science
Monitor, 19 Feb. 1974; "More Martian Vapor Discovered," Philadelphia Inquirer, 15 Mar. 1974:
Christopher S. Wren, "A Soviet Capsule Descends to Mars," New York Times, 15 Mar. 1974; and
"Mars Probe by Soviets Is Failure," Washington Post, 15 Mar. 1974.
4. S. S. Sokolov et al., "Funktsionirovaniye spuskayemogoapparata AMS'Mars-6' v atmosfere Mars"
[Operation of descent module of the Mars 6 automatic interplanetary station in the Martian
atmosphere], Kosmicheskiyelssledovaniya 13 (Jan.-Feb. 1975):9-15, trans. as NASA TT F-16334;
V. G. Istomin et al., "Eksperiment po izmereniyu sostava atmosfery Marsa no spuskayemom
apparate kosmicheskoy stantsiya 'Mars-6' " [Experiment measuring composition of Martian
atmosphere on board the descent module of the Mars 6 space station], Kosmicheskiye Issledona-
niya 13 (Jan.-Feb. 1975): 16-20, trans. as NASA TTF-16335; R. B. Zezin et al., "Analiz rel'yefnykh
usloviy v rayone posadki SA AMS 'Mars-6' " [Analysis of terrain conditions in the landing site of
the Mars 6 automatic interplanetary station], Kosmicheskiye Issledonaniya 13 (Jan.-Feb. 1975):
99-107, trans. as NASA TT F-16349; "A Valuable Contribution to Planetology," Pravda, 17 Mar.
1974, p. 3 [interview of R. Z. Sagdeyev, director of the Institute of Cosmic Research, Soviet Academy
of Sciences]; E. Kodin and D. Pipko, "From Hypothesis to Facts—Experiment 'Earth-Mars,"'
Socialist Industry, 17 Mar. 1974; and "Mars Probes Reveal Signs of Life Supporting Environment,"
Moscow Tass broadcast in English, 25 Mar. 1974, as reported in Foreign Broadcast Information
Service, Daily Report: Soviet Union, 26 Mar. 1974, p. U1.
5. VPO, "Minutes, Viking Science Steering Group Meeting Held at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,"
9 Apr. 1974, p. 2; idem at Langley Research Center, 20 June 1974, p. 1; idem at Martin Marietta
Corp., 13 Aug. 1974, p. 4; Edgar M. Cortright to John E. Naugle, "Soviet/U.S. Discussions on Mars
Landing Sites," 7 May 1971, with encl., Tobias Owen to A. Thomas Young, 2 Apr. 1971; Robert S.
Kraemer to Naugle and Vincent L. Johnson, "Preparation for US/USSR Joint Working Groupon
Space Research," 9 July 1971; James S. Martin to Ichtiaque Rasool, "USSR Mars Data," 14 Aug.
1972; Martin to Henry W. Norris, 27 Mar. 1973, with encl., "Protocol, a Working Session of Soviet
and American Scientists for the Discussion of Questions concerning Explorations of Mars and
Venus," n.d.: Rasool to N. J. Trask and Harold Masursky, "Maps from Mariner 9 Data for USSR
Mission to Mars in 1973," 17 July 1973; Masursky to Young, 17 June 1974, with encl., Masursky to
Rasool, "Meeting in the USSR on June 4-8, 1974," 17 June 1974; and Masursky, "USSR Mars
Coverage," memo, 4 Sept. 1975.
6. The nature of the early discussions about the use of radar and the interpretation of the data
collected can be followed in: Lincoln Laboratory, MIT, "Final Report, Radar Studies of Mars," 15
Jan. 1970; Robert A. Schmitz, "Radar Measurements of Martian Topography," memo, 17 Feb.
1970; Martin to Walter Jakobowski, "Earth-Based Radar and Mariner '71 Data," 17 Mar. 1970;
Jakobowski to Earl W. Glahn, "Radar Studies of Mars for Topographic Data," 24 Mar. 1970;
Schmitz to Jakobowski, "Viking Requirement for Radar Measurement of Mars," 26 Mar. 1970;
Glahn to Jakobowski, "Radar Studies of Mars for Topographic Data," 30 Mar. 1970; Martin to
Jakobowski, "Viking Requirement for Radar Measurements on Mars," 31 Mar. and idem 20 Apr.
1970; Cortright to Naugle, "Viking Requirement for Radar Measurements of Mars," 20 May 1970;
R. Goldstein to Schmitz, "Mars Radar Observing Schedule, 1971," 5 June 1970; William E. Brunk,
"Funding of Radar Astronomy at the MIT Haystack Antenna for the Fiscal Year 1971," memo, 10
June 1970; Naugle to Cortright, "Viking Requirements for Radar Measurements of Mars," 16 June
1970; Schmitz to Young, "Contour Map of Mars." 24 Aug. 1970; N. A. Renzetti to Norman
Pozinsky, "NASA Support Plan for Mars Planetary Radar Observations for Viking," 17 May 1971,
with encl., "DSN Support Plan for Mars Planetary Radar Operations in Support of the Viking
Project," 12 Apr. 1971; Schmitz to Gordon H. Pettengill, 6 Mar. 1972, with encl., R. E. Hutton to
Schmitz, "Analysis of 1971 Haystack Radar Data," 25 Feb. 1972; Hutton to Schmitz, "Analysis of
1967 and 1969 Haystack Radar Data," 9 Mar. 1972; Pettengill to Schmitz, 13 Mar. 1972; Schmitz to
C. H. Robins, Jr., "1971 Goldstone Radar Measurements of Mars Elevations," I June 1972; Leo D.
Staton 1972; to Viking Project Off., "Comments concerning the Validity of Radar Results for
Dielectric Constants on Mars," 28 Nov. 1972; Young, "Coordination of Earth-Based Radar

519
NOTES TO PAGES 320-330
Measurements of Mars," memo, 12 Jan. 1973, with encl., N. N. Krupeniyo and N. Ya.
Shapirovskaya, "Dielectric Permeability and Density of the Substance of the Surface Layer of
Mars," n.d., NASA TTF-14369; Pettengill to Carl Sagan, 15 Feb. 1973; Staton to Viking Project
Off., "Supplementary Notes and Recommendations concerning the Validity of Radar Results for
Dielectric Constants on Mars," 21 Feb. 1973; Martin to Doug J. Mudgway, "Mars Radar
Observations," 16 Mar. 1973; G. Leonard Tyler to Masursky, 5 Dec. 1973; and Tyler to Young, 6
Oct. 1975.
7. Sagan to Martin, 3 Feb. 1973.
8. Martin to Cortright, 23 Mar. 1973; Martin to Sagan, 27 Mar. 1973; Young to Rolf B. Dyce, 13 Mar.
1973, with encl., "Minutes, Conference on Earth-based Radar Measurements of Mars for Viking—
Arecibo, Puerto Rico," 21-23 Feb. 1973; and Tyler, "Proposal to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration ... for Analysis of Radar Data from Mars," Apr. 1973, proposal RL-24-73.
The progress of Tyler's work can be followed in Tyler to Young, "Monthly Progress Report for
Viking Mars Radar Study." 4 Dec. 1973, 4 Jan. 1974, 4 Feb. 1974, 5 Mar. 1974, 8 Apr. 1974, 1 May
1974, 4 June 1974, 3 July 1974. 7 Aug. 1974, and 12 Sept. 1974.
9. VPO, "Landing Site Working Group Minutes," 4-5 Nov. 1974; and U.S. Geological Survey,
Center for Astrogeology, Masursky and Mary H. Strobell, "Geological Maps and Terrain Analysis
Data for Viking Mars'75 Landing Sites Considered in Februaryand April 1973," Interagency Rpt.:
Astrogeology 60, Dec. 1975, p. S.
10. VPO, "Minutes, Meeting, Landing Site Working Group Subcommittee, Stanford University," 12
Dec. 1974; VPO, "Minutes, 'C' Site Subcommittee for the Landing Site Working Group," 6 Feb.
1975; Norman L. Crabill, "Minutes for the February 6, 1975, Meeting of the'C' Site Subcommittee
of the Landing Site Working Group at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory," memo, 14 Mar. 1975; and
VPO, "Viking Science Activities," no. 82, 21 Feb. 1975, p. 4.
11. VPO, "Landing Site Working Group Minutes," 24 Feb. 1975, p. 4; VPO, "Viking Science
Activities," no. 83, 14 Mar. 1975; Henry J. Moore to Young, 17 Dec. 1974; Crabill to Tyler, 14 Feb.
1975; and Dick Simpson to Crabill, "Proposed Arecibo Mars Observations," 21 Mar. 1975.
12. U. M. Lovelace, "Site A-1 Certification Procedure Review," memo, 27 May 1975, with encl.,
SA&MP Directorate, Landing Site Staff, "Site A-I Certification Procedure," draft, SAM-1-14, 23
May 1975.
13. W. B. Green, "Evaluation of Viking Site Certification Test I," memo, 14 July 1975; Pat M. Bridges
to Masursky, "Analysis of Viking Test Site Data," 10 July 1975; and VPO, "Viking Science
Activities," no. 88, 25 July 1975, p. 4.
14. Young to M. S. Johnson, "A-1 Time Line," 30 Sept. 1975; J. F. Newcomb to James D. Porter,
"Changes to the Mission 'A' Certification Timeline," 22 Oct. 1975; Newcomb, "Site Certification
Timeline for Site A1—Revised October 21, 1975," memo, 24 Oct. 1975; Crabill, "B-1 Timeline
Problems," memo, 9 Jan. 1976; Crabill to B. Gentry Lee, "B-1 Site Certification Timeline Review,
January 13, 1976," 19 Jan. 1976; VPO, "Viking Science Activities," no. 93, 23 Jan. 1976, p. 4;
Grabill to Viking Flight Team, "Change in Date of Preliminary and Finn Commitment Decision
Dates in A-1 Site Certification Timeline," 2 Feb. 1976; and Crabill, "Minutes of SAMP Director's
Review of B Timeline," memo, 11 Feb. 1976.
15. VPO, "Launch and Mission Operations Status Bulletin." no. 10, 20 Aug. 1975, and no. 11, 20 Aug.
1975; W. O. Lowrie and H. Wright, "Daily KSC Status (FAX), Dated August 11, 1975," memo, 11
Aug. 1975; idem (daily) for 12-15 and 18-21 Aug. 1975; and Martin and Young, "Viking to Mars:
Profile of a Space Expedition," Astronautics & Aeronautics 14 (Nov. 1976): 31-32.
16. Lowrie and Wright, "Daily KSC Status (FAX), Dated August 22,1975," memo, 22 Aug. 1975, and
idem (daily) for 25-29 Aug. and 2-5 Sept. 1975; SL/Viking Prog. Mgr. to A/Administrator,
"Viking Mission Post Launch Report #1," 28 Aug. 1975; idem, #2, 16 Sept. 1975.
17. VPO, "Launch and Mission Operations Status Bulletin," no. 12, 10 Sept. 1975; "Mission
Operations Status Bulletin," no. 13, 10 Nov. 1975, and no. 15, 9 Jan. 1976.
18. Martin and Young, "Viking to Mars," p. 32.
19. VPO. "Viking Science Activities," no. 91, 21 Nov. 1975, and no. 93, 23 Jan. 1976; Crabill,
"SAMPD-1 Test Minutes," memo, 12 Feb. 1976; and Lee interview by Edward C. Ezell, 12 Sept.
1976.
20. Young interview by Ezell, 9 Sept. 1976.
21. Martin interview by Ezell, 9 Sept. 1976; Young interview; and Martin and Young, "Viking to
Mars," p. 33.
22. Martin and Young, "Viking to Mars," p. 34.
23. Crabill, "LSS #1 Minutes," memo, 17 June 1976; "LSS #2 Meeting Minutes," 18 June 1976; "LSS
#3 Meeting Minutes," 21 June 1976; and "LSS #4 Meeting Minutes," 22 June 1976.

