My friend Jim Oberg wrote a very cool article about a very cool event: Vanguard 1, the oldest surviving satellite still in orbit, turned 50 a few days ago. It’s actually outlived most of the people who put it in orbit.
Imagine! 50 years in space. 197,000 orbits. I would love to have this satellite brought back some day; studying just the impacts it’s survived would probably be very helpful in designing future spacecraft. But then, maybe we should leave it in place. 50 years is a long time, and maybe keeping it there will serve as a reminder of how far we’ve come, and how far we have yet to go.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The msnbc article mentions possibly bringing it “home” one day to stick it in a museum. If Vanguard has a a stable orbit that would be safe for hundreds of years maybe it would be better to leave it in place for the time being? Probably safer up there than risking burning it up on a return attempt.
That being said, good on ya little guy. Happy anniversary.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Rather, it would be nice to one day have a maintenance satellite pass by Vanguard and photograph it up close to view those impact marks, and then move on to the next target.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
An interesting irony is that all of the Soviet Union’s earliest, most historic satellites are long gone, due to the then policy of placing them in very low orbits to allow them to be easily seen- for propaganda purposes. The U.S. satellites were all placed on higher, more scientifically useful orbits, and so many remain intact.
And not only are the instrument packages still there, but of course also many of the upper stages which delivered them to their parking orbits. I’ve often thought it would be valuable to rendezvous with one of those empty stages and “count the holes” punched in it over the years by meteoroids. Perhaps there’d even be some fraction of those impactors trapped within the fuel tanks.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I tracked Vanguard once to update its orbit when I was at a radar site in Turkey. Thanks for reminding me of the anniversary.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Judging from that photograph, Vanguard is in a VERY low Earth orbit.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Dude, that thing’s orbiting below treetop level! Duck!
March 17th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I’m sure that there’s a perfectly logical reason that it’s named Vanguard 1 but for the life of me, I can’t think why. You see, I recall a number of spectacular Vanguard launch failures – one toppled over without leaving the ground, another lifted maybe 10 meters then collapsed down upon itself, maybe a couple of others.
So remarkable were the failures that this joke arose out of the dust: The government was going to call the Civil Servants “Vanguards” because they don’t work and you can’t fire them.
A little googling uncovered this info: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Vanguard.html and among the nuggets is this: “Vanguard 1 remains the oldest man-made object in space, expected to orbit Earth for about 1,000 years.”
Wow!
March 17th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Who in the ’50s would want to be reminded that this was Vanguard V (or whatever)? I seem to remember the first ICBM too — “Into Cuba By Mistake.”
March 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Lugosi says: “Judging from that photograph, Vanguard is in a VERY low Earth orbit.”
It’s also flying upside down. That ribbed cylinder coming out of the top in the photo is actually the spring mount that attached it to the booster.
Mark Martin says: “An interesting irony is that all of the Soviet Union’s earliest, most historic satellites are long gone, due to the then policy of placing them in very low orbits to allow them to be easily seen- for propaganda purposes. The U.S. satellites were all placed on higher, more scientifically useful orbits, and so many remain intact.”
Vanguard tried for the best of both worlds. It was put in a highly eccentric orbit with the perigee at 100 miles or so, but the apogee was about 2,000 miles. That’s why it’s still up there and will be for at least 1,000 years (assuming it doesn’t get taken out by a meteor strike).
Tod says: “I’m sure that there’s a perfectly logical reason that it’s named Vanguard 1 but for the life of me, I can’t think why. You see, I recall a number of spectacular Vanguard launch failures – one toppled over without leaving the ground, another lifted maybe 10 meters then collapsed down upon itself, maybe a couple of others.”
Assuming that’s a legitimate question, it was called Vanguard from the military sense that it was the first entry into a new area to gather information for the rest of the force. Also, I think you’re mixing up your different failures. The only Vanguard that exploded publicly was TV-3 (test vehicle 3) that made it about one meter off the pad (not 10), then settled down and exploded. There’s a famous V2 development film showing it toppling over, spilling its LOX all over before exploding.
A final note, the small satellite shown in the picture is actually a tracking beacon. It contained no instrumentation (but it did have six hand-made solar cells!). The instrument package was launched later in the year and was about the size of a basketball (that’s a “football” to you in the rational parts of the world).
- Jack
March 17th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
@Jack Hagarty: It was a serious question (why would you think otherwise?) but I think you misunderstood. It wasn’t the “vanguard” moniker so much at the “1″ designator since two earlier attempts to launch had failed. Thanks also for correcting my memories of the failed Vanguards. I have to mention, though, that the site I link to above notes that eight of 11 Vanguards failed to launch.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:39 am
I guess I’m just a sentimentalist, but I think Vanguard I should be left in orbit as a national monument of sorts. There’s no more fitting tribute for a bit of space hardware that letting it remain where it was intended to go. Although micrometers may cause a good bit of cumulative damage between now and a 1,000 years from now, as a national treasure it’s probably safer in orbit.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:16 am
This is a test sorry
March 18th, 2008 at 8:44 am
50 years in orbit? Is this space archeology or what?
March 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am
“Although micrometers may cause a good bit of cumulative damage between now and a 1,000 years from now”
Wow, and I thought they were precision instruments!
March 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Vanguard 1 was a troubled project because the US Navy was attempting to build a booster platform from scratch. In those days, that usually meant a lot of failures.
People seem to fail to understand the style of engineering that was employed at the time, which was of the ‘design/fail/redesign/fail/redesign’ variety. Certainly, those launches were not meant to fail, but at the same time, the designs were so cutting edge that failure was inevitable.
