My photographic style centers on the use of natural light to visualize emotion and evoke memory. The evolution of my style began early in the year 2002, with an imperative to capture personal and fleeting memories.
My son and I traveled to New York City, to view the first Saint Patrick's Day parade after September 11, 2001. My work from that parade was so successful and satisfying (see "New York Fire Department, Saint Patrick's Day 2002") I just never stopped.
Ever wondered about the iconic robotic arms that gracefully danced in space, tethered to the Space Shuttle? Meet Canadarm, a marvel of engineering that transformed space missions. Born from a NASA invitation to Canada in 1969, this robotic arm did more than just move payloads; it became a symbol of international collaboration in space exploration. After the Columbia disaster, its role expanded, ensuring the safety of astronauts with critical inspections. Dive into the captivating journey of Canadarm, where technology meets the stars. Click to discover how a Canadian innovation became a pivotal part of space history.
The Canadarm is here extended in the foreground and docked in background
The Canadarm, or Canadarm1, officially known as the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) and sometimes referred to as the SSRMS, represents a series of robotic arms utilized aboard the Space Shuttle orbiters. These arms were instrumental in deploying, manipulating, and retrieving payloads. Following the tragic Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the use of Canadarm became invariably linked with the Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS). The OBSS played a crucial role in examining the shuttle’s exterior for any damages to its thermal protection system, enhancing the safety of subsequent missions.
The genesis of Canada’s involvement in the Space Shuttle program dates back to 1969 when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) extended an invitation to Canada. At the outset, the specifics of Canada’s role were unclear, though the need for a manipulator system was immediately recognized as vital. The Canadian firm DSMA ATCON had previously made strides in robotics with the development of a robot designed to load fuel into CANDU nuclear reactors, capturing NASA’s interest. By 1975, a formal agreement was reached between NASA and the Canadian National Research Council (NRC), under which Canada would undertake the development and construction of the Canadarm.
The NRC subsequently awarded the contract for the manipulator to Spar Aerospace (currently known as MDA), under which three distinct systems were to be developed: an engineering model to aid in design and testing, a qualification model for environmental testing to ensure the design’s suitability for space, and a flight unit destined for use in missions. This collaborative effort marked a significant milestone in the use of robotics in space exploration, showcasing international cooperation in advancing space technology.
Copyright 2024 Michael Stephen Wills All Rights Reserved
Here is the fifth in a series of photographs centered on the early history of space flight on Cape Canaveral mostly taken during a tour organized by the Cape Canaveral Lighthouse Foundation. “Google” the foundation for details of future tours. Here we explore the sites of the first launches on the Cape, Launch Complexes 1, 2, 3, 4. (LC 1 – 4).
From Vengeance To Space
Our bus proceeded east on Lighthouse Road past Launch Complexes 21 and 22 in less than half a mile we were within the first sites of the United States Space age, sites with the lowest numbers, LC 1 – 4.
Click Any Image for a larger viewe
If, instead of distance, the bus traveled back in time 68 years to July, 1950 we would be witness to the first United States space launch of the two-stage “Bumper 8”, a former “V2” missile topped by a WAC Corporal that reached 248 miles above the earth, about where the International Space Station circles now.
The Nazi “vengeance weapon 2”, the V2, a device so horrifying British authorities claimed the first V2 attacks to be “gas explosions” rather than admit a Nazi weapon descended without warning. Beginning September, 1944, over 3,000 V2’s landed on London, Antwerp and Liège resulting in an estimated 9,000 deaths, mostly civilians. 12,000 forced labor and concentration camp slaves died in the construction of the production facilities captured by the Soviet Union during the collapse of the Nazis. These victims, arms linked, will form a circle 15.9 miles in circumference around the Bumper 2 launch.
The 21,000 V2 victims, linked arm in arm, make a circle 15.9 miles in circumference.
von Braun and key V2 personnel surrendered to the Americans and, along with enough parts to construct 80 V2s, were taken to the United States. His direction of US missile development lead eventually to the enormous Saturn rocket that lifted three men to the moon, so good came from our bet on vonBraun and the V2.
