LYC Book Club
Book Review “Hidden Figures” June 8, 2017
Hal Beck
[email protected] 1
“Hidden Figures” by Figures” by Margot Shetterly The Book the Movie and the Story of Katherine Johnson Comments: First, thanks for the invitation to join you in your review of “Hidden Figures”. The book and movie have been a center of controversy in the local NASA community - even before the publication. I have thoroughly researched the subject and have vast files. This Book Club review gave me the opportunity to consolidate some of the information that I have accumulated in a “somewhat organized” way. A good question! - How did I get involved with the author of “Hidden Figures”?
I started working at Langley Research Center (NASA) in 1959 and worked with Katherine Johnson. At the time of the writing of the book, she and I were the only remaining living members of our organization. I joined NASA just out of college. When I went to work, Katherine had been there for some time; she will be 99 years old later this year – I’m a little younger! Margot Shetterly spent several years researching the book. In the process, she contacted a number of NASA retirees - and Jerry Bostick gave her my name. We exchanged notes over many months. The book was supposed to be a non-fiction account of the early days at NACA/NASA. NACA/NASA. As I provided Margot with detailed historical facts, it was evident that there were many significant inconsistencies. The timing was poor – and it was a bit late to change course in the publication of the book. In this package, I have provided some rather detailed comments relative to the book, the movie, and the biography of Katherine Johnson. I’m sure that it is “more that you ever wanted to know” about “Hidden Figures”. I structured the package to encourage group discussion. Many of the items covered are somewhat detailed – and we don’t have to dwell on the details. But, anyone interested can delve into the subjects of interest at their leisure. If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. I would be most interested in your assessment. Hal Beck Email:
[email protected]
2
Group Discussion items : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction: General comments about the book and the movie A brief biography of Katherine Johnson Women in early NACA/NASA organizations A timeline of major events within NASA – related to the book My relationship to Margot Shetterly, the author Major discrepancies in the book The movie “Hidden Figures” – a Hollywood production
Attachments: Appendix A - A biography of Katherine Johnson Appendix B – Excerpts from numerous articles and biographies Appendix C – email exchange with Margot Shetterly
3
“Hidden Figures”: Figures” : The Book, the Movie and the Story of Katherine Johnson 1. Introduction – a. The book “Hidden Figures” was written by Margot Shetterly; the hardcover edition of the book was published in 2016. On the cover, the author describes the content as “The American dream and the untold story of the black women mathematicians who helped win the space race”. The book concentrates on the struggle to overcome the racial and gender boundaries that were so prevalent in the 1950’s. Also, the author describes in some detail the technical accomplishments of the three individuals who worked at Langley in the mid to late 1950’s. b. The author intended to provide an historically accurate, well researched document telling the story of the lives and careers of three women: Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson. They were three mathematicians who overcame discrimination, as women and as African Americans while working at Langley Research Center in Virginia. c. In the discussion today, I have elected to concentrate on the life and career of Katherine Johnson. Of the three women, Katherine (as depicted in the book) is most closely related to the early days of the Space Program. Today, Katherine’s story is quite controversial in the local (Clear Lake) NASA community. In the book, despite Shetterly’s intense research, there are numerous, gross inaccuracies and exaggerations relative to Katherine’s contribution to early manned spaceflight. The author relied heavily on personal interviews with Katherine; she also gathered material from biographies written (in the past) by other authors. Her research relative to the racial issues of the time was much more thorough. d. The movie, in a way, is not as controversial as the book because it was produced as a movie “based on a true story”. It was not presented as a “documentary”. The movie is pure Hollywood. It’s interesting that though the movie really boosted book sales, it detracted from the book’s credibility. In my opinion, the movie production did not benefit the author! i n the “Hidden Figures” controversy? - I started working at e. How did I get involve in Langley Research Center (NASA) in 1959 working in the same organization as Katherine Johnson. We became close friends. I was quite familiar with Katherine’s work and her contributions to NACA/NASA. At the time of the writing of the book, I was the only remaining living member of the organization that she and I worked in – except for Katherine, of course, who will be 99 years old later this year. It happened that a year or so ago, Margot Shetterly contacted a number of local NASA retirees in an effort to gain information relative to the history of the formation of the Space Task Group at Langley (in the late 50’s). A colleague of mine, Jerry Bostick, gave my name and contact information to Margot. Jerry knew that I had
4
known Katherine. Margot immediately contacted me, and we began an active dialog. I have been in frequent contact with the author – mostly via email. f. The movie “Hidden Figures” was of course based on Shetterly’s book and was nominated for three Oscars. The book was on the New York Times Non-fiction Best Sellers list. 2. Katherine Coleman Goble Johnson – a brief bio sketch a. Catherine Johnson was born August 26, 1918 in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. She attended West Virginia State College and graduated with honors in 1937 with a bachelor of science degree in mathematics. After graduation, she taught school in a black public school in Virginia. b. Catherine joined the NACA Langley Aeronautical Laboratory Laboratory in June of 1953. She initially went to work with a g roup called the “West Computing Section” - a group of African-American mathematicians who performed mathematical calculations transforming raw wind tunnel data into engineering parameters. They played a most significant part in aeronautical research at Langley. The data reduction support services allowed the aeronautical engineers to concentrate on research activities. This was before the advent of the digital computer and the data reduction process was done on the Friden or Marchant mechanical calculator calculator – and was very labor intensive. Katherine initially worked under the supervision of Dorothy Vaughan. c. After only two weeks working in the West Computing section, Dorothy arranged for Katherine to work in the Maneuver Loads Branch of the Fl ight Research Division where her position later became permanent. Her branch chief was Henry Pearson (my boss also). d. Katherine’s claim to fame: Katherine’s legacy includes an extraordinary social impact as a pioneer in space science and computing that may be seen both from the honors she has received and the number of times her story is presented as a role model to aspiring young people. Since 1979 (before she retired from NASA), Johnson's Johnson's biography has had a place in lists of African-Americans African-Americans in science and technology. In 2015, President Barack Obama awarded Johnson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, citing her as a pioneering example of African-American women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Mathematics (STEM). In 2016, NASA dedicated a new Katherine G. Johnson Computational Research Facility at the Langley Research Center. Center. Dr. Johnson was included in the list of “BBC 100 Women”, a list of 100 inspiring and influential women from around the globe (list, 2016). Her awards include the Astronomical Society of the Pacific’s Arthur B.C. Walker II Award (2016); a NASA Silver Snoopy award (2016); an Honorary Doctorate of Science from Old Dominion University (2010); an Honorary Doctor of Science by the Capitol College, Laurel, Maryland (2010); the West Virginia State College Outstanding Alumnus of the Year (1999); and an Honorary Doctor of Laws , from SUNY Farmingdale (1998).
5
e. Pictures of Katherine:
Katherine at her desk – taken taken around 1962
Katherine receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom Presented Nov 24, 2015 - Katherine was 97 at the time
f.
Katherine Johnson retired from NASA in 1986. She still l ives in Newport News, Virginia. She will be 99 years old, later this year.