Compare and contrast that to Explorer 1, which was America’s first “artificial moon” and was successfully launched by the Huntsville based ABMA team (Army Ballistic Missile Agency) of Werner Von Braun. The Juno 1 was a much more highly evolved design, and quite frankly, Von Braun had a better and more experienced team. Of course, I am prejudiced, my Grandfather was a key member of that team, reporting to Dr. Kurt Debus.
But if rocket design is now so easy, even with the vast experience, computer designs, computer based FMEA simulations, better materials, etc. et. al, then why is Ares-1 having some major design concerns such that it is being taken back to the drawing boards and reworked quite a bit?
I’ll tell you why: they weren’t Estes rockets out in the back yard then, and they darned sure still aren’t.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Those original satellite makers did good work. Both Alouette I and II (launched in 1962 and 1964) are still in orbit, and worked for 10 years, until they were turned off. Some think that one or both of them might be re-activated with the right signal!
These were all research vessels, and if we can learn something by retrieving Vanguard, then let’s do it. If it is done just to say, “hey look what we can do!” then let them be.
As for the name, my understanding is that the rocket “Vanguard” was not the same as the satellite. Each was developed separately by different agencies, and was given the “Vanguard” name independently. I don’t think that would happen now, but this was in the early days of space exploration and equipment development, so it is understandable.
Good story, Phil!
March 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
My sentimental thought is that if somebody wants to retrieve a Vanguard either to study or put in a museum, it should be one of the later ones (vanguard II, III or IV?). After all, they are all very similar and in very similar orbits.
Let Vanguard I remain in orbit as a legacy!
March 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Tod says:
>@Jack Hagerty: It was a serious question (why would you
> think otherwise?)
Sorry. I thought I detected a bit of smirk in your original posting.
> I think you misunderstood. It wasn’t the “vanguard” moniker
> so much as the “1? designator since two earlier attempts to
> launch had failed.
Ah, yes. I did misunderstand. Vanguard was a development program, the ultimate test of which was orbiting a satellite, but the purpose was to develop the capability to do so more than the satellite itself. The early vehicles were designated TV, as I mentioned, for “Test Vehicle.” Also, it isn’t uncommon to rename flights once they’d been successfully launched. For example, Pioneers “F” and “G” were re-named Pioneer 10 and 11 after they were safely on their way. The Vanguard project people only named the satellite once it was up there.
> Thanks also for correcting my memories of the failed Vanguards. I
> have to mention, though, that the site I link to above notes that
> eight of 11 Vanguards failed to launch.
Not a all uncommon for a development program. The Vanguard booster was very complex compared to other vehicles of the time. They started with quasi-proven hardware: the first stage was based on the Viking sounding rocket and the second stage, I think, on the Aries. The third stage was an “Altair” solid motor. The project was as much an integration effort as new development.
The first three vehicles (TV-1, -2 and -3) were booster-only tests with only the first stage “live” and dummy upper stages. After the Soviet Union launched not one, but two satellites (the second one carrying a dog), the government did one of those lovely “legislating technology” moves and ordered that TV-3 would be a full-up test. We all saw the results.
There were actually 14 vehicles in the Vanguard program (maybe your source didn’t count the first three). Only launches #5, 10 and 14 made it to orbit, the last two with the larger 10 Kg instrument satellite.
Also, I’d like to correct an earlier error. I said that the first instrumentation package, Vanguard 2, was launched “later that year” (1958). It was actually launched in February 1959. Vanguard 3 was launched in September that year.
- Jack
March 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Sorry if this is a repeat. I got a very weird error message when posting.
Tod says:
* @Jack Hagerty: It was a serious question (why would you
* think otherwise?)
Sorry. I thought I detected a bit of smirk in your original posting.
* I think you misunderstood. It wasn’t the “vanguard” moniker
* so much as the “1? designator since two earlier attempts to
* launch had failed.
Ah, yes. I did misunderstand. Vanguard was a development program, the ultimate test of which was orbiting a satellite, but the purpose was to develop the capability to do so more than the satellite itself. The early vehicles were designated TV, as I mentioned, for “Test Vehicle.” Also, it isn’t uncommon to rename flights once they’d been successfully launched. For example, Pioneers “F” and “G” were re-named Pioneer 10 and 11 after they were safely on their way. The Vanguard project people only named the satellite once it was up there.
* Thanks also for correcting my memories of the failed Vanguards. I
* have to mention, though, that the site I link to above notes that
* eight of 11 Vanguards failed to launch.
Not a all uncommon for a development program. The Vanguard booster was very complex compared to other vehicles of the time. They started with quasi-proven hardware: the first stage was based on the Viking sounding rocket and the second stage, I think, on the Aries. The third stage was an “Altair” solid motor. The project was as much an integration effort as new development.
The first three vehicles (TV-1, -2 and -3) were booster-only tests with only the first stage “live” and dummy upper stages. After the Soviet Union launched not one, but two satellites (the second one carrying a dog), the government did one of those lovely “legislating technology” moves and ordered that TV-3 would be a full-up test. We all saw the results.
There were actually 14 vehicles in the Vanguard program (maybe your source didn’t count the first three). Only launches #5, 10 and 14 made it to orbit, the last two with the larger 10 Kg instrument satellite.
Also, I’d like to correct an earlier error. I said that the first instrumentation package, Vanguard 2, was launched “later that year” (1958). It was actually launched in February 1959. Vanguard 3 was launched in September that year.
- Jack
March 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I also seem to remember that part of the problem was that they wanted to do it with US technology and US scientists, as opposed to the ex-Nazis with ex-Nazi rocket tech who, IIRC, offered to launch a satellite in 1956 but were refused. I’m more of a military historian than a space historian, though, so I could be wrong.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:00 am
[...] It’s actually outlived most of the people who put it in orbit: Imagine! 50 years in space. 197,000 orbits. [...]