A Bid To Save A Modern Day Santa Maria:
The Preservation Story of the Last Apollo-Saturn Launch Umbilical Tower
by
Doug Forrest
“The jet that had rushed him here from Washington, after that midnight briefing with the President, was now dropping down to ward one of
the most familiar, yet most exciting, landscapes in all the world. There lay the first two generations of the Space Age, spa nning twenty miles
of the Florida coast. To the south, outlined by winking red warning lights, were the giant gantries of the Saturns and Neptunes, that had set
men on the path to the planets, and had now passed into history. Near the horizon, a gleaming silver tower bathed in floodli ghts, stood the
last of the Saturn Vs, for almost twenty years a national monument and place of pilgrimage.”
-“2001, A Space Odyssey”-Arthur C.
Clark.
Several years ago I was searching in the Los Angeles Central Library for any information I could find on the Saturn V and it’s
launch support systems for a model I intended to make. In the course of my search I came across a book, American
Astronautical Society History Series, volume 17: History of Rocketry and Astronautics, which contained a paper written by
John London called, "A legacy for the future: Preserving Space-related historic sites." In it, Mr. London related the story of
how Apollo’s last Saturn V Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) was saved from the scrap heap through the efforts of two Air
Force officers, who worked at the cape during the change over days between Apollo and the Space Shuttle. The names of the
two officers are not mentioned in the paper, but it’s a story that has captured my imagination and is one that I hope to pass on
to everyone who reads this.
It’s true that there are three Saturn Vs still in existence. One of them is at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, another
at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville Alabama and the third at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
However, only one of those, the one at KSC, has been afforded the luxury of a major refurbishment and a roof over its head to
keep the harmful corrosive elements of the Florida coast at bay. The Smithsonian did a tremendous job of preserving and
refurbishing the rocket back to its original condition. It was riddled with corrosion and had, among other things, birds nesting
inside it where there were holes in the sides of the tanks.
There is another detail to remember historically speaking. All the rockets that are displayed today are surplus stock and were
not the actual ones used. Of all the Saturn Vs that were launched to go to the moon, the Command Module was the only piece
to come back. However, what about the Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT)? How many people know that there is still one of
these left, and of it’s history, and more importantly, the fact that it may not be around for much longer?
Arthur C. Clarke wrote about a national monument. Why not? You’d think that with all the things that are made into
monuments, the Saturn V and it’s gantry would be high on the list of historical importance. Not just because they are relics
from one of the most technical achievements of the last century, but also because they still exist. Imagine if Christopher
Columbus had come back from the new world and someone had said, “Let’s preserve the ship.” It would be priceless now.
Unfortunately, most people don’t seem to have that foresight.
Originally, there were three of these 450’ tall, bright red, towers, which were permanently fixed to the mobile launch bases that
the Saturn V was stacked on, moved to the launch pad on and eventually launched from. The combined structures were
designated LUT 1, 2 and 3.
When Project Apollo ended and the Shuttle program was being built up, LUTs 2 and 3 were scheduled to be dismantled and
have parts reused for the Shuttle program. The mobile bases had their towers removed and then went off for a refit for the
different layout of the Shuttle stack (three holes for the engines, instead of one for the Saturn V). The top two thirds of those
towers, along with their hammerhead cranes, were permanently installed on the concrete hard stands and rotating service
structures were built next to them to service the new Shuttles. The hammerhead cranes were later removed (pad A in 1994 and
pad B in 1995) due to the high cost of maintaining them. It was decided that, since a ground based crane could be used, it was
cheaper to remove and scap them, than it was to refurbish them. The remaining parts of those two LUTs; the bottom third of
the towers and most of their swing arms were presumably scrapped. When Apollo/Soyuz ended the Apollo program in 1975,
NASA had no use for the third LUT, but they did want the mobile base. In January 1983, they announced plans to demolish the
tower and the Saturn 1B pedestal that had been attached to it for the last four missions, and sell the metal for scrap.
I should mention at this point, that this particular LUT was LUT 1. It was the tower used for Apollo 4 (the first launch of a
Saturn V), Apollo 8 (the first manned mission to leave the confines of Earth orbit and orbit the Moon), Apollo 11 (the first
manned landing on the Moon), all three manned Skylab flights and finally, Apollo/Soyuz (the first American/Russian link up in
space). The historical significance of this particular tower is without doubt.