6
3. Women in early NACA/NASA organizations organizations – a. By 1931, Langley was generally acknowledged to be the world's premier aeronautical research establishment. Through the next decades, NACA continued to expand its influence in the field of aviation by recruiting top notch engineers and scientists to work in ever larger and more advanced technological facilities. In the ‘30s and ‘40s, the threat and reality of a new world war forced rapid deve lopment and testing of new aircraft. The L angley test facilities ran three shifts a day, six days a week. The aeronautical engineers required a great deal of support – including mathematicians to assist with data reduction and o f the employees documentation. Langley’s first “computing pool” started in 1935. Some of were classified as mathematicians, others were designated “sub-professionals” (less pay). The importance of the “computers” cannot be overstated – the success of Langley aeronautical research depended upon the performance of these mathematicians. By 1934, mathematical skills were harder to come by and Virginia Tucker (Langley’s head computer) visited colleges up and down the east c oast recruiting new graduates. b. Negro female candidates – In 1941, an executive order was passed creating the Fair Employment Practices Committee. About 1943, applications of qualified Negro female candidates began coming in to the Langley employment office. Negro women would make up the West Computing Section, a centralized computing office.
c. Katherine Johnson – In 1953 Katherine joined NACA and joined the West Computer pool but was almost immediately assigned to the Maneuver Loads Branch – Henry Pearson’s organization. Later, there were a few other women in Pearson’s organization. d. Women in the Space Task Group – The Space Task Group was formed in the fall of ’58. From the beginning, the need for “math aide” support was evident. [in the Space Task Group, the mathematicians were called “Math Aides”] A great deal of trajectory work was
done on mechanical calculators, such as the Friden – and later on the IB M computers. With the limitations of computers (in those days) there w as little or no automation in the data reduction process; computer output files had to be processed by the math aides - manually. By August of ’59 John Mayer’s Mission Analysis B ranch was formed within the STG. A section within that branch was the Mathematical Analysis Section. There wer e five women in the section who moved to Houston in “62; Shirley Hunt, Mary Shep Burton, Cat hy Osgood, Nancy Carter, and Pattie Leatherman. In particular, Cathy, Mary Shep and and Shirley Hunt Hinson played key roles in the Mission Planning and Analysis Division and Flight Operations over the next decades. - Shirley Hunt Hinson had a Master’s degree in mathematics. She had a background in computers and became the lead in the branch in managing the branch computer and in software development. She was later re-classified as an aero engineer. S he later became a specialist in the development of software for the Real Time Computer Complex (in the control center). - Cathy Osgood had a degree in mat hematics. She worked under the direction of a senior engineer and became a trajectory specialist. She was later reclassified as an aero engineer and helped in the development of space rendezvous capability.
7
-
-
Mary Shep Burton had a degree in mathematics and quickly became a supervisor of the math aide group. Later in Houston she managed a large group of math aides that supported the Mission Planning and Analysis Division Division in data reduction and planning product documentation. She was responsible for the configuration management of operational mission plans for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the space programs that followed. In August of ’59, the Mission Analysis Branch had about 25 people – of that, 6 were women.
Buildup of the Math Aide Group - In late ’61, in preparation for the move to Houston, John Mayer and the MAB management were busy with a transition plan. There was one item of concern; it was apparent that at the rate that the branch was growing, the Math Aide group was going to be badly understaffed. It was also apparent, with the pending move to Houston, that it would be impractical to recruit additional para-professional staff from the Langley area for relocation to Houston. It was decided to recruit support personnel from Houston. Working with the STG personnel office, John Mayer and Mary Shep B urton went to Houston, screened several applicants, and selected five qualified young women to come to Langley on TDY for a couple of months of on-the-job trainin g. In early ’62 the newly trained math aides moved back to Houston with other branch personnel. The young “Houston recruits” were: Wanda Cheatham Cash, Patsy McCaskill, Pat Claffey, Mary Ann Mitscherling, and Donna Sanford.
4. A timeline of major events within NASA - Here is a timeline of major events within NASA during the early phase of Space Program development – this timeline will help put events as described in the book and the movie into perspective. a. The formation of NACA: Though today's National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established in 1958, its historical roots reach back much farther. In 1915, twelve years after the Wright Brothers' flight, the U.S. Congress created the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA. At that time, the airplane was in its infancy and much had to be done to transform it into a practical and versatile vehicle. The NACA's mission was "to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution." NACA would perform basic research that provided "practical solutions" to serious problems facing the aircraft industry and the military air services. b. Early Development of the Langley Research Facility: The authors of the NACA's charter had left open the possibility of an independent laboratory. The NACA pointed out in its first Annual Report for 1915 that civil aviation research would be in order when the Great War ended. And, even before the war's conclusion, plans were afoot to acquire a laboratory. The best option seemed to be collaboration in the development of a new U.S. Army airfield, across the river from Norfolk, Virginia. The military facility was named after Samuel Pierpont Langley, former secretary of the Smithsonian; the NACA facility was named the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, -- much later, it became Langley Research Center.
8
c. NASA is formally established: On July 29, 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA was formally opened for business on October 1, 1958. NACA was “no more”. d. First open discussion of a manned ballistic satellite: Only three days after Eisenhower signed the Space Act, Bob Gilruth presented preliminary plans for a manned ballistic satellite; his remarks amounted to the first open discussion of the technical aspects of what was soon to become Project Mercury. e. The Beginning of the Space Task Group: In the fall of ‘58, after the establishment of NASA and after the acceptance of the preliminary plan for Project Mercury, Gilruth began to put together a more formal organization for the implementation of the manned satellite project. Gilruth began to put together the Space Task Group (STG) organization. The STG would be located at Langley, but STG management would report directly to Abe Silverstein in Washington, the head of all space projects at headquarters. f. The transfer of key Langley personnel to the STG: In November 1958, Gilruth arranged for the transfer of 35 Langley personnel to the STG. These people formed the nucleus of the new manned space program (Mercury). The STG was located on the east side of Langley Field; Langley Research facilities were primarily located on the west side. g. Langley Research Center support to the STG: Besides absorbing the loss of talented personnel to the Space Task Group - which exploded in size from the original nucleus of 35 people in November 1958 to about 350 people in July 1959, (over half of whom came from Langley), Langley also took on much of the direct responsibility for getting Mercury off the ground. h. Growth of the STG: Over the next few years, the STG grew and quickly became fully operational. Project Mercury became official on November 26, 1958. Within a few months, NASA began to conduct the first test flights of the program; the first fl ight was Little Joe 1, launched from Wallops Island on August 21, 1959. Between August of 1959 and May of 1963, Project Mercury spanned twenty unmanned test flights and six manned missions. Of the six manned missions, two were Mercury-Redstone suborbital suborbital missions and four were Mercury-Atlas orbital missions. The manned missions spanned a two-year period from May ’61 until May of ’63. The first manned mission was MR-3 launched on May 5, 1961. It I t was the first United States manned spaceflight, piloted by astronaut Alan Shepard. MR-3 was a 15-minute suborbital flight. i. Mission planning for Project Mercury: All official mission planning for the Mercury missions was the sole responsibility of the Mi ssion Analysis Branch of the Space Task Group. The branch chief was John Mayer. That organization later became the Mission Planning and Analysis Division within the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC, Houston). 9
j.