Observation Bunker
In January, 2018, firmly in the present, our bus approached these now “deactivated” sites driving down Lighthouse Road. Confined to the bus, I used my Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens to capture these scenes.
Looking across Launch Complexes 1 and 2 to Lighthouse Road and the tower. An observation bunker Observation Bunker from Launch Complex 3, looking across Launch Complex 1.
I can almost see someone behind the glass, enjoying a blast of air-conditioned air, dry and cool.
Litter on and around Launch Complex 4
Missile Housing without Engine Radar Parabola FragmentCement Blacked by Rocket Launch Blasts
Aerostat
From 1950 into the 1960’s LC 1-4 saw launches of cruise missiles, some of which were able to maneuver and land on the “skid strip” you can pick out on the “21,000 V2 Victims” image, above. A positive discovery from my research on wikipedia the weapon systems tested here were not fired in anger. Continued development in other places lead to production of generations of cruise missiles launched by Presidents Clinton and Bush against Afghanistan, Iraq and (??) other targets. What victim ghosts, arms linked in ever growing circles, are lurking in our future?
A building on LC 4 has the designation “Aerostat”, one of the last projects supported. I saw an aerostat in action in the early 2000’s over Fort Huachuca, Arizona near the border with Mexico. An aerostat is a flying craft that does not rely on moving air to achieve lift, balloons for example.
The Goodyear blimp is a memory from my childhood on Long Island, the Fort Huachuca aerostat was a smaller version, outfitted with advanced technology for monitoring the surrounding environment. “Google” aerostat mexican border to learn more about the current deployment.
Another view of the abandoned aerostat building on LC 4
With the development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) the facilities of LC 1 – 4 became obsolete. ICBMs are a theme of the next installment of this series.
Sources of information for this post: I used information from the Wikipedia site for the key words V-2, Launch Complex 1, Launch Complex 2, Launch Complex 3, Launch Complex 4. The Bumper 8 launch photograph caption includes a source citation.
Copyright 2024 Michael Stephen Wills All Rights Reserved.
Here is the fourth in a series of photographs centered on the early history of space flight on Cape Canaveral mostly taken during a tour organized by the Cape Canaveral Lighthouse Foundation. Google the foundation for details of future tours. Here we explore the sites closests to the Lighthouse: Launch Complex 21 and 22.
“Vengance Weapons” re-purposed
Vergeltungswaffe 1 (Vengance Weapon 1 AKA V-1), produced at Peenemünde on the Baltic Sea was first used against Great Britan by Germany one week after the D-day landings. 8,025 of these flying bombs, the first cruise missles, caused the death of 22,892 people, mostly civilians. The first cruise missles for the USA were developed less than 1,000 feet away from the lighthouse. After touring the lighthouse we boarded the bus to visit these sites, Launch Complex 21 and 22.
Click Any Image for a larger viewe
Launch Complex 21 and 22 are marked with a labled “pin” on this image from Google Earth.
Nature abounds in Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. This ibis hunted near the lighthouse on our way to Launch Complexes 21,22.
We passed close to the blockhouse first viewed in my post, “Lighthouse and Rockets,” and I captured this detail of the long abandoned structure. The last test launch of a Mace missle was June, 1960.
This wreckage photograph was part of my,“Lighthouse and Rockets” post. It was taken from a lighthouse portal. It is a type of cruise missle, although I cannot identify the exact type, comparing the engine, on the right, with available photographs of the “Bull Goose” and “Mace” missles developed here.
Bull Goose and Mace
Rail launched, as was the German V-1, the missles developed here were called “Bull Goose” and “Mace.” Bull Goose was a delta winged craft intended as a decoy, to appear on radar as a strategic bomber during a nuclear attack. At that time, the rails were in the open. The building here was a revampment of the site for development of the Mace. The other side of this structure is open, the launch rail pointed up from the rear. There are two launch rails, numbered 1 and 2. The building placard is “05961,” the numeral “1” designates site 1. The use of numbers of designate a site is unusual. Letters are used elsewhere on Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center.
The powerful rocket exhause was directed though these pipes. Site 1 is on the right.
