Smath74
All American
93277 Posts
user info
edit post |
First, what was lost? The Apollo series of boilerplate capsules were engineering models designed to facilitate tests on components and procedures for the Apollo missions. One of these procedures was the training of recovery forces world wide. The capsule in question would have had the same dimensions as the real thing and weighed roughly the same. To quote one source – In general it was metal, very well made from thick galvanised iron. …. Apparently the manufacturing technology was designed for a small series. … Even the heat shield was not simulated. According to experts from the CDBMB (the Soviet Central Design Bureau of Machine Building) who examined BP-1227 after its recovery, it had pieces missing, notably an optical glass lantern and its associated search light beacon.
The most likely scenario for the loss of the several recovery exercises employed by Apollo recovery forces would be one involving an ARRS unit. Once initial training had been given NASA left it to these units to arrange their own exercises under the direction of a lead diver. Unfortunately, NASA did not record, nor keep records of which boilerplate was allocated to which unit for the purpose of practicing a recovery.
For an ARRS unit a "full-up" simulation required a ship with retrieval capability to take a BP out to sea. The BP would be equipped with a flashing light and electronic beacon. This equipment enabled the NASA engineers involved to train the DoD personnel in the operation of the SARAH device placed on support aircraft. Once the BP was located (homing on the beacon signal) the aircraft and PJs began their preparation sequence for jumping. Since the Apollo had a fairly high drift rate the prep sequence was somewhat difficult requiring smoke signal drops, precise rafts and flotation collar drops. If not done precisely a PJ missing his target possibly would not be able to catch up to a drifting BP. The PJs would gather the dropped equipment, install the collar and await the ship to return all to base.
So, who lost it? There are just two sources that might have some weight in answering this and both are in some agreement. The first is a letter from the Department of the Navy at Norfolk, Virginia to Grand Rapids Press written in December 1976. This states - … when the Airforce was using it to train their ARRS aircraft (Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service. The US Coast Guard is in broad agreement with this as its web site says - Apparently the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Rescue and Recovery personnel who were using the 9,500 pound capsule for training. The unit most likely to have been involved is the 67th ARRS (the Night Owls) as they were in the given area at the time of the loss. More of this later.
Now to where and when it was lost. Here the waters become very murky. Let’s deal with the two US sources first. The US Coast Guard web site says BP-1227 - … lost it at sea near the Azores in February, 1969. Elsewhere is a report that BP-1227 was eventually recovered in the Bay of Biscay. This was reported in the New York Times on 4th September 1970 as - ...the Soviet Government had informed the embassy about three weeks ago that fishermen from Murmansk, while working in the Bay of Biscay, off France, had found a capsule. But is this likely? One must consider two factors. First, the CDBMB report says that there were no signs of corrosion on the capsule. This does not necessarily rule out a long time in the water as the firm that reconditioned another boilerplate say that any corrosion for the length of time BP-1227 was in the water would likely be minimal. However, a second, opinion from a leading UK meteorologist who was consulted about the feasibility of a capsule drifting from the Azores to the Bay of Biscay would appear to eliminate the Azores. His response was that the prevailing ocean currents and winds made this very unlikely unless the incident took place well to the north of the Azores. Well to the north places the incident very close to the Bay of Biscay!
So, is the Bay of Biscay is also a strong candidate for where BP-1227 was lost? More of this later.
Now for the second US source, the letter from the Department of the Navy at Norfolk, Virginia. This very clearly states – They were operating off the coast of England when somehow during the exercise it was lost at sea. Two ‘official’ sources and two totally different locations for the loss of BP-1227. There is some reason to believe that ‘off the coast of England’ is actually somewhere in the North Sea. The problem is that apart from this very vague location there are very few other details to go on.
It is possible we may have also a who. Both the Coast Guard and the US Navy say that those responsible for the loss were Air Force units. One unit, as has been mentioned previously, can be placed in the vicinity of both the Azores and the North Sea on dates when it is possible the capsule was lost – the 67th ARRS. Until early January 1970 the 67th was based at Moron AFB in Spain, well within range of the Azores. It then transferred to RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk, UK just a short hop to the North Sea.