Mission Control for the early Mercury missions: m issions: NASA's Mercury Control Center (MCC) at Cape Canaveral was the United States' first mission control center for both unmanned and manned space programs. programs. Big Joe 1 launched on September 9, 1959 was the first Mercury mission mission controlled from the the MCC. Later, all the MercuryMercuryRedstone and Mercury-Atlas missions, the unmanned Gemini 1 and Gemini 2 missions, and the manned Gemini 3 mission were controlled from there. The first manned flight controlled from the MCC (Cape) was Alan Shepard’s flight, MercuryRedstone 3, which lifted off on May 5, 1961. k. The Manned Spacecraft Center is established in Houston: After President Kennedy set the national goal on May 25, 1961, of landing men on the Moon by the end of the 1960s, it became clear to NASA administrator, administrator, James E. Webb, that Gilruth would need a larger organization and facilities to administer US manned space programs. A site selection team was formed to select a location for the new NASA facility. On September 19, 1961 Webb announced that the new manned spacecraft center would be built in Houston, Texas. l. The Manned Spacecraft Center: On November 1, 1961, the Space Task Group was officially redesignated the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC). m. 1962, the original STG moves to Houston: In early 1962, the STG moved from Langley to Houston. The entire organization occupied temporary facilities while the MSC was being built at Clear Lake. Sidenote of interest: This is perhaps something of an exaggeration, but “as the story goes”, less than a month after Webb's announcement, a Houston journalist went on an inspection tour of the site planned for the spacecraft center. He found
cowboys driving herds of cattle to new pasture, a crew of surveyors from the Army Corps Corps of Engineers Engineers mapping the the prairie near Clear Clear Lake and fighting snakes, snakes, and a lone wolf hunter with the carcass of a freshly slain wolf. The hunter said he had just seen several wild turkeys, a fox, and many deer tracks. (Reference: Houston Chronicle article, Oct. 11, 1961). Figures” – Serious dialog 5. My relationship to Margot Shetterly, the author of “Hidden Figures” – between Marot and I began in April of 2016. Here is an excerpt from an initial email received from Margot on April 29, 2016. “Jerry Bostick gave gave me your contact information. I'm a writer currently working on a book entitled Hidden Figures, which tells the story of the African American women who worked at NACA/NASA Langley from 1943 through the 1970s. One of the central figures in the book is a woman named Katherine Johnson, who is best known for having coauthored with Ted Skopinski the report that defined the trajectory math that was used in John Glenn's orbital mission MA-6. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in November of 2015.
I've been able to track down and review most of the documents involved in that 10
mission, and I have interviewed i nterviewed Mrs. Johnson at length, but I was hoping that you might be available to talk by phone, so that I could ask you some of the outstanding questions that I have and get your memories of the time leading up to that day. Mr. Bostick mentioned that you worked with Mrs. Johnson at Langley before transferring to the Manned Spacecraft center in Houston.” We continued to exchange notes during 2016. In a number of published biographies Katherine was credited with “incredible accomplishments”. Margot sent me technical questions relative to the major items (See Appendix C). The timing was poor; her book was well on its way and a lot of water had gone under the bridge. In November of 2015, Obama had presented Katherine with the Presidential Medal of Freedom award at the White House. The NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, had prepared the formal paperwork for the Award – complete with a statement of her accomplishments (See Appendix B, Item 1.). Though it was too late for a major course change, I sent Margot very detailed notes on the timeline of events at Langley in the 1958-to-1962 1958- to-1962 timeframe. The data included events leading up to the formation of the Space Task Group (STG) and the Mission Planning Organization within the STG. Also included detailed information relative to the mission planning responsibilities – a statement of exactly “who did what” and “when” (See Appendix C, Item B). I suggested that Margot carefully review my input, then “beat her story” against the facts that I provided, and make necessary corrections. She quickly responded, but I could tell that the book was too far along. She did however write an “epilogue” and included a (very) few of my notes to soften some of the words in the major t ext. Below in paragraph 5. I have included a summary of the major, significant inconsistencies. I knew that unfortunately, History was being rewritten! Margot and I soon discontinued communications. communications. She did invite me to the dedication of the new Katherine G. Johnson Computational Research Facility at the Langley Research Center. I did not attend. 6. Major discrepancies in the book – the following notes cover the major discrepancies in the book “Hidden Figures”. My notes relate (mostly) to the history of mission planning for manned spaceflight – and my experience at Langley Research Center and the Space Task Group. a. Mercury mission planning responsibility: All official mission planning and analysis for the Mercury missions was the sole responsibility re sponsibility of the Mission Analysis Branch (MAB) of the Space Task Group. The MAB was formed in the fall of ’58 – and was headed up by John Mayer. In the early months, Mayer was supported by his colleagues back on the Langley side, with trajectory studies and analyses. These colleagues soon transferred to the STG and were key players in the formation of the MAB and in the early Mercury mission planning. Former colleagues included: Ted Skopinski, Carl Huss, and Bill Tindall. No official Mercury mission planning products were developed external to the MAB. b. Racial or gender barriers within Katherine’s organization: It was my first-hand experience that Katherine was highly respected by her peers and by her boss, Henry 11
Pearson – there were no racial or gender barriers. The book states that Pearson “was not a big fan of women in the workplace” – That was not my perception. Pearson and I were colleagues and I got to know him well. He had the highest regard for the women in the organization (especially Katherine) – the success of his group depended upon the reliable mathematicians mathematicians for vast amounts of data reduction. He was very respectful and appreciative of Katherine’s skills – often dropped by her desk and “shot the bull” – I sat at a desk next to hers and was aware of the most cordial relationship. Also, I never did get the idea that Katherine was at all sensitive to barriers due to race or gender. Her closest friend was a young white woman. Katherine always worked as a team player – and was very good at what she did. Prior to the advent of the digital computer, aeronautical research at Langley (and elsewhere across the country) depended on vast amounts of data reduction and data processing. Without the mathematicians, research would have been severely hampered.
12
c. The Friden Calculator: In the years prior to the digital computer, the Friden, Monroe and the Marchant mechanical calculators were indeed the workhorse of the science community. They were used extensively (almost exclusively) in the aeronautical research organizations at Langley Research Cent er. In the ’59 time frame the Mission Analysis Branch relied heavily on the mechanical calculators for routine calculations. They were only capable of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. The operator depended on log tables, trigonometric tables, etc. for engineering functions. Computations were labor intensive, but many operators developed highly proficient capability. When I went to work at Langley, Katherine encouraged me to become proficient in the use of the Friden – I became another “human computer”. She was an excellent operator and a very persistent “teacher”. Sidenote of interest: The Friden Calculating Machine Co., Inc., was f ounded in the 1930's by Swedish-born Carl M. Friden. Once customers purchased and started using the machines, Friden calculators quickly gained the reputation of being the 'Cadillac' of calculators. In fact, early Friden advertising literature self-proclaimed the machines as the "Aristocrat "Aristocrat of Calculators". Calculators". The calculator could automatically perform all four math f unctions.