520
 NOTES TO PAGES 331-356
24. Grabill, "LSS #5 Meeting Minutes," memo, 23 June 1976; and Viking press briefing, 23 June 1976
[authors' notes from briefings held at ]PL, as well as material distributed to the press].
25. Mike Carr interview, 8 Sept. 1976, and Gerald A. Soffen interview, l 1 Sept. 1976, both by Ezell.
26. Masursky interview by Ezell, 11 Sept. 1976.
27. Grabill, "LSS #6 Meeting Minutes," memo, 24 June 1976; Carr interview; Lee interview; and
Viking press briefing, 6 July 1976.
28. Viking press briefing, 24 June 1976.
29. Grabill, "LSS #7 Meeting Minutes," memo, 25 June 1976.
30. Viking press briefing, 25 June 1976.
31. Grabill, "LSS #8 Meeting Minutes," 26 June 1976.
32. Grabill, "LSS #9 Meeting Minutes," 28 June 1976.
33. Nick Panagakos interview, 30 June 1976, and Robert Shafer interview, 2 July 1976, both by Ezell.
34. Viking press briefings, 27 and 28 June 1976.
35. Masursky interview by Ezell, 10 Sept. 1976.
36. Lee interview.
37. Viking press briefing, 29 June 1976; and Crabill, "LSS #12 Meeting Minutes," 30 June 1976.
38. Crabill, "#13 LSS Meeting Minutes," 5 July 1976.
39. Crabill, "Minutes of Project Manager's Landing Site Meeting, July 1, 1976, 8:00-10:00 a.m.,"
memo, 1 July 1976.
40. Viking press briefing, I July 1976; and Martin interview.
41. Lee interview; and Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
42. Grabill, "#14 LSS Meeting Minutes," memo, 5 July 1976; "LSS #15 Meeting Minutes," 6 July 1976;
"#16 LSS Meeting Minutes," 6 July 1976; and "#17 LSS Minutes," 7 July 1976.
43. Grabill, "AI NW Preliminary Radar Assessment Meeting Minutes, July 7, 1976-8:00-10:00a.m.,"
memo, 8 July 1976; Grabill, "A-1 Preliminary Radar Assessment, June 6, 1976," memo, 9 June
1976; and Crabill "A1/A2 Radar Assessment, June 18, 1976," memo, 20 June 1976.
44. Viking press briefing, 7 July 1976.
45. Crabill, "LSS Meeting #18," memo, 16 Aug. 1976; and Carr interview.
46. VPO, "Viking Mission Status Report" [7 July 19761.
47. Viking press briefing, 8 July 1976; and Crabill, "A1/A2 Radar Assessment," memo, 20 June 1976.
48. Viking press briefing, 8 July 1976.
49. Crabill, "#19 LSS Minutes," memo, 10 July 1976; "#20 LSS Meeting Minutes," 11 July 1976; and
"#21 LSS Meeting Minutes," 12 July 1976.
50. Crabill, "#22 LSS Meeting Minutes," 14 July 1976; Carr interview, and Masursky and Crabill.
"The Viking Landing Sites: Selection and Certification," Science 193 (27 Aug. 1976): 809-12.
51. Carr, interview.
52. Grabill, "#23 LSS Meeting Minutes," 18 July 1976; and Crabill to Lee, "C Site Latitudes," 20 May
1976.
53. Masursky and Grabill, "The Viking Landing Sites," p. 810.
54. Grabill, "#24 LSS Meeting Minutes," 19 July 1976, and "#25 LSS Meeting Minutes," 20 July 1976.
55. Crabill, "#29 LSS Meeting Minutes," 24 July 1976.
56. Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
57. Grabill, "#31 LSS Meeting Minutes," 27 July 1976.
58. Masursky and Crabill, "Search for the Viking 2 Landing Site," Science 194 (1 Oct. 1976): 66.
59. Viking press briefing, 25 July 1976; Crabill, "#33 LSS Meeting Minutes," 28 July 1976; and
Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
60. Masursky and Crabill, "Search for the Viking 2 Landing Site," p. 66; Grabill, "#39 LSS Meeting
Minutes," 13 Aug. 1976; and Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
61. Crabill, "#42 LSS Meeting Minutes," 18 Aug. 1976; and Viking press briefing, 18 Aug. 1976.
62. Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
63. Lee interview; Crabill interview by Ezell, 13 Sept. 1976; and Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
64. Crabill, "#42 LSS Meeting," 18 Aug. 1976.
65. Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
66. Grabill, "#43 LSS Meeting Minutes," 19 Aug. 1976; "Minutes of 44th LSS Meeting," 20 Aug. 1976;
and "Minutes of 45th LSS Meeting," 23 Aug. 1976; and Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
67. Grabill, "Minutes of 46th LSS Meeting," 28 Aug. 1976.
68. Masursky and Crabill, "Search for the Viking 2 Landing Site," p. 68.
69. Ibid., and Crabill, "Minutes of 46th LSS Meeting," 28 Aug. 1976.
70. Viking press briefing, 27 Aug. and 3 Sept. 1976.
71. Tape recording of communications audio circuits made by J. S. Kukowski; Martin and

521
NOTES TO PAGES 356-376

Young,"Viking to Mars," pp. 44-45; JPL, "Mission Status Bulletin," no. 41, 3-4 Sept. 1976; and
Viking press briefing, 4 Sept. 1976.
72. Martin and Young, "Viking to Mars," p. 45.
73. Martin interview.
74. Young interview.
75. Soffen interview.
76. Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
77. Soffen interview.
78. Lee interview.
79. Carr interview; and Carr et al., "Preliminary Results from the Viking Orbiter Imaging Experi-
ment," Science 193 (27 Aug. 1976): 766-76,
80. Masursky interview, 10 Sept. 1976.
81. Masursky telephone interview by Ezell, 15 Nov. 1976.
82. Sagan interview by Ezell, 13 Sept. 1976.

Chapter 11
1. Conway B. Leovy, "The Atmosphere of Mars," Scientific American 237 (July 1977): 34,
2. Ibid.
3. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976 (Denver, 1978), p. 30.
4, Michael H. Carr et al., "Some Martian Volcanic Features as Viewed from the Viking Orbiters,"
Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977): 3985. This issue contains 53 articles about
Viking; it was also published as American Geophysical union, comp., Scientific Results of the
Viking Project (Washington, 1977).
5. Carr, "Some Martian Features," pp. 4003-11; and Gerald A. Soffen, "Mars and the Remarkable
Viking Results," paper, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 16th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Huntsville, Ala., I6-18 Jan. 1978, AIAA paper 78-191.
6. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, p. 30.
7. Ibid., p. 31.
8. Soffen, "Mars and the Remarkable Viking Results."
9. Harold Masursky et al., "Classification and Time of Formation of Martian Channels Based on
Viking Data," Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977): 4016-38.
10. Carr and Gerald O. Schaber, "Martian Permafrost Features," Journal of Geophysical Research 82
(30 Sept. 1977): 4039-54; and Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, p. 31.
11. Carr et al., "Martian Impact Craters and Emplacement of Ejecta by Surface Flow," Journal of
Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977): 4055-65.
12. Karl R. Blasius et al., "Geology of the Valles Marineris: First Analysis of Imaging from Viking 1
Orbiter Primary Mission," Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977): 4090.
13. Carr to James S. Martin, "October Imaging Review," 13 Oct. 1970, with encls.
14. Soffen, "Mars and the Remarkable Viking Results."
15. Ronald Greeley et al., "Geology of Chryse Planitia," Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept.
1977): 4109.
16. John E. Guest, P. E. Butterworth, and Greeley, "Geological Observations in the Cydonia Region
of Mars from Viking," Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977): 4119.
17. James A. Cutts et al., "North Polar Region of Mars: Imaging Results from Viking 2," Science 194
(17 Dec. 1976): 1329-37.
18. Hugh H. Kieffer et al., "Infrared Thermal Mapping of the Martian Surface and Atmosphere: First
Results," Science 193 (27 Aug. 1976):780-86; and Kiefferetal., "Thermal and Albedo Mappingof
Mars during the Viking Primary Mission," Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977):
4257-62.
19. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, p. 27.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., pp. 28-29.
22. Crofton B. Farmer et al., "Mars: Water Vapor Observations from the Viking Orbiters," Journal of
Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977): 4225-48; Leon Kosofsky, Viking 1: Early Results, NASA
SP-408 (Washington, 1976), pp. 18-19; and Soffen, "Mars and the Remarkable Viking Results."
23. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, p. 25.
24. Soffen, "Mars and the Remarkable Viking Results."
25. Kosofsky, Viking 1: Early Results, pp. 25-26; and Martin Marietta Corp., Viking 75 Project: Viking

