posted 09-16-2010 03:57 PM               

In 2002 this web site broke the story that the Soviet Union had recovered an Apollo capsule in 1969 and returned it to the Americans a year later in the extraordinary Cold War visit to Murmansk by the American Coast Guard icebreaker Southwind.

posted 09-17-2010 07:29 AM               

One assumes that the boilerplate was taken to the recovery point by ship, according to the story either the Bay of Biscay or the North Sea. It is logical, is it not, that having cast it overboard, the same ship(s) involved in the exercise would then have recovered it?

For another foreign vessel to have 'found' it means that having cast it adrift the ship(s) sailed away to come back later. Is this likely? Or am I missing the point?

posted 09-17-2010 10:40 AM               

The plaque could have been placed by an unofficial source based on the original story as reported in 1970 by the Hungarian press.

posted 09-17-2010 11:09 AM               

While in Murmansk, from 4 to 7 September 1970, over 700 local citizens visited the ship. CAPT Cassidy paid homage to Soviet and American dead at a local cemetery where American and other Allied sailors killed near Murmansk were buried. Also, the Soviets returned an Apollo training capsule (BP-1227) that they had recovered at sea. Apparently the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Rescue and Recovery personnel who were using the 9,500 pound capsule for training but lost it at sea near the Azores in February, 1969. It was recovered by a Soviet fishing trawler. Southwind, after first sustaining a "bump" by a Soviet icebreaker while departing Murmansk for home, carried the capsule back to the U.S. and deposited it at Norfolk before ending her cruise at Baltimore on 17 November 1970.

For example, The New York Times published the article "Soviet Plans to Return A Space Capsule to U.S." on Sept. 4, 1970:

The Soviet Union announced today that it had found an experimental capsule from the United States Apollo space program and would turn it over to a United States Coast Guard cutter in the northern port of Murmansk tomorrow.

The cutter Southwind, an icebreaker, has been on an oceanographic research mission in northern waters and was scheduled to make a routine stop in Murmansk for the weekend.

Embassy sources said that 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.

The Soviet Union loaded a wayward American space capsule aboard a US Coast Guard ship Sunday and US officials said it "appears to an Apollo mockup capsule" of the type reported lost by the Navy in 1968.

posted 09-17-2010 01:05 PM               

It says that the capsule was lost near the Azores, in the Bay of Biscay and in the North Sea, this latter in 1970.

Further, that it was US Rescue and Recovery Forces and later the Royal Navy that lost it, or UK based forces.

Then there is the possibility that it was off-loaded at Portsmouth by the Southwind and not returned to the US "until the end of the Apollo programme," i.e. 1972.

I'd still like a realistic explanation of how it was lost to clear up these contradictions.

Was this test not part of the NASA training programme? This might explain the lack of records at NASA.

posted 09-17-2010 04:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
I'd still like a realistic explanation of how it was lost to clear up these contradictions.

---

If accurate, then the boilerplate was at sea for more than a year, ample time for it to traverse the distances between where it was lost and where it was found.

quote:

---

Was this test not part of the NASA training programme?

---

posted 09-17-2010 05:53 PM               

If it was August and the capsule was handed back at the beginning of September 1970 it must have been very early August and near the end of the trawler's voyage.

There must be a record somewhere of how this capsule was lost and in what circumstances. The only credible evidence so far seems to be the US Coast Guard report on the history of the Southwind which mentions the loss and the handing back by the Russians. Why does it appear that there are no other records of this incident? The Astronautix report has so many contradictions that it has to be considered unreliable.

posted 09-17-2010 06:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
What Soviet report mentions August 1970 as the recovery date?

---

...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.

quote:

---

There must be a record somewhere of how this capsule was lost and in what circumstances.

---

posted 09-18-2010 04:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
The question still remains - how did they come to lose a capsule on a training exercise? And why is there, it appears, no other record of this incident? Could there have been a cover-up to save face?