The Friden Model STW10 The Monroe calculator was also popular prior to the advent of the digital computers. The Monroe Calculator Company was a maker of adding machines and calculators founded in 1912. The most famous and successful machine was the "Series L", produced in the ‘3 0s and was in production up up until the ‘60s. There There were several several variants variants and models models almost all manual models had an electrically driven version. d. Conceptual mission design for Mercury: Prior to the formation of the Space Task Group and the Mission Analysis Branch in November of ’58, significant conceptual mission design work was done on the Langley side within the Fli ght Research Division (FRD) and within the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division (PARD). Clay Hicks 13
was one of the first people to address the early concepts for Mercury flights. Clay Hicks went to work at NACA in ’58 . Prior to his formal appointment, he worked as a co-op for a few years. One of his first major assignments was to support the development of the early conceptual design for the “Manned Satellite Project” (later, named Mercury). This involved determining the feasible orbital parameters, or characteristics such as orbital altitude, orbit inclination, etc. The trajectory design was constrained by launch vehicle and spacecraft systems capability/constraints and by operations requirements/constraints. Clay began working with a number of mission planning specialists in the Flight Research Division including: John Mayer, Carl Huss, Ted Skopinski, Charlie Allen, and Bill Tindall. These guys were developing rather simple algorithms for use in orbital design and analysis. In particular, Ted developed a two-body conic program to determine the optimum launch azimuth to maximize tracking and communications coverage. The “two-body equations” were readily solvable using the Friden calculator. Katherine Johnson worked with Ted in the software development and in the analyses. The two co-authored the technical note “Determination of Azimuth Angle at Burnout for Placing a Satellite Over a Selected Earth Position”, by Ted Skopinski and Katherine Johnson; published September 1960. The program was used, prior to the publication of the Technical Note, in the conceptual design of the Mercury orbits. A basic standard orbit was used for the Mercury missions (e.g., the inclination was 32.5 degrees) e. Mission planning responsibility for Alan Shepard’s or John Glenn’s flight: Katherine had nothing to do with Alan Shepard’s or John Glenn’s flight. The official mission planning for all Mercury missions was the sole responsibility of John Mayer’s group in the STG – the preflight trajectory data was under strict configuration control within the STG – and was classified “Confidential”. It should be noted that trajectory people all over the country were perhaps trying to replicate the preflight data using their “bench programs”, but those trajectory computations computations had nothing to do with the official mission planning. The following is from an interview with Katherine: “When interviewed for the book “Hidden Figures,” Johnson discussed her activities in Project Mercury and the Apollo missions. She recalled doing trajectory analysis for Alan Shepard’s May 1961 Mercury mission, America’s first human suborbital spaceflight. By early 1961, the Space Task Group was fully operational. Again, the trajectory analysis was done in the Mission Analysis Branch, not in Katherine’s organization (on the Langley side). Katherine also claimed that she was involved with the mission planning for Apollo. That is impossible. Apollo mission planning was done within the Mission Planning and Analysis Division of the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. The major mission planning for Apollo was done in the mid to late ‘60s. f. John Glenn’s mission data: As the story goes, John Glenn was not confident that the official preflight trajectory data was accurate (??). According to Katherine, she overheard a phone conversation from John Glenn to Katherine’s supervisor 14
(supposedly, Henry Pearson). Glenn asked the engineers to “get the girl”—Katherine Johnson—to run the same numbers through the same equations that had been programmed into the computers, but by hand, on her desktop mechanical calculating machine. machine. “If she says they’re good,” she remembers remembers the astronaut saying, “then I’m ready to go.” It’s not clear how that story evolved. I am certain that John Glenn never questioned the accuracy of the Mercury trajectory data. The STG was a tightly knit organization, if Glenn had a question, or doubt, relative to any aspect of the mission, he would have gone to Chris Kraft or Robert Gilruth or John Mayer. Mayer’s mission planning group, was responsible for the preflight mission data. That group had generated the mission data for all the previously flown Mercury missions (unmanned and manned). The trajectory specialists in the Mission Analysis Branch of the Space Task Group developed and used the official trajectory programs, including a program called CO3E which was a high-fidelity trajectory simulation package. The software package was developed within the MAB (by John Shoosmith) specifically to to support Mercury planning. planning. Also, Glenn’s nominal trajectory had been previously flown on Mercury-Atlas 5 – an orbital test flight with chimpanzee Enos onboard. The trajectory program could be cross-checked and verified with real flight data. Note: Note: Glenn’s flight, Mercury-Atlas 6 was the third human third human spaceflight for the U.S. and was launched February 20, 1962. In early 1962, the Space Task Group personnel were in the process of transitioning from Langley to Houston. The mission planning personnel supported the mission real-time in the Mercury Mission Control Center at the Cape. Katherine was still working for Henry Pearson at Langley Research Center. She never was an employee of the STG. She had nothing to do with Glenn’s flight data. g. Katherine’s viewing of the overflight of Russia’s Sputnik I: Katherine’s memory of the viewing of Sputnik is somewhat flawed – Sputnik I was launched in Oct ’57 – The satellite was only 23 i nches in diameter and was not visible by the naked eye – it would not have been visible even with binoculars (had you known exactly where in the sky to look). It was visible through major observatories around the world. Katherine perhaps remembers hearing the Radio pulses from the satellite. Sputnik I was tracked by amateur radio operators around the world – the radio signals were widely broadcast – and there was a great deal of interest in the radio signal broadcasts. Katherine probably remembers hearing the “beep-beep” on public radio stations - as the satellite crossed the US. h. Katherine’s involvement with Apollo 11: In several of the biographies, it is stated that Katherine calculated the trajectory for the 1969 Apollo 11 mission. She also computed backup navigation charts for the astronauts to use in case of computer failure. First of all, the design and generation of the translunar trajectory for a lunar landing mission is not at all a simple operation. Translunar trajectory design required a most accurate, high-fidelity simulation of the earth-moon system, a simulation of 15
i.
j.
the Saturn SIV-B translunar injection burn, and a simulation of the spacecraft systems. The lunar landing mission simulation was developed within MPAD at MSC, Houston. It was called the Apollo Reference Mission Program – it was under development for years. That software was used to develop all lunar landing mis sion reference trajectories – for the Agency. As to the second point, back-up procedures for use in real -time in the case of contingencies were developed by the flight control team and by the astronauts (here at MSC). Detailed procedures were defined for all contingency operations and were simulated on the flight f light simulators (at MSC). Katherine perhaps remembers that she and Al Hamer (at Langley) developed celestial sphere star-charts from data derived from the nautical almanacs, but that was an exercise and was not a part of operations procedures planning at MSC. Katherine’s involvement with the Apollo 13 aborted mission: Katherine states in a number of biographies that “in 1970, Apollo 13’s aborted mission to the Moon made use of her earlier research on backup parameters and charts, charts, enabling the crew to safely return to Earth”. Apollo 13 was a near tragedy - due to an explosion onboard, the mission had to be aborted and the flight control team had to quickly devise methods and procedures for a safe return of the flight crew. All major Apollo spacecraft contractors were on hand to support the flight controllers. It would be difficult to estimate how many people were involve d in the contingency planning and operations - either directly or indirectly. Flight simulators were used to check and verify crew procedures and operations. The mission planning team in the backrooms ran countless “what-if” scenarios. The flight directors and NASA high level management were making countless operations decisions. All of this was done in the Mission Control Center at MSC. It is not clear how that story of Katherine’s involvement came to be! Katherine’s involvement with the Apollo lunar ascent module launch time determination: When asked to name her greatest contribution to space exploration, Katherine said that her calculations “helped synchronize Project Apollo’s Lunar Lander with the moon-orbiting Command and Service Module”. It is hard to imagine how such a story could come into being. The nominal liftoff time was calculated preflight by lunar rendezvous specialists and was calculated in realtime using specialized ascent/rendezvous software developed within MPAD and implemented by IBM in the Real Time Computer Complex within the Mission Control Center. Within MPAD, Dave Alexander and Ed Lineberry were key lunar rendezvous specialists. The lift-off time, subsequent rendezvous maneuvers, and CSM orbit were all of course co-dependent. The sequence of rendezvous maneuvers was optimized within the performance capability of the spacecraft systems. The ascent and rendezvous simulation required modeling the ascent engines, ascent guidance, the rendezvous and the docking maneuver sequence. There was little margin for error.