522
 NOTES TO PAGES 376-403
Lander System Primary Mission Performance Report, by G. C. Cooley and J. G. Lewis, NASA
CR-145148 (Denver, 1977). pp. V-11 to V-12, contract NAS1-9000.
26. Kosofsky, Viking 1: Early Results, p. 26; W. B. Hanson, S. Santani, and D. R. Zuccaro, "The
Martian Ionosphere as Observed by the Viking Retarding Potential Analyzers," Journal of Geo-
physical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977): 4351-63; and A. Tan and S. T. Wu, "Post-Viking Martian
Ionospheric Model," Acta Astronomica 28, 2d issue (1978): 187-94.
27. Soffen, "Mars and the Remarkable Viking Results"; and A.O. Nier and M. B. McElroy, "Structure
of the Neutral Upper Atmosphere of Mars," Science 194 (17 De(. 1976): 1298-300.
28. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, p. 39; Mark Washburn, Marsat Last! (New
York, 1977), p. 230; and JPL, Viking Science Forum, 28 July 1976, transcript.
29. Kosofsky. Viking 1: Early Results, pp. 27-28; Nier and McElroy, "Composition and Structure of
Mars' Upper Atmosphere: Results from the Neutral Mass Spectrometers on Viking I and 2,"
Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977): 4341-49; and Klaus Biemann to Monte D.
Wright, "'The Exploration of Mars, 1958-1978' by Edward and Linda Ezell," 13 Apr. 1979.
30. JPL, Viking Science Symposium, 28 July 1976, transcript; and Washburn, Mars at Last!, p. 229.
31. Soffen, "Mars and the Remarkable Viking Results."
32. Kosofsky, Viking 1: Early Results, p. 29; Alvin Seiff and Donn B. Kirk, "Structure of the Atmos-
phere of Mars in Summer at Mid-Latitudes," Journal of Geophysical Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977):
4364-78; and Seiff and Kirk, "Structure of Mars' Atmosphere up to 100 Kilometers from the Entry
Measurements of Viking 2,' Science 194 (17 Dec. 1976): 1300-03.
33. Viking Lander Imaging Team, The Martian Landscape, NASA SP-425 ( Washington, 1978), p. 23.
34. Notes taken by the authors during the mission, 20 July 1976; Washburn, Mars at Last!, pp. 219-20;
and "Mission Status Bulletin," no. 35, 20 July 1976,
35. Viking Lander Imaging Team, Martian Landscape, p. 27.
36. JPL, "Viking Status Report," 10:00 a.m. PDT, 21 July 1976 [reports were issued several times a day,
as events took place, to help keep the press informed].
37. JPL "VikingStatus Report,"11:30a.m. PDT, 22July1976;andVikingpress briefing, 21 July 1976.
38. Viking Lander Imaging `Dean[. Marttim Landscape, p. 27; Viking press briefing. 26J u I \ 1976: JPI.,
"Viking Lander Color Imaging," press handout, 26 July 1976; and VPO, Viking Project Bulletin
Special Edition, "The Colors of Mars," Dec. 1976.
39. Soffen interview by Edward C. Ezell, 23 Dec. 1978.
40. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, pp. 34-36.
41. Soffen interview.
42. Seymour L. Hess, "Weather at Chryse Planitia on Sols 2 and 3 of the Viking Era." 24 July 1976;
Hess, "Weather at Chryse on Sols 0 and l," 21 July 1976; and Hess, "Weather Report for Chryse
Planitia on Sols 9 & 10," meteorology team press handout, 1 Aug. 1976.
43. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition 1976, pp. 22-24.
44. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Lander System Primary Mission Performance Report, pp. VI-21
to VI-22.
45. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, pp. 48-49.
46. Washburn, Mars at Last!, p. 223.
47. Viking press briefing, 24 July 1976.
48. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Lander System Primary Mission Performance Report, p. VI-7.
49. Ibid.
50. JPL, "Viking Status Report," 6:30 a.m. PDT, 22 July 1976.
51. Viking press briefing, 22 July 1976; and notes taken by the authors during the mission, 22 July
1976.
52. JPL, "Viking Status Report," 1:00 p.m. PDT, 25 July 1976; JPL,"Mission Status Bulletin," no. 36,
27 July 1976; notes taken by the authors during the mission, 25 July 1976; Cary R. Spitzer,
"Unlimbering Viking's Scoop,"1EEESpectrum 13 (Nov. 1976):92-93; and Martin Marietta Corp.,
Viking Lander System Primary Mission Performance Report, pp. VI-24 to VI-25.
53. Narrative is based heavily on Washburn, Mars at Last!, pp. 225-27. See also JPL,"Mission Status
Bulletin," supplement, 10 Sept. 1976.
54. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Lander System Primary Mission Performance Report, pp. VI-25 to
VI-26; and Viking press briefing, 29 July 1976.
55. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Lander System Primary Mission Performance Report, pp. VI-26 to
VI-27.
56. Viking press briefing, 31 July 1976.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.

523
NOTES TO PAGES 403-423
59. Washburn, Mars at Last!, pp. 249-50.
60. Viking press briefing, 7 Aug. 1976.
61. JPL, Viking Science Forum, 10 Aug. 1976, transcript.
62. Norman H. Horowitz, "The Search for Lifeon Mars," Scientific American 237 (Nov. 1977):57-58.
63. Ibid., pp. 58-60.
64. Ibid., pp. 60-61.
65. Timothy Ferris, "The Odyssey and the Ecstasy," Rolling Stone, 7 Apr. 1977.
66. Viking press briefing, 7 Aug. 1976.
67. Viking press briefing, 13 Aug. 1976.
68. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, pp. 20-21.
69. Soffen interview; and Joshua Lederberg and Carl Sagan, "Microenvironments for Life on Mars,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 48 (Sept. 1962): 1473-75.
70. Horowitz, "The Search for Life on Mars," p. 61.
71. David L. Chandler, "Life on Mars," Atlantic 242 (June 1977): 34.
72. "One Man's Mars: No Martians," Science News 111 (5 Mar. 1977): 149.
73. Ibid., p. 150.
74. Soffen interview.
75. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, pp. 18-19.
76. Philip H. Abelson, "The Martian Environment," Science 147 (12 Feb. 1965): 683.
77. Abelson, "Viking 1," Science 193 (27 Aug. 1976): 723.
78. Chandler, "Life on Mars," pp. 29-36; and Ferris, "The Odyssey and the Ecstasy."
79. "The Mars Experiment," New York Times, 18 Nov. 1976; and "Life on Mars? ..." New York
Times, 20 Sept. 1976.
80. William H. Michael et al., "Viking Radio Science Investigations," Journal of Geophysical
Research 82 (30 Sept. 1977):4293-95. See also "Viking: Riches in a Radio Beam," Science News 110
(20 Nov. 1976): 325-26.
81. Michael, "Viking Extended Mission Radio Science Results," unpublished paper, n.d.
82. Martin Marietta Corp., Viking Mars Expedition, 1976, pp. 42-43.
83. Ibid., p. 44.
84. Ibid., pp. 45-47.
85. Ibid.
86. JPL, Viking Science Forum, 10 Aug. 1976, transcript.
87. "Mars Soil Similar at Two Viking Sites," Science News 110 (16 Oct. 1976): 245-46; JPL, "Mission
Status Bulletin," no. 44, 29 Sept. 1976, and no. 45, 21 Oct. 1976.
88. Soffen, "Mars and the Remarkable Viking Results."
89. Langley Research Ctr., "Viking Project Manager Leaving NASA," news release, 76-37, 5 Nov.
1976.
90. Noel W. Hinners, "Personnel Changes," NASA Special Announcement, 5 Nov. 1976.
91. "Biographical Data, G. Calvin Broome," n.d., in NASA History Office biography files.

Epilogue
1. Conway W. Snyder, "The Extended Mission of Viking," Journal of Geophysical Research 84 (30
Dec. 1979): 7917.
2. Snyder to All Viking Scientists, "The Viking Mission Status Plans," 9 Apr. 1979; and A. Thomas
Young to Noel Hinners, "Future of the Viking Program," 21 Nov. 1977.
3. Snyder, "The Extended Mission of Viking," p. 7930.
4. Snyder to scientists, 9 Apr. 1979; and Mike Carr to Snyder, "Imaging from VO-1 during the
December 1, 1978 to April 1, 1979 Time Period," 29 Aug. 1978.
5. Snyder to scientists, 9 Apr. 1979.
6. NASA, "Transmitter Switched Off on Viking Orbiter 1," news release 80-129, 8 Aug. 1980; and
JPL, "Viking Facts" [4 Aug. 1980].
7. Snyder, "The Planet as Seen at the End of the Viking Mission," Journal of Geophysical Research
84 (30 Dec. 1979): 8487, 8515.

524
 Index
Abelson, Philip H., 80-81,413 Astronomy (see also Radar. Radio science).
Able M (launch vehicle stage), 15, 38-39 10-12
Acord, James D., 194n Atlantis (Martian region), 78 ill.
Adams, Mac C., 127n Atlas (ICBM), 15-16, 27, 31-32
Advanced Mariner (seealso Mariner-Mars 1969). Atlas-Agena (launch vehicle), 27, 32, 39-40, 45,
96,99-108.439 48-49, 74, 75, 437, 939, 465
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). Atlas-Agena B, 27-28, 30, 435, 465-66
1 I, 25-27, 29. 32, 56 Atlas-Agena D, 75, 465, 467
Aeroneutronics Div., Ford Motor Co., 90 Atlas-Centaur (launch vehicle), 27.30-32,33 ill.,
Aeroshell stagnation-pressure instrument (Mars 34, 39, 106, 122, 123, 136, 434, 435, 439, 441,
atmosphere study), 374-75, 378 443, 445, 465, 468
Agnew, Spiro T., 186n Mariner program, 37-39, 41, 43-45,47-50, 71,
Ahearn, David B., 217 83,94,107-08,134,156,159,160 ill., 465,468
Air Force, U.S., 10, 15, 25-28, 33, 37, 38 Viking program. 196
Air Force Research and Development Com- Atlas-Vega (laun(h %chicle), 26-28
mand, 32 Atomi( Energy Commission, U.S., 102
Alba (Mars; albedo feature), 314 Attitude control system, 156-57, 246. 248, 300
Alba Patera (Martian volcano), 350, 364 Aurora Sinus (Mars), 177. 291
Allen, J. Denton, 79 Automated biology laboratory (see also Viking
American Institute of Biological Sciences, fib biology instrument), 66
Ames Research Center, 66, 68, 69. 71-73, 100. Automation (see also Computer; Viking,
103, 107, 110. 122, 124, 128, 230, 232. 233 lander), 244-49
Amino acids, 52-53 AVCO Corp., 88-98, 124-26
Anderson, Clinton P., 107. 114 "Badger, Mr.," 419
Anderson, Don L., 226-27. 228, 288n, 323 ill., Ball Brothers Research Corp., 68, 230
392 Baum, William A., 278n, 279, 288n, 304, 310 i l l..
Anderson, John W., 254, 255 332
Anderson, Roger A., 122, 123 Bendix Aerospace Systems Div., 221. 228, 229.
Antarctica, 235-36, 408 252,470
Apollinares (Mars), 305 Berkner. Lloyd V., 12-13. 15, 80n
Apollo Applications Program (AAP), 114, 117. Biemann, Klaus, 223n, 228, 229, 263, 264, 278,
119, 135, 142, 143, 189-90 308,319,353,377,407-09
Apollo fire (Apollo 204), 109, 113 Billings, Bruce H., 63n
Apollo missions Binder, Alan B.. 224, 278n, 286, 288n, 293, 299,
Apollo 11, 185 304
Apollo 14, 281 Biochemistry (see also Gas chromatograph-
Apollo 15, 353 mass spectrometer, Gulliver, Minivator,
Apollo 16, 299, 353 Multivator, Wolf Trap), 51-54
Apollo 17. 353 Biological contamination, 55-56, 87, 104, 123,
Apollo program, 1, 34, 42, 80, 83, 105-08. 119. 244
128n, 142, 144, 189, 300 Bioscience Advisory Committee (NASA), 56, 57
Apollo Telescope Mount, 142 Blanchard, Robert C., 317-18
Appold, N. C., 9n Blasius, Karl R., 369,372
Arandas (Mars), 349 ill., 369 ill. Blum, Harold F., 58
Arecibo radio astronomy antenna, 320 ill., 321, Boeing Co., 90, 101, 124, 148. 204, 216-17
322,334,335,339-41,344 Booster. See Launch vehicle.
Argon, 260, 319, 323, 372, 376-78 Bowen, Frederick W., Jr., 173n
Argyre Planitia (Mars), 367 ill. Bowman, Gary, 266
Armed Forces Committeeon Bioastronau tics, 63 Boyce, Peter, 289
Army, U.S., 17, 19, 25-26, 27 Boyer, William J., 152, 173n
Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA), 10, 14, Briggs, Geoffrey A., 278n, 287-88.322n
17, 18, 26, 28, 38 Bronk, Detlev, 13
Arnold, James R., 17n, 145n, 147n Broome, G. Calvin, 204.222.223n, 229, 232, 239,
Arsia Silva (Martian volcano), 294 ill. 2,10,264-65,420-21
Arsia Mons (Martian volcano), 364, 366 ill., 369 Brown. Clarence T., Jr., 122n
Astor, John Jacob, 3 Brown, Harrison, 17n, 29
Astrogeology Center, 332 Brununer. Edmund A., 153, 173
Astronautics Division (General Dynamics Budget, Bureau of, 100, 107, 135. Ill-92, 168.
Corp.), 15n 188-89