---

posted 09-18-2010 05:01 PM               

January 24-29 - In addition, recovery training exercises were conducted aboard the U.S.S. Guadalcanal, the prime recovery ship for Apollo 9.

posted 09-24-2010 04:38 PM               

BP-1227 - This was lost in the North Sea in early 1970, recovered by a Hungarian vessel, transferred to the Soviet Union, and returned to the US in September 1970 by the USCGC_Southwind.

posted 09-24-2010 04:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
I wonder if this is where Astronautix got their reference about the loss in the North Sea from?

---

posted 09-25-2010 01:36 AM               

It explains how Wikipedia mixed up the photos with the recovery. Hence their reference to a 'Hungarian vessel'. Just shows you shouldn't believe everything you read.

posted 10-15-2010 03:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to track down the Royal Navy's part in Apollo recovery exercises and where BP-1227 was actually lost.

---

There is one ryder however. It might be classified (unlikely) and would require a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

So, it would appear that the answer lies in the U.S. somewhere.

To sum up the FACTS and the only things one can be certain of -

• BP-1227 was handed to Americans September 1970
  
• the only recorded recovery exercise by NASA for the period in question in the Atlantic was January 1969 for Apollo 9
  there was no Royal Navy involvement.

posted 10-15-2010 10:03 AM               

Finally, another twist to the story - what about the boilerplate CM that was supposed to be at RAF Mildenhall in the 70's?

posted 10-18-2010 12:20 PM               

Moron AFB is located 35 miles SE of Seville in Spain and was designated as a Shuttle Abort Landing facility in 1984. Can one assume that the 67th would have been involved in Apollo recovery exercises from there? One possible location for the loss of BP-1227 is off the Azores.

posted 11-15-2010 03:20 AM               

I am satisfied that I have tracked down the source of the information displayed on the plaque of BP-1227 at Grand Rapids.

This comes from a letter to Grand Rapids Press, dated December 1976, from the Department of the Navy at Norfolk, Virginia.

The pertinent passage in this letter reads -

They were operating off the coast of England when somehow during the exercise it was lost at sea. ... As it turned out the Russians found it and returned it to United States Forces.

During an exercise off the coast of England it was lost at sea, found by the USSR and returned.

posted 11-30-2010 07:16 AM               

The capsule in question - BP-1227 - 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.

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 Air Force 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 website 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.

Another party alleged to have a hand in the loss is named in the Encyclopaedia Astronautica. It states, "UK based naval units were training in recovery of an Apollo capsule." Later in the article it says, "W. David Edwards and Dwayne Allen Day then provided a final identification: The boilerplate CM lost by the Royal Navy."

Attempts were made to contact both Day and the originator of the Astronautica article, Mark Wade, to confirm their statements and ascertain the source of the allegation. No replies were received.

One now has to set the validity of these against the response of the Royal Navy Historical Records Office in Portsmouth, UK. Both by email and in a long telephone conversation they confirmed that they were unable to find any records of Royal Navy involvement. However, a query to the House of Commons Library did suggest that in April 1970 HM Government did offer assistance, should it be required, in the recovery of the returning Apollo 13 mission. Meanwhile, at Portsmouth, the naval historians reported that there were not even 'Chinese Whispers' about the loss of an Apollo capsule or of any Royal Navy involvement.

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 website 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. Second, a leading UK meteorologist was consulted about the feasibility of a capsule drifting from the Azores to the Bay of Biscay. 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!

The Bay of Biscay is also a strong candidate for where BP-1227 was lost. But more of this later.

It is worth noting at this point that the only record of an Apollo recovery training exercise recorded in the NASA Chronologies is for the 26-29th January 1969. According to NASA, this was in support of the forthcoming Apollo 9 mission. However, there is a cover postmarked 26th January 1970 from one of the vessels taking part which indicates that it was for Apollo 10, while there is yet another suggestion that the exercise was training for the Apollo 11 flight. Unless, of course, there were three simultaneous exercises!

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.

Some reports say that the loss occurred in fog and that it was early in 1970. January 1970 did have some foggy days. Meteorological records show that there was limited visibility from the 8th to the 15th, on the 18th and on the 29th. Fog is rare in February and March due to the prevailing conditions. So, it is possible that we have a when with the proviso that the capsule actually was lost in the North Sea.

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.

With all this information available one would think that it would be possible to easily trace the details and circumstances surrounding the loss of BP-1227. But this is where one hits a total silence.