16
The simulation also required an accurate modeling of the lunar geo -potential. That modeling in itself, took years of analysis and model development (within MPAD). 7. The movie “Hidden Figures” a. General comment: The movie perhaps was entertaining but to me, it was absurd and nothing more than poor fiction. In the beginning of the movie a statement was made that the movie was based on the story of real-life characters. In other words, the producers had total freedom in the writing of the script. The story was now nothing more than fiction, and the book could now be “Hollywood-ized”. The book book on the other hand was intended to be an accurate historical account (that didn’t happen though, when it came to Katherine Johnson’s story). The movie did nothing to add credibility to the parent book “Hidden Figures”. b. Departures from reality in the movie: Because the movie was fictional, it’s not reasonable to point out discrepancies relative to an accurate historical account; but here are a few notes: - Katherine Johnson never worked in the STG (east side) – she always worked at Langley Research Center - The lack of acceptance in the workplace (racial or gender barriers) was grossly exaggerated. Katherine was highly regarded, respected and well liked. In the movie, she was not accepted or respected by her colleagues- (but that was supposedly within the Space Task Group – on the east side of Langley). - The “composite character” who was supposed to be head of the STG was like no one that I ever came in contact with. Perhaps he could have been a fictional composite of “Kraft/Mayer”?? - It was implied that the control center for Mercury was at Langley. The control center of course was at the Cape. - The scene with Katherine’s attending the high-level meeting with the head of NASA and the DOD management was absurd. - The phone conversation from John Glenn was ridiculous – beyond imagination – so far beyond reasonable protocol. - The bathroom issue was ridiculous. It would be amazing if the character had to walk all the way across Langley Field to go to the bathroom – and in the rain! Also, by the time that the STG was operational, the bathrooms were not segregated. (they perhaps were in the early to mid - ‘50s) - Many other items, but it’s only fiction!
17
Appendix A - Biography B iography of Katherine Johnson This is a recently written biography. Katherine is to be honored at an upcoming ceremony at Langley. Langley is celebrating their centennial and in the ceremony former outstanding employees are being honored. I have highlighted hi ghlighted certain items of interest. Katherine G. Johnson Katherine Coleman Goble Johnson (1918 – ) is an African-American mathematician who made valuable contributions to critical aeronautics and space programs of the NACA and NASA. Overcoming the constraints of segregation and gender, she progressed from mathematical tasks, such as computing experimental flight and ground-test data using a mechanical Frieden calculator for the NACA, to the application of spacecraft trajectories and spacecraft control calculations for NASA. Her life, 33-year career, and contributions are discussed in the best-selling 2016 book “Hidden Figures” by Margot Shetterly and the Academy -Award nominated motion picture of the same name. Her story has become widely known and is a stimulus for the interests of young people in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) activities across the nation. Katherine Johnson was born in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and quickly advanced through high school because of her intense interest and demonstrated expertise in mathematics. She attended West Virginia State College where she graduated with highest honors in 1937 with a bachelor of science degree in mathematics and French, and took a job teaching at a black public school in Virginia. When West Virginia decided to quietly integrate its graduate schools in 1939, she was one of the first three African-Americans selected to desegregate West Virginia State College. After the first session, however, she decided to leave school and start a family with her husband James F. Goble. When their three daughters got older, she returned to teaching. At the age of 34, she learned that the NACA Langley Aeronautical Laboratory Laboratory was hiring a group of African-American mathematicians with teaching experience to perform mathematical calculations that transformed raw data that had been obtained using instrumentation into final engineering parameters. parameters. The approach to data reduction reduction would off-load technical technical engineers from such tasks, allowing them to concentrate instead on research activities and plans instead of data reduction. She began her career at Langley in the West Computing section in the summer of 1953 under the supervision of fellow West Virginian Dorothy Vaughan. The pool of women mathematicians performing data reduction calcu lations were known as “computers.” Just two weeks into Katherine’s tenure in the office, Dorothy Vaughan assigned her to a project in the Maneuver Loads Branch of the Flight Research Division, where her position soon became permanent. She spent the next four years analyzing data from flight tests, and worked on the investigation of a plane crash caused by an encounter with wake turbulence. She was assertive, asking to be included in editorial meetings (where no women had gone before). As she was wrapping up this work, her husband James died of cancer in December 1956. In the thensegregated NACA workplace, Johnson and other African-American women in the computing pool 18
were identified as “colored computers” and subject to workplace restrictions involving working,
eating and using restrooms apart from their white peers, until the segregated computing pool was disbanded when NASA was formed in 1958. The launch of the Soviet Satellite Sputnik in October 1957 changed aerospace history —and Katherine Johnson’s life. In 1957, Johnson provided some of the descriptive material for a 1958 document “Notes on Space Technology,” a compendium of a series of 1958 lectures given to staff members by engineers in the Flight Research Division and the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division (PARD). Engineers from those groups formed the core of the Space Task Group (STG), NASA’s first official foray into space research, and Katherine, who had worked with many of them since coming to Langley, “came along with the program” as the NACA became NASA later that year. While not a member of the STG, she developed an interest in calculating trajectories of spacecraft and satellites. She experienced a highlight of her life when she married her second husband, Colonel James A. Johnson, in 1959. At that time, her organization changed names to the Flight Mechanics Branch of the Aero-Space Mechanics Division In 1960, Johnson and engineer Ted Skopinski coauthored a report entitled “Determination of Azimuth Angle at Burnout for Placing a Satellite Over a Selected Earth Position,” using basic “twobody” equations for an orbital spaceflight in which the landing position of the spacecraft is
specified. Such equations could be solved using a Frieden calculator. It was the first time a woman in the Division had received credit as an author of a research report. She also was coauthor of a report in 1962 on the orbital behavior of the first communications satellite, Echo I (a 100-ftdiameter inflatable balloon). That effort was a pioneering contribution because it was the first satellite whose orbit was affected by solar pressure. When interviewed for the book “Hidden Figures,” Johnson discussed her activities in Project Mercury and the Apollo missions. She recalled doing trajectory analysis for Alan Shepard’s May 1961 Mercury mission, America’s first human suborbital spaceflight. She also remembered how, in 1962, as NASA prepared for the orbital mission of John Glenn, the complexity of the orbital flight had required the construction of a worldwide communications network, network , linking tracking
stations around the world to IBM computers in Washington, DC, Cape Canaveral, and Bermuda. The network provided tracking and communications of Glenn’s spacecraft from blast off to splashdown. According to Johnson, Glenn asked engineers to “get the girl”—Katherine Johnson— to run the same numbers through the same equations that had been programmed into the computers, but by hand, on her desktop desktop mechanical calculating machine. machine. “If she says they’re good,” she remembers the astronaut saying, “then I’m ready to go.” Glenn’s flight was a success, and marked a turning point in the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union in space.