This leaves the people who ought to know what happened – NASA. Again, enquiries thus far have drawn a blank. When asked, Roger Launius, the chief NASA historian at the time, knew nothing about it. There do not appear to be any records of this incident in NASA records or perhaps any that they are prepared to admit to. Neither do records seem to exist in the ARRS units archives nor any of the US Navy sources questioned.
There are further curiosities about the Coast Guard records. According to the Southwind history, the ship was in Murmansk from the 4th to 7th September. Yet most accounts list the hand over of the missing capsule as the 8th September.
Another oddity is that there is no mention of the Southwind in another section of the Coast Guard web site that lists a Daily Chronology Coast Guard History. When asked about this omission, a Coast Guard Historian said that the site was continually updated but that they were concentrating on ships that were still on active service. Nevertheless, it does find the space to record that in November 1970 the captain of the Vigilant allowed Russians to board his ship to forcibly remove someone attempting to defect.
Which brings us to the Russian accounts of the story. The first was written in 2005. The account claims that BP-1227 was lost in the fog by the Royal Navy during an exercise in the emergency recovery of a spaceship and picked up by a Russian trawler. [Could this be the source of the Astronautix article? If so, as has been shown, it is an unreliable basis for detailing the loss.] It goes on to suggest that this was not a chance event but the result of a specially conducted operation due to the interest of Russian intelligence in the Apollo programme. Having examined the capsule, its return was arranged as nothing could be learnt from it and it was considered to be a gesture of goodwill in the improving relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States.
This article has a sting in the tail. The surprise of the crew of the Southwind at being the recipients of an Apollo boilerplate capsule in Murmansk is put down to the fact that the Americans thought that the capsule had sunk and rested at the bottom of the Bay of Biscay. It goes on to claim that such was the scandal in Washington that it led, in part, to the resignation in September 1970 of Thomas O. Paine, the NASA Administrator at the time. Another reason given is that Paine was opposed to the Soviet-American co-operation in the planning of the joint ASTP mission. The article ends by saying that the documents relating to the loss are to be declassified in 2021 (c.f. what the Russian Embassy said), though it does add - unless it is decided to extend the ‘statute of limitations’.
The second Russian source has no date and is even more surprising, though it may be the reason, if true, for the secrecy surrounding the loss of BP-1227. It starts by suggesting that there was an agreement between the Russians and Americans to keep details of the events surrounding the loss secret. Perhaps it is not surprising when it is linked to the accident and eventual sinking of the Soviet nuclear submarine K-8 in the Bay of Biscay in early April 1970. The author suggests that whilst the Americans were on exercise with BP-1227 during preparations for the Apollo 13 mission the submarine got into trouble. This caused the Americans to rush of to the scene of the accident leaving the capsule floating by itself in the Bay of Biscay. Whilst they were away a Russian trawler/spy ship nipped in and stole it. As the article expresses it – While the Americans dropped the watch and went to climb into someone else’s garden, someone dug in their own. Once K-8 sank, the Americans returned and, not finding the capsule, assumed that it had sunk.
Both Russian accounts are in broad agreement as to when this happened. The most likely dates are the 11th and 12th April 1970. The weather at the time in the Bay of Biscay is described as squally with snow flurries. A check of the records for this location and dates puts the wind at between Force 6 and 7. Taking this as a distinct possibility for the loss, it would seem that there were US Navy units that might just have been in the vicinity. Certainly the USS New, the USS Forrest Royal and the USS William C. Lawe were all involved in Apollo recovery operations in the Atlantic.
Of course this is pure conjecture. But then, with conflicting stories and in the absence of hard evidence from official sources, so are the other accounts of what happened. In the end, it seems the answer to exactly what the circumstances surrounding the loss of BP-1227 is as far away as ever. Perhaps one day the truth will out.  12/19/2011 12:12:10 PM
|