Luckily, there were two Air Force officers who worked at the cape who, when they read the Florida Today newspaper report of
NASA’s plans to scrap the tower, decided to try and prevent it. They recognized the historical implications of the tower and so
wrote a letter to The NASA Administrator, James Beggs, while copying Senator Lawton Chiles, Senator Paula Hawkins,
Congressman Bill Nelson, Richard G. Smith, the Director of the Kennedy Space Center and Harry B. Chambers, the Vice
President/General Manager of TWA Services Inc., who ran the KSC visitor’s center. In it, they proposed that the tower be
taken down in such a way that it could be reassembled at a later date, at the visitors center as one of the major displays. This
arrangement had the added benifit of not impacting NASA’s future plans for the mobile base. This letter was to spark off four
months of arguments, controversy and negotiations.
While waiting for a response to the letter, they found out that the award for the demolition contract was imminent and that if
they waited for the reply, it would be too late. After making some inquiries, they contacted the U.S. House Committee on
Science and Technology (who oversee NASA’s budget), The U.S. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, The
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Florida Department of State,
Division of Archives, History and Records Management. All these agencies backed the idea of preserving the tower and began
to apply pressure to NASA to disassemble the tower carefully. NASA’s initial response was negative to the preservation
proposal, since they felt that doing so would delay the schedule of the Shuttle program and that the extra costs involved would
be prohibitive. They maintained that the pieces of the other two towers that were being used for the Shuttle program satisfied
their preservation responsibilities. After a number of letters were sent back and forth between members of the preservation
coalition and interested members of Congress, NASA finally agreed to getting an estimate for a preservation option from the
disassembly contractor, Best Wrecking Company of Detroit, Michigan. After much negotiation, both parties agreed on a sum of
$1.818 million over the intially agreed demolision figure of $0.574 million. The extra $1.818 million was to pay for the careful
disassembly option and the extra work involved in ensuring that the pieces would be kept in as good condition as possible
while in storage. It would also pay transportation expenses to move the tower segments to a storage site and the estimated scrap
value of the metal, since possession and ownership of the tower would be retained by the government.
While NASA requested the preservation option from Best Wrecking, they only allowed sixty days for Congress and the
preservation groups to review the estimate and come up with a means of funding the project. Representative Manuel Lujan –
Republican from New Mexico, responded to this by offering House Resolution 2065 on 12 April 1983. This proposed to
ammend the fiscal 1984 NASA Authorization Bill, adding $1.818 million to fund the preservation. The resolution was adopted
by voice vote, but this budget would not be available until October 1983. However, Lujan saw this as a way of showing NASA
that Congress wanted the tower to be saved.
At the same time, the coalition of preservation groups in Washington filed a suit in federal court against NASA, seeking to
obtain a temporary restraining order to prevent NASA from going ahead with their plan to scrap the tower. The suit was filed
on 18 April 1983.
Due to the pressure from Congress, preservation groups and interested citizens around the U.S., NASA informed
Representative Lujan that the preservation option would be exercised and that the funds were to come from the fiscal 1983
NASA budget that was already authorized. As a result, the law suit was settled out of court on 27 May 1983 and the tower was
carefully disassembled during the summer of 1983.
Now that the tower had been saved, the task fell to finding the funds neccessary to rebuild and display it. To do this the
preservation coalition formed a non-profit, Washington based corporation called “Save the Apollo Launch Tower (STALT)
Incorporated” in November 1983. This name was later changed to “The Apollo Society ” to better reflect the wider range of
preservation interests that it’s members held.
The Apollo Society’s plan was to have the tower disassembled and stored at a suitable location until the funding could be
found to reassemble it. Proposals were drawn up to have the tower as part of the KSC visitor’s center. A concrete base, which
resembled the dimensions of the mobile base would house gift shops and information interpreting the tower for the public. It
would also access the elevators that could take visitors on a ride up past a mock-up Saturn V to a real command module, in the
same way the Apollo astronauts had done.
At the same time, Best Wrecking Company management, who had profited from the preservation decision, privately drafted
their own proposal to be given to NASA and the Apollo Society for the reassembly and operation of displaying the tower, as
they felt that it had high potential as a profit making tourist attraction. They formed a new separate company called “Apollo
Launch Tower Associates (ALTA)” for this purpose.