After Project Mercury, she joined the Space Mechanics Division, and calculated the trajectory for the 1969 Apollo 11 flight to the Moon, and computed backup navigational navigational charts for astronauts 19
in case of electronic el ectronic failures. In 1970, Apollo 13’s aborted mission to the Moon made use of her
earlier research on backup parameters and charts, enabling the crew to safely return to Earth four days later. Later in her career, as a member of the Flight Dynamics and Control Division, she worked on the Space Shuttle program, the Earth Resources Satellite, and plans for a mission to Mars. Her final projects before retirement included analysis of guidance and control of large flexible structures. When asked to name her greatest contribution to space exploration, Johnson highlights the calculations that helped synchronize Project Apollo’s Lunar Lander with the moon-orbiting Command and Service Module. She authored or coauthored 13 research reports during her career. Katherine Johnson retired in 1986. Her legacy includes an extraordinary social impact as a pioneer in space science and computing that may be seen both from the honors she has received and the number of times her story story is presented as a role model model to aspiring young people. people. Since 1979 (before she retired from NASA), Johnson's biography has had a place in lists of African-Americans in science and technology. technology. In 2015, President Barack Barack Obama awarded Johnson Johnson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, citing her as a pioneering example of African-American women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). In 2016, NASA dedicated a new Katherine G. Johnson Computational Research Facility at the Langley Research Center. Center . Dr. Johnson was included in the list of “BBC 100 Women”, a list of 100 inspiring and influential women from around the globe. Her awards include the Astronomical Astronomical Society of the Pacific’s Arthur B.C. Walker II Award (2016); a NASA Silver Snoopy award (2016); an Honorary Doctorate of Science from Old Dominion University (2010); an Honorary Doctor of Science by the Capitol College, Laurel, Maryland (2010); the West Virginia State College Outstanding Alumnus of the Year (1999); and an Honorary Doctor of Laws, from SUNY Farmingdale (1998). Katherine Johnson and her husband reside i n Newport News, Virginia, and have two daughters: Joylette, and Katherine. A third daughter, Constance is deceased. Katherine Johnson is now 98 years old. CITATION: “In recognition of contributions to the development of methodologies for analysis of manned
mission (from Mercury to Apollo) and satellite (Echo) trajectories, and dynamic control of large space structures.”
20
Appendix B: – B: – Excerpts Excerpts from numerous articles and biographies : The following are excerpts from a number of articles relative to Katherine Johnson’s accomplishments. I have highlighted words and phrases which are total fabrications, or gross
exaggerations. Many of the items are totally absurd! Note: It i s interesting to Google the name Katherine Johnson – you will get countless articles of her amazing accomplishments. accomplishments. Here are just a few excerpts: excerpts:
1. NASA Statements on Katherine Johnson’s Medal of Freedom
Note: Charles Bolden was a former astronaut and the NASA Administrator under Obama. The following is a statement from NASA Administrator Charles Bolden about former NASA mathematician and physicist Katherine Johnson being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom Tuesday: “Katherine Johnson once remarked that even though she grew up in the height of segregation, she didn’t think much about it because ‘I didn’t have time for that… don’t have a f eeling of inferiority. Never had. I’m as good as anybody, but no better.’ “The truth in fact, is that Katherine is indeed better. She’s one of the greatest minds ever to grace our agency or our country, country , and because of the trail she blazed, young Americans like my granddaughters can pursue pursue their own dreams without a feeling of inferiority. “Katherine’s legacy is a big part of the reason that my fellow astronauts and I were able to get to space; it’s also a big part of the reason that today there is space for women and AfricanAmericans in the leadership of our nation, including the White House. “The entire NASA family is both proud of and grateful to Katherine Johnson, a true American pioneer who helped our space program advance to new heights , while advancing humanity’s orward.” march of progress ever f orward.”
The following is a statement from NASA Deputy Administrator Dava Newman: “The reach of Katherine Johnson’s leadership and impact extends from classrooms across America all the way to the moon. Katherine once remarked that while many of her colleagues refrained from asking questions or taking tasks further than merely ‘what they were told to do,’ she chose instead to ask questions because she ‘wanted to know why.’ “For Katherine, finding the ‘why’ meant enrolling in high school at the age of 10; calculating the trajectory of Alan Shepard’s trip to space and the Apollo 11’s mission to the moon; and
providing the foundation that will someday allow NASA to send our astronauts to Mars. She literally wrote the textbook on rocket science.
21
“We are all so f ortunate ortunate that Katherine insisted on asking questions, and insisted on relentlessly
pursing the answers. We are fortunate that when faced with the adversity of racial and gender barriers, she found the courage to say ‘tell them I’m coming.’ We are also fortunate that Katherine has chosen to take a leading role in encouraging young people to pursue education in the STEM disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and math. “Katherine was born on National Equality Day. Few Americans have embodied the true spirit of
equity as profoundly or impacted the cause of human exploration so extensively. At NASA, we are proud to stand on Katherine Johnson’s shoulders.” For more information about Johnson’s remarkable NASA career, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/k http://www. nasa.gov/feature/katherine-johnson-the-girl-who-lovedatherine-johnson-the-girl-who-loved-to-count to-count 2. Notes from one of the biographies of Katherine Johnson
Katherine G. Johnson is a pioneer in American space history. history. A NASA mathematician, Johnson's computations have influenced every major space program from Mercury through the Shuttle program. Johnson was hired as a research mathematician at the Langley Research Center with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), the agency that preceded NASA, after they opened hiring to African-Americans and women. Johnson exhibited exceptional technical leadership and is known especially for her calculations of the 1961 trajectory for Alan Shepard’s flight (first American in space), the 1962 verification of the first flight calculation made by an electronic computer for John Glenn’s orbit (first American to orbit the earth), and the 1969 Apollo 11 trajectory to the moon. In her later NASA career, Johnson worked on the Space Shuttle program and the Earth Resources Satellite and encouraged students to pursue careers in science and technology fields. 3. The Presidential Medal of Freedom Award
Katherine Johnson was awarded the U.S. Medal of Freedom at an award ceremony at the Whi te House on Tuesday November 24, 2015. There are probably other awardees who are/were equally unqualified …. BUT …. This certainly provides a new perspective perspective relative to the U.S. Medal of Freedom – 4. Notes on the upcoming Medal of Freedom award ceremony:
·
Hall of Fame catcher and noted linguist Yogi Berra will receive a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom along with 16 other notable Americans, the White House said Monday. The list includes another baseball great — Willie Mays — as well as musicians Gloria and Emilio Estefan, retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski, classical musician Itzhak Perlman, composer Stephen Sondheim, film director Steven Spielberg, and singers James Taylor and Barbra Streisand. Another posthumous medal will go to long-time U.S. Rep. Shirley Chisholm, D-N.Y. Note: a distinguished group indeed!
22
·
"I look forward to presenting these 17 distinguished Americans with our nation's highest civilian honor," Obama said in a statement. "From public servants who helped us meet defining challenges of our time to artists who expanded our imaginations, imaginations, from leaders who have made our union more perfect to athletes who have inspired millions of fans, these men and women have enriched our lives and helped define our shared experience as Americans,"
5. Here are a few excerpts from articles related to Katherine’s career: · Katherine Johnson was a pioneer scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). She determined the trajectories for America's first manned space flights in 1961 and 1962. In 1969 her work was instrumental in landing men on the moon. The following year she helped bring the ill-fated Apollo 13 safely back to Earth. An early computer expert, Johnson was considered to be one of the most brilli ant mathematicians at NASA. (an incredible statement!!) · "We were pioneers of the space era. We worked in secret for about three three years, often without knowing exactly what the total thrust of our work was…You had to read Aviation Week to find out what you'd don e…Everything was so new—the whole idea of going into space was new and daring. There were no textbooks, so we had to write them…We created the equations needed to track a vehicle in space."