Ramstein AFB in Germany was designated the European coordinating centre for Apollo recovery operations. When asked they said that they had no information in their records about Apollo exercises or operations.

The Royal Navy's lack of information has been mentioned previously. RAF Woodbridge was closed in September 2006 and is now home to the 23rd Engineer Regiment. An enquiry was made to the Commanding Officer about Apollo training exercises in the hope that base records would exist especially as Woodbridge was the home of another Apollo boilerplate capsule, BP-1206.

No reply was received. There is a possible explanation for this. According to other military archivists consulted it is highly likely that the records relating to RAF Woodbridge were destroyed when the base was closed as an RAF station. This, it seems, is a fairly common practice in the military.

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.

Before moving on to the Russian side of the story lets quash two further anomalies in Mark Wade's account of this incident.

He publishes a photo of the capsule aboard the USCGC Southwind which he claims was taken whilst the ship was in the Kara Sea. However, the same picture appears in the Coast Guard history of the Southwind with the caption that it was taken in November 1970 as the ship was in Baffin Bay.

This calls into question another suggestion in the Encyclopedia Astronautica version of events. Since the Southwind docked at Baltimore at the end of its voyage on 17th November 1970 having called in at Norfolk to drop off the capsule, it is highly unlikely to have had the time to make a journey across the Atlantic to leave the capsule in the hands of the Royal Navy at Portsmouth.

Besides, the way the history of the Southwind is written suggests that the visit to Portsmouth was before the hand over. As has been previously stated, the Royal Navy have no record of any such incident.

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 website 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 account of the story. According to the Russian Embassy in London, official records of this incident were due for release in 2001. However, when asked where these could be viewed no response was made. Nevertheless, two accounts were found that paint a very different story to that found elsewhere.

The first was written in 2005. It gives the location for the finding of BP-1227 as the Bay of Biscay and that it was handed back in an 'arranged' visit to the Southwind at Murmansk on the 8th September. At the hand over there were no media reporters present except for a Hungarian named Tamas Fiher (Feher?). It was his photo that appeared in the Encyclopedia of Space Reaearch published in Budapest in 1981. Later, this was found by a Hungarian historian, Sandor Shuminski, who was responsible for breaking the story in the west.

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. 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 cooperation 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 off 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.

If, and it's a big IF, this is what actually happened it is no wonder that there has been built a wall of silence round the loss of BP-1227. It would explain the misinformation and the reluctance of the authorities to answer questions. But what a story!

posted 01-20-2011 02:05 AM               

ARRS records are not helpful as per this reply:

After combing the unit histories of the 67th ARRS and 40th ARRW, I could not locate anything regarding the loss of Apollo boilerplates. The histories only mention support of actual Apollo missions – basically listing how many helicopters, personnel and equipment were on alert. Training for Apollo rescues is briefly mentioned, but locations and equipment used is not listed at all.

posted 02-07-2011 03:38 AM               

One report quotes a NASA official as stating that the capsule was lost by the Navy two years prior to its return. This puts the loss in 1968, the earliest date yet mentioned. This is repeated in a second report – lost by the Navy in 1968 but adding that it was on an undisclosed date in the Atlantic.

Two articles describe the capsule as ‘an experimental capsule launched under the Apollo programme’. Both these say that the loss occurred in the Bay of Biscay, one adding that it was off the coast of France. However, they do admit that there was some debate about what was lost, with one saying that it ‘is a dummy Apollo capsule’.

There is some confusion as to when the US Embassy in Moscow was informed that the Soviets had recovered BP-1227. One article states that the Embassy was informed ‘some weeks ago’ that it had the capsule. [This ties in with the three weeks already recorded in my original piece.] Set against this is a report that Tass, the official Soviet news agency announced ‘unexpectedly that the government had an experimental space capsule’.

Whatever the truth, the reports say that the capsule was placed in the care of two US Embassy officials. One curious feature about this is that when the visit of the Southwind to Murmansk was announced by the Embassy no mention was made of the capsule. This would seem to confirm the surprise reported by the crew that they were to transport the capsule back to the States.