525
INDEX

Budget and program costs, NASA (see also Gas Commoner, Barry, 80-81
chromatograph-mass spectrometer), 10, 102, Computer, Viking, 156,244-45,248,253-56,257
134-35, 117-19, 141, 188 ill., 288, 337, 382 ill., 395-96, 398
Apollo, 80, 113, 119, 250-51 Congress, U.S., (see also House of Representa-
cut-backs, 34, 83, 85, 97, 99, 100. 118. 141-43, tives; Senate), 22, 42, 83-84, 100, 113, 128,
185-89 134-35, 141, 143, 146, 151, 186-88, 270
launch vehicle, 27. 28. 106-07. 119 Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp. (Convair),
Mariner, 80, 93, 94, 108, 131, 136, 141, 158, 15n
159-60,188 Contamination, biological. See Biological con-
Viking, 169, 172, 186-92, 212-15, 219-20, 225, tamination.
251. 254. 267-70, 279, 283-84, 297. 307-08. Contract, 18, 27, 29, 68, 69,88-91,95-98, 123-25,
341 ill., 358 ill., 422, 452 172, 216-20, 228-29, 255, 470-72
Voyager, xv, 83, 85.86.89, 93.96. 100-02. 105, Coprates (Mars), 290
107. 113-19, 124, 128, 136, 111 Cortright, Edgar M., 38, 43, 45, 131, 139n, 141
Burcham, Donald P., 85. 108 Titan Mars, 148-51, 204-05
Viking, 84 ill., 152, 183, 186, 212, 237-39, 252,
256,321
California Institute of Technology, 17, 18 Voyager, 102, 105, 109, 127
Calvin, Melvin, 52, 63, 91 Cowie, Dean, 63n
Camera (see also Television; Vidicon) Grabill, Norman L., 153, 305n, 310 ill., 317,
Mariner 1971, 163, 181-82, 280-81, 283, 290, 322n, 323, 327, 345, 347, 349-53
297 Crater (see also individual crater names)
Viking.207,220-21,251,253,279-83,291,293. Lunar, 77, 176-78, 314, 353
297.380-81,383-84 Martian, 76-77, 78 ill., 176-77, 178 ill., 281,
Cameron, Roy E., 235 290-91, 300 ill., 331, 332-33 ill., 337-39, 340
Canal (Mars), 2-3, 179 ill., 347 ill., 349 ill., 350, 352, 355 ill., 365,
Cape Canaveral, 26. 75 366 ill., 367 ill., 368, 369 ill.
Capen, Charles F., Jr., 103n. 289n Crocker, Joseph A., 30
Capri (Mars), 345 Cromie, Robert, 3
Capsule bus (Voyager), 127-28 Cunningham, N. William, 43, 158
Carbon dioxide (Mars), 372-73, 376, 378, 391 Cutts, James A., 305n, 331, 332, 339, 372
Carey, F. X., 257 ill. Cydonia (Mars), 314, 315, 347 ill., 348, 371
Carley, William J., 194n
Carr, Michael H., 282 ill.
Viking imaging system, 280-81, 293-94, 371 Darwin. Charles R., 51, 54
Viking 1 data, 331-32, 335, 338, 364-65 Davies, Richard, 63n
Viking site certification, 284. 306, 31 1 ill., 323 Deep Space Network, 113, 157, 193, 271-72, 274,
i I I., 346, 348. 353, 359-60, 422 320 ill., 355-56, 395, 396, 415, 422
Carter, Arlen F., 311 ill. Defense, Dept. of, 14, 15n, 28, 38, 43, 102, 189
Cartography (Mars), 129,287n. 288,290.292-93, Deimos (Martian moon), 28 ill., 290, 416
298. 299, 348, 352. 358 De Lauer, Richard D., 239
Case, Richard K., 182 Dembling, Paul G., 217
Cavanagh, Jerome P., 117 Derbyshire, George A., 63n
Cxntaur (launch vehicle upper stage). See Atlas- Discoverer 13, 37
Centaur, Saturn IB, Saturn V, Titan IIIC:- Dollfus, Audouin, 7n
Centaur, Titan IIIE-Centaur. Donlan, Charles J., 124-25, 139
Centaur Project Technical Team, 33, 38 Donovan, Allen F., 145n
Cherniack, A. Earl, 194n Doty, Paul M., 63n
"Chicken soup" experiment (gas-exchange life- Douglas Aircraft Co., 15n
detection experiment), 231, 400-03 Downing, Thomas N., 187
Chryse (Mars), 305, 314, 330,332-33 ill., 334.337. Draley, Eugene C., 128, 139
354, 357, 359, 371, 404. 411 Dryden, Hugh L., 15, 17, 106, Ill
Chryse Planitia (Mars), 314, 334, 340 ill., 341- DuBridge, Lee A., 55n, 80n, 186n
42, 344, 347, 371, 390 Duckett, Roy J., 240
Civilian-Military Liaison Committee, 28
Clark, Benton C., 418
Clark, John F., 19 Earth, 3 ill., 7n, 32, 51-53, 60, 79, 175-76, 363,
Cole, Charles W., 140, 170, 172 371, 377-78, 391, 414, 418
Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), 56 Earth science, 12-13

526
 INDEX

EASTEX (Panel on Extraterrestrial Life, East GCSC (guidance, control, and sequencingcom-
Coast), 63 puter). See Computer.
Eberhart, Jonathan, 412, 419 Geer, E. Barton, 257 ill.
Eckman, Philip K., 86, 194n General Dynamics Corp., 27, 32, 90, 159, 271n
Edwards, Andrew, Jr., 86, 89n General Electric Co., 27, 88-96, 101, 105, 124,
Edwards, Howard B., 223n, 232 138, 148, 196, 204, 216-217
Edwards Test Station, Calif., 196 Geodesy. See Earth science.
Ehricke, Krafft A., 9n, 15, 31-32 Geological Survey, U.S., 298, 309, 359
Eisenhower, Dwight D., 15, 18, 19,27 Girouard, Robert L., 153
Elysium Planitia, 416 Glahn, Earl W., 160
Eos (Mars), 289, 291 Glennan, T. Keith, 14, 15, 19, 22, 28, 34, 56, 69
Eshleman, Von R., 145n, 321, 340, 357 Gliozzi, James, 299
Evolution theories. See Life, origin of. Goddard, David R., 56n
Exobiology. (See also Biological contamination, Goddard Space Flight Center, 28, 29, 45-47, 56,
Extraterrestrial life, Viking biology in- 100, 122, 213
strument), 55-82,95, 99, 147-48, 161, 207-09, Goett, Harry J., 24, 49
231-32,234-36,301-02,374,408 Goff, Loyal G., 230
Explorer satellite, 14 Gold, Thomas, 29, 63n, 116
Explorer 1, 17, 18 Goldfine, Milton T., 194n
Extraterrestrial life (seealso Biochemistry, Biol- Goldstein, Richard, 304
ogical contamination, Exobiology), 1-4, Goldstone deep-space tracking radio antenna,
16, 51-82, 107, 180, 235-36, 281, 283, 293, 45-46, 157, 161, 274, 299, 320 ill., 321_, 335
307,390,404-14 Goodlette, John D., 243, 329
Goodman, Clark, 103n, 145n
Goudy, Joseph R., 192, 196
Farrell, Win, 332 Grahame, Kenneth, 419
Farmer, C. Barney, 278n, 284, 288n, 304, 305, Gray, Robert H., 173n
308, 310 ill., 345, 374 Greeley, Ronald, 332, 348, 371
Fellows, Robert F., 103n Green, Nathaniel E., 5 ill.
Fenn, Wallace O., 56n Greg, Percy, 3
Findlay, John W., 145n, 146 Ground stations (see also individual names of
Flammarion, Nicolas Camille, 2 ground stations), 157
Fletcher, James C., 252, 255, 268, 304-05, 308, Guastaferro, Angelo, 153
311-13,329,336,340,380 Guest, John E., 345, 348
Fontana, Francesco, 4 ill. Gulliver (life detection device), 69, 70 ill., 71,
Forsythe, Dixon L., 43 72-73,104,231,400,402-03,405
Frank, Ron, 264
Freeman, Herbert, 63n
Froehlich, John E., 18-19 Haldane, J. B. S., 52, 55
Hall, John S., 103n, 145n, 147n
Hamilton Standard Div. (United Aircraft
Gagarin, Yuri, 42 Corp.), 252
Galilei, Galileo, 2 Handler, Philip, 191
Galleher, V. Robert, 194n Hargraves, Robert B., 308, 311 ill., 323 ill., 341,
Camber, Terry, 310 ill. 353, 417
Gas chroma tograph-mass spccu ometer (GCMS), Hartline, H. Keffer, 63n
51, 7) ill., 72-73, 221, 224 ill., 245, 307, 319, Haurlan, Peter N., 86, 89n
394 Haystack radio astronomy antenna, 320, 321,
costs, 212, 215, 227, 230 ill., 241, 251, 269-70, 335,344
283 Hearth, Donald P., 139, 142, 148, 149
Mars data, 377, 407-08, 409 Mariner program, 99, 136
technical problems, 222, 225-29,252,253,261, Viking program, 151, 187, 213-15, 270
264,398,399-400 Voyager program, 85, 86, 88-89, 94, 96, 97,
testing, 223, 224 ill., 237, 261, 263-64 99-101, 103, 107, 109, 127n, 130
Gas-exchange life-detection experiment. See Heaton, Donald H., 43
"Chicken Soup" experiment. Heatshield technology, 122-23, 124, 126
Gates, Clarence R., 14, 36-38 Hellas (Mars), 177, 287, 289, 301, 315
Gaugler, Edward A., 89n Hellas Planitia (Mars), 345
GCMS. See Gas chromatograph-mass spectro- Hellespontus (Mars), 177
meter. Hench, Stanley B., 194n