"We needed to be assertive as women in those days—assertive and aggressive…. I was working with Ted Skopinski and he wanted to leave and go to Houston…but Pearson, our supervisor—who was not a fan of women —kept pushing him to finish the report we were working on. Finally, Ted told him, ‘Katherine should finish the report, she's done most of the work, anyway.’ So Ted left Pearson with no choice; I finished the report and my name went on it, and that was the first time that a woman in our division divi sion had her name on something." Her groundbreaking report provided ………
23
Appendix C – C – email email exchange with Margot Shetterly There are two parts to this attachment. Part (A) is an email that I got from Margot; she asks some specific questions relative to her understanding of Katherine’s involvement in the space program. She also lists some of her assumptions and asks for clarification on particular items. Her questions are interesting and revealing. In Part (B), I answer her questions and provide facts. I describe who exactly did what, when and how in the early days of the space program. I recommended that she “beat” her story against the true history and make modifications as required. (A) An email from Margot mailto:
[email protected]]] From: Margot Lee Shetterly [mailto:
[email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 6:22 PM
> To: Harold Beck
24
--How close to launch? --What input parameters was she given to do the check, and who would they have come from? (2) She remembers being in the office (1244, upstairs from the Hangar which I think had just been renamed the Aero Space Mechanics Division) and a phone call came in from John Glenn to one of the engineers who was there in the office at the t ime (You? William Aiken? John Mayer? I believe this was before the group had moved to Houston, though three years after the S pace Task Group had set up offices on the East side). She remembers overhearing a conversation, the gist of which was that the engineer in question was being asked to "ge t the girl to do it" -- ie ask your (human) computer to double check the output that has come out of the IBM, as a part of the preflight checklist. One thing I have read in many of the oral histories is that t he computers were not completely re liable in the beginning. I've also read in more than one place that the astronauts were particularly distrustful of computers (there was an interesting section on this in the book Digital Apollo). (3) Katherine remembers it having taken her "a day and a half", to do t he hand check of the computer run, does that square with what you remember? Margot Margot Lee Shetterly Author of Hidden Figures-- William Morrow/September 2016 [email protected] www.margotleeshetterly.com Phone: (305) 433-8051
(B) My response to Margot’s email (To Margot) - The following notes are in spec ific response to the email that you sent yesterday. There are nine major items addressing: the at tachment, Working Paper 217; a response to your assumptions; and answers to your questions. (1) Relative to the attachment, Working Paper 217: “Working Paper 217, Project Mercury Calculated
Preflight Trajectory Data for Mercury -Atlas Mission 6 (MA-6)”, was part of the preflight documentation that was generated in support of MA-6. It was part of a typical “reference trajectory” documenting the “final” results of the mission planning and analysis that was done in the months prior to the mission launch date (for MA-6 the launch date was Feb 20, 1962). S uch a set of documentation was done to support each flight. It was used to define the nominal mission plan, including the launch window, orbit inclination and altitude, orbit lighting conditions, the crew timeline, maneuver sequences, spacecraft attitude timeline, etc. The nominal profile was also used for all sorts of contingency planning (abort planning and alternate mission planning). The official “reference trajectory” was also used to configure the world-wide network for a specific mission, e.g., ship placement, etc. Within NASA it was the official and primary roadmap for mission operations. The reference trajectory, related analyses and trajectory studies were the official responsibility of the Mission Analysis Branch (John Mayer’s group) of the Space Task Group; the data was of course co urse under strict configuration control. This particular document was the responsibility of Clay Hicks, who was project engineer for MA-6 (note the signature page). The document was approved for distribution by Robert Gilruth (for this particular document Paul Purser signed for Gilruth). 25
The software program used in the “ precise” trajectory simulation for the MA-6 trajectory was called
CO3E which was developed in 1959 in t he Mission Analysis Branch by John Shoosmith. The following is a description of the CO3E development and utilization. The development of Mercury Orbital Mechanics Tools – Tools – CO3E CO3E
An early software project within the Branch was the development of a detailed mission simulation program to be used in planning all of the t he essential flight information, including: ground track, lighting, tracking coverage, spacecr aft attitude profile, landing site locations, retrofire time/attitude, etc. In April ‘59, John Shoosmith joined the Space Task Group and was assigned to the Mathematical
Analysis Section of the Mission Analysis Branch. John was one of the exceptional engineers who had come down to Langley from A.V.Roe, Canada. John began the development of a primary tool to be used by the trajectory and mission planning analysts. He is credited with the early development of t he C03E program that was used for Mercury mission planning and analysis. The CO3E software was initially developed on the IBM 704 at Langley, but the program would be used for years within MPAD. Soon after t he start of the CO3E project, John was promoted to a management position and Wilber Boykin took over the program and later revised it for the IBM 7094 computer. Sidenote of interest: For those interested from an historical perspective, here’s a reference for documentation documentation for the CO3E program: “Revised Three Degree of Freedom
Particle Trajectory Program CO3E for the IBM 7094 Computer - NA SA Technical Note TN D-3463; Boykin, Wilbur R. - NASA. The document was published in 1966 and is available on Amazon.com Parallel to the CO3E program development, Charlie Allen was developing orbital analysis programs for the Bendix G-15. These programs were used in trajectory studies to calculate parameters for elliptic orbits, e.g., altitude, velocity, flight path angle, apogee radius, perigee radius, and other parameters. The programs were useful in validating results from the primary C03E trajectory program. After developing the computer programs required to support P roject Mercury, the Branch was ready for the mission planning tasks. As time went on the C03E program had to be augmented with a number of output-parameter options. Mercury spacecraft characteristics we re incorporated to provide the capability to calculate accurate ground track data, tracking acquisition data, retrofire times/attitude, landing area data, a nd other ancillary information. The program was later used by the Mission Planning and Analysis Division of MSC for many years. It was primary for Mercury and was used extensively for G emini. The very important math aide group under the most capable management of Mary Shep Burton was responsible for the preparation of the refere nce mission documentation and the quality control of the related planning products. Mary Shep’s team included Shirley Hunt (Hinson) and Cathy Osgood. (They later moved to Houston and worked in the organization for many years). All three frequently went to 26
