|
Author
|
Topic: Astronauts and Area 51: the Skylab Incident
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-09-2006 10:16 AM
   
The Space Reviews published a fascinating article by Dwayne Day today: quote:
Far out in the Nevada desert, miles from prying eyes, is a secret Air Force facility that has been known by numerous names over the years. It has been called Paradise Ranch, Watertown Strip, Area 51, Dreamland, and Groom Lake. Groom is probably the most mythologized real location that few people have ever seen. According to people with overactive imaginations, it is where the United States government keeps dead aliens, clones them, and reverse-engineers their spacecraft. It is also where NASA filmed the faked Moon landings.However, for humans whose feet rest on solid ground, Groom is the site of highly secret aircraft development. It is where the U-2 spyplane, the Mach 3 Blackbird, and the F-117 stealth fighter were all developed. It has also probably hosted its own fleet of captured, stolen, or clandestinely acquired Soviet and Russian aircraft. Because of this, the United States government has gone to extraordinary lengths to preserve the area’s secrecy and to prevent people from seeing it. This secrecy was threatened in early 1974 when the astronauts on Skylab pointed their camera out the window and took pictures of a facility that did not officially exist. They returned to Earth and their photographs quickly became a headache for NASA, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. That story has never been told before.
Read the full article here. |
nasamad
Member Posts: 2121
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 01-09-2006 02:26 PM
Wonder what size lens the astro's were using to take the images at the time ?If it was a long lens unless the astro was panning the camera to match the ground speed the photo's wouldn't be much use anyway. Adam |
Danno
Member Posts: 572
From: Ridgecrest, CA - USA
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 01-09-2006 10:30 PM
Gordon Cooper said that the film he took after his Mercury flight was confiscated and LBJ eventually told him that he had taken photos of Area 51 while he was supposed to be in a sleep period.I can't remember if it was in his book or while he was speaking at one of his signings. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-09-2006 10:50 PM
Cooper's story, at least as it was recounted in his book, was about his his second spaceflight. Journalist/historian Jim Oberg countered Cooper's account of photographing Area 51 on Gemini 5: quote:
It turns out, on Gemini-5 Cooper never flew over Area 51 at all. The spacecraft orbit always passed far to the south. It was physically impossible for him to have taken any near-vertical snapshots of the super-secret test range.Even a simple check of his trajectory shows this. The Gemini's orbital inclination was 33 degrees, and the southernmost regions of "Area 51" are at 37 degrees north. That's a horizontal distance of about 300 miles, from an altitude of about at most 150 miles. Anybody can use satellite tracking software widely available on the Internet, with specific Gemini-5 trajectory measurements (also on the Internet). They will find out that as viewed from Area 51, Gemini-5 never got higher than about 20 degrees on the southern horizon, barely above the mountains for only a few seconds, once or twice a day. As viewed from his spacecraft, that would be far out near Earth's horizon, lost in the dust and haze of the thick atmosphere. The camera experiment requirements, and Cooper's own memory of it, involved only straight-down views of the nearest portions of the surface, seen through the thinnest layer of the atmosphere. Area 51 would never have been imaged, even by accident, except by grossly violating the experimental procedures.
Source: Area 51 and Gordon Cooper's 'Confiscated Camera' |
albatron@aol.com
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 01-10-2006 08:23 PM
It's been generally agreed upon by some astronauts and test pilots, that there is a lot of mythology in Gordo's book. They all agree it wasn't Gordo, but rather a lack of oversight of what was being written and embarrasing to him. Believe me when I tell you that his book has caused those who will write one to be overly cautious. I know of one in particular. Good ol Area 51 - "the Ranch". Lots of myths, some not so mythological. Interesting place. |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2031
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 01-10-2006 09:56 PM
Hi Al,I guess there's many amongst us who would like to gone up to Gordo when he was around and asked him bluntly why he hung his star on this terrible and demeaning book. I have always admired Gordo enormously, but if he also felt he had been so badly misled and misquoted, wouldn't the smart thing have been to have flatly refused to sign any of the first edition until the faults had been rectified? This would have sent a very loud and clear message that it was mostly a crock. He has now gone to his grave with this appalling and unworthy literary millstone slung around his neck. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-10-2006 10:11 PM
Colin, I had the opportunity to discuss with Cooper some of the concerns you raise just after his book was released. We met at his hotel in Washington, DC to conduct an interview and to have some books signed (for which time I will always be grateful). The comments on this topic were made off the record, so I will not share them here, but what I can say is that he offered an explanation. I hope that someday a biography may be researched and written to serve as a companion to "Leap of Faith". |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2031
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 01-11-2006 12:13 AM
Hi Robert,"Leap of Faith" is a sad legacy to a great man. It's also my sincere wish that someone will take up the pen one day and give the man and his accomplishments a far more deserving and factual book. Colin |
albatron@aol.com
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 01-11-2006 08:41 AM
Colin,What you say makes sense but I believe there were some contractual obligations as I've been led to believe. Cheers, Al |
kyra
Member Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-16-2006 10:20 PM
The inclination of Skylab was 50 Deg, so during the 84 day flight they could have had plenty of chances to photograph a base at 37 DEG. As a sidelight, I'm sure it would have been photographed routinely photographed by missions from the Soviet Union/Russia. They've seldom had a mission under 40 DEG inclination. Has anyone noticed how few pictures were released to this day of earth imagery from Vostok/Voskhod/Early Soyuz/Salyut flights ? Kyra |
kyra
Member Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-22-2006 09:36 AM
Sure enough, I found in Valentina Ponomareva's writings that Vostok 3 and 4 had tasks of photographing military installations from space. Secret even among the cosmonaut team at the time. Very easily could have included Area 51.Would it be out of line to ask Pavel Popovitch what he remembers about this at UACC ? His second mission on Soyuz 14 was also quite interesting with a 33 foot optical telescope on a secret mission with lots of code words... Kyra |
Moonpaws
Member Posts: 685
From: Lee's summit, MO
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 04-18-2007 02:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
This secrecy was threatened in early 1974 when the astronauts on Skylab pointed their camera out the window and took pictures of a facility that did not officially exist. They returned to Earth and their photographs quickly became a headache for NASA, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. That story has never been told before.