527
INDEX

Hess, Harry H., 59,80n, 143. 145n Viking spacecraft, 155-57, 169-72, 195-201,
Hess, Seymour L., 278, 307, 390-92 203, 221, 261, 274, 286, 302, 323, 332, 344, 395
Hibbs, Albert R., xii-xiii, 19 Voyager program, xv, 85-88, 92-94, 96-97,
Hinners, Noel, 267, 268, 269, 270, 303, 310 ill. 100-01, 103, 108-09, 116, 127
Hipparchus, 2 Johannesburg ground station, 157
Hitz, Frank, 264 Johnson, Francis S., 103n, 145n
Hoffman, David, 77 Johnson, Lyndon B., 78 ill., 101, 118, 135, 141,
Hoffman, S. K., 9n 146, 151, 159
Honeywell Inc., Aerospace Div., 252, 254-56, Johnson, Roy W., 16
257 ill., 269, 470 Johnson, U. Alexis, 186n
Horner, Richard E., 24, 28-29 Jonash, Edmund R., 173n
Hornig, Donald F., 15. 78 ill., 101 Juno II (launch vehicle), 26
Horowitz, Norman H., 53, 180, 235-36, 401. Jupiter (IRBM), 18
403-07,409-10,412 Juventae Fons (Mars), 179
House of Representatives, U.S., 118
Committee on Appropriations, 185
Committee on Science and Astronautics, 24, Kamen, Martin, 63n
45, 142, 187 Kaplan, Lewis D., 93
Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Karth, Joseph, 100, 109, 113, 117, 187
Exploration, 8 Kasei Valley (Mars), 367 ill.
Subcommittee on NASA Oversighi. 100 Kautz, Gordon P., 182
Hubbard, Jerry S., 235 Kennedy, John F., 1, 42, 83
Hueter, Hans, 38 Kennedy Space Center (KSC), 159, 160 illus.,
Hughes Aircraft Co., 148, 204, 216-17 271,272-73,274,325
Hunter, M. W., 9n Kepler, Johannes, 2
Hutton, Robert E., 288n Kety, Seymour S., 56-57
Huyghens, Christiaan, 2, 4 ill. Kieffer, Hugh H., 278n, 288, 352, 353, 372-73
Hyatt, A., 9n Kilgore, Edwin C., 122, 127n, 128,268
Hydrogen, 376 Killian, James R., 17-18
Kindt, Donald H., 172
Kingsland, Louis, Jr., 322n
Infrared thermal mapping (IRTM), 324, 352, Klein, Harold P., 225-26, 227, 232, 233, 266, 307,
353,360,371-73,394 310 ill., 348, 353, 400-02, 412
Instrument Research Laboratory (Stanford Kochendorfer, Fred D., 43, 89n
Univ.), 67, 68 Kolden, John R., 194n
International Council of Scientific Unions, 56 Kramer, John L., 140
International Geophysical Year (IGY, 1957- Kramer, Robert S., 149
1958), 12, 13, 17 Kullas, Albert J., 169, 173, 252
International Polar Years, 12 Kusch, Polycarp, 80n
International Scientific Radio Union, 13
International Telephone & Telegraph, 90
International Union of Geodesy and Geo- Lam, B. C., 89n
physics, 13 Lander, Viking. See Viking lander.
Itek Corp., 221, 252, 470 Lander accelerometer (Mars lower atmosphere
study), 373-75, 378
Landing site certification (Mars; seealso Viking
Jakobowski, Walter, 140,173n, 185,231,232,310 1 and Viking 2, site selection), 305, 317-18,
ill. 331-37,346,353,356
Jastrow, Robert, 14, 17, 29 criteria, 281, 285-87, 299, 301-302, 318, 352,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (see also Deep Space 356-61
Network), xi, 17-24, 55n, 56-57, 67, 122, Mariner data, 277, 284-88, 297, 299-301,
128, 131-34 304-05,313-14,337,348,350,358
GCMS, 222-23, 228-29 polar sites, 302-03, 306-09, 311-13
launch vehicles, 14, 27, 47-49 radar data, 319-24, 340-45
lunar exploration, 17, 20-24, 26, 28-31, 126 Viking orbiter data, 181-82, 277-78, 293, 297,
Mariner program, 25, 35-40. 42, 45-47, 49, 75, 300.306,315,322,324,330-31,340,342-45,
131- 35, 157-62, 167 ill., 288 348,356-61
Titan Mars program, 138-40,148,167-68,205 Landing vehicle (Mars; see also Viking entries),
Viking program, xv, 182, 193-94, 213, 214, 121-24,126-27
219,269-70,422,451-52,470 Langley Research Center (LaRC), 128, 131-33

528
 INDEX

and Jet Propulsion Laboratory, xv, 100, Luria, A.. 63n

122-26, 136, 139-40, 155, 172, 194, 205, 229 Lyman, Peter T., 182. 338
landing vehicle study, 121-24, 126-27
Titan Mars 73 project, 135, 136,138-41, 147-51,
167-68 McCann, Alonzo, 262
Viking program, 151-53,169,206,213,216-18, McConnell, J. C., 376
243, 252, 256, 266 MacDonald, Gordon J. F., 145n, 146
Voyager program, xv, 103-104, 107, 109-10, McDonnell Aircraft Co., 90
125-27 McDonnell Douglas Corp., 138, 148, 169, 204,
Laser, 357, 361 216.217
Lasswitz, Kurd, 4 Mace, William D., 122, 123
Launch vehicle (see also names of individual McElroy, Michael B., 147n, 225, 376-77
launch vehicles and appendixes C and E), MacNichol, Edward F., Jr., 63n
7-10, 19, 25, 27, 31, 35 ill., 83, 119. 123, 129, NcNulty, James F., 122, 123, 125, 127
160 ill., 326 ill. Mainzer, Stanley E., 235
Launch window, 18, 30, 32, 34, 49, 74, 94-95, Manned Spacecraft Center, 84, 117-18
101,105 Manned spaceflight. See Apollo entries, Na-
Lava (Mars). See Volcano. tional Aeronautics and Space Administra-
Lederberg, Joshua, 54, 145n tion, Space race.
biological contamination, 55-56, 104 Mapping, Mars. See Cartography.
exobiology, 58, 59, 65, 66-69, 80-81, 91 Marc Cimmerium (Mars), 78 ill.
Viking prograrn,215,232.233-34,278n,288n, Mare Erythraeum (Mars), 319
302-05, 313, 348, 359,409 Mare Imbrium (moon), 314
Lee, B. Gentry, 323 ill., 325, 327, 330-32, 334, Marc Sirenum (Mars), 78 ill.
338,341,350-51,353,359-60 Margaritifer Sinus (Mars), 177
Lecs, Lester, 103n. 145n, 1 ,16, 147n Mariner A (see also Mariner2), 31, 34,36-40,45,
Leighton, Robert B., 76, 77, 158,175-77,180,181 75,434-35
Leovy, Conway B., 288, 363 Mariner B (srealso Mariner-Mars 1966), 1, 25, 30,
Levin, Gilbert V.. 69, 104, 105, 402-03, 410, 412 34-38, 40, 44 ill., 49-50, 434-35
Levinthal, Cyrus, 63n experiments, 41-43, 50, 63
Levinthal, Elliot C., 68, 103n, 104 schedule delay, 44-45, 47-50
Lewis Research Center (LeRC), 48-49, 75, 128, Mariner C. See Mariner 3.
153 Mariner D. See Mariner 4.
Ley, Willy, 4-5 Mariner E. See Mariner 5.
Liddle, Urner, 103n Mariner F. See Mariner 6.
Life,origin of (see also Exobiology, Extraterres- Mariner G. See Mariner 7.
trial life), 51-54, 58, 62, 82, 180,235-36,408, Mariner M. See Mariner 4.
414 Mariner R (Mariner 1), 40, 41, 44 ill., 45,435-36,
Lightner, Burton E., 311 ill. 465
Litton Industries, 228, 229, 252, 471 Mariner R-2. See Mariner 2.
Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Missiles & Space Co., Mariner 1. Destroyed; see Mariner R.
27,75,90-91 Mariner 2 (Mariner R-2), 40-41, 44, 75, 93, 156,
Love, Eugene S., 128-29 435-36
Lovell, J. B., 229 Mariner 3 (Mariner C), 63, 75, 164 ill., 197,
Low, George M., 191, 252, 255, 256, 268, 305 437-39
Lowell, Percival, 3, 5, 175 Mariner 4 (Mariner C, D, M), 63,74-75,76 ill., 78
Lowrie, Walter O., 239, 252, 256 ill., 79, 93, 94, 107, 137, 141, 156, 157, 158,
Luna 1, 26 164 ill., 176
Luna 2, 26 data transmission, 76-77,79,102,104-05,160,
Luna 3, 26 197, 277, 286
Lunae Planum (Mars), 367 ill. exobiology, 63, 76-77,80-81
Lunar and Planetary Missions Board, 142, 144- preflight (Mariner C), 34, 45, 48-49, 75, 96, 99,
48,184-85 164 ill.
Lunar and Planetary Program Office (NASA Mariner 5 (Mariner E), 74, 108, 135, 141, 143n,
Hq.), 103 170, 188, 439-41
Lunar exploration (see also Apollo program, Mariner 6 (Mariner F; see also Mariner-Mars
Crater, Ranger project, Surveyor), 1, 14-15, 1969), 74, 108, 159, 160 ill., 165 ill., 175-77,
17, 18, 25, 30-31, 83, 188, 309 178 ill., 179-81, 185, 197, 225, 277, 291, 293,
Lunar orbiter, 1, 30, 109, 128, 135, 141, 153 441-43
Lunar Orbiter 1, 126 Mariner 7 (Mariner G; see also Mariner-Mars