Their proposal was in keeping with the Apollo Society’s goals, where allowing ALTA to do the entire job would negate the
need for a massive fund raising campaign and would also have the tower displayed and interpreted for the public. However,
NASA were not open to it, because ALTA waanted to put the tower at the visitors center with a mockup of a Saturn V next to it
and charge a hefty fee to tourists to ride the elevators to the top. NASA, and subsequently, the Apollo Society felt that the
commercial aspects of the proposal threatened the dignity of how the tower would be presented to the public.
ALTA tried to negotiate higher and higher contributions from the Apollo Society to go towards the reassembly costs and this in
turn, developed into the Society’s diminishing interest in the proposal. Eventually, ALTA dropped the proposal after tiring of
dealing with the bureaucracy of trying to make a commercial venture out of government property and with the decrease of
support from the Apollo Society.
This left the Apollo Society with their original plan of trying to generate the estimated $8.5 million reassembly costs through a
nationwide fund raising campaign. Their initial approach was a direct mail campaign, using the membership lists of various
space related groups. Unfortunately, when published statistics of the expected response to such a campaign were looked at,
they were below the expectations of certain Apollo Society board members. The president soon after resigned and the National
Trust for Historic Preservation pulled formal support from the Society. The Society did continue for some time, but has since
gone the way of ALTA.
The sections of the tower are still in the field where they they were put in 1983 out behind the Headquarters building at KSC.
You can see them if you take one of the “Up Close Tour” buses that is run from the visitor’s center.
In March 2001, I had a chance to go into the storage area, or “boneyard” as KSC personel call it, and have a close look at the
pieces. While I was there, I met two other gentlemen, who were being accompanied by their own NASA guide. We all got
talking and they were asked what they were doing there. They told us that they were there to survey the pieces of the tower with
the purpose of producing a quote to sand blast them back to the bare metal. When asked why, the response was that NASA
wanted to get rid of it.
This stayed in my mind for the rest of the trip, as I had been given permission to visit this site to photograph the tower for an
article I was proposing to write about the preservation of existing Apollo era hardware that is not well looked after; this tower
being the prime example. While on the plane going home, I decided that instead of just writing about preservation, I should
like to try and actually get involved in seeing this tower restored.
The first thing that I did was write to Roy D. Bridges, Director of KSC to ask what NASA’s plans actually were for the LUT.
His response on April 27 confirmed my fears that the tower was indeed being disposed of. He explained that there was a
Federal screening process that would insure that no other agency had need of the tower. If that draws a blank, then it will be
offered to the Smithsonian Institute, but they will only get 45 days to respond. Failing that, it will be offered to qualifying
museums across the country, but with a 21 day response deadline. Finally, if all else fails, it will be offered for sale.
Mr. Bridges also mentioned the fact that two sections of the tower have been preserved and are included in the Saturn V Center
display along with the hammerhead crane, but these are not the two top pieces as NASA maintains. The original top section of
the tower housed the elevator machine room and had no elevator shaft running through it. The upper portion of the display has
the crew access level, which was originally, the third level from the top.
I immediatly sent off another string of questions that inquired how long would the screening process take before the LUT was
offered to the Smithsonian, had the process already begun. Could it be interrupted and would the two sections of the tower in
the Saturn V Center be released from the display to make up the complete tower if the funding could be found.
Mr. Bridges wrote back on June 12 to tell me that the screening process had begun, but there was no fixed time on how long it
would take. He also said that the process had to be completed, regardless of outside funds being made available, and that it
would not be possible to remove the two sections from the display. NASA, rather than Delaware North Parks Services, would
make any decision concerning removal of these sections
In my second letter to Mr. Bridges I wrote,
“Getting right up and touching things is a fundamental thing that we like to do. It makes us feel close, it sets our imagination
off and in some cases, can change our direction in life. As I wrote before, I believe that this tower represents a huge part of the
history of the manned space flight program, because it is one of the few remaining pieces of hardware that was actually used,
and that being able to walk on it and ride the elevators up past a (mock-up) Saturn V would be an experience that few people
would forget.”
