HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 05/13/2019 (2)
Unless otherwise noted, the Economic and Community Development Committee meets at 5
p.m. on the second Monday of each month in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East,
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032.
For additional information please contact Rhonda Bylin at 253-856-5457 or via email at
RBylin@KentWA.gov.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at
253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay
Service at 7-1-1.
Economic and Community
Development Committee
Agenda
Chair - Bill Boyce
Satwinder Kaur– Marli Larimer
Monday, May 13, 2019
5:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time
1. Call to Order Chair 01 MIN.
2. Roll Call Chair 01 MIN.
3. Changes to the Agenda Chair 01 MIN.
4. Approval of April 8, 2019
Minutes
YES Chair 05 MIN.
5. Economic and Community
Development Update
NO Bill Ellis 05 MIN.
6. Lunar Rover Landmark
Nomination
YES Danielle Butsick and
Sarah Martin
15 MIN.
7. MOU with Kent Downtown
Partnership for the Lunar Rover
Replica Capital Campaign
YES Michelle Wilmot and
Barbara Smith
10 MIN.
8. Appoint Greg Haffner to the
Public Facilities District Board
YES Kurt Hanson 05 MIN.
9. Rally the Valley Update NO Danielle Butsick 10 MIN.
10. Adjournment Chair 01 MIN.
Page 1 of 4
Pending Approval
Economic and Community
Development Committee
CC ECDC Special Meeting
Minutes
April 8, 2019
Date: April 8, 2019
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Place: Chambers East
Attending: Bill Boyce, Committee Chair
Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
Marli Larimer, Councilmember
Agenda:
1. Call to Order 4:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Bill Boyce Committee Chair Present
Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Late 4:08 PM
Marli Larimer Councilmember Present
3. Changes to the Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes dated March 11, 2019
MOTION: Move to approve the Minutes dated March 11, 2019
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Bill Boyce, Committee Chair
AYES: Boyce, Larimer
ABSENT: Kaur
5. Economic Development Update
Bill Ellis Economic Development Update. Of primary note the full council
hearing on Interim Zoning for M1 and M1C has been moved back and will
occur at the May 7th full council meeting. The Kent Reporter has already
been informed of this change.
The KDP has been interviewing candidates for their executive Director spot in
light of Barbara Smith's impending retirement, though she has agreed to stay
on for some period of time as Director Emeritus to help get the new Director
up to speed. Two promising candidates have emerged and one should be
confirmed for the position before the month is out.
4
Packet Pg. 2
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
p
r
8
,
2
0
1
9
4
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Special Meeting
Minutes
April 8, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 2 of 4
6. Consultant Services Agreement with Mackenzie Engineering, Inc, for
the Kent Industrial Valley Area Subarea Plan - "Rally the Valley" -
Authorize
Presented by Danielle, Butsick, Sr. Long Range Planner - Consultant selection
process included participation from our partner cities. 4 firms were
interviewed, and McKenzie/EcoNW was the top choice for all the panelists.
The group was very impressed with McKenzie/EcoNW grasp of market based
realities coupled with their equal grasp of the tools available to municipalities
that can influence development outcomes.
The first step McKenzie/EcoNW will take is stakeholder outreach from which
will come vision and goals for Rally the Valley, which will be vetted before the
full council when achieved, probably this summer. The 150K 2 year budget
will likely be weighted more heavily to 2019, with the end product being in
essence a sub-area plan for the KIV to inform future zoning, policy changes,
and creation of new policy.
McKenzie/EcoNW along with some sub-consultants will also provide strategic
advice based on the desired outcomes at the conclusion of the project.
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services
Agreement with Mackenzie Engineering, Inc for the Kent Industrial
Valley Subarea Plan - “Rally the Valley,” subject to final terms and
conditions acceptable to the Economic and Community Development
Director and City Attorney.
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next: 4/16/2019
7:00 PM
MOVER: Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
SECONDER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
AYES: Boyce, Kaur, Larimer
7. Multifamily Tax Exemption Discussion
Presented by Matt Gilbert Deputy Director of ECD. Matt explains that the
Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) provides an 8 year break on the taxes
paid on the value of improvements (e.g. structures, utilities, amenities) for
the owners of new multifamily construction. The thought was for
municipalities to provide incentive for developers of such housing to build in
the areas the city wants to increase density. Originally implemented in 2009,
it was extended for another 5 year period in 2014 and is now due to sunset
in June of this year.
Two projects have taken advantage of this incentive, the Dwell@Kent Station
and Marquis on Meeker, currently under construction. Other projects have
been completed which did not make use of this available tax break.
4
Packet Pg. 3
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
p
r
8
,
2
0
1
9
4
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Special Meeting
Minutes
April 8, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 3 of 4
Noting that offering this incentive did not exactly open the flood gates of
multifamily development, Committee Chair Boyce asked if there are any
projects in the hopper planning to avail themselves of this incentive. MG is
not aware of any.
Committee member Kaur asked Matt if there were any hard numbers to
report about the impact of the tax break - either the savings realized by the
property owners or the impact to city revenues. Bill Boyce supported Ms.
Kaur's idea that this would be useful information. MG promised to get back
to all committee members with an estimate prior to the sunset date.
Committee Chair Boyce indicated that due the light utilization of the incentive
he was inclined to let it sunset. Committee member Larimer stated she was
inclined to agree especially because several new pieces of legislation at the
state level have the potential to impact decisions made locally around
housing policy generally and around affordable housing specifically. It may
be that an entirely new policy would make more sense, but if not, MFTE could
always be voted back if a need arose.
8. Bridges Verdana deAnnexation Udpate
Verdana/Bridges was orginally an island of land in King County purchased by
the City of Kent for purposes of building a new reservoir for our water
system. Eventually the city found a cheaper alternative for additional
provision of water service and the land was sold to a developer who
ultimately put in 379 fairly dense single family housing units, which have a
mix of Kent and Auburn addresses. This has resulted in significant confusion,
primarily for the residents of the community, as Kent Police must respond to
the Kent Island, and Auburn police must respond to the surrounding homes,
and this is just one example. All three committee members attested to the
confusion felt by residents and even expressed that those in the Kent island
wished to become Auburn residents.
Matt outlined the process:
One of the affected cities would need to pass a resolution indicating that
annexation/deannexation was of interest.
Outreach to residents and other affected parties (police/fire/utilites etc.)
would need to be conducted, and public hearings held.
Assuming a positive response, the annexing city would need to make
application to the State's Boundary Adjustment Board.
4
Packet Pg. 4
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
p
r
8
,
2
0
1
9
4
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
Economic and Community Development
Committee CC ECDC Special Meeting
Minutes
April 8, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 4 of 4
An enumeration or mini-census would need to be conducted to determine the
exact impact to resident numbers.
A few new Interlocal Agreements would likely be needed for provision of
services.
Finally the other affected city would need to resolve to allow the
annexation/deannextion.
Chair Boyce again requested a specific number of residents and an estimate
of lost revenue, but acknowledged that letting the Kent island join Auburn
seems sensible, and asked how quickly it could be completed.
MG indicated that with the enthusiastic participation of our counterparts in
Auburn, that the process could likely be completed within this calendar year.
9. Adjournment 4:32 p.m.
Rhonda Bylin
Committee Secretary
4
Packet Pg. 5
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
p
r
8
,
2
0
1
9
4
:
0
0
P
M
(
O
P
E
N
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: May 13, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Bill Ellis, Chief Economic Development Officer
SUBJECT: Economic and Community Development Update
SUMMARY:
Bill Ellis, Chief Economic Development Officer, will provide an update on the status
of the work of the department.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure, Innovative Community,
Sustainable Services
5
Packet Pg. 6
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: May 13, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Senior Long Range Planner
SUBJECT: Lunar Rover Landmark Nomination
MOTION: Recommend Council approve the nomination of the Apollo 15, 16
and 17 Lunar Roving Vehicles as Kent Community Landmarks.
SUMMARY:
The Lunar Roving Vehicle, commonly known as the lunar rover or Moon buggy, is
history’s first and only manned surface transportation system designed to operate
on the Moon. At its Kent, Washington-based Space Center, the Boeing Company
designed, tested, and built the four-wheeled vehicle for NASA to use in its Apollo J-
class missions of 1971-72. Designed for the transport of two astronauts, their life
support systems, and scientific equipment, the Lunar Roving Vehicle allowed the
astronauts to spend more time and travel greater distances on the lunar surface
and to collect more scientific samples than in previous missions. All three Lunar
Roving Vehicles are currently stationed on the lunar surface.
The Kent Downtown Partnership funded a consultant contract to draft the landmark
registration form, which is included in the meeting packet. City Council must
approve the application prior to its being forwarded to the King County Landmarks
Commission, authorized by KCC 14.12.020 to act as the landmarks commission for
the City of Kent.
The Lunar Roving Vehicle represent a significant contribution to Kent’s history as a
center for space technology development, and are unique examples of the
innovation and ingenuity of the Apollo period. A landmark designation would help to
recognize this contribution, and highlight Kent’s influential role in human space
exploration. Staff recommends approval of the community landmark nomination.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Innovative Government
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Landmark Registration Form (PDF)
6
Packet Pg. 7
CITY OF KENT LANDMARKS COMMISSION
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA WA 98032
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 1 of 74
LANDMARK REGISTRATION FORM DRAFT 4/11/19
PART I: PROPERTY INFORMATION
1. Name of Property
historic name: LUNAR ROVING VEHICLES
other names/site number: Lunar Rovers; LRVs; Moon Buggies
2. Location
street address: Lunar Surface
parcel no(s): See Physical Description & Figure 1
legal description(s): See Physical Description & Figure 1
3. Classification
Ownership of Property: Category of Property: Name of related multiple property listing:
private building(s) (Enter “N/A” if property is not part of a
public-local district multiple property listing.)
public-State site N/A
public-Federal structure
object
4. Property Owner(s)
name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
street: 300 E Street NW
city: Washington state: DC zip: 20024
5. Form Prepared By
name/title: Sarah J. Martin / SJM Cultural Resource Services (3901 2nd Ave NE #202, Seattle, WA 98105)
organization: Contracted consultant on behalf of the Kent Downtown
Partnership (KDP)
date: April 11, 2019
6.a
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Property Information (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 2 of 74
6. Nomination Checklist
Site Map (REQUIRED) Continuation Sheets
Photographs (REQUIRED): please label or
caption photographs and include an index Other (please indicate):
Last Deed of Title: this document can usually be obtained for little or no cost from
a title company
6.a
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 3 of 74
PART II: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
7. Alterations
Check the appropriate box if there have been changes to plan, cladding, windows, interior features or other
significant elements. These changes should be described specifically in the narrative section below.
Yes No Plan (i.e. no additions to footprint,
relocation of walls, or roof plan)
Yes No Interior features (woodwork,
finishes, flooring, fixtures) N/A
Yes No Cladding N/A Yes No Other elements
Yes No Windows N/A
Narrative Description
Use the space below to describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance, condition, architectural
characteristics, and the above-noted alterations (use continuation sheet if necessary).
The following narratives draw upon a rich assortment of archival and web-based primary and
secondary sources, including historic photographs, drawings, first-hand accounts, government reports,
press releases, newspaper accounts, film footage, and carefully selected published histories. The author
wishes to thank John Little, assistant curator at the Museum of Flight, and Michael Lombardi, corporate
historian at The Boeing Co., for their assistance.
It should be noted that this application builds on the precedent set by California and New Mexico, the
first two states to include lunar objects and structures in their state historic registers. Both efforts
involved the Apollo 11 Tranquility Base, where more than 100 objects and structures remain from the
first manned exploration of the lunar surface. In 2010, the California State Historical Resources
Commission and the New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee voted unanimously to add the
many features at Tranquility Base to their respective state registers.1
Introduction
The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), commonly known as the lunar rover or Moon buggy, is history’s first
and only manned surface transportation system designed to operate on the Moon. At its Kent,
Washington-based Space Center, the Boeing Company designed, tested, and built the four-wheeled
vehicle for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to use in its Apollo J -class
missions of 1971-72. Boeing, with its major subcontractor General Motors’ Delco Electronics Division,
delivered three assembled flight vehicles, one unassembled flight vehicle, and eight test units as part
of its contract with NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center. Designed for the transport of two astronauts,
their life support systems, and scientific equipment, the LRV allowed the astronauts to spend more
time and travel greater distances on the lunar surface and to collect more scientific samples than in
previous missions.
1 Lucas Laursen, “The Moon Belongs to No One, but What About Its Artifacts?” Smithsonian.com, Dec ember 13,
2013, accessed Feb. 22, 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-moon-belongs-to-no-one-but-what-
about-its-artifacts-180948062/
6.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 4 of 74
Locations and Settings
The three rovers used in Apollo missions 15, 16, and 17 remain on the lunar surface and have gone
untouched since they were last used during their respective assignments. The vehicles are situated on
the visible side of the Moon, an average of 238,855 miles away from Earth, in a harsh environment
that lacks atmosphere and has extreme temperatures ranging from 260 to -280 degrees Fahrenheit
(figure 1). The Moon has one-sixth the gravity of Earth, and a thin layer of fine, electrically charged
dust covers the lunar surface.
The first LRV, Rover 1, is situated near the Apollo 15 landing site (26.13° N, 3.63° E) on the plains of
Palus Putredinis adjacent to Hadley Rille near the Apennine Mountains (figures 1 through 8). This
region is in the northeast quadrant of the visible face of the Moon. Hadley Rille is a dist inctive and
winding channel thought to have been created by ancient lava flow. The mountain closest to the
landing site is Hadley Delta. NASA selected this landing site for its geological diversity, with the
mountains, rille, hilly plains, and nearby crate r clusters providing an area rich for scientific study.2
Rover 1 traversed this area during three extravehicular activities (EVAs) between July 31 and August 2,
1971.
The second LRV, Rover 2, is located in the Descartes Highlands near the Apollo 16 landi ng site (-8.97°
N, 15.50° E) on the Cayley Plains (figures 1, 9 through 14). This grooved, hilly region is in the southeast
quadrant of the visible face of the Moon and includes several young craters that NASA considered
ideal for exploration. The landing site is approximately 500 meters east of the rim of Spook Crater,
with several other notable craters in proximity. The Descartes Mountains are south and east of the
landing site.3 Rover 2 traversed this area during three EVAs between April 21 and 23, 1972.