Guidance or “Cruise Control”
Navigation is a crucial requirement for cruise missles. The Bull Goose used a gyroscope with no reference to surroundings. The guidance system held the launch bearings, a successful flight was completed within 115 nautical miles of the target.
If deployed, the plan was for thousands of these missles to launch 1 hour before the attack craft set out and 1 hour after. The missles were not armed, but would descend in the thousands around the targets. Similar to what the Germans did to civilians in England.
After three years and 136.5 million dollars the Bull Goose was cancelled because it could not simulate either the B-47 Stratojet or B-52 Stratofortress nuclear bomb delivery aircraft. Not a single decoy was fired in anger.
The building sign “05912” identifies this exhaust tube as being launch site 2.
The Mace, for which this building was created, used a guidance ATRAN (Automatic Terrain Recognition And Navigation, a radar map-matching system). The map was produced on a 35 mm film strip carried on the missle, the live radar returns were “matched” against the film with course correction made for differences. The Mace was of limited usefulness due to the lack of radar maps for target areas within the Soviet Union. The Mace was deployed to Germany and South Korea until phase out in 1969.
Sources of information for this post: I used information from the Wikipedia site for the key words V-1, Launch Complex 21, Launch Complex 22, Mace, Bull Goose.
Copyright 2024 Michael Stephen Wills All Rights Reserved.
Here is the third in a series of photographs centered on the early history of space flight on Cape Canaveral mostly taken during a tour organized by the Cape Canaveral Lighthouse Foundation. Google the foundation for details of future tours. Here we start with Roman Numerals and end with Rocket Research.
Inscribed Roman Numerals
We were lucky to be on this tour, for a period of time the Air Force closed off the Lighthouse. The Lighthouse Foundation obtained permission to start this tour in 2016 (this was January 2018) and I happened to discover it while poking around in preparation for the SpaceX “Falcon Heavy” launch in early February 2018.
As Pam and I climbed, each floor docent (volunteer guide) was so helpful with information and hospitality. At the last floor, the stairway to the upper floors was roped off. Top levels were closed, Cape Canaveral Lighthouse is operational. Here is a photograph of the closed off staircase. There is a roman numeral “6” (VI) inscribed in the staircase column. This is the numbering system described in the first post, “Cape Canaveral Lighthouse,” by which the entire 151-foot lighthouse can be disassembled/reassembled as was done in the 19th century.
Stairway to Upper Floors
The fine finish of the handrail termination for the stairs to upper floors is an example of 19th century attention to detail.
Macro of numeral inscription on a lower floor stairway column.
Roman Numeral 43 on staircase column of lower floor
View of Space History from the Portals
The lower staircase support column was much wider with space for illustrations and displays. Here is a reproduction of a watercolor of the lighthouse from the earliest days of rocketry on the cape. The lighthouse keeper, assistant and their families lived alongside the tower. The housing was later razed. The Lighthouse Foundation is raising money to build reproductions of the housing.
I put my copyright on the photograph to control copying. The copyright does NOT refer to the artwork.
The painting is an accurate representation of the tower. The dark spots are the windows, or portals, captured in my last post, “Lighthouse Details.” Every portal offered a view of historical or current rocketry. In the following photograph, beyond the outbuilding, is a blockhouse, protection for the early rocket scientists, now abandoned. The structure services launch complex 21 and 22. More in a later post.
Wreckage with Recollections of Werner von Braun
Depending on your viewpoint, the landscape around the tower is either littered with or graced by relics such as the wreckage in the following photograph.
As we stood on the exterior staircase, looking toward the building in the following photograph, the docent told a story of Werner von Braun, how he loved to smoke cigarettes and watch rocket tests from the top of the lighthouse. After some spectacular failures, for reasons of personal safety he was excluded from the tower. His office during the development of the Minute Man and Persing missiles was in this building.
Building next to the lighthouse where Werner VonBraun had an office during the early days of USA rocket research.
This view overlooks the former sites of Minute Man and Persing rocket development. Beyond the launch towers is Port Cape Canaveral, visible to the right are large cruise ships.
Viewed from the Cape Canaveral lighthouse, the port i is in the distance with cruise ships.