529
INDEX

1969), 159, 160 ill., 165 ill., 175-77, 179-81, Mars 4, 318
185, 197, 225, 277, 291, 293, 441-43 Mars 5, 318-19
Mariner 8 (Mariner H; Mariner-Mars 1971), Mars 6, 318-19, 377
132-39, 141, 166 ill., 167-69, 181, 188, 195, Mars 7, 318
197,288,290,443-44 Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), 38, 47,
Mariner 9 (Mariner I; Mariner-Mars 1971), 167 48, 83, 106-07, 108-09
ill., 188, 197, 225, 279, 288, 443-44, 465 Martin, James S., xi, xii ill., xiii-xv, 127-28,130,
dust storm, 289-92 148, 287, 358 ill., 381, 420
preflight (Mariner-Mars 1971), 118, 132-39, budget, 138-40, 279, 293
141,155-56,159-63,166 ill., 167-69,181,195 gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer, 222-
surface data, 263, 299, 304-05, 313 23, 237-40, 242, 398, 399-400
and Viking, 300-03, 306, 330, 339, 348, 358, and JPL, xv, 172, 194, 228-29
368-69,371,373,376,423 landing site, 278, 299, 302, 314, 317, 320-22,
water search, 311-12, 319 334-44,346,348,350-51,353-57.359-61
Mariner 10 (Mariner Venus-Mercury), 132-33, Viking lander, 203-06, 210-13, 215, 244, 252,
444-46,465 254-56, 257 ill., 265, 267, 270, 387 ill.
Mariner-Mars 1964. See Mariner 3 and 4. Viking missions, 325-27, 329, 394-95
Mariner-Mars 1966 (see also Mariner B), 49, 63, Viking program, 152-53, 169, 172-74, 182,
74,75,84,93,94,96-97,99,136,459 193,194,231-32,251-52
Mariner-Mars 1969 (see also Mariner 6 and 7and Martin Marietta Corp., 90, 138, 148, 262 ill., 271
Advanced Mariner), 108, 118, 131, 134, 136- ill., 420, 451-52, 470-72
37, 141, 155- 59, 162, 163, 165 ill.. 168, 169 cost overruns, 219, 232, 255-56, 269, 452
ill., 173, 181, 243 landing site, 287, 294-98, 302, 305
Mariner-Mars 1971. See Mariner 8 and 9. surface sampler, 399, 417
Mariner-Venus 1962. See Mariner R; Mariner 2. Viking biology instrument, 230-32, 237
Mariner-Venus 1967. See Mariner 5. Viking lander, 203-04, 216-18, 223, 228, 243-
Mariner Venus-Mercury. See Mariner 10. 44,252,254-56,259-61,263,264,287,297-
Mariner program, 25, 31, 34, 44 ill., 48, 83, 94, 98, 346
99-100, 128-33, 136- 43 and Viking Program Office, 172, 175, 220-21
Mark, Hans, 237 Mass spectrometer (see also Gas chromatograph-
Marquis, Donald G., 56n mass spectrometer, Organic mass analysis
Mars (see also Canal, Crater, Exobiology, Extra- spectrometer), 72-73, 148, 208
terrestrial life, Landing site certification, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 37
Planetary exploration, Volcano), xiii, xiv- Masursky, Harold, 161, 284, 288, 310 ill., 323 ill.
xvi, 1, 3 ill., 4 ill., 6 ill., 78 ill., 147, 161, landing site, 278, 291-92, 299, 301, 304, 305n,
294-96 ill., 300 i I I., 356 ill., 382 ill., 391, 415, 314-15, 317, 322n, 339, 344-53, 359-61
422-23,427-29 Viking 1, 331-32, 337, 365
atmospheric composition, 53, 60, 79, 225, 319, Mayo, Robert P., 186n, 188
363, 374-79, 385 ill. Media coverage
atmospheric pressure, 7n, 60,63,79,86,93-94, Mariner flights, 77, 292
99, 102-03, 127, 129, 243, 260, 365, 373-74 NASA, 22, 105, 186, 189
color, 61, 95, 177, 381, 383-84,385 ill., 387 ill., Viking flights, xi, xiv, 332, 336-38, 344, 346-47,
388 ill. 355-56,381,383-84,394,400,403-04,412-14,
dunes, 351-52, 354-55, 364 419-20
dust storm, 289-92, 331, 371, 392, 418 Medicine, 57
geologic evolution, 62, 79, 263, 292-93, 349, Memnonia (Mars), 305
364,368-69,371-72,389-90 Mershon, Frank E., 153
magnetic field, 79, 376 Michael, William H., Jr., 218 ill., 323 ill., 352
meteorology, 61, 62, 279, 285, 372-73, 379, ill., 414, 415
390-92 Mie (Mars), 351-52, 353, 354
polar cap, 2, 5 ill., 61, 95, 181, 225, 302-03, Miller, Stanley L., 52-54, 58, 63n, 414
371-73 Mills, Rodney A., 231
soil properties, 309, 348-49, 400-06, 408-18 Milwitsky, Benjamin, 43
topography, 175-77, 179-81, 290-91, 320-22, Minivator, 69, 72-73
330-31,355-57,363,380-81 Mirowitz, Leo I., 169
water, 60, 79, 180, 225, 286, 301, 311-12, 315, Mission Design Steering Committee (Titan Mars
364-65,368,373,376 73), 140, 141
Mars 1, 46n Mitz, Milton A., 205n, 209, 212
Mars 2, 291 Mohl, Casper F., 168, 170
Mars 3, 291, 321 "Mole, Mr.," 419n

530
 INDEX

Mons Olympia. See Olympus Mons. cation), 142

Moon. See Lunar entries and Crater. Neumann, Temple W., 10.1
Moore, Henry J., II, 278,288n, 310 ill., 322n, 332, Newby, Carl D., 201
339, 351, 419n Newell, Homer E., 14, 78 ill.
Moorman, Joseph C., 229, 398 Centaur development, 43-45, 48-49
Morgan, Norman R., 194n space science program, 15, 17, 19, 22, 30, 41,
Morison, Robert S., 56n 59, 118, 131, 145
Mosher, Charles A., 187 Viking program, 217, 268
Multivator (exobiology instrument), 68-69, 70 Voyager program, 49, 93, 101, 102, 103, 104,
ill., 71-72, 104 105, 107-09, 125
Munch, Guido, 93, 103n Nichols, George E., 194n
Murray, Bruce C., 79, 104, 270 Nicks, Oran, 43, 44n, 131
Mutch, Thomas A. launch vehicle development, 39, 45, 49
landing site, 277-78, 288n, 298, 299, 307-08, Mariner program, 93, 97, 99, 160
323 ill., 353 Voyager program, 86, 88, 94, 103, 109, 127n
photograph interpretation, 380-81, 383, 387 Nier, Alfred O. C., 228
ill., 389 Nitrogen, 372, 376-78
Nix Olympia (Mars), 176
Nix Olympiea (Mars). See Olympus Mons.
NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space Nixon, Richard M., 151, 186, 188
Administration. Noachis (Mars), 289
NASA Headquarters, 14, 28, 124, 142 Noneman, Eugene M., 240
and JPL, 29, 33-34, 85, 100, 134 Norris, Henry W., 170, 172-75, 182, 190, 192-96,
Mariner program, 38-39, 41, 131, 134, 157, 222,239
158, 160 North American Aviation, Inc., 90
Viking program, 123, 155, 185-88,191,206-07. Nova (launch vehicle), 27
209,216,219-20,226,254,255,266,305,309
Voyager program, 88-89, 92-94, 105, 106, 107,
109-10,127-28 Odishaw, Hugh, 13, 16,41-22
National Academy of Sciences, 13, 55-56, 63, Office of Advanced Research and Technology
191,454 (DART), 123, 124
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Office of Launch Vehicle Programs, 29
9, 10, 15 Office of Life Sciences, 57
National Aeronautics and Space Administra- Office of Space Flight Development, 14, 26, 29, 34
tion (see also individual centers, offices, and Office of Space Flight Programs, 29
programs; Budget, NASA; Contract, NASA; Office of Space Science, 43, 47, 265, 268n, 297,
NASA Headquarters; appendix G), 1,27-28, 301,312
118 Office of Space Sciences and Applications, 123,
manned spaceflight, 1, 7-8, 10, 24, 26-27, 31, 124, 128, 134, 153, 157-58, 206, 268n
42-43, 57, 83-84, 95, 117-18, 153 Olympus Mons (Mars), 176, 290, 292, 294 ill.,
planetary exploration, 1-2, 14, 17-18, 20-31, 296 ill., 364, 366 ill., 369 ill., 416
34, 41-43, 85-86, 93, 121, 128-29, 131-37, O'Neil, William J., 341
142-143, 146, 184-85, 213 Oparin, Aleksandr Ivanovich, 52, 58
reorganization, 29-30, 43, 144-45, 268, 420 Orbiter, Viking. See Viking orbiter,
space science policy, 10, 18-24, 56-57, 59-60, 63 Organic analysis mass spectrometer (GAMS),
National Aeronautics and Space Agency (pro- 228
posed), 14 Origins of life theories. See Life, origin of.
National Science Foundation, 14, 56, 102 Oro, John, 411
Naugle, John E., 103, 104, 118, 131n, 136, 168, 329 Ostrander, Don R., 29
landing site, 297, 300, 303-05, 311-13, 340 Oxia Palus (Mars), 179
planetary exploration program, 137-38, 143, Owen, Tobias, 223n, 225, 288n, 304, 310 ill..
145, 148, 151-52, 175 322n,359,376-78
Viking program, 185-89, 191, 192. 209, 210, Oxygen, 376, 378, 402, 403
212,213,232-34,263,268 Oyama, Vance I., 348, 401, 410-13
Naval Research Laboratory, 14
Navigator spacecraft, 86
Navy, U.S., 10 Paine, Thomas O., 151-52, 185-86, 188-89, 191,
Neilson, Robert A., 168 216. 217
Nelson, Clifford, 130 Panagakos, Nick, xiv, 336
NERVA (nuclear engine for rocket vehicle appli- Pandorae Fretum (Mars), 95