The third LRV, Rover 3, resides near the Apollo 17 landing site (20.19° N, 30.77° E) in the Taurus-
Littrow Highlands, a mountainous region in the northeast quadrant of the visible face of the Moon
(figures 1, 15 through 24). The site is named for the Tauru s Mountains and the Littrow Crater, located
on the southeastern rim of the Serenitatis Basin. Three prominent rounded hills bound the landing site
– South Massif, North Massif, and East Massif – with smaller “sculptured” hills to the northeast. The
site afforded the opportunity to explore mountainous highlands, valley lowlands, craters, and a fault
scarp.4 Rover 3 traversed this area during three EVAs between December 11 and 14, 1972.
2 James R. Zimbelman, “The Apollo Landing Sites – Slide Set,” Lunar and Planetary Institute website, accessed
December 28, 2018, https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/. Also, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Apollo 15 Press Kit, Release no. 71-119K, July 1971, p. 59, accessed December 28, 2018,
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf.
3 Zimbelman. Also, NASA, Apollo 16 Press Kit, Release no. 72-64K, April 1972, p. 2, accessed December 28, 2018,
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_PressKit.pdf.
4 Zimbelman. Also, NASA, Apollo 17 Press Kit, Release no. 72-220K, November 1972, p. 2, accessed December 28,
2018, https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_PressKit.pdf.
6.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 5 of 74
The planned fourth LRV flight vehicle was not used since missions after Apollo 17 were canceled.
Ultimately, the materials designated for this vehicle were assembled by NASA for display purposes as a
model. It is now in the collection of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum (NASM).5
Several mockups and test units were built as part of the contract between NASA and Boeing to inform
the development and construction of the three flight vehicles. These included:
• An engineering mock-up, now in the collection of Seattle’s Museu m of Flight;6
• A mass unit to test the effects of the rover on the Lunar Module structure, balance, and
handling;
• Two one-sixth gravity units for testing the deployment mechanism;
• A mobility unit to test the mobility system, which was then converted into the one-gravity
trainer unit; the one-gravity trainer is now in the collection of the NASM;7
• A vibration unit to study the LRV's durability and handling of launch stresses, now in the
collection of the NASM;8 and
• A qualification unit to study integration of all LRV subsystems, now in the collection of the
NASM.9
Physical Characteristics of the LRV10
NASA required the LRV to be lightweight, easily stowable for transport in the lunar module (LM), and
durable enough to withstand a harsh environment. The t hree flight vehicles were identical to one
other with only slight variations in payload weight (figures 25 through 28).
Each LRV flight vehicle weighs about 462 pounds on Earth (or 77 pounds on the Moon; all subsequent
figures reflect Earth weights) and can carry a total payload of 1,080 pounds.11 The payload included
5 “Lunar Roving Vehicle, #4,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum website, accessed December 6, 2018,
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-roving-vehicle-4. At the time of this writing, the Lunar Roving Vehicle,
#4 is on loan to the Kennedy Space Center.
6 “Boeing Lunar Roving Vehicle Engineering Mock-up,” Museum of Flight website, accessed October 15, 2018,
http://www.museumofflight.org/spacecraft/boeing-lunar-roving-vehicle-engineering-mock
7 “Lunar Roving Vehicle, 1-G Trainer,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum website, accessed December 6,
2018, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-roving-vehicle-1-g-trainer. At the time of this writing, the 1-G
Trainer is on loan to Space Center Houston.
8 “Lunar Roving Vehicle, Vibration Test Unit,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum website, accessed
December 6, 2018, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-roving-vehicle-vibration-test-unit At the time of this
writing, the Vibration Test Unit is on loan to the Davidson Saturn V Center at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville,
AL.
9 “Lunar Roving Vehicle, Qualification Test Unit,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum website, accessed
December 6, 2018, https://www.si.edu/object/nasm_A19760746000.
10 The following information is gleaned from NASA’s Apollo 15, 16, and 17 Press Kits and Mission Reports; and
“Lunar Rover Operations Handbook,” April 19, 1971, revision July 7, 1971, The Boeing Company, accessed January 31, 2019,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html; and “Lunar Roving Vehicle [25-page booklet],” undated [ca. 1972], The Boeing
Company, Corporate Archives, Bellevue, WA.
11 Payload weights differ slightly depending on the mission and publication author. These numbers r eflect Apollo 15
and 16 mission data according to the NASA mission press kits, while Apollo 17 had a slightly heavier payload capacity of
1,190.
6.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 6 of 74
two astronauts and their portable life support systems (approx. 800 pounds); communications
equipment (150 pounds); scientific equipment and photography gear (150 pounds); and lunar samples
(90 pounds). The payload was stored in stowage quadrant three of the LM’s descent stage.
The four-wheeled LRV has a box-type chassis that folds for compact storage in the tight, pie -shaped
confines of stowage quadrant one of the LM’s descent stage. Fully deployed, the vehicle measures 122
inches long, 72 inches wide, and 44.8 inches high, and sits 17 inches above the ground (or 14 inches
when loaded). The crewmen sit side-by-side with the front wheels visible to them during normal
driving. Two 36-volt batteries power the vehicle for a top speed of about 10 miles per hour, although
it averaged about five miles per hour during the three missions. The LRV can climb and descend a 25 -
degree slope, negotiate 12-inch obstacles and 28-inch crevices, and has 45-degree pitch-and-roll
stability. Rover 1 had an assigned range of 40 miles from the LM, while Rovers 2 and 3 had a range of
57 miles, but all three were limited to a radius of six miles, the distance the crew could walk back in
the event of a total LRV failure. The vehicle has five major systems: mobility, crew station, navigation,
power, and thermal control.
The mobility system includes several subsystems: the chassis, wheels, traction drive, suspension,
steering, and drive control electronics.
• The aluminum-frame chassis is composed of a forward section that holds both batteries, the
navigation system, and the drive control electronics. The center section includes the crew
station where both astronauts sit side by side, the control and display console, and the hand
controller used by the crew to operate the vehicle. The floor of this section is made of
aluminum panels. The aft section is largely reserved for stowing the crew’s scientific
equipment. The forward and aft sections are designed to fold over the c enter section and lock
in place for transport in the LM.
• Each wheel weighs 12 pounds and measures 32 inches in diameter and nine inches wide. The
wheel has a spun aluminum hub, an inner frame or “bump” stop, and an outer layer of a
woven mesh zinc-coated piano wire with titanium treads riveted in a chevron pattern.
• The traction drive attached to each wheel has a motor harmonic drive gear unit that allows for
continuous operation without gear shifting and also a brake assembly. Each wheel can be
uncoupled from the traction drive and brake.
• Two parallel arms connect the chassis with the traction drive of each wheel forming the
suspension system. The system was rotated approximately 135 degrees for compact stowage
in the LM.
• The front and rear wheels operate on independent steering systems, allowing for a turning
radius of 122 inches. The T-shaped hand controller is located between the two crewmen and it
maneuvers the vehicle speed and direction. Tilting the controller forward of the neutral
position increases forward speed, while pulling it backwards brakes the vehicle. The parking
brake is initiated as the controller is pulled backwards three-inches. The brake is released by a
“turn left” command. Reversing the vehicle requires tilting the controller backw ards and
throwing the reverse inhibit switch on the controller. Moving the controller left or right
initiates steering.
6.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 7 of 74
The crew station consists of the control and display console, seats, footrests, handholds, toeholds,
floor panels, and fenders.
• The control and display console gives readings for pitch and roll (attitude indicator), vehicle
direction with respect to lunar north (heading indicator), distance traveled (distance indicator),
and bearing and distance to the LM (bearing and range indicators ). There is a sun shadow
device that detects the LRV’s heading with respect to the sun. An odometer in the right rear
wheel measures the vehicle’s speed, which is displayed by the speed indicator. The console
includes switches for the four drive motor s, two steering motors, and a system reset that
allows the bearing, distance, and range displays to be reset. The console monitors vehicle
power and temperature and triggers an alarm indicator at the top of the console , which lights
up if the battery and temperature readings are of concern.
• The two seats are made of tubular aluminum framing spanned by strips of nylon and are
designed to fold flat onto the chassis while stowed and to be unfolded by the astronauts after
deployment. Each crewman has a nylon strap seatbelt that fits over their lap and attaches to
the outboard handhold.12
• There is one armrest located behind the LRV hand controller to support the arm of the
crewman who is driving the vehicle.
• There is one footrest for each crewman situated on th e center floor section. The footrests,
which fold flat against the chassis during transport, are adjusted to fit the crewmen before
launch.
• A handhold on each side of the center console assists the crewmen getting in and out of the
vehicle. These inboard handholds contain receptacles for camera and communication
equipment.
• A toehold on each side of the vehicle is used to assist the crew in getting in and out of the
vehicle. The astronauts assemble the toeholds after deployment on the lunar surface by
dismantling the tripods that linked the LRV to the LM and inserting a piece of the tripod into
either side of the chassis. This piece also doubles as a tool, if needed.
• The crew station floor is beaded aluminum panels.
• Fiberglass fenders extend over each wheel to contain the fine lunar dust while the LRV is in
motion. A section of the fenders was retracted during stowage and extended for use after
deployment. During the second EVA of the Apollo 16 mission, astronaut John Young bumped
into and broke off the right rear fender extension. The issue was not mission-critical, and no
repair was made. A similar incident occurred during the first EVA of the Apollo 17 mission when
Eugene Cernan inadvertently broke off the right rear fender extension. The break caused the
crew to be covered with lunar dust when the vehicle was in motion. At the beginning of the
second EVA, the crew fashioned a replacement fender extension using used duct tape, four
maps, and clasps. It lasted the remaining duration of the mission but wa s undone so that the
clasps could be used during the return trip in the LM.
The LRV has a dead reckoning navigation system, meaning it uses a pre-determined fixed position
with known speed and course to calculate the vehicle’s current position. This sys tem includes a
12 The Apollo 15 crew reported that the seatbelts were difficult to fasten and were too short. NASA, Apollo 15
Mission Report, MSC-05161, p. 86.
6.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 8 of 74
directional gyroscope mounted on t he forward chassis, a sun shadow device mounted on the control
console, odometers on each wheel to record speed and distance, and a small computer or processing
unit. The readings are displayed on the contro l console.
Two 36-volt batteries, distribution wiring, connectors, switches, circuit breakers, and meters make up
the LRV’s power system. The non-rechargeable batteries, each weighing 59 pounds, are housed in
magnesium cases located in the forward sectio n. Both batteries were used simultaneously, although
each battery could individually power the vehicle, if needed. The batteries were installed in the vehicle
and activated on the launch pad five days prior to launch. An auxiliary connector powered the lun ar
communications relay unit.
A thermal control system protects temperature-sensitive instruments throughout the mission with
insulation, radiative surfaces, thermal mirrors, thermal straps, and special finishes. A multi -layer
thermal blanket protects the batteries and equipment stored in the forward chassis. The batteries
have thermal control units where heat is stored and dust -protector covers that are manually opened
after vehicle use to expose thermal mirrors (or space radiators) to cool the batteries. The covers
automatically close when the temperature stabilizes. Display console instruments are protected by
radiation shields, the console external surfaces have a layer of thermal control paint, and handholds,
footrests, and floor panels are anodized.
Stowage, Deployment, and Post-Deployment
The LRV folds and was stowed in the LM’s descent stage with the aft end pointing up. When folded,
the LRV measures 59.5 inches wide, 66 inches long, and 48.48 inches tall (figure 29). Space support
equipment holds the folded LRV in place during transit at three points. The astronauts manually
deployed the LRV onto the lunar surface following these steps, which take no more than 15 minutes
(figure 30):
• While standing on the lunar surface, astronauts sequentiall y pull two nylon straps, located on
either side of the storage bay.
• One crewman ascends the LM ladder and pulls the D -handle to release the folded LRV. A
spring-loaded rod pushes the LRV away from the top of the LM, about five inches, until it is
stopped by two steel cables. The lower end rotates on two points formed by tripods attached
to the chassis.
• Descending the ladder and returning to the two nylon straps, the astronaut pulls the tape on
the right side of the storage bay causing a cable storage drum to rotate and releasing two
support cables that swivel the LRV outward from the top. Gravity causes the LRV to rotate
outward. Two support arms and two telescoping tubes begin to extend to a point just outside
the LM. A cable then pulls pins that unlock the forward and aft chassis sections. At 50 degrees
of deployment, the aft (top) section, which is under spring pressure, unfolds and locks into
position. The wheels release and lock into place.
• As the astronaut continues to pull the nylon strap, the cente r and aft sections rotate until the
rear wheels touch the lunar surface. At this time, the forward section is able to unfold and lock
into position.
6.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 9 of 74
• The astronaut pulls the second (left) nylon strap, which lowers the forward section to the lunar
surface.
• The astronauts then disconnect the deployment hardware from the LRV by pulling a series of
release pins, also known as pip pins.13 They deploy the fender extensions, set up the control
and display console, unfold the seats, and check and prepare other equi pment.
• One astronaut boards the LRV, checks the systems, backs the vehicle away from the LM and
drives to stowage quadrant three that holds the payload. The vehicle is powered down while
both astronauts install the equipment in the LRV.
• A battery-powered lunar communications relay unit (LCRU) is mounted on the forward chassis.
It facilitates voice, television, and telemetry communication between the astronauts and
Houston’s Mission Control Center. It includes a television camera and a high -gain antenna
resembling an umbrella that allowed for optimal television transmission. The camera,
manufactured by RCA, could be aimed and controlled by the astronauts or remotely controlled
by Mission Control Center personnel. A low-gain antenna was for relaying voice and data when
the LRV was in motion. The LCRU was designed to operate in different modes – fixed for when
the LRV was parked, mobile as the LRV was moving, or hand -carried.
Boeing’s major subcontractor, GM Delco Electronics, produced the vehicle’s mobili ty system and built
the 1-G trainer. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., of Joplin, Missouri, built the batteries, and the United
Shoe Machinery Corp., of Wakefield, Massachusetts, built the harmonic drive unit.14
LRV Integrity
The three LRVs are structures, defined by the landmark ordinance as “any functional construction
made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter.” Other examples of structures include
boats and ships, railroad locomotives and cars, roads, and bridges. To be eligible for landmark status, a
structure, or any type of historic resource, must retain integrity sufficient to convey its historic
character.