When I first started planning my trip to Florida to see the tower in March, I managed to get hold of an email address for John
London, the author of the paper that I had originally read which sparked my interest. I subsequently learned that he was one of
the two Air Force officers who were responsible for the original campaign. Several emails later, I managed to meet with him in
May. Through him, I have also been in touch with his colleague, Joseph Fury, the other officer involved, and who was the
chairman of the Apollo Society.
Mr. Fury proved to be a gold mine of information and has kept all the original files from the early preservation attempt. From
these, he copied and sent me some of the more important papers. My aim has been to learn as much about the tower’s history as
possible, so as to make any new campaign more efficient. Both Mr. London and Mr. Fury have been very helpful and have
shared much of their information with me.
Since part of their original proposal was for the tower to be reassembled with a full scale mock up Saturn V next to it, I decided
to go and visit the world’s only full scale, vertically standing, mock-up of a Saturn V. It was built as an exhibit for the U.S.
Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama and opened for the 30th anniversary celebration of Apollo 11 in July 1999. It
cost $8.7 million and was conceived by the former director of the Space and Rocket Center, Mike Wing, in late February,
1999.
The original plan was to include a tower with the rocket which would be built at a later stage, as it was not deemed to be a
requisite for the celebration. The Center's director had some bold ideas for utilization of spaces within the gantry. The gantry
design kept evolving until it was deemed that sufficient funds were not available to construct this feature. The decision not to
do the gantry with the rocket was made in early May, 1999. However, by the time the decision was made not to proceed with
the gantry, the engineering company, Turner Universal, had already installed the deep foundations for the tower.
I wrote to Chuck Codding, Vice President, Operations Manager, Turner Universal to ask about the exhibit and about the
possibility of having the real LUT brought to Huntsville and assembled there. He wrote back with the following:
“The gantry was never designed to be able to provide support for the rocket; however when the gantry portion of the exhibit
was scrubbed, the deck around the rocket that was to replicate the base on which the rocket was supported was also
eliminated, and this did provide support for the exhibit. To offset the loss of the deck or base around the Saturn V, we
redesigned the piers on which the rocket now sits, and we made modifications to the structural steel "backbone" that forms the
superstructure for the rocket.
I am not familiar with the footprint and the structural supports for the actual gantry. With the existence of the deep
foundations for the gantry that was proposed for the exhibit in Huntsville, I would suspect that something can be devised such
as a mat or a grade beam system to support the real gantry if the decision were to be made to bring the gantry to the Space
and Rocket Center.
The Space and Rocket Center is a state agency that was set up for among other things, to display resources from the space
program and to provide educational opportunities about the space program. Any dealings about bringing the real gantry to
the Center would have to be handled with Center management, and I would assume, have to have NASA's blessings. I am not
sure how the current Center leadership views any long term plan to add to the exhibit by constructing a gantry.
As far as construction of a similiar exhibit in another location, this can certainly be done. Considerations for locations other
than Huntsville would involve different foundation designs to accommodate specific wind loading and soil conditions. Also, if
a gantry and a base were utilized, the foundations and support for the rocket could be re-evaluated to get the posssible
economy of a different structural scenario.”
Also in my letter to him, I asked if it would cost less to build another mock-up, since the design work had already been done
once. He replied:
“There is much of the exhibit design that would not have to be re-done, although standard practice would dictate that the
entire design be re-evaluated for local code compliance, specific site charactoristics, and overall applicability to the owner's
program. Portions of the Huntsville exhibit might be considered as proprietary. There are also agreements in place
concerning rights to intellectual property. Also, our major subcontractor for the exhibit controls much of the design for the
components that were manufactured to form the rocket. His willingness to participate in another venture such as this is
something upon which I cannot speculate; however, I am of the opinion that the cost for components of another vertical Saturn
V exhibit from this subcontractor will probably be more than the first because of the "tuition" that he may have paid to learn
the ropes on the materials, methods, and problems associated with the fabrication and erection of the one in Huntsville. There
are, however, other firms that have similar capabilities that could be used for another exhibit.
I also think that if a reasonable schedule for the design and construction of another exhibit is established, cost could be saved
in the areas of labor, transportation, and management. The compressed time that we had to get financing, design the exhibit,
and put it in place put a tremendous amount of pressure on the budget. Adequate planning and preparation for any
construction endeavor will always help the cost of the project.”