Any validity to this report (besides the obvious error in reference to the faked moon landings)? Second question: Do you think the guys from the last crew of Skylab would avoid talking about this at the autograph show? |
divemaster
Member Posts: 1376
From: ridgefield, ct
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-18-2007 02:32 PM
I think that since the knowledge of the airstrip at Groom Lake is just about as secret as the underground government facility that was built at the Greenbrier, that they wouldn't have any problems discussing the fact that a photo was or wasn't taken. Getting them to discuss what went on [or goes on] at Groom Lake might be a totally different subject. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 04-18-2007 02:32 PM
Last I checked, Google Earth had some pretty detailed satellite photos of the Groom Lake facility. Aerial/satellite photos of the site aren't difficult to come by...as the article even indicates that photos were available before the Skylab incident. So I wouldn't think the subject would be tabboo, unless it's a sore topic with these guys (depending on what fallout may have occurred behind the scenes after the photo was taken).In fact, I'd be interested in hearing what the astros have to say about the issue. Edit: After looking at the Google Earth image of the Groom Lake facility again, I notice that certain parts of the image are "painted" over. |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-18-2007 02:33 PM
I found Dwayne's article an interesting read, and I'd love to hear what the crew says about it if someone asks them at the event and posts it here - thanks. |
taneal1
Member Posts: 230
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 04-20-2007 04:49 PM
quote:
Jim Oberg countered Cooper's account of photographing Area 51 on Gemini 5: It turns out, on Gemini-5 Cooper never flew over Area 51 at all.
quote:
NASA had an agreement with the US intelligence community that dated from the beginning of the Gemini program. All astronaut photographs of the Earth would first be reviewed...by the CIA
Per the above agreement, CIA "confiscated" Cooper's film -- exactly *as he has stated* many times. That part of Cooper's tale is certainly true, but was vigorously denied on many discussion groups who were unaware of the agreement with CIA. Many statements have been made that Cooper could not have photographed Area 51 due to the physical length of the high-power lens that was required. The confines of the Gemini spacecraft simply would not allow the camera to be placed against the window and aimed. However, pictures of this camera published in 1965 NASA preflight press documents illustrated that this hi-res camera would be used like a periscope. Apparently those who said it was "impossible" didn't research the Gemini 5 preflight press documents. Cooper stated that his postflight film was confiscated by CIA and that he wondered "Why?." He never stated that he saw Area 51 and photographed it. Thus, whether he passed over it or not is irrelevant to the truth of his statements. He has stated that "later", he found out that he had taken photos of a top secret gov't installation. According to some sources Cooper says he was told this by LBJ, and that it was in actuality Area 51. In 1965 did Cooper know how far he could see to the north of his orbital track or what info the CIA could glean from his photos using sophisticated technology? Or the extent of the sprawling Area 51 base and its widespread facilities? So why wouldn't he believe LBJ or CIA people? As far as Cooper knew this was all the truth. There are statements in "Cooper's" book that bear questioning. I don't think that his "Area 51 photo" is one of them. Tom |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-21-2007 10:17 AM
Obviously a pre-Google Earth story LOL |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 06-19-2007 04:24 AM
Hi- I just wanted to add that for Cooper's Mercury mission the orbital inclination was 32.5 degrees.( This New Ocean- page 215 )
-Lou
|
Moonpaws
Member Posts: 685
From: Lee's summit, MO
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 06-19-2007 07:55 AM
I asked Ed Gibson about this incident at the autograph show. I don't want to misquote him as I'm trying to remember exactly his response. Something to the effect that photos were taken (like any tourist would take of an interesting spot) and that they disappeared after their return. Other photos of different locations were also missing (I believe he said some of California coastal areas). |
advertisement