Looking from portals facing northeast is this view across ICBM road and its many launch sites. We will visit these in a future post.
Viewed from the Cape Canaveral lighthouse, these are active launch sites.
Imagine yourself floating in the vast cargo bay of the Space Shuttle Atlantis, surrounded by the essentials of space exploration. Here, in this dynamic space, the dreams of astronauts and scientists converge, where each mission reshapes our understanding of the universe. Curious? Discover more inside.
The cargo bay of the Space Shuttle Atlantis was an extensive, empty compartment located at the shuttle’s aft end, acting as the main storage area for mission payloads. A significant portion of the cargo was housed within a sizable cylindrical module named Raffaello, which contained a year’s supply of necessities—food, clothing, water, replacement parts, and scientific gear.
The dimensions of the payload area were roughly 4.6 meters (15 feet) in width and 18 meters (60 feet) in length. This spacious area enabled the shuttle to transport a diverse array of payloads, ranging from satellites to complex scientific experiments.
Exploring the Cargo Bay
Envision yourself drifting through the cargo bay of Atlantis, encircled by a maze of wires, equipment, and neatly arranged payloads. Astronauts, tethered securely and clad in their voluminous space suits, would navigate this area, ensuring the payloads were fastened correctly for either launch or retrieval operations.
The cargo bay’s configuration was highly adaptable, tailored to meet the specific needs of each mission. It played a pivotal role in the deployment of satellites, execution of repairs, or the transportation of scientific apparatus, adapting its setup as necessary.
The Hubble Servicing Mission
One of the most notable missions involving Atlantis was the Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission 4 (SM4). For this mission, Atlantis was loaded with essential items for the Hubble, including new instruments, batteries, and gyroscopes, all carefully organized within the cargo bay for safe transport to and into orbit.
Legacy
The cargo bay of Atlantis bore witness to a myriad of significant events: the release of satellites, the construction of the International Space Station, and numerous scientific investigations. Its design and flexibility were instrumental to the Space Shuttle program’s achievements.
Copyright 2024 Michael Stephen Wills All Rights Reserved
With the thermometer in the 60’s on March 10, 2020 the “buttercups” of yesterday are open. When we first moved here, the plants were much thinner. I used fertilizer spikes on the Magnolia tree around which they grow. Each early the flowers pollinate, forming seeds and spreading.
A tripod held the composition steady, and the timer was set to 2 seconds for extra stability at the f25 setting.
Here is a slideshow of yesterday and today’s shots.
Copyright 2021 All Rights Reserved Michael Stephen Wills
To continue my posting “Climb Hill of Tara” my first submission of three Hill of Tara photographs to Getty Istock had two of the photographs returned for revision.
A statue of Saint Patrick fittingly welcomes visitors to the Hill of Tara, County Meath, Ireland. This statue of cast concrete was an existing statue donated by the Sisters of Charity, moved from an existing installation to the Hill of Tara in the year 2000 AD. The creator is anonymous, the is no plaque or other attribution on or around the statue.
The original statue was erected on the summit of the Hill of Tara shortly after Catholic emancipation in 1829, commemorated the events of 433AD when St. Patrick lit a bonfire on the nearby hill of Slane on the eve of Easter Sunday.
Lighting such a fire was contrary to the pagan laws of the time which dictated that the first fire lit that night be in Tara. Observing St. Patrick’s bonfire from afar, the chief druid of the ancient Gaelic capital predicted that if the flame were not extinguished that night, Christianity would never be extinguished in Ireland. The saint’s bonfire continued burning and the next morning, Easter Sunday, St. Patrick entered Tara to convert the king and his followers to Christianity.
For the fenced statue of Saint Patrick the revieweR wrote:
Please provide a full description for the work of art featured in this image. Include the artist, date of creation, location, etc. Works of art created by someone other than yourself must be free of copyright protection to be considered. If this work of art is indeed under copyright protection, a property release signed by the copyright holder will need to be provided.
Hmmmm….What I do while capturing a photograph of a statue is take photos of any plaque, sign, whatever to acquire the name of the creator, how it came to be there, community connections. There was nothing around the statue nor the very informative Office of Public Works placards at the entrance. I was proud to submit the statue photograph, as it turned out so well, and hoped for the best.