It is becoming increasingly clear that someone, somewhere knows what happened to BP-1227. As I have said – whenever I get close to an answer a wall of silence descends.

The answer, I believe lies in first discovering to whom BP-1227 was allocated by NASA. They admit that once recovery crews were trained, no NASA personnel were necessarily involved in recovery exercises, these being left under the direction of the lead diver. Another question arises out of this. Who organised these exercises? Was it an ARRS unit or was it the Navy? Once answers to these are found we may get a little closer to resolving how BP-1227 was lost.

posted 04-28-2011 03:10 AM               

Still nothing from NASA records about BP-1227. It seems that they did not keep records as to where the boilerplates were allocated. However, I do know that NASA 'old timers' are intrigued by this mystery, so perhaps their interest will turn up something.

Boeing has been contacted, but they have no surviving records either. The Smithsonian appears to have none also.

posted 07-15-2011 02:15 AM               

This morning, out of the blue, I received a mail from a Russian blogger. He says that he has recently joined the cS community but has been unable to post the contents of this mail.

Be that as it may, in it he claims that BP-1227 was not lost but stolen by the GRU during the course of a naval exercise called 'Ocean-70'. [This may tie in with a Russian report I have posted earlier.]

However, he goes on to say that it was thought to be part of the 'Moon hoax' and that BP-1227 was a component of a false Apollo 13 launch. It was tracked by Russian naval ships, recovered and taken to Murmansk for examination by specialists from the NPO. [Again, I have reported this but NOT the hoax element.]

I have passed this information on to my contacts in the US for their comment and have contacted the Russian blogger for more information.

posted 07-17-2011 02:53 AM               

This is mentioned in my post of 30th November 2010 but now some more detail.

It is alleged that BP-1227 was used as a lever to force the US to grant trade concessions in return for keeping secret the loss of the capsule during a training exercise that coincided with the Russian naval exercise Ocean-70. Mentioned are cancelling restrictions on the export of oil/gas to Europe; agreements on arms limitations; import of US grain at reduced prices; US help in the construction of a car plant; and the agreement for the Apollo-Soyuz flight.

The source goes on to suggest that there is some credence given to this by the fact that no mention was made in Russia until the story was broken some thirty years later.

It queries also the fact that a Hungarian photographer was present to take photos in what, it is alleged, was a restricted area. Murmansk, it says, was home to Soviet nuclear submarines and military assets and any access was strictly controlled by the KGB. Hardly the place for a foreign national to go roaming.

Maybe, maybe not. But it is strange that, as I have reported, there is no official source that can either confirm or give an explanation as to how this boilerplate came to be lost.

posted 07-17-2011 07:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
It is alleged that BP-1227 was used as a lever to force the US

---

posted 07-21-2011 02:42 AM               

Information from a Russian newspaper suggests that the loss was in the Bay of Biscay on the night of 11/12th April 1970. It claims that because of weather conditions at the time - squalls and snow showers - the recovery forces of the US Navy lost sight of it. These forces were being shadowed by a Russian spy ship as the Navy had declared it a restricted area and it was this vessel that nipped in and picked up the capsule.

posted 07-21-2011 04:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
Is the "Southwind" an icebreaker or a fishing trawler?

---

Neither - the 'Southwind' is/was a US Coast Guard cutter, as detailed earlier in this thread.

posted 07-22-2011 08:46 AM               

In 1970, Southwind visited the port of Murmansk, being the first US naval vessel to visit a Soviet port since the start of the cold war. During that visit, she took aboard a boilerplate (BP-1227) from the Apollo Program.

posted 11-06-2011 11:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by stsmithva:
It's ridiculous to think that holding a lost boilerplate - a virtually empty shell with no classified material - would give the Soviets enough leverage...

---

posted 11-18-2011 01:48 PM               

The official title transfer of Boilerplate BP-1227 from NASA to the National Air and Space Museum took place on November 4, 1976. It appears to have gone directly to Grand Rapids from Norfolk that same month, with NASM handling the object as an outgoing loan to the Grand Rapids Public Museum. NASM de-accessioned the boilerplate and transferred title to the Grand Rapids Public Museum March 28, 1986.