The three flight vehicles remain on the lunar surface and have gone untouched since they were last
used during their respective missions in 1971-72. The LRVs and other Apollo mission-related items that
remain on the Moon can be seen in high-resolution imagery produced by NASA’s Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which launched in 2009.15 The LRO imagery confirms that the vehicles
are extant and remain in their last-known locations but does not reveal their conditions, although
nearly 50 years of exposure to extreme environmental conditions have likely aged the vehicles (figures
4, 11, 17, and 18).
13 Apollo Lunar Rover Vehicle exhibit, Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA, October 17, 2018. According to the exhibit,
Apollo 15 mission commander David Scott presented two of the LRV pip pins to Oliver C. “Ollie” Boileau, vice-president of
Boeing’s Aerospace Group, and to Harold J. McClellan, former general manager of Boeing’s Space Division, during a post -
mission visit to the Boeing Space Center in Kent.
14 NASA, Apollo 15 Press Kit, Release no. 71-119K, p. 96, accessed December 28, 2018,
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf.
15 LRO imagery of Apollo landing sites is archived jointly by NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Arizona State
University at: http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandingSites.
6.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 10 of 74
The LRVs clearly retain integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, as they remain in the
lunar environment for which they were designed. The vehicles’ design, materials, and workmanship
have gone unchanged since their last use. The major unknown is how the extreme environ mental
conditions have altered the vehicles.
6.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 11 of 74
PART III: HISTORICAL / ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
8. Evaluation Criteria
Historical Data (if known)
Date(s) of Construction: 1969-1971
Other Date(s) of Significance: 1971 and 1972
Architect: N/A
Builder: Boeing & General Motors Engineer: NASA & Boeing
Statement of Significance
Describe in detail the chronological history of the property and how it meets the landmark designation criteria.
Please provide a summary in the first paragraph (use continuation sheets if necessary). If using a Multiple
Property Nomination that is already on record, or another historical context narrative, please reference it by name
and source.
See below:
Designation Criteria: Criteria Considerations:
A1 Property is associated with events that Property is
have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of national, state, or
local history.
a cemetery, birthplace, or grave or property owned owned by a religious institution/used for
religious purposes
A2 Property is associated with the lives of
persons significant in national, state, or
local history.
moved from its original location
A3 Property embodies the distinctive a reconstructed historic building
characteristics of a type, period, style,or
method of design or construction or
represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinction.
a commemorative property
less than 40 years old or achieving significance
within the last 40 years
A4 Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or
history.
A5 Property is an outstanding work of a
designer or builder who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
6.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 12 of 74
Introduction
To help get man to the moon, we’re bringing the moon to Kent. -- The Boeing Co., on the construction
of an advanced space-research facility in Kent, Washington16
The Lunar Rover proved to be the reliable, safe and flexible lunar exploration vehicle we expected it to
be. Without it, the major scientific discoveries of Apollo 15, 16, and 17 would not have been possible;
and our current understanding of lunar evolution would not have been possible. -- Apollo 17 Lunar
Module Pilot Harrison Schmitt17
Just three lunar rovers were built, and only six me n have driven them. Never had so much imagination,
research, and public investment gone into the production of a wheeled vehicle. The rover, known
officially as the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), made possible the greatest manned explorations of the
Moon in 1971-72, and it came from Kent, Washington.
Kent was home to The Boeing Company’s new Space Center, private industry’s most advanced
research and testing facility aimed at space flight and exploration programs, and it positioned the firm
as a leading competitor for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) most
ambitious projects. It was NASA’s selection of Boeing for the design, testing, and assembly of the LRV
that took Kent to the Moon, and it all happened in just three years, from 1 969 to 1972. Ultimately, the
three rovers performed as specified on the Moon, a remarkable testament to those in private industry
and in government research agencies who contributed to the program.
The three lunar-based rovers meet City of Kent Landmark criterion A1, through their association with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state or national
history, in the following ways:
• The LRV is history’s first and only manned lunar surface vehicle, and it made po ssible the most
ambitious scientific missions of NASA’s Moon landings. The rover was an instrumental part of
the final three missions of the Apollo program in 1971 -72. The vehicles enabled astronauts to
travel much greater distances on the Moon and to cond uct more surface experiments,
contributing to our current understanding of lunar evolutionary history.
• The imagination and knowledge that resulted in the LRV was transferred to solving other
technological challenges on Earth for years to come. The rover would be of interest to research
organizations and government agencies studying mobility, navigation, and robotics.
• Boeing’s contract to produce the LRV was largely executed by the company’s aerospace
division at its Space Center in Kent. Perhaps more than any other Space Center project, the
rover captured the interest and imagination of the Kent community, even as the rising
unemployment of the Boeing Bust gripped the Puget Sound region.
The rovers also meet City of Kent Landmark criterion A3, through their distinct design and
construction, in the following ways:
16 Boeing advertisement, Kent News-Journal, Aug. 19, 1964, Diamond Jubilee Edition, p. 5. See figure 31.
17 Bettye B. Burkhalter and Mitchell R. Sharpe, “Lunar Roving Vehicle: Historical Origins, Development and
Deployment,” Journal of The British Interplanetary Society 48 (1995): 212.
6.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 13 of 74
• The LRV represents an ambitious experiment to overcome the many challenges – both known
and unknown – of traversing the lunar landscape for which there was no precedent.
• The LRV is both simple and complex. It is simple in form and materials, with four wire-mesh
wheels supporting an aluminum chassis with two nylon-strap seats. It is complex in design,
with five major inter-connected systems built with redundancies throughout to ensure that a
single failure did not end the mission or endanger the crew.
Elaboration
“Space Age City”18 – Postwar Change Comes to Kent
Its central location in the Green River Valley made Kent a hub of activity for business related to
agricultural processing, packing, and shipping in the early- and mid-20th century. Farming had long
been a productive way of life for valley residents, including many Japanese Americans.19 For many, this
way of life was upended in 1942 when President Franklin Roosevelt or dered the removal of first- and
second-generation Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II. Their farmland was
redistributed to other farmers and most never returned.20 Their absence strained the workforce as the
demand for the valley’s agricultural products remained strong during and after the war.
Kent emerged from World War II a changed community. Post-war growth during the Baby Boom years
further strained area farmers and dairymen. As land values and taxes increased, planting acreage
became too costly for small-scale producers pushing many to sell their land for development. The City
annexed large tracts north and south of Kent to bring the areas being developed under local control.
Industrial firms began relocating from Seattle and elsewhere in King County to Kent by the mid-1950s,
including the Lynch Manufacturing Co., the Heath Manufacturing Co., and the Borden Co. Chemical
Division.21
But it was the major infrastructure projects in the mid-1950s and early 1960s that would sustain and
attract development in and around Ken t for years to come. The Valley Freeway (WA-167) was under
construction by 1957 and would ultimately connect Kent with Auburn to the south and Renton to the
north via a four-lane highway. Construction of Interstates 5 and 405 was also underway during this
period, and they would provide important regional connections for Kent. The completion of the
Howard Hanson Dam in 1962 brought relief to valley residents, farmers, and business owners alike,
who had long been plagued by flooding. These transportation impr ovements and flood control
measures further enticed industry to Kent, most notably The Boeing Company .22
18 “Kent…Space Age City,” Kent News-Journal, August 19, 1964, Diamond Jubilee Edition, p. 1.
19 For more on Kent’s early history agricultural past, see Florence K. Lentz, Kent: Valley of Opportunity, (Chatsworth,
CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1990).
20 Lentz, 55-65. And, Alan J. Stein, “Kent – A Thumbnail History,” HistoryLink.org Essay #3587, 2001. Accessed March
1, 2019, http://www.historylink.org/File/3587.
21 Lucile McDonald, “Farmers Take Steps to Speed Kent’s Industrialization,” The Seattle Times, July 8, 1956, magazine
section, p. 2.
22 Lentz, 54, 66-67.
6.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 14 of 74
Boeing first expanded into the valley in 1944 when it opened a plant in Renton. The post -war success
of its commercial, military, and emerging space d ivisions pushed the company to expand into Kent and
Auburn by the 1960s. In early 1964, Boeing announced plans to develop a state -of-the-art Space
Center on 320 acres it had recently purchased in Kent. With the announcement, Boeing vice president
Lysle Wood said, “Past experience has taught us the value of having our own research and
development laboratories, and we are continuing this approach with our space work.”23 The advanced
facility would include four laboratories – one to simulate space, another to simulate space flight
navigation, a third to research and test microelectronics, and a fourth to test new materials. The space
simulation chamber measured approximately 40 feet in diameter by 40 feet high and was the largest
such private commercial facility in the United States.24 This new facility would position the company as
a leading competitor for civilian and military space contracts for years to come.25
With the announcement, Kent Mayor Alexander Thornton welcomed Boeing to Kent and credited the
city council and the planning commission in their foresight to annex large areas around Kent.26
Construction was underway and proceeding quickly during the summer of 1964 as the community
celebrated its diamond jubilee with events and retrospectives. The Kent News-Journal was full of
articles showing the community’s evolution, with emphasis on the recent change. In the previous
decade, Kent’s population had grown from about 3,000 to more than 11,000, and building permit
numbers jumped considerably, from 44 building permits totaling $1,494,485 to 155 permits totaling
$4.14 million in 1963.27 A Seattle Times columnist said of the change, “The Boeing move triggered a
land-buying stampede…Where cabbages once were king, glittering new industrial plants – many
space-oriented – are taking shape.28
Construction of the Boeing Space Center, located along West Valley Highway between South 196th
and 212th streets in North Kent, proceeded quickly. The first areas were complete by March 1965. The
first group to move into the new facility “were four research engineers, headed by John Van
Brokhorst, manager of the space-environment-simulator laboratory, and a secretary, Mrs. Tod [Judy]
Williams.”29 Another 400 employees would gradually move in through October when construction was
completed (figure 32). Kent Chamber of Commerce members were invited to a special tour of the
Space Center in advance of the official dedication on October 29. Boeing celebrated its new $20
million facility in a ceremony with 4,000 guests, including NASA ad ministrator James Webb, who stood
in for Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who was scheduled to attend but had to cancel. In his remarks
23 “New Space Laboratories Planned at Kent Site,” Boeing News, February 6, 1964, p. 1.
24 Eugene E. Bauer, Boeing: The First Century, (Enumclaw, WA: TABA Publishing, Inc., 2000), 196; “Space Labs to be
Built This Year,” Kent News-Journal, February 5, 1964, p. 1.
25 William Clothier, “New Space Center Sharpens the Forward Edge of Research,” Boeing Magazine 30, No. 10
(October 1965): 3-5.
26 “Mayor Welcomes Boeing to Kent,” The Seattle Times, February 4, 1964, p. 27.
27 “Kent Growth Is ‘Most Dramatic,’” and “Building Permits Reflect Growth,” Kent News-Journal, August 19, 1964,
Diamond Jubilee Edition, p. 2.
28 Robert Twiss, “Now It’s Green (back) River Valley,” The Seattle Times, October 24, 1965, p. 24.
29 “Kent Center Gets First Employes [sic],” The Seattle Times, March 11, 1965, p. 20.
6.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 15 of 74
Webb said, “it is clear from the outstanding new research facility which has been built here that the
Boeing team has thought about the future and is prepared to do something about it.”30
The Space Center was Kent’s first large-scale commercial plant, and “for a time it remained physically
isolated in a sea of farmland.”31 Boeing had room to expand and other firms with aerospace industry
ties could locate nearby. For example, Aero Structures, Inc., a firm that manufactured materials for the
aircraft industry, relocated to Kent from Seattle in 1965. In response to the move, industrial park
manager Jim Rice said, “I believe the Kent Valley has shown great foresight in its planning and zoning
which allows these industries to come in to complement one another.”32 Further enticement was
Kent’s strategic location between Tacoma and Seattle, just a few miles east of Sea-Tac International
Airport and within a network of regional highways. All of these factors – location, strong public
infrastructure, partner firms nearby, and the opportunity to expand facilities – benefited the Space
Center as Boeing sought to bring major space contracts to Kent.
NASA and Project Apollo
In October 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched th e Sputnik I satellite into Earth’s orbit,
jumpstarting the Cold War-era Space Race with the United States. The following July, the U.S.
established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a civilian government
agency dedicated to the peaceful advancement of space science and technology. Among the nine
agency objectives outlined in the establishing legislation were “t he improvement of the usefulness,
performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles,” and “the development
and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms
through space.”33 The subsequent development of the lunar rover fit squarely within the agency’s
primary and founding objectives.
Still in its infancy, NASA’s manned spaceflight program was challenged by President John F. Kennedy
during a special message to Congress on May 25, 1961. His remarks came just weeks after the Soviet
Union put the first human, Yuri Gagarin, into Earth’s orbit. In the speech, Kennedy acknowledged the
Space Race and challenged the nation to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to earth
before the end of the decade. He said, “No single space project in this period will be more impressive
to mankind or more important for the long-range exploration of space and not be so difficult or
expensive to accomplish…But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon…it will be
an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.”34 NASA’s Project Apollo team and its many
partners in private industry would respond to this challenge.
30 Robert Twiss, “4,000 at Dedication of Boeing Space Center,” The Seattle Times, October 30, 1965, p. 1.
31 Lentz, 75.
32 “Aero Structures to Bring 100+ Employes [sic] to Kent,” Kent News-Journal, September 15, 1965, p. 1.
33 Section 102 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, As Amended. NASA, 2008, accessed March 1,
2019, https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf.
34 Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President's Office Files. Speech Files. Special message to Congress
on urgent national needs, May 25, 1961, accessed February 22, 2019, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-
viewer/archives/JFKPOF/034/JFKPOF-034-030.
6.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 16 of 74
Project Apollo was NASA’s third manned spaceflight program, succeeding the Mercury and Gemini
programs of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Each program and mission built on th e technologies and
successes of earlier ones. NASA’s objective with Project Mercury was to put a person into Earth’s orbit
and return them safely to Earth. To achieve this, NASA used a one -man, cone-shaped space capsule to
launch Alan Shepherd into low orbit in May 1961 and then John Glenn into full orbit in February 1962.
The goal of the succeeding Gemini program was to advance space travel techniques and capabilities
that would support the lunar missions of the Apollo program. For these missions, NASA used a larger
cone-shaped space capsule that carried two astronauts.
