|
Author
|
Topic: USS Princeton as Apollo 11 recovery ship
|
413 is in
Member Posts: 632
From: Alexandria, VA USA
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-27-2016 01:45 PM
   
I have a NASA Apollo 11 launch invitation and was surprised to see that the USS Princeton is listed as the prime recovery ship for the mission. The Princeton was the PRS for Apollo 10. Could this just be a mistake in the invitation? If not, does anyone know the date that the decision was made to switch the PRS from the Princeton to the USS Hornet? |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 732
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 04-27-2016 07:25 PM
It was right after Apollo 10 that it was made formal; early June, if I recall correctly. I also have a photocopy in my files of correspondence between George Mueller and CNO Adm. Thomas Moorer citing the reasons behind the selection of Hornet, and will try to dig that out.As a practical matter, a CVS was a better selection than an LPH because a CVS had fixed-wing capability for E-1 Tracers (for air traffic control/relay) and C-1 Traders (for logistics). Hornet also had a large boat-and-aircraft crane for easier recovery of the spacecraft, as opposed to relying on the "Tilly" crane as the means for getting the command module aboard. Moorer's memo to Mueller also stated that, in effect, while an LPH was a perfectly fine recovery ship, a CVS also had a little more prestige for recovery of the first lunar landing mission. Let me see if I can locate the correspondence; if I can, I'll scan and post. |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 732
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 04-27-2016 08:09 PM
Here we are, courtesy of a request to NASA's archivists about 25 years ago. Admiral Thomas Moorer's letter to George Mueller of June 12, 1969, confirming approval of USS Hornet as Apollo 11 prime recovery ship (which had been selected June 5): And file copy of Mueller's response, of July 2:  |
413 is in
Member Posts: 632
From: Alexandria, VA USA
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-27-2016 10:15 PM
Thanks so much. I briefly tried to track down some info on this but don't think I could have come across anything that answered the question more completely. Great stuff. |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 732
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 04-28-2016 06:02 AM
You're welcome, and I'm happy I could assist. The books "Moon Men Return" and "Hornet Plus Three" are also recommended for more detail on the decision and how it played out; the authors each really did their homework on Hornet's selection as the recovery ship and why it was a wise decision.I also have a copy somewhere of USS Princeton's 1969 command history; I've long since forgotten what Princeton was up to in July 1969, but I also remember that very soon after the ship began to prepare for inactivation and decommissioning. If I find more, and in the unlikely event more light gets shed, I'll gladly share. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 05-24-2016 05:33 AM
Why wasn't the USS John F. Kennedy used for the Apollo 11 recovery? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-24-2016 08:09 AM
As referenced in this prior topic and answered by the USS Hornet Museum: CV-67 [USS John F Kennedy] was undergoing readiness trials in the Atlantic Ocean in mid-1969. She was not prepared to handle a "real" mission, was many thousands of miles away, and was a front line attack carrier, not a support carrier. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1332
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 05-24-2016 02:26 PM
Jodie, you are a great source of information. |
advertisement