Last week, I put in a query to Ireland’s Office of Public Works (OPW), the agency responsible for the Hill of Tara, and did not receive a response when, for other queries, they were helpful. This Saturday and Monday mornings, several hours of internet research revealed this history.
The original statue was placed on Tara sometime after the 1829 Catholic emancipation. It was molded concrete, created by Thomas Curry of Navan at his own expense to honor the connection of Saint Patrick to Tara.
The OPW removed Curry’s statue 1992 for repair of a century of wear. During the removal the statue was damaged beyond repair and, afterwards, was further damaged by vandals who decapitated and used it for target practice.
Initially, the OWP decided not to replace Saint Patrick citing the “pagan” nature of the place. After an angry meeting of local people at the Skryne Parish Hall. In this meeting the local Rathfeigh Historical Society formed the “Committee to Restore St. Patrick to Tara.” In turn, pressure was put on Michael D. Higgins, Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (and the OPW). It was decided a new statue was to be created, based on a competition, and instead of it former place at the hill summit (called Rath na Rí), it was to be near the entrance, outside the Interpretative Center, to offer a Céad Míle Fáilte to visitors and be seen on departure.
The outcome was the competition winner was rejected by locals. The winning entry, by sculptor Annette Hennessy, did not follow competition rules that specified the statue incorporate traditional features to include shamrocks, harp, miter, a crozier and, perhaps, fleeing snakes. Hennessy’s design was of a shaven headed teenage boy in a short (“mini-skirt”) kilt, a handbag-shaped bell in hand. She agreed hers was “not a traditional style statue” saying it “acknowledges our Pagan Celtic history.”
The rejection included a statement from Dr. Leo Curran, chairman of the Rathfeigh Historical Society, “We agreed that most of the monuments in Tara are from the pre-Christian era, but St. Patrick should be at the uppermost layer, representing Christian tradition extinguishing paganism.”
By this time, a new government and minister were in place. The decision was made to search Ireland to find a suitable, existing, replacement statue. By 2000 the present statue, donated by the Sisters of Charity, was in place at the Hill of Tara entrance.
At the end of this post I provide the two references from my internet research and from which many facts and all the quotes were used here. I concluded the statue author was anonymous without copyright protection and submitted a revised image description, attaching a copy of my research.
What happened to my IStock photograph of Saint Patrick on the Hill of Tara? Getty accepted my application, published the photo and it is one of my top downloads, and earners.
In February 2020, I captured images of the first flowers to bloom on their property with a Canon 5D Mark IV DSLR and a macro lens. The flowers belong to the Eranthis genus, known for early flowering.
These flowers are the first to bloom on our property, around the magnolia tree, and are also the first wildflowers photographed with my then new Canon 5D Mark IV dslr . Each year these “buttercups” grow thicker and spread. The latin scientific name Eranthis hyemalis proclaims the early nature of its flowering both in the genus, “Eranthis” – composed of two Greek language roots meaning “spring flower”, and species, “hyemalis” – a term from the Latin language meaning, “winter flowering.” The genus encompasses eight species, all early flowering plants with the common name winter aconite. These can also rightly be called Buttercups as the plant belongs to family Ranunculaceae, buttercups.
To capture the intricate details possible with the Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro lens I used here, it’s often necessary to adjust the camera settings to allow for a longer exposure time. This adjustment ensures that enough light reaches the sensor, particularly in macro photography or low-light situations, which helps in producing sharper and more detailed images. All these photographs are from f25. Setting a longer exposure compensates for the reduced light that might be a consequence of using a smaller aperture (higher f-number) for greater depth of field, a common technique in macro photography.”
It’s important to note that while setting a longer exposure can improve image quality by allowing more light to hit the camera’s sensor, it can also introduce the risk of motion blur if the camera or subject moves during the exposure. To minimize camera shake and achieve the best results, I used a Manfrotto “BeFree” tripod and the camera’s built-in timer set to a 2 second delay after a manual shutter release.