The primary objective of the Apollo program was exactly what Kennedy had called for – that
astronauts land on the Moon and ret urn safely to Earth by the close of the 1960s. The twelve -year
program resulted in thirty-three flights, eleven of which were manned. The final seven missions –
Apollo 11 through 17 – involved manned exploration of the lunar surface, and the final three fl ights
carried a lunar roving vehicle. The unmanned flights were missions to qualify the launch and
spacecraft vehicles.35
The Apollo program used a new type of spacecraft for its three -crew missions – a three-part vehicle
consisting of a combined two-part command and service module (CSM) and a lunar module (LM).36
Once in lunar orbit, the LM and two astronauts separated from the CSM and its one crewman. The
CSM remained in lunar orbit while the LM landed on the Moon. The two spacecraft were modified for
missions 15, 16, and 17 to accommodate the transport of a l unar roving vehicle.
NASA defined its Apollo missions by type, each with specific tasks, tests, and benchmarks that needed
to be completed before moving to the next mission type. The J -class, or J-series, missions were those
capable of a longer stay on the Moon and greater surface mobility due to the lunar rover, allowing for
more surface experiments. Missions 15, 16, and 17 were classified as J-class and included new types of
equipment such as the Metric and Panoramic camera systems, a lunar communication s relay unit
(LCRU), and a ground-controlled television assembly (GCTA) to aid in improved real-time visual and
audio communication with Earth. To accommodate the change in mission type, NASA not only
modified the spacecraft vehicles, it also upgraded the spacesuit and portable life support system
(PLSS) to function in coordination with the rover.
The Lunar Rover
In July 1969, just five days prior to the launch of Apollo 11 that took the first hu mans to the Moon,
NASA issued a detailed scope of work and request for proposals for development of the Lunar Roving
Vehicle. Only weeks earlier, the agency elected to move forward with a rover program, selecting its
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, to manage the effort. Saverio F. Morea, a
rocket engine specialist, led MSFC’s Lunar Roving Vehicle Project Office that reviewed the proposals.
35 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Apollo Program Summary Report (JSC-09423). Houston,
TX: Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, April 1975, accessed February 22, 2019, https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/APSR-JSC-
09423.pdf.
36 Hexcel, a firm with Kent ties, produced the landing gear struts of the Apollo 11 lunar landing module. Hexcel is a
manufacturer of composite materials for aerospace and industrial markets and opened its Kent plant in 1996.
6.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 17 of 74
They closely reviewed four proposals, from Grumman Aerospace, Chrysler Space Division, Bend ix
Corporation, and The Boeing Company, ultimately awarding Boeing its $19 million contract on October
29.37 The cost grew to $38 million by the end of the project.
The vehicle that NASA specified was the result of years of imagination, research, and deve lopment.
Throughout the early twentieth century science fic tion writers provided the first fantastical renderings
of lunar rovers. Writers Jerszy Zulawski, Hugo Gernsback, and Homer Eon Flint, for example, imagined
vehicles that ranged from a pressurized wheeled vehicle to a tank-like unit with continuous-track
treads to a two-legged walking rover.38 The mid-century writings of scientists, such as German-born
rocket scientist and aerospace engineer Wernher von Braun, brought science fiction closer to reality .
In 1952, the popular Collier’s magazine published the first of a series of eight issues about outer space
“that persuasively made the case for manned space exploration to the Moon and Mars in the
foreseeable future.”39 Von Braun and his colleagues produced the Collier’s content that influenced a
generation of engineers and physicists, including those who worked on Project Apollo.
Beginning in 1962, NASA sponsored studies to define and design a lunar -surface vehicle. Several
leading military and aerospace manufacturing companies produced designs and models of veh icles
that ranged significantly in size and weight. Boeing’s first prototype, a mobile laboratory known as
MOLAB, featured six wheels, a pressurized cabin, and it weighed nearly 8,000 pounds (figur e 33). In
June 1965, Boeing introduced the vehicle as a
mobile lunar laboratory [that] could be folded into a compact package, cradled atop a lunar
excursion module (LEM) landing craft and shipped to the moon aboard a Saturn 5 rocket…Later,
another Saturn 5 would streak moonward from Cape Kennedy with a three-man crew in an Apollo
cabin – two of them destined to land by LEM, take over MOLAB and begin their exploration. The
MOLAB could be controlled from Earth and is designed to carry stereoscopic driving ca meras
mounted on top of the vehicle.40
Within a week of MOLAB’s unveiling in June 1965, NASA extended its contracts with both Boeing and
Bendix to include a stripped -down version of the MOLAB, called a Mobility Test Unit, and a second
smaller rover called a Local Scientific Survey Module (LSSM). Importantly, the LSSM would not have an
enclosed cabin and would only weigh between 800 and 1,500 pounds.41
As these studies proceeded, Boeing was working on NASA’s Saturn V rocket and Lunar Orbiter
programs while constructing its Space Center in Kent. Within weeks of off icially opening, Boeing tested
37 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 204. “Boeing Receives $19 Million Contract for Moon Vehicles,” Kent News-Journal,
October 31, 1969, p. 1.
38 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 199-200; Saverio F. Morea, “The Lunar Roving Vehicle, A Historical Perspective,” The
Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Centu ry NASA Conference Publication 3166, vol. 2 (1992):
619, accessed October 15, 2018, https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/lunar/LRV_Historical_Perspective.pdf.
39 David M. Scott and Richard Jurek, Marketing the Moon: The Selling of the Apollo Lunar Program (Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press, 2014), 5-7.
40 “Compact Car for Moon Tourists Also Their Home on Wheels,” Boeing News, June 3, 1965, p. 1.
41 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 201; “Stripped-Down Moon Buggy for Scientific Survey Studied,” Boeing News, July 15,
1965, p. 1.
6.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 18 of 74
its first Lunar Orbiter spacecraft in the vacuum chamber at the Space Center. Boeing and Eastman
Kodak were under contract with NASA to build eight orbiters – three test units and five flight models –
designed to circle the Moon and take close-up photographs of the lunar surface to help scientists
prepare for the Apollo missions. The program launched five unmanned orbiters in 1966 and 1967
resulting in the first photographs from lunar orbit of the Moon and Earth. Additionally, by mid-1967,
just six months after the Apollo 1 disaster, Boeing was under contract with NASA to provide technical
integration and evaluation (TIE) tasks for the Apollo program, meaning it would s upport NASA in
integrating the Saturn V launch vehicles with the command and service modules, the lunar module,
and later the lunar rover.42
Boeing’s depth of expertise and experience as well as its advanced facilities favored the company
going into NASA’s bid process for the lunar rover in the summer of 1969. Inf ormed by its earlier
studies of lunar-surface vehicles, NASA specified a light-weight, four-wheeled, battery-powered
vehicle that could be folded and stowed in the Apollo Lunar Module. Deployment a nd navigation were
to be simple enough for one astronaut to maneuver while wearing a cumbersome spacesuit. The
specifications required that there be no single -point failures in the vehicle that could abort the
mission. This ultimately resulted in the use o f redundant or double systems throughout the rover,
ensuring that, in the event of a failure, another system could take over.43
NASA announced its selection of Boeing for the LRV project on October 29, 1969. Boeing’s major
subcontractor for the project was General Motors’ Delco Electronics Division based in Santa Barbara,
California. A tight timeline called for delivery of the first vehicle by April 1971, giving Boeing just
eighteen months to design, test, and build the vehicle. A preliminary design was d ue to NASA just ten
weeks into the contract. At Boeing, the rover project was overseen by Oliver C. Boileau and his Kent-
based team in the aerospace division. They also had a team in Huntsville managed by engineer Henry
Kudish, who was succeeded by Earl Houtz in 1970, and all worked closely with Saverio F. Morea and
his group at NASA-MSFC, also based in Huntsville. Of note is the fact no women appear in professional
positions on the organizational charts of Boeing’s LRV program, where white men dominated th e
ranks during this era. Women worked primarily in secret arial roles and often were product models in
photographs.44 LRV program secretaries Sharron Scott and Judy Williams are examples of this trend
(figures 34 and 35).
The teams brought to the project considerable knowledge from the previous six years of rover studies.
There were two important carry-overs from Boeing’s MOLAB to its LRV: the wire wheels and the
concept of independent electric motors in each wheel.45 Additionally, the ongoing Apollo missions
provided the rover team new, real-time information about the lunar surface. In an interview with The
New York Times shortly after the contract award, Kudish said the Apollo 11 astronauts who landed on
42 “Boeing Gets $20 Million Apollo Integration Job,” Roundup, June 23, 1967, p. 1. “Apollo Lunar Spacecraft:
Historical Snapshot,” The Boeing Co. website, accessed January 25, 2019,
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/apollo-lunar-spacecraft.page.
43 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 204; Robert L. Twiss, “Boeing on the Moon: Firm delighted with Rover Despite Steering
Problem,” The Seattle Times, August 1, 1971, p. F8.
44 Scott and Jurek, 41.
45 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 201.
6.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 19 of 74
the Moon the previous July, “have been of great value in determining some answers to our problems.”
Nevertheless, he said, “We had to make many assumptions about the coefficient of friction of the
lunar soil, its ability to carry weight and the size of the obstacles that may be encountered, and their
distribution.” At this early stage in the project, Kudish said th at “the most difficult problems were
keeping the weight and volume of the rover down.”46
Throughout 1970, Boeing and NASA collaborated on the rover design using various models and mock -
ups.47 The first iteration of the rover was a static mock-up that enabled the development team to
consider human factors related to crew maneuverability, safety, and comfort, as well as how
emergencies might inform the vehicle design. An engineering model provided design ers a test unit in
the laboratory to study vacuum, therma l, and soil conditions. A training model provided the
astronauts the true feeling of what it would be like to drive the rover on the lunar surface. It also
allowed designers to study the vehicle’s steering and handling of corners. The team built a dynamic
test unit to study the LRV and the LM together to understand how they would interact during the
boost, translunar injection, and lunar landing phases. The final qualification test unit was built
identical to the mission vehicles and was subjected to test c onditions exceeding what was expected.
This ensured the rover could withstand the physical demands of the missions.48
It was during this testing period in 1970 that Boeing, in consultation with NASA , reorganized its lunar
rover program staff, resulting in the relocation of the LRV qualification vehicle and flight vehicle
assembly from Huntsville to Kent. Earl Houtz replaced Kudish as the Huntsville -based LRV program
manager, with Houtz reporting to LRV Program Executive John B. Winch and both reporting to the
LRV/Apollo Program Director Harold J. McClellan.49 The reasons for the realignments aren’t clear and
the program never lost its momentum. In fact, Houtz later received NASA’s Public Service Award for
his “outstanding contribution to the success of the A pollo 15 mission.”50
Kent: Home of the Boeing Moon Buggy
Six astronauts came to Kent in December 1970 for “a first -hand inspection” of the rover program and
to see the final test model, the qualification unit.51 The first flight vehicle emerged from production at
the Space Center in early February, ready for qualification testing.52 Six weeks later, on March 10,
46 Richard D. Lyons, “Jeep Will Introduce Traffic to Moon,” The New York Times, November 9, 1969, p. 76.
47 “Rover Program Moves Forward,” Boeing News, June 25, 1970, p. 1.
48 Henry Kudish, “The Lunar Rover,” Spaceflight: A Publication of The British Interplanetary Society 12, no. 7 (July
1970): 270.
49 The Boeing Company, Aerospace Group, “Organization Bulletin: Transfer of Lunar Roving Vehicle Qualification
Vehicle and Flight Vehicle Assembly,” September 3, 1970. Also, “Organization Bulletin: Lunar Roving Vehicle / Apollo
Program Relationships,” November 3, 1970. The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
50 “Space Agency Honors Boeing Employe [sic],” The Seattle Times, October 12, 1971, p. A14.
51 “Boeing Rolls Out Version of Lunar Unit,” The Seattle Times, December 23, 1970, p. 13. Those in attendance were
James B. Irwin and David R. Scott, Apollo 15 crew and the first men slated to drive the rover on the Moon; Charles Duke,
Apollo 16; Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17; Robert Parker, support crew for Apollo 15 and 17; and Poulsbo, WA, native Richard
Gordon, Apollo 12.
52 “For Apollo 15,” Boeing News, February 4, 1971, p. 1.
6.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 20 of 74
1971, Boeing formally delivered the first flight model of the LRV to NASA in a special cere mony held in
the shadow of the space simulation chamber at the Space Center (figure 36). NASA’s MSFC director
Eberhard Rees accepted the rover on behalf of NASA, telling the Boeing officials and staff in
attendance, “You have reason to be proud.”53
Indeed, those who worked closest to the rover were quite proud . During the lead-up to the Apollo 15
launch, Boeing electronics craftsman Paul Turcotte told the Seattle Times, “Sure, I’m nervous about
the Lunar Roving Vehicle…I’ve dreamed about it operating up th ere on the moon. In fact, I’ve lain
awake nights thinking about it. There just has to be a feeling of pride when you know something
you’ve worked on is performing on the moon.”54 His colleague Dave Hendrickson told the Times,
“There’s a lot of all of us in that vehicle…Some of the guys around here put in long ho urs building that
craft…There were several 30-hour days worked. I assembled the thermal blankets, and I know they will
do the job.”55 The Boeing vice president for aerospace, Oliver C. Boileau, echoed their nervous
enthusiasm: “I have been to a lot of first flights in 18 years with this company, but never one where so
much of the world looked over our shoulder as we pushed the ‘go button.’ I couldn’t help but be a bit
nervous, but with the confidence I have in our people who built the Lunar Roving Vehicle I ’m certain it
will operate on the moon as it should.”56 Many years later in a 2018 interview with the City of Kent,
LRV Program Executive John B. Winch recalled the biggest challenge of the p roject was the tight
timeframe in which to complete the rover, followed by the deployment system: “The rover system
was strapped to one of the legs of the lunar landing module. We didn’t know exactly what kind of
terrain the module would land on, [but] it worked like a charm, no problem whatsoever.”57
Following the ceremony, the rover was packaged and flown to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida
(figure 29).58 Boeing finished the second rover in late March and the third by late June, more than
three months ahead of schedule. Rovers 2 and 3 were stored at the Kent facility until after the Apollo
15 mission with Rover 1 was complete, in case the vehicles would need modification after the first
lunar rover mission in late July 1971. No major modifications were needed and Rovers 2 and 3 shipped
closer to their respective launch dates.