In Mr. Bridges second response, he gave me the email address of the Property Disposal Officer, Pauletta McGinnis who is in
charge of the tower’s excessing. I wrote to her on July 27 to ask what stage the proceedings were at. She replied the following
day with:
“We are in the process of verifying the parts of the tower and will be submitting to the Smithsonian within the next few weeks.
The Smithsonian has 45 days to make a determination whether to acquire. At this point, I do not have a good feel for the
Smithsonian to take the tower. Several factors that will be a problem is the size and cost to transport. The Smithsonian will
have to come up with the money to ship. After the Smithsonian process, then the States will have a chance at acquiring the
tower. This process is 21 days. When and if it makes it to sale, will be sometime in the late fall or early winter.
At this time, I do not know of any organization that is interested. Approximately 5 years ago, a Japanese company was
interested; however, I do not know if they will still be interested.”
I wrote back to ask if the Smithsonian would have to pay for the tower itself, in addition to the transportation costs. Ms.
McGinnis replied that they would not, but that moving the pieces of the tower and the reassembly costs would be their
responsibility. She also said that the Japanese company would be approached again if the tower went up for sale.
Since that letter, we have corresponded several times. She told me that on August 27, an email with photographs was to be sent
to the Smithsonian. I wrote to John Dailey, the Director of the Smithsonian on August 15 to ask what their intentions were for
the tower. He replied in a letter dated August 24 with the following:
“Your proposal to preserve and display the last of the Saturn V Launch Umbilical Towers (LUT) is much appreciated. We
agree that the tower is of great historical significance and that it would be a tragic loss if it were not preserved. However, the
resources required to relocate, exhibit, and maintain such a structure are beyond those available to the National Air and
Space Museum especially as the Museum is now focusing its efforts towards completion of an extension facility, the UdvarHazy Center, near Dulles Airport. This center was planned to accommodate the many items in our collections that are in
storage or otherwise inaccessible to visitors, but it will not have room to house a Launch Tower.
We have estimated that a restoration and relocation of the LUT would cost on the order of $15 to $20 million, depending upon
where it would be relocated. If it were to be moved to Huntsville, a combination of barge and overland transport would be
required, but before planning the logistics of the move we would first have to determine whether the structure is in good
enough condition to survive such an effort.
We further believe that, once restored, the tower should be kept protected from the elements, as the Saturn V at the Kennedy
Space Center is. If exposed to the high humidity at either Huntsville or Florida, the tower will again deteriorate and require
periodic restoration treatment, at ever-inflated costs, indefinitely into the future. It is for that reason that we are currently
working on raising the money to both restore and house the Houston Saturn V inside a climate-controlled building.
We feel that the most practical solution is to salvage components of the tower. Several steps have already been taken along
these lines. The top section and crane have been removed and relocated into the Apollo/Saturn V Facility. The White Room
has been moved to, and is well cared for, at the Kansas Cosmosphere in Hutchinson. Our Curator of Rocketry, Frank H.
Winter, is exploring the possibility of acquiring other components. As you mention, he expects to be approached officially by
the Kennedy Space Center on the availability of the LUT. You are correct in stating that after we are notified, we will have 45
days in which to respond. We feel that this is a reasonable enough period of time in which to act on acquiring any
salvageable components of the tower.”
Although not greatly surprised by the response, I was saddened by it. It seems that everybody in authority that I have written to
regarding the tower has the same opinion that it should be preserved, but funding for it and it’s need for “periodic restoration
treatment, at ever-inflated costs, indefinitely into the future” seems to be beyond all hope. Why is it so difficult to fund a
project for something this valuable? We’re always so ready to build monuments to events where people have died in great
numbers, but we have such a hard time commemorating the times that we got it right and did something good.
As a result of my efforts to make people aware of the tower, I have formed a small email network of people who, like me,
would like to see this tower restored. While some of those people work within NASA, the others, like me, have nothing to do
with the space industry, but we all share a passion for the subject. When I shared Mr. Dailey’s letter with the group, I received
a lot of responses. One of those was from John London, who originally helped save the tower from the scrap heap:
“I thought the comments about not wanting to preserve the heavy gauge steel tower outside because you would have to keep
painting it were interesting. I haven't noticed a clarion call to build structures around all the WWII battleships around the
country to place them in a climate controlled environment.”