531
 INDEX

Panel on Extraterrestrial Life. See EASTEX and Radar, 298-99, 306, 309, 315, 319-24, 340-45,
WESTEX. 354,357-58,360-61
Parachute technology, 125, 126, 127, 216, 248, Radar altimeter (Viking Zander), 246,248,375-76,
260,319 378-79
Parks, Robert J., 34, 45-47, 86, 223 Radio science, 12, 414-16
Pasteur, Louis, 51, 54 Ramo, Simon, 80n
Paulson, John J., 223 Ramsey, Norman F., 144-45
Permafrost (Mars), 365, 368, 378 Randt, Clark T., 56n
Petrone, Rocco A., 268-70 Ranger 4, 40
Pettengill, Gordon, 322 Ranger 6, 100
Phaethontis (Martian bright region), 78 ill. Ranger program, 17, 26, 27, 49
Phased Project Planning, 100-03, 105 Ranger spacecraft, 1, 25, 26, 30, 34, 39-40, 48,
Phobos (Martian moon), 290, 416 155-57,201
Photograph (Mars; see also Camera, Landing "Rat, Mr.," 419n
site certification), 282 ill., 332-33 ill., 340 Rea, Donald G., 277
ill., 347 ill., 349 ill., 355-56 ill., 366-67 ill., Recant, I. George, 299
369-70 ill., 382 ill., 385-88 ill., 397 ill. Recovery temperature instrument (Viking lower
Mariner, 76-77, 160-61, 369, 371 atmosphere study), 374-75
orbital mission proposal, 129 Reiff, Glenn A., 76
and Viking, 206-07, 263, 363-64, 369, 371, Renzetti, Nicholas A., 140, 173n
380-89,392-93,422-23 Retarding potential analyzer (Viking ionosphere
Pickering, William H., xiii, 28, 29, 55n, 78 ill.. study), 374, 375, 376
127n., 148, 170, 270 Reynolds, Orr E., 43, 59, 99, 103n
JPL-Langley interaction, 125,139,168,204-05 Rich, Alexander, 232, 233, 234
space program, 17-20, 22, 30 Richtmyer, L. E., 89n
Pimentel, George C., 145n, 147 Ridenour, N., 9n
Pioneer 1, 26 Roberts, Leonard, 121-23. 124, 127
Pioneer 2, 26 Robins, C. Howard, Jr., 278-79, 284, 298, 302
Pioneer 3, 26 Rochester, Univ. of, 68
Pioneer 4, 26 Rocket technology (see also Launch vehicle), 2,
Pioneer spacecraft, 14, 25, 26 5, 7-8, 10, 12, 13, 31
Pioneer-Venus mission, 237, 422 Rocketdyne(North American Rockwell Corp.),
Pittendrigh, Colin S., 58, 59, 80n, 145n 190-91
Planetary exploration (.see also Mariner entries; Rogers, Dave, 239
National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- Rosen, Milton W., 19, 27, 33
tration; Pioneer; Voyager entries; Viking Ross, C. C., 9n
entries; Space program, U.S.), xiv, 8-10,12, Rossi, Bruno B., 63n
15-16, 21, 23, 37, 87, 119, 129-39, 141, Russell, Henry Norris, 12
453-54 Rygh, Patrick J., 284
Planetary Missions Technology Steering Com-
mittee (Langley), 124-30
Pollack, James A., 383 Sagan. Carl, 189
Porter, James D., 298, 301, 303, 304, 322 exobiology, 63, 91, 225
Pounder, Edwin, 284 Mars data, 383, 409
Pratt & Whitney, 32, 38 site selection, 278, 279, 284-87, 309, 310 ill.,
President's Science Advisory Committee, 144 320-21, 323 ill., 339, 340, 353, 359
Press, Frank, 17n, 145n Sanders, Newell, 30
Press relations, NASA. See Media coverage. Sands, George, xi-xii
Price, A. Gary, 323 ill. Satellite, 1, 12, 13, 24, 28-29, 31
Propellant (launch vehicle), 2, 7, 31, 33, 35 ill. Saturn (launch vehicle), 30-31, 34, 47, 74, 83,
Prospector (spacecraft), 25, 30-31 106, 109
Purdy, William G., 252 Saturn C-1,48
Pyrolitic release experiment (life detection ex- Saturn IB (launch vehicle), 89, 102-03, 105, 106,
periment), 231, 400-01. 403-07 107, 116, 142, 447
Saturn V (launch vehicle), 89, 102-03, 105, 106,
107, 116, 125, 126. 135, 137, 142, 189, 447
Quicksand (Mars), 309, 321 Saturn-Agena, 48, 49
Quimby, Freeman H., 43 Schatz, William J., 190, 194n

539
 INDEX

Schiaparelli, Giovanni Virginio, 2, 6 ill. Solar wind, 375-76

Schilling, Gerhardt, 14 Solomon, George, 237, 238
Schmitz, Robert A., 287-88, 299 Sonett, Charles P., 43
Schneiderman, Daniel, 39, 160, 279, 284 Soviet Union, 2, 8, 10, 13, 40, 42, 55, 104, 109,
Schubert, Commander W., 43 143, 147, 151-52, 260, 291, 301, 377
Schurmeier, Harris M., 103, 158, 183 Space probe, 12, 14-15, 19, 22, 24, 26, 31
Schwarzchild, M., 80n Space program, U.S., 8-24, 55, 109, 189
Science end-to-end test (SEET), 260-64, 265 ill Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 15, 17-24
Science Steering Group (Viking), 210, 211, 221, scientific criticism, 80-82, 141, 143-46
260, 291, 293 Space race, 2, 8-10, 13, 22
program costs, 214-15, 221, 223, 225-34, manned spaceflight, 42, 186
237-38, 241, 280, 283, 421 unmanned spaceflight, 40, 104, 109, 143,
site certification, 277-78, 287, 298, 301, 306, 151-52
309, 311, 313, 317-18, 323 Space science (see also names of disciplines and
Scott, David, 348 instruments; Mars; Space program, U.S.),
Scott, Ronald F., 288n 51, 113, 205
Seaberg, John D., 33, 38 budget (see also Budget, NASA), 1-2, 22, 43,
Seaborg, Glenn T., 186n 119, 141, 191-92
Seamans, Robert C., Jr., 100, 101, 102, 106, 109, data, 40-41, 143, 384, 389-90
118, 131, 186n experiment proposals, 30n, 35-38, 41-42,
SEET. See Science end-to-end test. 57-58,160
Seiff, Alvin, 103-04 Space Science Board, 13, 14, 15, 16-17,22,41-42,
Seismometer, 253, 392 46,56-57,59-60,142-45,157,191,263,453-
Seitz, Frederick, 80n 54
Senate, U.S. Space Sciences Steering Committee, 41
Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, Space Shuttle, 268
93, 114, 142, 186 Space Task Group (Nixon administration), 186,
Astronautical and Space Science Committee, 188
80n Space Technology Laboratories, 15, 56, 90-91
Serviss, Garrett P., 3 Sparks, Brian O., 47
Sharp, Robert C., 79 Spinrad, Hyron, 93
Shaw, J., 288n Sproull. Royce H., 153
Shoemaker, Eugene M., 145n Sputnik 1, 2, 8, 13, 55
Shorthill, Richard W., 288n, 306-07, 323 ill., Sputnik 2, 8
416-17 Squibb, Gael T., 194n
Silverstein, Abe, 9n, 14, 18-19, 22, 29, 30, 41, 48, Steinbacher, Robert H., 284
49,56 Sterilization. See Biological contamination.
Singer, S. Fred, 13 Stever, H. Guyford, 9
Sistrom, William R., 63n Stewart, Homer J., 9n, 19, 24
Sloan, Richard K., 79 Stone, David G., 127, 128
Slocumb, Travis, 299 Stroller, Morton J., 30
Smith, Bradford, 292, 353, 359 Stroud, William G., 45
Smith, Henry J., 213 Stuart, Jerry L., 69
Smith, Margaret Chase, 113, 134 Summer Study, 1964 (NASA-Space Science
Snyder, Conway W., 170, 288n, 293, 297, 353, Board), 59-60
420, 421, 422 Surface sampler, 253, 262-63, 328, 394-96, 397
Soderblom, L. 305n ill., 398-400
Soffen, Gerald A., 397 ill. Surveyor (lunar spacecraft), 1, 25, 30-31, 38, 39,
budget cuts, 225, 233, 280, 283 47-48, 50, 85, 107, 140, 141, 150, 314
exobiology, 58-59, 67, 231 Surveyor 7, 353
Mars data, 365, 375, 378, 384, 389, 408, 409, Swarzchild, Martin, 80n
419-20 Syrtis Major (Mars), 95, 179, 289
site selection, 278, 301, 303, 305n, 306-08, 311 Szilard, Leo, 59
ill., 321, 322n, 323 ill., 353, 357-59
Viking program, 152, 174, 181, 183, 203-06,
208-10,220,227,228,235,264,420-21 Taback, Israel, 140, 152, 173n, 174, 203-04
Sol (Martian day), 390n Tarver, Paul, 103n
Solar array, 157, 167 ill., 195, 199 ill.. 244, 298 Teledyne-Ryan, 252, 472

533
INDEX

Telemetry, 40, 42, 157, 158, 248, 249, 280, 393 Voyager plans, 49, 83, 89, 94-95
Telescope, 2, 4, 16, 36 ill., 75-76 Vidicon television microscope, 67, 68 ill., 72-73
Television (see also Camera; Vidicon), 67, 76, Vidicon television telescope, 36 ill., 75-76
122, 125, 157, 161, 163, 181 Vietnam war, xv, 83, 111, 115
Tharsis (Mars), 292, 365, 366 ill., 369 ill., 416 Viking A spacecraft, 274-76, 302, 305
Thompson, Floyd, 127-28, 139n Viking B spacecraft, 274-76, 302, 305, 313
Thor (IRBM), 15n, 26-27 l'iking 1, 219, 326 ill., 328
Thor-Able (launch vehicle), 15, 16, 26 data, 330-31, 371, 381-84, 389-92,408,413, 416
Titan I1 (launch vehicle), 465 landing, xi-xiv, 301, 346, 348-49, 375-381
Titan-Centaur, 148-51, 253 site selection, xv, 302-15, 317-18, 320-25,
Titan IIIC-Centaur, 89, 104-05, 134, 136, 327,329-46
148-52,219,24S technical problems, 325, 329-30, 348-49,
Titan IIID-Centaur, 138, 147, 152, 169, 465 392-95
Titan IIIE-Centaur, 271, 272, 273 ill., 274, 323 Viking 2, 219, 325-26, 328, 354-56
ill., 325, 326 ill., 447, 465, 469 data, 390, 392, 393-94, 406, 408
Titan Mars 73, 134-39, 142, 147-51. 168 site selection, xv, 302-15, 317-18, 320-25, 345,
Tithonius Lacus (Mars), 295 ill. 346-50,352-54
"Toad, Mr.," 419n Viking biology instruments (see also "Chicken
Tobias, Cornelius A., 56n soup" experiment, Gulliver, pyrolitic-
Toth-Nepenthes (Mars), 287 release experiment, Wolf Trap), 208, 209,
Toulmin, Priestley, III, 263-64,311 ill., 419 210, 225-26, 227, 238 ill., 240, 249, 253, 286,
Townsend, John W., Jr., 63n 394, 397 ill., 401 ill., 454-55,,161-63
Trimble, G. S., Jr., 9n 225-26, 227, 238 ill., 240, 249, 253, 286, 394,
Tritonis Lac-us (Mars), 314 397 ill., 401 ill., 454-55, 461-63
TRW Space Laboratories, 101, 221, 229, 230, costs, 214, 220, 229, 232-34, 237-38, 241 ill.,
232, 233, 237, 239, 267, 269, 472 251,369-70
Turkevich, Anthony L., 263 Mars data, 398, 400, 402-07, 409-13
Tyler, G. Leonard, 321-22, 323 ill., 339-45, testing, 239-40, 264-68
357-58,359,472 Viking extended mission, 420-23
Viking lander, xv, 148-53, 155-56, 168-69, 184,
203-04, 216, 218 ill., 219, 243-46, 251-56,
257 ill., 270, 385 ill., 387 ill.
United States. See Space Policy, U.S.; Space race. costs (see also Science Steering Group, pro-
United Technologies, 271In gram costs), 251-55, 269
Unmanned spaceflight. See National Aero- data transmission, 249-50 ill., 422-23
nautics and Space Administration; Space personnel, 203-15, 395-96, 398
race. science instruments, 174-75, 203-04, 207-15,
Upper-atmosphere mass spectrometer, 374-77 225-42, 246-47 ill., 248-50, 375, 378, 391 ill.,
Urey, Harold C., 15, 29, 52-54, 91, 414 397 ill., 416, 418 ill., 454-55
USSR. See Soviet Union. technical problems, 251-56
Utopia Planitia (Mars), 350, 351, 354, 355 ill., testing, 256, 258-61, 262 ill., 263-66 ill., 267-
404, 406, 411 68, 275, 328, 386 ill.
Viking lander 1, 271 ill., 272, 273 ill., 273-74,
374-75,378,379-80,392-95,417,421-22
Viking lander 2, 271 ill., 272, 379, 393-94, 417,
V-2 rocket, 7, 12 421-22
Valles Marineris (Mars), 295-96 ill., 369-70 ill., Viking orbiter, 152-53, 155-98 ill., 199 ill.-201
373 ill.. 219, 223, 243, 244-46, 248-49, 253, 415-
Vallis Nirgal (Mars), 294 ill. 16
Van Allen, James A., 145n costs, 170, 172, 184, 201, 203, 214-15, 220,
Van Ness, Harper E., 173n, 195, 222-23 225-28,269,284
Vanguard satellite project, 27 design, and Mariner influence, 151, 155-59,
Vega Mars probe, 28 ill. 168-69, 183-84, 194-96, 200, 296, 298
Venera 4, 143 science data, 197, 300, 302, 371-74
Venus (planet) testing, 171, 193, 196,198 ill., 199-200,271-72,
Mariner plans, 35, 38-40, 44-45,46, 47, 48, 93, 275,328
107,131-34 Viking orbiter 1 (VO-1), 196, 198, 200, 271-72,
physical properties, 40-41, 53 273 ill., 348, 394, 422
research probe proposals, 11, 15-16, 18-24, Viking orbiter 2 (VO-2), 198, 200, 272, 355, 393,
30-34, 65, 117, 130-34 421-22