As the launch of Apollo 15 neared, excitement in Kent grew as the world’s attention turned to the
valley-made rover. Fournier Newspapers, which published the Kent News-Journal, Renton Record-
Chronicle, and Auburn Globe-News, sent reporters Bill and Wini Carter to cover the launch in Florida.
Wini Carter reported that Boeing had set up a press room in one of the area motels and had a model
of the rover in the motel lobby that was “th e center of attention.” They toured the Kennedy Space
53 “NASA receives First Lunar Rover Vehicle,” Boeing News, March 18, 1971, p. 1.
54 Robert L. Twiss, “Boeing on the Moon,” The Seattle Times, August 1, 1971, p. F8.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 John Winch, (Retired Engineer, LRV Program, Boeing), “Bring the Moon to Downtown Kent,” Interview by Michelle
Wilmot and Edgar Riebe, City of Kent, May 14, 2018, accessed October 15, 2018, https://vimeo.com/272473790.
58 NASA, “LRV Flight Model Delivery,” Kennedy Space Center News Release, KSC-41-71, March 10, 1971. Accessed
November 8, 2018. [p. 13 of PDF] https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/744322main_1971.pdf.
6.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 21 of 74
Center with other members of the press and attended events and parties in the days leading up to the
launch. She wrote that “seeing the launch from Cape Kennedy was an awe -inspiring experience.”59
The Kent-News Journal featured rover-related highlights with a local angle not found in the major
newspapers of the day, and they provide a wonderful window into the excitement and pride for the
hometown rover. Mayor Isabell Hogan used the opportunity to pro mote Kent and mailed a City of
Kent decal to Kurt H. Debus, director of the Kennedy Space Center in hopes of getting it affixed to the
rover’s fender. The decal did not end up on the rover.60 She tried again with Rover 2, also without
success. At the unveiling ceremony for Rover 2 (figure 37), Boeing presented Hogan a plaque
displaying the special Apollo 15 stamp issued by the U.S. Postal Service and an engraved message
denoting Kent as “Hometown of the Lunar Roving Vehicle.”
The enthusiasm touched all ages and interests, from children and parents to elected officials and
boosters. The Kent Meeker Days parade, which took place just two days before the Apollo 15 launch
and featured ten-year-old Kendall Brookbank, who manned a tin -foil rover replica on a parade float
(figure 38). The Kent Jaycees, a junior Chamber of Comme rce organization, rode the wave of
enthusiasm unveiling a fundraising project selling blue and white buttons with a picture of the lunar
rover with text reading Kent, Washington – Home of the Boeing Moon Buggy (figure 39). The buttons
went on sale just in time for the Apollo 15 astronauts visit to Kent in mid-October 1971.61 The News-
Journal’s Wini Carter reported that newspaper executive Don N. Crew had “slipped” souvenir buttons
to astronauts Alfred M. Worden, David R. Scott, and James Irwin during their visit.62 The paper also
pictured R. H. Nelson, general manager of the Saturn/Apollo Skylab Division of Boeing, wearing a
button (figure 40). Proceeds from the sale of the buttons went to commu nity betterment projects.63
Local pride in the rover continued through the final Apollo mission in December 1972, but the
outward display of enthusiasm was less evident. Perhaps the Boeing Bust, which involved tens of
thousands of layoffs in the Puget S ound region between 1969 and 1971, tempered enthusiasm.
However, the rounds of layoffs didn’t impact the Space Center as much as other Boeing locations.64 In
all, Boeing laid off more than 86,000 employees, hitting King County so hard that county executive
John Spellman sought federal assistance to ease the burden.65 The muted enthusiasm mirrored the
declining interest of the nation, which had peaked with the first moonwalk during Apollo 11. As
further evidence of this trend, the Apollo 15 moonwalks were the last to be shown live and in their
entirety by the three major television networks.66
59 “Astronauts Blastoff with Moon Buggy: Valley-made Lunar Rover Center of Attention,” Kent News-Journal, Jul. 28,
1971, p. 1-2. Canaveral was known as Cape Kennedy from 1963 to 1973.
60 Ibid. “Moon Riders Return Home,” Kent News-Journal, August 11, 1971, p. 1.
61 “Moon Buggy Buttons Go Over Big, Say Jaycees,” Kent News-Journal, October 13, 1971, p. 6.
62 Wini Carter, “3 Astronauts Tour Center,” Kent News-Journal, October 15, 1971, p. 1.
63 “He’s Stuck on the Moon Buggy,” Kent News-Journal, October 15, 1971, p. 4.
64 “Kent Space Center Employment ‘Stable,’” Kent News-Journal, August 11, 1971, p. 12.
65 Eugene E. Bauer, Boeing: The First Century, (Enumclaw, WA: TABA Publishing, Inc., 2000), 215. “County to Seek
U.S. Cash, Cities to Act on Layoffs,” Kent News-Journal, January 16, 1970, p. 1-2.
66 Scott and Jurek, 74.
6.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 22 of 74
Apollo J-class Missions & Rover Performance
The lunar roving vehicle was the centerpiece technology of the Apollo J-class missions. It enabled a
longer stay on the Moon and greater surface mobility, allowing for more surface experiments. NASA
produced reports on each Apollo mission and on the entire Apollo program, and these reports inform
the following summaries of missions 15, 16, and 17 and the use and performance of the rovers. Upon
the completion of the program, NASA reported that “the mission performance of the lunar roving
vehicles used on the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions was excellent,” and “the vehicles significantly
increased the capability to explore and enhanced data return.”67 The report presented final
performance data collected on each rover during their respective missions (figure 41).
Apollo 15
Launch: July 26, 1971, 9:34 AM EDT, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Return: August 7, 1971, 4:45 PM EDT, North Pacific Ocean
Mission duration: 12 days, 7 hours, 11 minutes
Lunar landing site: near Hadley Rille, Apennine Mountains (26.13° N, 3.63° E)
Lunar surface duration: 2 days, 18 hours, and 54 minutes.
Launch vehicle: Saturn V (SA-510)
Payload: Endeavor (CM-112); Falcon (LM-10); Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
Crew: Colonel David R. Scott, Commander; seventh person to walk on the Moon
Lt. Colonel James B. Irwin, Lunar Module Pilot; eighth person to walk on the Moon
Major Alfred M. Worden, Command Module Pilot
As Al Worden piloted the CM in lunar orbit, Jim Irwin and Dave Scott guided the LM Falcon to a
landing site on the plains of Palus Putredinis adjacent to Hadley Rille near the Apennine Mountains. It
was the one of the fastest and har dest lunar landings of the Apollo missions, coming in at 6.8 feet per
second. The crew had four primary objectives: to explore the Hadley-Apennine region, set up and
activate lunar surface scientific experiments, make engineering evaluations of new Apollo equipment,
and conduct lunar orbital experiments and photographic tasks.
The rover allowed the crew to venture a cumulative 17.3 miles, considerably farther from the LM than
astronauts of previous missions who traveled on foot. The vehicle averaged 5.7 m iles per hour and
reached a top speed of 7 miles per hour. Scott and Irwin traversed the lunar surface in the LRV during
three extravehicular activities (EVAs) totaling 18 hours, 35 minutes between July 31 and August 2.
They collected 170 pounds of lunar samples, set up the Apollo Lunar Surface Scientific Experiments
Package (ALSEP) array, obtained a core sample from about 10 feet beneath the lunar surface, and
provided descriptions and photographic documentation of the area around the landing site (figures 2
through 8).
67 NASA, Apollo Program Summary Report, JSC-09423, sec. 4, p. 101.
6.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 23 of 74
Scott and Irwin were the first to pilot the rover on the lunar surface, an d they were “very pleased with
the vehicle’s performance, particularly, the speed and hill -climbing capacity.”68 In a post-flight visit to
the Boeing Space Center, Scott called the rover a “truly remarkable vehicle.”69 Of the vehicle’s
performance on the lunar surface, they reported that the rover deployment technique, vehicle
maneuverability during motion, and the wheel t raction as things that worked very well. Conversely,
they reported that the rover’s front steering system malfunctioned, but only during the first
extravehicular activity (EVA), and that excessive time was needed to secure the rover seatbelts.
Additionally, the video signal was lost from the lunar surf ace camera mounted on the rover.70
Once back in lunar orbit, the crew launched the Particles and Fields Subsatellite from the service
module. It studied the magnetic field environment of the Moon and map ped the lunar gravity field
until it failed in early 1973.
In addition to being the first mission to feature the rover, this mission set several new records for
crewed spaceflight. Apollo 15 was the longest Apollo mission ; it featured the heaviest payload in a
lunar orbit, the most EVAs with the longest t otal duration, the longest time in lunar orbit, and the first
satellite to be placed in lunar orbit by a crewed spacecraft.
The post-mission report concluded that the 1-g trainer had provided the crew “adequate training,”
and that they rapidly adapted to the lunar environment.71 In response to the problems reported
during Apollo 15, Rovers 2 and 3 were modified in the following ways: 1) the auxiliary circuit breaker
capacity was increased; 2) Velcro was added to the battery covers to provide increased prot ection
against dust, and reflective tape was added to provide more radiative cooling; 3) new under-seat
stowage bags with dust covers and modification to stowage bag straps; 4) and stiffened seatbelts with
over-center tightening mechanisms were added.72
Despite the many achievements, the legacy of Apollo 15 was marred by controversy. The first problem
involved the Fallen Astronaut, a small aluminum figurine created by Belgian artist Paul Van Hoeydonck.
During the second EVA on August 1, Scott secretly place d the figurine and a plaque bearing the names
of fallen American astronauts and Soviet cosm onauts on the lunar surface. Upon public disclosure of
the memorial in the year following the mission, it became clear Hoeydonck had a different view of the
pre-arranged agreement with the astronauts, which left him feeling slighted. He had not been
consulted on the name of the piece, and he was not being credited for the artwork.73 What was largely
68 NASA, Apollo 15 Mission Report, MSC-05161, December 1971, p. 83, accessed February 21, 2019,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/ap15mr.pdf.
69 “Astronauts Praise Rover,” The Seattle Times, October 14, 1971, p. D1.
70 NASA, Apollo 15 Mission Report, MSC-05161, p. 101-05
71 Ibid.
72 NASA, Apollo 16 Mission Report, MSC-07230, August 1972, Appendix A, p. 5-6, accessed February 21, 2019,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_MissionReport.pdf.
73 Corey S. Powell and Laurie Gwen Shapiro, “The Sculpture on the Moon,” Slate, December 16, 2013, accessed
January 31, 2019,
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/sculpture_on_the_moon_paul_van_hoeydonck_s_fall
en_astronaut.html.
6.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 24 of 74
a dispute between Scott and Hoeydonck was quickly overshadowed by a bi gger controversy
discovered following the mission. Scott, Irwin, and Worden had secretly carried with them to the
Moon unauthorized postmarked postal covers (mailing envelopes) that they sold to a German stamp
dealer upon their return.74 NASA officials and elected officials weighed in as the controversy received
considerable press attention. The three astronauts were reprimanded and never flew again.
Apollo 16
Launch: April 16, 1972, 12:54 PM EST, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Return: April 27, 1972, 2:45 PM EST, South Pacific Ocean
Mission duration: 11 days, 1 hour, 51 minutes
Lunar landing site: Descartes Highlands (-8.97° N, 15.50° E)
Lunar surface duration: 2 days, 23 hours
Launch vehicle: Saturn V (SA-511)
Payload: Casper (CM-113) and Orion (LM-11); Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
Crew: Captain John W. Young, Commander; tenth person to walk o n the Moon
Lt. Colonel Charles M. Duke, Jr., Lunar Module Pilot; ninth person to walk on the Moon
Lt. Commander Thomas K. (Ken) Mattingly, II, Command Module Pilot
In January 1972, NASA announced a 30 -day delay in the launch of Apollo 16 due to technical concerns
involving an explosive device used to separate the CM from the LM. After modification and additional
testing, the subsequent launch on April 16 went without incident. Once in lunar orbit, Thomas
Mattingly remained in the CM while John Young and Charles Duke piloted the LM Orion to a landing
site on the Descartes Highlands. The crew had three primary objectives: to inspect, survey, and sample
materials and surface features near the la nding site, emplace and activate surface experiments, and
conduct in-flight experiments and photographic tasks from lunar orbit.
Young and Duke traversed the lunar surface in the LRV during three EVAs totaling 20 hours, 14
minutes between April 21 and 23 . The vehicle traveled a cumulative 16.59 miles and reached a top
speed of 8.7 miles per hour. They collected 209 pounds of lunar samples, set up the Apollo Lunar
Surface Scientific Experiments Package (ALSEP) array, obtained core and trench samples, collected
measurements with the lunar portable magnetometer, and provided descriptions and both panoramic
and 500 mm photography of the region around the landing site. The findings of the mission disproved
the pre-mission hypothesis that the geologic formations in this lunar region were volcanic in origin.
During the first EVA, Duke retrieved the largest rock returned by an Apollo mission. Lunar sample
61016, nicknamed Big Muley after the mission’s geology team leader William Muehlberger, weighed
26 pounds and was collected from the east rim of Plum Crater. Also , during the first EVA, Young
discovered that the LRV’s rear steering was not working, but it began working n ormally later in the
EVA. During the second EVA, Young bumped into and broke off the right re ar fender extension, an
incident that happened in training and during the later Apollo 17 mission. The issue was not mission -
critical, and no repair was made. At t he end of the third EVA, Duke left a photograph of his family and
74 Andrew Chaikin, A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts (New York: Penguin Books, 2007),
496-97.
6.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 25 of 74
a U.S. Air Force medallion on the lunar surface (figures 9 through 14). Once back in lunar orbit, the
crew launched NASA’s second Particles and Fields Subsatellite from the service module, but it failed
after 35 days.