With the thermometer hovering above freezing, these blooms did not open today. The calendar says “late winter”, these Aconite are singing “early spring.”
Reference: Wikipedia “Eranthis hyemalis” and “Eranthis.”
Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved Michael Stephen Wills
Portrait of a Sea Turtle with fish, sea floor and a rocket launch. 541 Washington Ave, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Near Cheri Down Park, Brevard County, Florida
Portrait of a Sea Turtle with fish, sea floor and a rocket launch. 541 Washington Ave, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Near Cheri Down Park, Brevard County, Florida
Along the bottom margin is the artist’s signature, “David Roth 2022.”
Copyright 2024 Michael Stephen Wills All Rights Reserved
Step beyond Earth’s bounds and glimpse the astounding intricacies of the Space Shuttle’s journey. Discover the engineering marvels that propelled humanity into orbit and back, navigating the cosmos with precision. Unveil the secrets of the stars now.
The Space Shuttle, officially known as the Space Transportation System (STS), was an iconic spacecraft operated by NASA from 1981 to 2011. It consisted of an orbiter with wings for landing like an airplane, external fuel tanks, and solid rocket boosters. With its multiple missions ranging from satellite deployment to the construction of the International Space Station, the Space Shuttle was a symbol of human ingenuity in space exploration. Central to the Shuttle’s success was its navigational system, which combined state-of-the-art technology of its time with human expertise.
The navigation of the Space Shuttle was a complex orchestration involving both internal and external elements designed to work in the harsh environment of space. The photographs attached illustrate some of the external navigational elements.
External Navigational Elements
The external surface of the Space Shuttle, as seen in the following images, was covered with thousands of thermal protection system tiles. These tiles were crucial not only for protecting the Shuttle from the extreme temperatures experienced during re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere but also housed the critical sensors for navigation.
Reaction Control System (RCS)
One of the key external navigational features was the Reaction Control System (RCS), seen as clusters of small circular ports below the cockpit windows. The RCS was composed of small thrusters that could fire in short bursts to adjust the Shuttle’s orientation or speed in space. This system was vital during the maneuvers in orbit, such as satellite deployment, docking with the International Space Station, and repositioning for re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
Internal Navigational Elements
Internally, the Space Shuttle featured a complex avionics system. The following image depicts part of the orbiter’s internal structure with an array of docking mechanisms and sensor housings. The round port, surrounded by a ring of bolts, is likely an interface for the Orbiter Docking System, used for rendezvous and docking with the International Space Station.
The following image shows a close-up of one of the orbiter’s windows, surrounded by reinforced panels. Each window was crucial for manual navigation, allowing astronauts to visually confirm their orientation and position relative to celestial objects and the Earth. The windows were also essential during landing, which was conducted manually by the Shuttle’s commander.
Navigational Avionics
The Shuttle’s navigation was supported by an avionics system that included inertial measurement units (IMUs), star trackers, and various other sensors. IMUs tracked the Shuttle’s position by measuring its velocity and direction, while star trackers used sightings of known star patterns to calibrate the Shuttle’s orientation in the vastness of space.
The navigational computers onboard processed data from these systems to maintain the trajectory and manage the Shuttle’s multiple systems. The computers were capable of autonomous operation, although astronauts were trained to take over manually if necessary.
Ground Support and Telemetry
In addition to onboard systems, navigation relied heavily on ground-based tracking and data relay satellites. The Shuttle communicated with NASA’s Mission Control Center, which monitored its position and trajectory, providing updates and corrections as needed. Telemetry data sent back to Earth included velocity, altitude, and engine performance metrics, which were crucial for ensuring the Shuttle’s safe passage in and out of orbit.
In Summary
The Space Shuttle’s navigational capabilities were a testament to the integration of technology and human skill. From the RCS ports on its tiled exterior to the sophisticated avionics inside, every component played a critical role in the Shuttle’s missions. This harmonious blend of internal mechanisms and external sensors, complemented by vigilant ground support, enabled the Space Shuttle to navigate the cosmos and return safely home, mission after mission.
Copyright 2024 Michael Stephen Wills All Rights Reserved
Michael Stephen Wills Photography 