534
 INDEX

Viking o rb iter 3 (VO -3). 198 p la ne ta ry exp lo ra ti o n progra m , 13 1. 134- 35,

Vik in g prog ra m (see also Bud get, NA A; j et 142- 46
Pro pu ls io n La bo ra tory; La n g ley Resea rch Voyage r prog ra m. 89 , 93, 9'1, 96.100.1 06, 107 ,
Ce nter ), x iv- xvi, 1- 2,85, 148- 53, 170, 172-75, 109 . 11 3, 11 5
I 2- 85, 1 88 - 94, 20 3, 21 9, 22 1 .447 - 5~4 70-7 2 We ll s, H . G ., 3
Vikin g Proj ect Off ice (La ng ley), 152- 53. 170, We lsh , Edwa rd c., 78 ill.
172,4 20 WEST EX (Pa n e l o n Extra te rres lria l Life . \Ves t
a n d coS tS, 2 14- 15, 2 19 Coas t), 63, 2 15
la nd er , 209, 220, 252. 256 Whipp le, Fred I .. 63 n
,cience instrum ents, 156.209,2 13,223,227 - 28, W hite Sa n d ; T est Facilit y, 260
237. 266 Wi g ley . Ro bert F., 257 ill. ,
s ite se lec t io n . xv. 292. 297 , 303, 305, 308- 09, Wil son. C. R., 68
321 .323,332 Wo lf Tra p (l ife d etectio n devi ce). 67, 68 ill.. 72,
Vi s h n iac, vVo lf V., 145 n , 146, 147,236i ll .,352il l. 23 1- 33, 235, 236
exo bi o logy, 58, 63 - 64 . 67 -68, 9 1, 278,3 13 Wo lfe, All en E. . 170
Vikin g prog ra m. 232- 37,4 09 Woodward , W . H .. 9n
Volca no (Ma rs), 290 . 292-93, 364 Woom era g ro un d sL<l li o n , 157
vo n Bra un . '~' e rn h e r. 5. 7-9 .28,29.38,4 7 Wo rk in g Gro up o n Lu n a r Exp lo ra ti on , 17
vo n Kilrl'll ill1 . Th eod o re. Auditorium , x i Wo rkin g Gro up o n Ve hi cu la r Progra m, 9
vo n Struve, H enry C .. III , 264 Wroto n , H a tch , 239 , 2'10
Voyager p rogra m (see a lso Bud ge t. NA SA), xv ,
1,4 9.83 - 11 9. 12 1. 129- 30. 13 1. 134 - 37. 146,
190-9 1,243.43 0- 33.446- 47 X -ray fl o u rescen ce spec tro m e ter (X R FS ), 264,
Voyager spacecra ft. 25. 30- 3 1. 36-37, 125-2 9 394.398,4 04, 4 17,4 18 iII.
o rb il er- Ia nd er. 67. 83. 84 ill. - 8S. 89. 9 1-92. 94-
97, 102-03. 107. 108, 11 0-11 5 ill .. 129 Yo un g, A. Th o m as
scienlifi c experim e lll s, 83 . 98. 104 site se lecti o n , 278-7 9. 287. 302-03, 305, 308,
Voyager -j upi ter . 422 3 11 ill. , 3 13- 14, 32 1, 323 ill .. 339, 342- 43.
348.350- 53, 356- 6 1
Vikin g da ta. 38 1. 393, 398. 400, 408
Wa ll ace, Alfred R u s e l, 5 Vikin g- Mar iner-M a rs 7 1, 287, 300-01
Wa term a n , Ala n T. , 16 Vikin g progra m . 174. 205-06. 242. 325, 327 .
Wa tk in s, Kermit S., 170. 173,42 1 329.338.420
Wa lson , Wi ll ia m 1. , 153 Yo un g. R ic hard S .. 63 n . 66. 205n , 2 15, 232. 233 .
"Vea ther Burea u , U .S .. 102 236 ill .. 3 10 ill. , 352 ill.
Web b. Da lton D ., 168
Webb , j a m es E. , IS, l S I. 152
ma nned spacefli g ht progra m . '13. 99. 152

535
 The Authors

Edward Clinton Ezell, born in Indianapolis, Indiana (1939), received

his A.B. from Butler University (1961); M.A. from the University of Dela-
ware (1963), where he was a Hagley Fellow; and Ph.D. in the history of
science and technology from Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland
(1969). He taught at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and San-
gamon State University, Springfield, Illinois, before contracting with the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to write The Partnership
(Linda N. Ezell, coauthor, 1978), a history of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.
In 1980, Ezell became the historian at NASA's Johnson Space Center,
Houston, Texas. Also active in the field of military technology, Ezell had
recently written Handguns of the World (1981), a companion volume to the
12th edition of Small Arms of the World (in press) (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stack-
pole Books). He is now a curator of military history at the Smithsonian
Institution's National Museum of American History in Washington.
Linda Neuman Ezell, born in Fulton County, Illinois (1951), gradu-
ated from Sangamon State University in 1974. Under contract to NASA
Headquarters, she has also written NASA Historical Data Book, 1958-1968,
vol. 2, Programs and Major Projects (in press) and is working on another
volume that will describe NASA programs during the agency's second
decade. Ms. Ezell, a part-time graduate student at George Washington
University in Washington, is also an emergency medical technician and
firefighter for a volunteer fire department in northern Virginia.
 The NASA History Series
HISTORIES

Anderson, Frank W., Jr., Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA, 1915-1980 (NASA
SP-4403, 2d ed., 1981).
Benson, Charles D., and William Barnaby Faherty, Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch
Facilities and Operations (NASA SP-4204, 1978).
Bilstein, Roger E., Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch
Vehicles (NASA SP-4206, 1980).
Boone, W. Fred, NASA Office of Defense Affairs: The First Five Years (NASA HHR- 32, 1970,
multilith).
Brooks, Courtney G., James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., Chariots for Apollo: A
History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft (NASA SP-4205, 1979).
Byers, Bruce K., Destination Moon: A History of the Lunar Orbiter Program (NASA TM X-3487,
1977, multilith).
Compton, W. David, and Charles D. Benson, Living and Working in Space: A History of Skylab
(NASA SP-4208, in press).
Corliss, William R., NASA Sounding Rockets, 1958-1968: A Historical Summary (NASA SP-4401,
1971).
Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. The Partnership: A History of the Apollo-Soyuz
Test Project (NASA SP-4209, 1978).
Green, Constance McL., and Milton Lomask, Vanguard: A History (NASA SP-4202, 1970; also
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971).
Hacker, Barton C., and James M. Grimwood, On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project
Gemini (NASA SP-4203, 1977).
Hall, R. Cargill, Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger (NASA SP-4210, )977).
Hartman, Edwin P., Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940-1965
(NASA SP-4302, 1970).
Levine, Arnold Managing NASA in Ihr Apollo Era (NASA SP-4102, 1982).
Newell, Horner E., Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science (NASA SP-4211, 1980).
Rosenthal, Alfred, Venture into Space: Early Years of Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA
SP-4301, 1968).
Rosholt, Robert L., An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963 (NASA SP-4101, 1966).
Sloop, John L., Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945-1959 (NASA SP-4404, 1978).
Swenson, Loyd S., Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocean: A History
of Project Mercury (NASA SP-4201, 1966).

REFERENCE WORKS
Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, annual volumes for 1975-1982.
The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology (NASA SP-4009, vol. 1, 1969; vol. 2, 1973; vol. 3, 1976; vol. 4,
1978).
Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy, annual volumes
1961-1976, with an earlier suntntary volume, Arronautics and Astronautics, 1915-1960.
Dickson, Katherine M., ed., History of Aeronautics and Astronautics: A Preliminary Bibliography
(NASA HHR- 29, 1968, multilith).
Hall. R. Cargill, ed., Essays on the History of Rocketry and Astronautics: Proceedings of the Third
though the Sixth History Symposia of the International Academy of Astronautics (NASA
CP-2014, 2 vols., )977).
Hall, R. Cargill, Project Ranger: A Chronology (JPL/HR-2, 1971, multilith).
Looney, John J., ed., Bibliography of Space Books and Articles from Non-Aerospace Journals,
1957-1977 NASA HHR-51, 1979, multilith).
Roland, Alex F., A Guide to Research in NASA History (NASA HHR-50, 6th ed., 1982, available
from NASA History Office).
Skylab: A Chronology (NASA SP-4011, 1977).
Van Nimmen, Jane, and Leonard C. Bruno, with Robert L. Rosholt, NASA Historical Data Book,
1958-1968, vol. 1, NASA Resources (NASA SP-4012, 1976).
Wells, Helen T., Susan H. Whiteley, and Carrie E. Karegeannes, Origins of NASA Names (NASA
SP-4402, 1976).

Recent volumes are available from Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402; early volumes from National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161.

*U.S. Government Printing Office: 1984 0-443-482