The post-mission report said, “Performance of the lunar roving vehicle was good.” Duke and Young
reported that vehicle “control was excellent,” and that it “ran in and out of the smaller secondaries
with ease.”75 In addition to the loss of the rear fender extension and the temporary loss of rear
steering, they reported elevated battery temperatures and multiple failures of instrumentation
hardware.76
Following the second rover’s performance, the third rover went “essentially u nchanged.” Only the
following minor modifications were reported: 1) fender extension stops were added to each fender to
prevent their loss; 2) a signal cable was added to provide navigation information from the rover
navigation system; 3) and a decal was added to the aft chassis to aid the crew in locating the proper
hole in which to place the pallet stop tether.77
Apollo 17
Launch: December 7, 1972, 12:33 AM EST, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Return: December 19, 1972, 2:24 PM EST, South Pacific Ocean
Mission duration: 12 days, 13 hours, 51 minutes
Lunar landing site: Taurus-Littrow Highlands (20.19° N, 30.77° E)
Lunar surface duration: 3 days, 2 hours
Launch vehicle: Saturn V (SA-512)
Payload: America (CM-114) and Challenger (LM-12); Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
Crew: Captain Eugene A. Cernan, Commander; eleventh person to walk on the Moon
Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt, Lunar Module Pilot; twelfth person to walk on the Moon
Commander Ronald E. Evans, Command Module Pilot
Apollo 17 was the first night launch in NASA’s human spaceflight program. LM pilot and geologist
Harrison Schmitt was the first scientist-astronaut to land on the Moon. Schmitt and Eugene Cernan
guided the LM Challenger to a landing site in the mountainous region of the Taurus -Littrow Highlands.
The site was chosen as a location where both older and younger rocks than those found in pr evious
missions might be found. Like the previous J-class missions, objectives for the crew of Apollo 17 were
to explore and sample the materials and surface features near the landing site, to set up and activate
ALSEP experiments on the lunar surface for long-term relay of data, and to conduct inflight
experiments and photography.
Cernan and Schmitt traversed the lunar surface in the rover during three EVAs totalin g 22 hours, four
minutes between December 11 and 14. They traveled in the rover a cumulative di stance of 22.37
75 NASA, Apollo 16 Mission Report, MSC-07230, sec. 9, p. 39-40.
76 Ibid., sec. 8, p. 1.
77 NASA, Apollo 17 Mission Report, JSC-07904, March 1973, Appendix A, p. 3, accessed February 21, 2019,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_MissionReport.pdf.
6.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 26 of 74
miles, which remains the greatest distance humans have traveled on the lunar surface, collecting a
record 243 pounds of lunar samples. During the first EVA, Cernan inadvertently broke off the right rear
fender extension, causing the crew to be covered with lunar dust when the vehicle was in motion. At
the beginning of the second EVA, the crew fashioned a replacement fender extension that lasted the
remaining duration of the mission (figure 22). It was undone after the third EVA so the materials could
be used during the return trip in the LM. The second EVA was the longest, at seven hours, 37 minutes.
At the end of the third EVA, the crew unveiled a plaque acknowledging the achievements of the Apollo
program (figures 15 through 24).
The post-mission report indicated that Rover 3’s deployment was “smooth,” its “controllability was
good, and no problems were experienced with steering, braking, or obst acle negotiation.”78 Cernan
and Schmitt reported similar problems with the battery temperature a nd rear fender as those noted
by the Apollo 16 crew, as well as minor slippage while the vehicle was in motion. Importantly, the
problems never threatened the completion of the mission. The mission report summarized the rover
this way: “The rover is an outstanding device which increased the capability of the crew to explore the
Taurus-Littrow region and enhanced the lunar surface data return by an order of magnitu de and
maybe more.”79
Apollo 17 was the only lunar surface mission to include the Traverse Gravimeter Experiment (TGE), the
Surface Electrical Properties (SEP) experiment, and a Biological Cosmic Ray Experiment (BIOCORE). The
TGE was carried on the LRV and measured relative gravity at various locations. Using a transmitting
device at the LM, the SEP sent electrical signals to an antenna on the LRV to measure electrical
properties in the lunar soil. The BIOCORE studied five mice for possible cosmic ray damage. The crew
nicknamed the mice Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Phooey, and four of the five survived the mission.80
As the crew spent their final moments on the lunar surface, Cernan said:
I'd just like to say that any part of Apollo 17 – or any part of Apollo – that has been a success thus
far is probably, for the most part, due to the thousands of peo ple in the aerospace industry who
have given a great deal – besides dedication and besides effort and besides professionalism – to
make it all a reality. And I would just like to thank them. Because what we've done here and what
has been done in the past – as a matter of fact, what has been done for 200 years – you've got to
contribute [means "attribute"] to the spirit of the group of people who form the aerospace
industry. And I say, "God bless you" and "thank you.”81
Schmitt re-entered the LM first, and as Cernan prepared to ascend the LM ladder, he said:
I'm on the surface; and, as I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to
come – but we believe not too long into the future – I'd like to just say what I believe history will
record. That America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave
78 Ibid., sec. 9, p. 1.
79 Ibid., sec. 10, p. 20
80 Colin Burgess and Chris Dubbs, Animals in Space: From Research Rockets to the Space Shuttle (New York: Springer
Publishing, 2007), 320. NASA, Apollo 17 Mission Report, JSC-07904, Appendix A, p. 25-6.
81 Eric M. Jones and Ken Glover, eds, Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal, 1995, accessed November 1, 2018,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.html.
6.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 27 of 74
the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace
and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17.82
Cernan remains the last man to have walked on the Moon.
Legacy of the Rover
In his many media interviews about the rover Boeing LRV program manager Henry Kudish always
stressed the sophistication of the vehicle. He bristled at those who compared the rover to a golf cart,
dune buggy, or a lunar Jeep, noting it had to withstand the vibrations of a launch, the extreme
temperatures during flight, the shock of landing, and t he harsh lunar landscape.83 Years later in 1988,
at a conference on 21st century space activity, his NASA counterpart Saverio F. Morea echoed Kudish
in arguing that the rover “truly embodied the sophistication of a spacecraft.” He hoped that the design
and construction of the rover would inform contemporary space planners as they revisited the topics
of lunar bases and exploring other planets.84 It would be another nine years, and a quarter century
after Apollo 17, before NASA landed a rover on another celest ial body – the Sojourner, a remotely
operated robot designed for scientific experiments on Mars .
The imagination and knowledge that resulted in the LRV was transferred to solving other technological
challenges on Earth. Scientists and researchers in pr ivate industry and government research agencies
advanced the rover’s pioneering vehicle concepts in their studies of mobility, navigation, and robotics.
For example, Mieczyslaw G. Bekker, a leading expert in the design and locomotion of military and off -
road vehicles who had consulted with NASA, Boeing, and others during the rover studies of the 196 0s,
published a seminal work in 1969 advancing the latest vehicle mobility theories in Introduction to
Terrain-Vehicle Systems.85 The U.S. Bureau of Mines was particularly interested in the rover’s robotics
and mobility technologies for adaptation in mines. The rover technology informed 1970s-era
researchers studying mobility aids for disabled persons. In particular, the joystick hand -controller
concept proved useful for both wheelchairs and aut omobiles.86
The experiences and discoveries of the Apollo missions continue to inform all these years later. On
March 11, 2019, NASA announced the selection of nine teams to study pieces of the Moon that have
been stored and gone untouched for nearly 50 years. The samples, collected during the Apollo 15, 16,
and 17 missions from 1971 and 1972, were stored for study at a later date when technology would be
more advanced.87
82 Ibid.
83 Kudish, 270. Roger Koch, “Sophisticated Lunar Rover Vehicle More than A ‘Tough Jeep,’” Boeing News, December
4, 1969, p. 4. “Lunar Rover Features Electric Drive Wheels, Swivel Seats,” Boeing News, December 11, 1969, p. 4.
84 Morea, 631.
85 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 212.
86 E. Peizer, “Technical Aids,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2 (1978): 107.
87 NASA, “NASA Selects Teams to Study Untouched Moon Samples,” March 11, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019,
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-teams-to-study-untouched-moon-samples.
6.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 28 of 74
Today, the Apollo missions are back in the news as half-century anniversary dates come and go and as
space exploration receives renewed attention . 88 Although Boeing’s presence in Kent is considerably
less than it was during the Space Race, other aerospace firms such as Blue Origin have filled the void.89
Kent remains poised to again play a central role in a return to the Moon.
88 NASA, “NASA Unveils Sustainable Campaign to Return to the Moon, on to Mars,” September 18, 2018, accessed
March 15, 2019, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-unveils-sustainable-campaign-to-return-to-moon-on-to-mars.
89 Marc Stiles, “Boeing Selling 72 Acres in Kent to IDS for Warehouses,” Puget Sound Business Journal, December 11,
2012, accessed March 15, 2019, https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/12/11/california-company-plans-
large.html.
6.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 29 of 74
INDEX OF IMAGES
Figure 1 Map of the Moon, with Apollo J-mission landing sites highlighted
Figure 2 Apollo 15 Lunar Site, in the Hadley-Apennine region, 1971
Figure 3 Apollo 15 Lunar Site, vertical view of the Hadley-Apennine region, 1971
Figure 4 Apollo 15 Lunar Site, close-in view showing visible remnants of the mission, 2011
Figure 5 Apollo 15 astronaut David R. Scott, seated in the LRV, Jul. 31, 1971
Figure 6 Apollo 15 astronaut James B. Irwin, near the LRV, Jul. 31, 1971
Figure 7 Apollo 15 astronaut James B. Irwin salutes flag, Aug. 1, 1971
Figure 8 Apollo 15 traverse map noting location of LM and paths pf LRV during three EVAs
Figure 9 Apollo 16 Lunar Site, in the Descartes Highlands region, 1972
Figure 10 Apollo 16 Lunar Site, vertical view of the Descartes Highlands region, 1972
Figure 11 Apollo 16 Lunar Site, close-in view showing visible remnants of the mission, 2011
Figure 12 Apollo 16 astronaut John W. Young, with LRV behind him, Apr. 23, 1972
Figure 13 Apollo 16 astronaut John W. Young drives the LRV, Apr. 21, 1972
Figure 14 Apollo 16 traverse map noting location of LM and paths pf LRV during three EVAs
Figure 15 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, in the Taurus-Littrow Highlands and valley area, 1972
Figure 16 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, vertical view of the Taurus-Littrow Highlands and valley area, 1972
Figure 17 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, close-in view showing visible remnants of the mission, 2011
Figure 18 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, extreme close-in view of LRV in final parking spot, 2011
Figure 19 Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene A. Cernan driving the LRV, Dec. 11, 1972
Figure 20 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, LRV sits parked, Dec. 1972
Figure 21 Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene A. Cernan next to the LRV, Dec. 13, 1972
Figure 22 Apollo 17 close-up of LRV with makeshift repair to fender, Dec. 12, 1972
Figure 23 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, LRV shown in final parking spot, Dec. 13, 1972
Figure 24 Apollo 17 traverse map noting location of LM and paths pf LRV during three EVAs
Figure 25 “Lunar Roving Vehicle – Spacecraft on Wheels [2-page flyer].” Boeing, ca. 1971
Figure 26 “LRV Detail Drawing.” Boeing News, July 8, 1971, p. 3
Figure 27 “LRV Components and Dimensions.” NASA Press Kit for Apollo 15
Figure 28 LRV Line Drawing: LRV Stowed Payload Installation, NASA-MSFC News Release, 1971
Figure 29 LRV shown folded for stowage on spacecraft, at Boeing Space Center, Mar. 1971
Figure 30 Illustration of LRV Deployment Sequence
Figure 31 Boeing advertisement about Kent Space Center, Kent News-Journal, Aug. 19, 1964
Figure 32 Boeing’s new Space Center, Boeing News, Aug. 5, 1965
Figure 33 Illustrations of Boeing’s MOLAB, Boeing News, Jun. 3, 1965.
Figure 34 Boeing LRV Program secretary Sharron Scott, sitting in an LRV, 1971
Figure 35 Boeing LRV Program secretary Judy William, 1965
Figure 36 News clipping and photo of the first LRV, Mar. 10, 1971
Figure 37 Mayor Isabel Hogan examines Rover 2, Kent News-Journal, Aug. 18, 1971
Figure 38 Kendall Brookbank, age 10, with a tin-foil replica rover, Kent News-Journal, Jul. 28, 1971
Figure 39 Kent Jaycees “moon buggy” button
Figure 40 Boeing’s R. H. Nelson, wearing a “moon buggy” button
Figure 41 Table showing LRV performance during Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions
6.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 30 of 74
Figure 1: This map of the Moon shows the Apollo J-mission landing sites in green. The arrows point to
missions 15 (left), 16 (center), and 17 (right). Digital image archived by NASA at
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/moon_landing_map.jpg
6.a
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 31 of 74
Figure 2: Apollo 15 Lunar Site. The arrow points to the Hadley-Apennine landing site, adjacent to the
Apennine mountain range. NASA photograph AS15-M-1537, taken Aug. 1, 1971. Digital image archived
by NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_id=AS15-M-
1537
6.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 32 of 74
Figure 3: Apollo 15 Lunar Site – Vertical View. The arrow points to the Hadley-Apennine landing site,
adjacent to the Apennine mountain range. NASA photograph AS15-M-1135, taken Aug. 1, 1971. Digital
image archived by NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at:
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_id=AS15-M-1135
6.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 33 of 74
Figure 4: Apollo 15 Lunar Site – 2011. The white arrows point to the visible remnants of the mission,
and the small black arrows point to LRV tracks. This image was taken fro m an altitude of 25 km by the
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University,
M175252641L. This and other LRO imagery at:
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandingSites
6.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 34 of 74
Figure 5: Apollo 15 astronaut David R. Scott is seated in the LRV during the first EVA at the Hadley-
Apennine landing site. Astronau t James B. Irwin took the photograph. NASA photograph AS15-85-
11471, taken Jul. 31, 1971. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-85-11471.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 35 of 74
Figure 6: Apollo 15 astronaut James B. Irwin works near the LRV during the first EVA at the Hadley-
Apennine landing site. Mount Hadley is in the background. Astronaut David R. Scott took the
photograph. NASA photograph AS15-86-11603, taken Jul. 31, 1971. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-86-11603.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 36 of 74
Figure 7: Apollo 15 astronaut James B. Irwin gives a military salute while standing beside the deployed
United States flag during the mission’s second EVA at the Hadley -Apennine landing site. The Falcon
Lunar Module is in the center, and the LRV is to the right. Hadley Delta rises in the background.
Astronaut David R. Scott took the photograph. NASA photograph AS15-88-11866, taken Aug. 1, 1971.
Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-88-11866.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 37 of 74
Figure 8: Apollo 15 Traverse Map. The X marks the location of the Fa lcon Lunar Module. The dark lines
indicate the paths taken by the astronauts in the LRV during the three EVAs. The numbers reference
scientific sampling stations. Source: James R. Zimbelman, Lunar and Planetary Institute website:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/
6.a
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 38 of 74
Figure 9: Apollo 16 Lunar Site. The arrow points to the landing site in the Descartes Highlands. NASA
photograph AS16-M-2464, taken Apr. 23, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA/JSC/Arizona State
University at http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_name=AS16-M-2464
6.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 39 of 74
Figure 10: Apollo 16 Lunar Site – Vertical View. The arrow points to the landing site in the Descartes
Highlands. NASA photograph AS16-M-0161, taken Apr. 21, 1972. Digital image archived by
NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_id=AS16-M-0161
6.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 40 of 74
Figure 11: Apollo 16 Lunar Site – 2011. The arrows point to the visible remnants of the mission and the
LRV tracks. The Lunar Portable Magnetometer (LPM) is closest to the LRV. This image was taken from
an altitude of 23 km by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona
State University, M175179080. This and other LRO imagery at:
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandingSite s
6.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 41 of 74
Figure 12: Apollo 16 astronaut John W. Young collects samples at the North Ray Crater geol ogical site
on the mission’s third and final EVA. The LRV is parked behind him. NASA photograph AS16-117-18825,
taken Apr. 23, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-117-18825.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 42 of 74
Figure 13: Apollo 16 astronaut John W. Young drives the LRV near the Descartes Highlands landing site
on the mission’s first EVA. This view is a frame fro m motion picture film camera held by astronaut
Charles M. Duke, Jr. NASA photograph S72-37002, taken Apr. 21, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA
at: https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/s72-37002.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 43 of 74
Figure 14: Apollo 16 Traverse Map. The X marks the location of the Orion Lunar Module. The dark lines
indicate the paths taken by the astronauts in the LRV during the three EVAs. The numbers reference
scientific sampling stations. Source: James R. Zimbelman, Lunar and Planetary Institute website:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/
6.a
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 44 of 74
Figure 15: Apollo 17 Lunar Site. The arrow points to the landing site in the Taurus-Littrow Highlands
and valley area. NASA photograph AS17-M-0939, taken Dec. 12, 1972. Digital image archived by
NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_name=AS17-M-
0939
6.a
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 45 of 74
Figure 16: Apollo 17 Lunar Site – Vertical View. The arrow points to the landing site in the Taurus-
Littrow Highlands and valley area. NASA photograph AS17-M-0447, taken Dec. 11, 1972. Digital image
archived by NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at:
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_name=AS17 -M-0447
6.a
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 46 of 74
Figure 17: Apollo 17 Lunar Site – 2011. The arrows point to the visible remnants of the mission and
LRV tracks. This image was taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Image Credit:
NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University, M168000580R. This and other LRO imagery at:
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandin gSites
6.a
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 47 of 74
Figure 18: Extreme Enlargement of Apollo 17 LRV – 2011. The graphic shows an enlargement of the
LRV (left), an image of the LRV in its final parking spot (bottom right), and a schematic of the LRV
(upper right). The enlarged image was taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Image Credit:
NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University, M168000580R. This and other LRO digital images are archived by
NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University at: http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandingSites
6.a
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 48 of 74
Figure 19: Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene A. Cernan checks the LRV at the start of the mission’s fi rst EVA
at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. The Challenger Lunar Module is in the background. The photograph
was taken by scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt. NASA photograph AS17-147-22527, taken Dec.
11, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-147-22527.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 49 of 74
Figure 20: Apollo 17 mission. The LRV sits parked on the lunar surface near the Taurus-Littrow landing
site. NASA photograph AS17-146-22367, taken Dec. 1972. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17 -146-22367.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 50 of 74
Figure 21: Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene A. Cernan approaches the parked LRV during the mission’s third
and final EVA. South Massif can be seen in the background. The photograph was taken by scientist-
astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt. NASA photograph AS17-134-20476, taken Dec. 13, 1972. Digital image
archived by NASA at: https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-134-
20476.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 51 of 74
Figure 22: Apollo 17 – A close-up view of the LRV at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. Note the
makeshift repair arrangement on the right rear fender of the LRV. Following a suggestion from
astronaut John W. Young in the Mission Control Center at Houston the crewmen repaired the fender
early in EVA-2 using lunar maps and clamps from the optical alignment telescope lamp. Schmitt is
seated in the rover. Cernan took this picture. NASA photograph AS17-137-20979, taken Dec. 12, 1972.
Digital image archived by NASA at
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17 -137-20979.html
6.a
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 52 of 74
Figure 23: Apollo 17 – the LRV is shown in its final parking spot, with the LM in the background. By the
time Eugene Cernan took this photograph, he had already removed the replacement fender at the
right rear and, also, had removed the left rear fender extension. NASA photograph AS17-143-21931,
taken Dec. 13, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21036715824
6.a
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 53 of 74
Figure 24: Apollo 17 Traverse Map. The X marks the location of the Challenger Lunar Module. The dark
lines indicate the paths taken by the a stronauts in the LRV during the three EVAs. The numbers
reference scientific sampling stations. Source: James R. Zimbelman, Lunar and Planetary Institute
website: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/
6.a
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 54 of 74
Figure 25: “Lunar Roving Vehicle – Spacecraft on Wheels [2-page flyer].” The Boeing Company,
Industrial Relations, ca. 1971. The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
6.a
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 55 of 74
Figure 26: “LRV Detail Drawing.” Boeing News, July 8, 1971, p. 3. A similar version of this detail drawing
appeared on page 79 of NASA Press Kit for Apollo 15, Release no. 71 -119K. Archived by NASA at:
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf
6.a
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 56 of 74
Figure 27: “LRV Components and Dimensions.” NASA Press Kit for Apollo 15, Release no. 71-119K, p.
80. Archived by NASA at: https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf
6.a
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 57 of 74
Figure 28: NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center. News release of LRV Line Drawing: LRV Stowed Payload
Installation. Photo 0-10844. Release date March 1, 1971. The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives.
Bellevue, WA.
6.a
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 58 of 74
Figure 29: Lunar Roving Vehicle Shown Folded for Stowage on Spacecraft. Mar. 1971. 2A302135. The
Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
6.a
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 59 of 74
Figure 30: “LRV Deployment Sequence.” The LRV was a collapsible, open-space vehicle measuring
about 10 feet long with large mesh wheels, antenna, appendages, tool caddies, and cameras. NASA
Press Kit for Apollo 16, Release no.72-64K, p. 117. Archived by NASA at:
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_PressKit.pdf
6.a
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 60 of 74
Figure 31: Boeing advertisement about the forthcoming Kent Space Center. Kent News-Journal, Aug.
19, 1964, Diamond Jubilee Edition, p. 5.
6.a
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 61 of 74
Figure 32: Boeing’s new Space Center. Boeing News, Aug. 5, 1965, p. 1.
6.a
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 62 of 74
Figure 33: Illustration of Boeing’s MOLAB, a precursor to the lunar roving vehicle. It featured six
wheels, a pressurized cabin, and it weighed nearly 8,000 pounds. Boeing News, Jun. 3, 1965, p. 4.
6.a
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 63 of 74
Figure 34: Sharron Scott, a secretary in Boeing’s Kent-based LRV program, is shown in this promotional
photograph for the rover. The accompanying action memo was signed by Boeing public relations staff
Jim Grafton and Jack Wecker with the instruction not to release the photo until July 31, 1971 – after
the launch of Apollo 15. Subsequent publication of the p hoto in newspapers has not been found.
Photograph P47742, The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
Figure 35: LRV program secretary Judy Williams is shown below. Boeing News, Mar. 11, 1965, p. 1
6.a
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 64 of 74
Figure 36: The first complete LRV, seen in the bottom photo on March 10, 1971, the day Boeing
officially transferred it to NASA. Photograph 2A302169, The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives.
Bellevue, WA. The newspaper article is from Boeing News, March 18, 1971, p. 1.
6.a
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 65 of 74
Figure 37: Mayor Isabel Hogan examines Boeing’s Rover 2 during the unveiling ceremony at the Kent
Space Center. Kent News-Journal, Aug. 18, 1971, p. 1.
6.a
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 66 of 74
Figure 38: Kendall Brookbank, age 10, stands beside a tinfoil re plica rover. Kent News-Journal, Jul. 28,
1971, p. 3.
6.a
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 67 of 74
Figure 39: The Kent Jaycees sold these blue and white buttons reading Kent, Washington – Home of
the Boeing Moon Buggy as a fundraising project in the fall of 1971.
Figure 40: Boeing’s R. H. Nelson receives one of the Jaycee’s buttons from Kent Chamber
representative Hal Barrentine. Kent News-Journal, Oct. 15, 1971, p. 8.
6.a
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 68 of 74
Figure 41: Table showing Lunar Roving Vehicle performance during Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions.
Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Apollo Program Summary Report (JSC-
09423). Houston, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, April 1975, p. 4-101. Accessed Feb. 22, 2019.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/APSR-JSC-09423.pdf
6.a
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 69 of 74
PART IV: MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
9. Previous Documentation
Atkins, Harris (Retired Engineer, LRV Program, Boeing). “Bring the Moon to Downtown Kent.”
Interview by Michelle Wilmot and Edgar Riebe, City of Kent, May 9, 2018. Accessed October 15.
2018. https://vimeo.com/272473790.
Bauer, E. E. Boeing: The First Century. Enumclaw, WA: TABA Publishing, 2000.
The Boeing Company website. “Apollo Lunar Spacecraft: Historical Snapshot.” Accessed January 25,
2019. https://www.boeing.com/history/products/apollo-lunar-spacecraft.page.
The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
The Boeing Company. “Lunar Roving Vehicle [25-page booklet].” Undated [ca. 1972].
The Boeing Company, Aerospace Group. “Organization Bulletin: Transfer of Lunar Roving Vehicle
Qualification Vehicle and Flight Vehicle Assembly.” September 3, 1970.
The Boeing Company, Aerospace Group. “Organization Bulletin: Lunar Roving Vehicle / Apollo
Program Relationships.” November 3, 1970.
The Boeing Company, Industrial Relations. Lunar Roving Vehicle – Spacecraft On Wheels [2-page
flyer]. Undated.
The Boeing Company, LRV Systems Engineering. Lunar Roving Vehicle Familiarization. June 3, 1971.
NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center. News release of LRV Line Drawing: LRV Stowed Payload
Installation. Photo 0-10844. Release date March 1, 1971.
Photograph Collection
Lunar Roving Vehcile Shown Folded For Stowage on Spacecraft. Mar. 1971. 2A302135.
Use the space below to cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form (use continuation
sheet if necessary).
Previous documentation on file: Primary location of additional data:
included in King County Historic Resource Inventory #
Multiple
State Historic Preservation Office
previously designated a King County Landmark #47 Other State agency
previously designated a Community Landmark Federal agency
listed in Washington State Register of Historic Places King County Historic Preservation Program
preliminary determination of individual listing Local government
(36 CFR 67) has been requested University
previously listed in the National Register Other (specify repository)
previously determined eligible by the National Register The Boeing Co., Bellevue, WA
designated a National Historic Landmark NASA libraries (online)
recorded by Historic American Buildings, Survey #: Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA
recorded by Historic American Engineering, Rec. #:
Bibliography
6.a
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 70 of 74
Lunar Roving Vehicle Ready for Moon Journey. Mar. 1971. 2A302169.
Sharron Scott, Boeing Secretary, Poses In LRV. No date. P47742.
The Boeing Company. Lunar Roving Vehicle Engineering Mock-up. Constructed 1971. Museum of Flight
Museum Collections, Seattle, WA. Personal visit and online. Accessed Oct ober 15, 2018.
http://www.museumofflight.org/spacecraft/boeing-lunar-roving-vehicle-engineering-mock.
[No Author] “Boeing Gets $20 Million Apollo Integration Job.” Roundup 6, no. 8 (June 23, 1967): 1.
[Publication of NASA’s Manned Space Center, Houston, TX]
[No Author] “The Boeing Lunar Rover will be the First Car on the Moon.” Boeing Magazine 40: No. 2
(February 1970): 12-14.
Boeing News.
“New Space Laboratories Planned at Kent Site.” February 6, 1964.
“First Unit Moves into Kent Center; Tests by Autumn.” March 11, 1965.
“Compact Car for Moon Tourists Also Their Home on Wheels.” June 3, 1965.
“Stripped-Down Moon Buggy for Scientific Survey Studied.” July 15, 1965.
“New Kent Headquarters for Space Division Announced.” August 5, 1965.
Koch, Roger. “Sophisticated Lunar Rover Vehicle More Than A ‘Tough Jeep.’” December 4, 1969.
“Lunar Rover Features Electric Drive Wheels, Swivel Seats.” December 11, 1969.
“Rover Program Moves Forward.” June 25, 1970.
“For Apollo 15.” February 4, 1971.
“NASA Receives First Lunar Rover Vehicle.” March 18, 1971.
“LRV Detail Drawing.” July 8, 1971.
“Astronauts Praise Near Perfect Show by Lunar Vehicle.” August 5, 1971.
Naucler, Cindy. “Boeing Engineers Rebuild a Piece of Apollo History.” May 5, 1995.
Burgess, Colin, and Chris Dubbs. Animals in Space: From Research Rockets to the Space Shuttle. New
York: Springer Publishing, 2007.
Burkhalter, Bettye B., and Mitchell R. Sharpe. “Lunar Roving Vehicle: Historical Origins, Development
and Deployment.” Journal of The British Interplanetary Society 48 (1995): 199-212.
Clothier, William. “New Space Center Sharpens the Forward Edge of Research.” Boeing Magazine 30,
No. 10 (October 1965): 3-5.
Cernan, Eugene, and Don Davis. The Last Man on the Moon: Astronaut Eugene Cernan and America’s
Race in Space. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. [Cernan was part of Apollo 17]
Chaikin, Andrew. A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts. New York: Penguin
Books, 2007.
6.a
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 71 of 74
Kent News-Journal
“Space Labs to be Built This Year.” February 5, 1964.
“Kent…Space Age City.” [Diamond Jubilee Edition, multiple articles] August 19, 1964.
“Aero Structures to Bring 100+ Employes [sic] to Kent.” September 15, 1965.
“Boeing Receives $19 Million Contract for Moon Vehicles.” October 31, 1969.