the Cape and supported the realtime re altime operations for the Mercury flights and generated the post-flight reports. The post-flight reports were a m easure of mission success, documenting any off nominal system performance, etc. (2) Relative to assumption 1: This trajectory data is based at least in part on t he orbital equations set out in Katherine and Skopinski's Azimuth angle report. Response: As stated earlier, the primary trajectory tool, the workhorse for the Branch, was the CO3E program developed initially by John Shoosmith. CO3E was a high fidelity trajectory program that integrated the spacecraft equations of motion taking into account external perturbations. CO3E was used for all of the Mercury flights. The Skopinski algorithm was a two-body orbital mechanics solution. The equations were closed form and did not require an integration e ngine and were readily solved using the Friden calculator. It’s important to note that the two-body tw o-body solution was most frequently used in orbit mechanics studies. It was most convenient for parametric analyses – and required little computer resources. The two -body solution provided reasonably accurate results and was easily calculated. When the MAB move d to the STG we had an IBM 1620 and two-body studies were a natural for the smaller computer. The CO3E required the IBM 704/7094. We also used the Friden calculators extensively for quick-look studies. (3) Relative to assumption 2: This data was calculated using one of the Goddard IBM 7090s, programmed with the trajectory equations from the report, and any other equations that other groups groups were working on that would have been necessary for guidance and t racking during the flight (although in the original 1959 report, it appears they used an IBM 704 to crunch the numbers). Response: The CO3E software was initially developed at Langley within the STG on the IBM 704 by a Branch engineer, John Shoosmith. It was later installed on the IBM 7094. The branch engi neers used CO3E extensively for mission planning and analyses, especially for higher fidelity simulations. The Goddard computers were used in near-re al-time for orbit determination. During Mercury, the Control Center at the Cape did not have computers. During the missions, all support calculations were done using the Goddard computer resources. (4) Relative to assumption 3. Input data for the "test" is set out on page 1 -1 in Section 1.1, "Description of Test", and those are the input parameters used to generate the computer run in this w orking paper. Response: Section 1.1 provides the orbit insertion state vector - or the cut-off conditions from the Mercury-Atlas launch trajectory. One could take this state vector and propagate it and o btain the resulting orbit. The fidelity of the propagation would depend upon the software simulation – it could be a two-body sim or a more accurate ac curate numerical integration simulation. (5) Relative to assumption 4: When Katherine Johnson was asked to check the numbers, she was given the same input and equations that were being fed into the computer, and required to calculate all numbers by hand, using her Friden (or Monroe or Marchant). Response: as stated above, Section 1.1 provides the orbit insertion state vector or the cut-off conditions from the Mercury-Atlas 6 launch trajecto ry. Katherine was probably given the input (insertion parameters) from the working paper but she did not use the equations of motion in the CO3E software ). She used the input conditions for the two-body simulation spec (“given (“given the same input and equations” ). 27
to calculate the basic orbit parameter s. The results would be approximate but would be reasonably close especially if you are only propagating for a few orbits. Sidenote: In general, you don’t validate a high-fidelity simulation using a two-body solution – but rather the other way around, i.e., you use an accurate simulation to check your approximate solution to see how adequate the approximation is. (6) Relative to assumption 5. Katherine's check of MA-6 was at the tail end of her involvement with MA6, after that, most of the mission planning became the full-time job of the Houston-based math aides (Mary Shep Burton, Catherine Osgood et al) Response: The launch date for MA-6 was Feb 20, 1962 - a couple of months prior to the Branch move to Houston. The detailed planning for MA- 6 was done in the months prior to the launch date (late in ’61 and early ‘62). Clay Hicks was the project engineer and was responsible for the generation of the nominal trajectory and for all of the ancillary data. Again, CO3E was the primary software tool. The work was certainly not an individual’s responsibility but rather a team activity. Carl Huss, John Mayer, Ted Skopinski and other engineers were all involved - and indeed the math aide group played a most important role in data reduction, ancillary data gener ation, data validation and documentation. The Mission Analysis Branch worked the problem from the conceptual profile definition up through real -time support at the Cape. Branch members mem bers (including Mayer and Huss) spent a great deal of time at the Cape supporting the mission, real-time and with postflight analyses and postflight documentation. Question: what is meant by “… the tail end of her involvement with MA -6”? (7) Relative to Question 1: When would Katherine Johnson have performed this check? --How close to launch? --What input parameters was she given to do the check, and who would they have come from? Answer: If she used the input insertion vector from the Working Paper 217 (and I guess that this t his is a good assumption) then she must have done the calculations no sooner than e arly January 1962. The working paper was published On December 28, 1 961.The launch date for MA-6 was Fe b 20, 1962. A possible scenario: someone in Pearson’s organization probably had access to the classified document, Working Paper 217, and provided Katherine with t he input parameters for use in her c alculations. Perhaps someone like Bill Aiken or Henry Pearson j ust asked her to do the computations as a matter of interest (to see how well we ll the two body solution would compare??) (8) Relative to question 2: “…. and a phone call came in from John Glenn to one of t he engineers who was there in the office at the time (You? William Aiken? John Mayer? …. she remembers overhearing a
conversation, the gist of which was that the engineer in question was being asked to "get the girl to do it"-- i.e. ask your (human) computer to double check the output that has come out of the IBM…. “ Answer: Question 2 is really a challenge! c hallenge! Part 1: I’m not sure who got the phone call. I assume it was around early January ’62. Skopinski, Mayer and I had previously transferred to the STG and we were preparing for the move to Houston in a c ouple of months. The call could have come in to Henry Pearson or perhaps Bill Aiken – I’m not sure though when Bill left Pearson’s organization to take a position in Washington?
28
Part 2. I doubt very seriously that John Glenn called Pearson and asked for validation of the official NASA Operational Flight Profile. If for any reason he had a question or an issue, he would naturally have gone to Gilruth, Kraft, John Mayer, Carl Huss or Clay Hicks. The Space Task Group was a relatively small team at that time – and everyone worked together w ith absolute open communication. Glenn’s office was down the hall from Mayer’s office. Within the Space Task Group there was a formal process for the validation of software and the data used in operations – there was a high confidence level – even in the early days. In my years working with the flight crew I have only experience d unbounded trust by the flight crew guys in the competence of the mission control team and in the flight planners. Perhaps (?) Perhaps (?) some of the astronauts later on did question computers but if they did so , they were definitely in the w rong business. The success of all the missions was absolutely tied to computer capability and software validation – and that is true to t his day! Just look at the complexity and reliability of the onboard computers! With what I know about John Glenn it seems totally out of character to make such a call. I think the most likely scenario is the one mentioned above: someone in Pearson’s organization probably had access to the c lassified document, Working Paper 217, and provided Katherine with the input parameters for use in her two-body calculations. Perhaps someone like Bill Aiken or Henry Pearson just asked her to do the computations as a matter of interest (to se e how well the two-body solution would compare??). But the two-body solution would absolutely absolutely never be used to validate a high-fidelity trajectory simulation!
(9) Relative to question 3. Katherine remembers it having taken her "a day and a half", to do the hand check of the computer run, does that square with what you remember? Answer: That’s certainly a reasonable amount of time for the task. Katherine was quite familiar with the two-body equations. Setting up the spreadsheet in preparation for t he computation was a bit time
consuming but Katherine was one of the best when it came to the Friden operation. She could outperform almost everyone in the organization. (Incidentally, one of her top competitors was Bill Aiken, one of the senior engineers – he was a whiz indeed). The number of calculations of course depends upon the chosen “time steps” or g ranularity of the solution. It should be noted that the Friden computation is not actually a “hand check of the of the computer run”. There are levels of accuracy in trajectory propagation: the two-body is one level (and represents an approximation) and the numerical integration is the second level. But indeed, there is no true mathematical model to predict the “actual” position of a spacecraft – there are uncert ainties in upper atmosphere densities, physical characteristics of the spacecraft, etc . That opens the door to a discussion on orbit dete rmination, earth modelling, etc.—for another day.
29
30