Another was from Max Ary, Director of the Kansas Cosmosphere. He wrote:
“I have been monitoring with interest the communication going on regarding the Pad 39 launch umbilical tower down at the
Cape. For what it's worth, I would like to add my two cents worth. Three times during the past five years, I have conducted a
very thorough examination of the LUT and have spent many hours crawling over, under and through its many components. In
fact, on one occasion I came face to face with the largest Southeast Diamondback rattlesnake I have ever seen in my life. It
was great security. From my first inspection of the LUT five years ago and my latest visit in January of this year, I have seen a
marked deterioration in the structure. Nevertheless, the unit is still structurally sound and with deep enough pockets could be
salvaged and preserved to its original integrity. The only obstacles to preserving the LUT are money and logistics. The only
way to preserve the structure for long term is to get it away from the coastline and its associated corrosive environment or put
it in a building much like what was done with the Saturn V at KSC. It would be extremely difficult to financially justify either
action. Left in its current location, I would estimate that in less than eight years several of the major structural components,
especially in areas around the base of the structure, will have corroded beyond salvaging. I would estimate that the movement
of the LUT to some location inland, preserving and restoring it, and then restacking it into its original structure could cost in
excess of $30 million. Obviously, to construct a building around it, you could easily double that cost. One possibility might
be to turn the LUT into a building itself. With the structure of the tower becoming an encased building and enclosing the
tower with glass attached directly to the LUT, even then we would still be talking approximately $40 million-and there are not
many groups around that have that type of money. It is important that we burn all the bridges to explore a way to save and
preserve this highly historic structure. But understanding the difficulty, I would suggest that a secondary plan of attack be
started to begin salvaging some of the important components of the structure. These would include primarily the swing arms.
If we could line up several museums to assume responsibility for one or two of the swing arms, we could at least get them
saved. I hope someone out there has some ideas that are feasible to be put into action before we have lost all options to save
this structure.”
I have since written to every US Senator requesting their help. I have written to as many newspapers in America as I could find
addresses for and House Representatives in most states. The first Apollo Astronaut Reunion Dinner was scheduled to be held
in Reno, Nevada on September 15 as part of the Air Races that are held there every year. A member of the email group planned
to attend and was given permission by the organizers to approach the astronauts about the tower, and ask if they would lend
their support. On September 11, terrorists attacked America and changed everybodies priorities. Among many other things, the
dinner and then the races were cancelled until next year.
At the time of writing this, the latest news I have on the tower is that the official letter from the KSC Property Disposal Office
will go out to the Smithsonian Curator of Rocketry, Frank H. Winter within days.
At this point I feel that the best thing to do is try and make as many people aware of this, as possible. I feel that there is still a
unique opportunity to save a valuable piece of space history, but that time is running out.
Letters supporting the restoration of the tower can be sent to:
General John R. Dailey, USMC (Ret.)
Director
National Air and Space Museum
7th and Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20560-0321
USA
Bibliography
John R. London III, A Legacy For The Future: Preserving Space Related Historic Sites, taken from American Astronautical
Society History Series, volume 17: History of Rocketry and Astronautics
Joseph A. Fury, Saving The Apollo-Saturn Launch Umbilical Tower, 1989
Letter from Roy D. Bridges, Director Kennedy Space Center to the author, 27 April 2001
Letter from Roy D. Bridges, Director Kennedy Space Center to the author, 12 June 2001
Email from Chuck Codding, Vice President, Operations Manager, Turner Universal, Huntsville to the author, 29 May 2001
Email from Chuck Codding, Vice President, Operations Manager, Turner Universal, Huntsville to the author, 31 May 2001
Email from Pauletta McGinnis, Property Disposal Officer, Kennedy Space Center to the author, 27 July 2001
Email from Pauletta McGinnis, Property Disposal Officer, Kennedy Space Center to the author, 30 July 2001
Letter from John Dailey, Director National Air and Space Museum to the author, 24 August 2001
Email from John London to the author, 5 September 2001
Email from Max Ary, Director/CEO, Kansas Cosmosphere to Irene Willhite, Archivist, US Space and Rocket Center,
Huntsville, Alabama, 6 September 2001