“County to Seek U.S. Cash, Cities to Act on Layoffs.” January 16, 1970.
Carter, Wini. “Astronauts Blastoff with Moon Buggy.” July 28, 1971.
“No Ordinary Car.” July 28, 1971.
“Kent Space Center Employment ‘Stable.’” August 11, 1971.
“Moon Riders Return Home.” August 11, 1971.
“Apollo 16 Lunar Roving Vehicle Unveiled at Kent Space Center .” August 18, 1971.
“Moon Buggy Buttons Go Over Big, Say Jaycees.” October 13, 1971.
Carter, Wini. “3 Astronauts Tour Center.” October 15, 1971.
“He’s Stuck on the Moon Buggy.” October 15, 1971.
“Boeing Opens Kent Lab Service to Industries.” April 19, 1972 .
Jones, Eric M., and Ken Glover, eds. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journals. [An online journal hosted by
NASA that features original transcripts, video clips, photographs, subsequent reports, etc.]
Accessed Nov. 1, 2018: https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/main.h tml.
Kennedy, John F. Special message to Congress on urgent national needs, 25 May 1961. Papers of John
F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President's Office Files. Speech Files. Accessed November 9,
2018. https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKPOF/034/JFKPOF-034-030.
Kershner, Jim. “Boeing and Washington’s Aerospace Industry, 1934-2015.” HistoryLink.org Online
Encyclopedia of Washington State History, Essay #11111, 2015. Accessed Oct. 15, 2018:
http://www.historylink.org/File/11111.
Kudish, Henry. “The Lunar Rover.” Spaceflight: A Publication of The British Interplanetary Society 12,
no. 7 (July 1970): 270-274. [Kudish was Boeing’s LRV Program Manager.]
Laursen, Lucas. “The Moon Belongs to No One, but What About Its Artifacts?” Smithsonian.c om.
December 13, 2013. Accessed February 22, 2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-
nature/the-moon-belongs-to-no-one-but-what-about-its-artifacts-180948062/.
Lentz, Florence K. Kent: Valley of Opportunity. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1990.
Lombardi, Michael. Corporate Historian, The Boeing Company. Personal Communication, Fall 2018.
Lyons, Richard D. “Jeep Will Introduce Traffic to Moon.” The New York Times. November 9, 1969.
Morea, Saverio F. “The Lunar Roving Vehicle, A Historical Perspective.” The Second Conference on
Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century NASA Conference Publication 3166, vol. 2
(1992): 619-632. Accessed October 15, 2018.
6.a
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 72 of 74
https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/lunar/LRV_Historical_Perspective.pdf [Morea was NASA’s LRV
Program Manager.]
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, As Amended. Accessed M arch 1, 2019.
https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Apollo 15 Mission Report, MSC-05161.
December 1971. Accessed February 21, 2019. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/ap15mr.pdf.
________. Apollo 15 Press Kit, Release no. 71-119K. July 1971. Accessed December 28, 2018,
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf.
________. Apollo 16 Mission Report, MSC-07230. August 1972. Accessed February 21, 2019.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_MissionReport.pdf.
________. Apollo 16 Press Kit, Release no. 72-64K. April 1972. Accessed December 28, 2018.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_PressKit.pdf.
________. Apollo 17 Mission Report, JSC-07904. March 1973. Accessed February 21, 2019.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_MissionReport.pdf.
________. Apollo 17 Press Kit, Release no. 72-220K. November 1972. Accessed December 28, 2018.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_PressKit.pdf.
________. Apollo Program Summary Report (JSC-09423). Houston, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson Space
Center, April 1975. Accessed February 22, 2019. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/APSR -JSC-
09423.pdf.
________. “The Apollo Missions.” Accessed November 1, 2018.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/index.html.
________. “LRV Flight Model Delivery.” Kennedy Space Center News Release, KSC-41-71, March 10,
1971. Accessed Nov ember 8, 2018. [Page 13 of PDF]
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/744322main_1971.pdf.
________. “NASA Image and Video Library.” Accessed November 1, 2018. https://images.nasa.gov/
[Pre-mission artists’ renderings and NASA images before and during each mission.]
________. “NASA Selects Teams to Study Untouched Moon Samples,” March 11, 2019. Accessed
March 15, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-teams-to-study-untouched-moon-
samples.
________. “NASA Unveils Sustainable Campaign to Return to the Moon, on to Mars.” September 18,
2018. Accessed March 15, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-unveils-sustainable-
campaign-to-return-to-moon-on-to-mars.
6.a
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 73 of 74
NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Arizona State University. Lunar Reconnaissance Oribter:
Apollo Landing Sites imagery. 2009-present. Accessed January 18, 2019.
https://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites#ApolloLandingSites.
NASA Space Science and Data Center. “The Apollo Program (1963 -1972).” Accessed December 28,
2018. https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html.
Peizer, E. “Technical Aids.” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2 (1978): 105-110. Accessed January
21, 2019. http://www.oandplibrary.org/poi/pdf/1978_02_105.pdf.
Powell, Corey S., and Laurie Gwen Shapiro. “The Sculpture on the Moon.” Slate. December 16, 2013.
Accessed January 31, 2019.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/sculpture_on_the_moon_p
aul_van_hoeydonck_s_fallen_astronaut.html.
Scott, David M., and Richard Jurek. Marketing the Moon: The Selling of the Apollo Lunar Program.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2014.
The Seattle Times
McDonald, Lucile. “Farmers Take Steps to Speed Kent’s Industrialization.” July 8, 1956.
“Mayor Welcomes Boeing To Kent.” February 4, 1964.
“Kent Center Gets First Employes [sic].” March 11, 1965.
Twiss, Robert L. “Now It’s Green (back) River Valley.” October 24, 1965.
Twiss, Robert L. “4,000 at Dedication of Boeing Space Center.” October 30, 1965.
“Boeing Rolls Out Version of Lunar Unit.” December 23, 1970.
“Boeing On The Moon.” [multiple articles] August 1, 1971.
“Space Agency Honors Boeing Employe [sic].” October 12, 1971.
Stein, Alan J. “Kent – A Thumbnail History.” HistoryLink.org Online Encyclopedia of Washington State
History, Essay #3587, 2001. Accessed November 28, 2018. http://historylink.org/File/3587.
Stiles, Marc. “Boeing Selling 72 Acres in Kent to IDS for Wareh ouses.” Puget Sound Business Journal,
December 11, 2012. Accessed March 15, 2019.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/12/11/california-company-plans-large.html.
von Braun, Wernher. “Crossing the Last Frontier.” Collier’s Weekly, March 22, 1952, pp. 24-29.
________. “How We’ll Travel on the Moon.” Popular Science 184, No. 2 (February 1964): 18-26.
Accessed October 15, 2018.
https://books.google.com/books?id=qS0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false.
________ and Fred L. Whipple. “Man on the Moon: The Exploration.” Collier’s Weekly, October 25,
1952, pp. 38-45.
6.a
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 74 of 74
________. “Man on the Moon: The Journey.” Collier’s Weekly, October 18, 1952, pp. 52-55.
Winch, John (Retired Engineer, LRV Program, Boeing). “Bring the Moon to Downtown Kent.” Interview
by Michelle Wilmot and Edgar Riebe, City of Kent, May 14, 2018. Accessed October 15, 2018.
https://vimeo.com/272473790.
Zimbelman, James R. “The Apollo Landing Sites – Slide Set.” Lunar and Planetary Institute website.
Accessed December 28, 2018. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/.
6.a
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: May 13, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Michelle Wilmot, Economic Development Project Manager
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding with Kent Downtown
Partnership for the Lunar Rover Replica Capital Campaign
MOTION: Recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Kent and the Kent
Downtown Partnership to conduct a capital campaign to purchase and
install an interactive lunar rover replica as part of the planned
redevelopment of Kherson Park in the heart of Kent’s historic downtown,
subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the Economic and
Community Development Department Director and City Attorney.
SUMMARY: The plan for redevelopment of Kherson Park with a theme of space
exploration is already well underway. An interactive replica of the suits worn on the
first moon walks has already been commissioned and is currently on display at
accessoShoWare Center to raise awareness of the vital role Kent’s preeminent
companies played in the early days of space exploration.
Kent is home to the Boeing-built Apollo Lunar Rovers. The city greatly appreciates
the support of the Kent Downtown Partnership in the planned redevelopment of
Kherson Park to include an interactive Lunar Rover Replica as a perfect companion
to the astronaut. This meaningful project provides an opportunity to celebrate an
historic, national feat; one that is closely connected to the City’s local history, its
present and future.
To raise the funds necessary to create an inspiring, educational and historically
significant public space, worthy of the major innovations Kent should be recognized
for, a capital campaign consultant is needed to develop an appropriately broad and
deep campaign to achieve the goal.
As a tax exempt 501c3 non-profit, the Kent Downtown Partnership can receive tax
deductible donations to help fund the campaign, including access to critically
important corporate matching dollars, which will be instrumental in achieving the
campaign’s goals. As a long-time supporter of public and private efforts to revitalize
Kent’s historic downtown, our partnership with Kent Downtown Partnership on this
project creates a special opportunity to celebrate our past and create a an exciting
new public space for our community.
7
Packet Pg. 82
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure, Innovative Government
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memorandum of Understanding (PDF)
2. Mayor and Astronaut (PDF)
3. Lunar Rover Design (PDF)
7
Packet Pg. 83
KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kuft Hanson, Director
220 4tn Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Fax: 253-856-6454
PHONE: 253-856-5454
WasHtNcloN
From:
Date:
¡o Barb Smith, Executive Director, Kent Downtown partnership
Jeff Middleton, President, Kent Downtown partnership
Bill Ellis, Chief Economic Development Officer, City of Kent
April 19, 2019
Subject:Memorandum of understanding (Mou) between the city of Kent (city) and
Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP) for the Lunar Rover capital campaign
(Campaign)
With Kent being home to the Boeing-built Apollo Lunar Rovers, the City greatly appreciates the
support of the KDP of the City's efforts in its Kherson Park redevelopment project and the
placement of an interactive Lunar Rover replica at the park.
This meaningful project provides an opportunity to celebrate an historic, national feat; one that
is so closely connected to the city's local history, present, and future.
To raise the funds necessary to create an inspiring, educational and historically significant
public space, a capital campaign consultant (Consultant) is needed to develop the Campaign to
achieve the fundraising goal,
As a tax exempt 501c3 non-profit, the KDP can receive tax deductible donations to help fund
the Campaign (Campaign Donations), including access to critically important corporate
matching dollars, helping the Campaign reach its financial goal.
TERMS:
This MOU will be for the length of the Campaign, until such time as the park is
dedicated, ideally by December 2020, but no later than August 202L, marking
the 50th anniversary of the Lunar Rover's use during Rpollo f S
The KDP will receive Campaign Donations and deposit and hold those Campaign
Donations in a separate bank account exclusively for the campaign,
Any expenses for the Campaign, including, but not limited to, reimbursement to
the city for its purchase of the lunar rover replica, anticipated city park
improvements, campaign consultant fees, and campaign event fees, will be paid
exclusively from Campaign Donations.
The KDP will not be responsible for any campaign expenses beyond the
Campaign Donations.
The KDP will not commingle the Campaign Donations with any other money
donated to or earned by the KDP.
The KDP will contract with the Consultant, chosen by the City, which contract
will be paid with Campaign Donations.
Staff from the City will manage the Consultant and serve as liaison between the
Consultant and the KDP.
a
a
a
a
O
a
aoI
3
cqJY
a Mayor Dana Ra¡ph
City of Kent Economic & Community Development
7.a
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
(
1
7
7
0
:
M
O
U
w
i
t
h
K
e
n
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
)
The KDP logo, along with the City of Kent logo, will be featured on all Campaign
promotional media as the campaign's tax-exempt non-profit partner.
Accepted and agreed to:
ith, Executive rector Kent D owntown Partnership Date
d Presi t Downtown Partnership Date
a
/
Dana Ralph, Mayor, City of Kent Date
7.a
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
(
1
7
7
0
:
M
O
U
w
i
t
h
K
e
n
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
)
7.b
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
a
y
o
r
a
n
d
A
s
t
r
o
n
a
u
t
(
1
7
7
0
:
M
O
U
w
i
t
h
K
e
n
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
Page 1 of 1
5/2/2019https://128dagwixzkuuk9y3guyf7fd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-con...
7.c
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
1
7
7
0
:
M
O
U
w
i
t
h
K
e
n
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
)
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: May 13, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Department
Director
SUBJECT: Appoint Greg Haffner to the Public Facilities District Board
MOTION: Recommend the Council appoint Greg Haffner to fill the recently
vacated Position Number 2 of the Public Facilities District Board, for the
remainder of the 4-year term that will expire on August 31, 2021.
SUMMARY:
On March 15, 2019, Chair Mike Miller resigned his position No. 2 on the Public
Facilities District Board. Section 6.3 of the board’s bylaws requires vacancies to be
filled by appointment of the City Council.
Mayor Ralph and staff worked with Council President Boyce to find a qualified
candidate to fill the vacancy.
Greg Haffner is a long-time resident of Kent and supporter of City activities. Greg is
an attorney at the Curran Law firm, is a past president of the Kent Downtown
Partnership, and is a current member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce. Greg and
his wife Debbie are avid Thunderbird fans and attend more events at Showare
Center than almost anyone else. Greg will be a welcome addition to the Public
Facilities District Board.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Innovative Government
8
Packet Pg. 88
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development Director
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
253-856-5454
DATE: May 13, 2019
TO: Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Senior Long Range Planner
SUBJECT: Rally the Valley Update
SUMMARY:
The Rally the Valley effort to develop a new vision for Kent’s industrial valley is
underway. Staff and consultants held the first meeting of the Rally the Valley
advisory panel on April 24th. The panel was shown three examples of subarea
planning processes in other jurisdictions to demonstrate the kinds of information
and recommendations that could result from Rally the Valley. The panel was asked
to weigh in on what they see as Kent’s distinctive advantages and opportunities, as
well as the City’s challenges and constraints to achieving a vision similar to what
was imagined in the example subarea plans.
The panel was enthusiastic about creating connections between downtown
amenities and businesses in the valley, as well as bringing hotels and
meeting/event space nearby for businesses to use. Panel members encouraged
better investment Kent’s assets, such as the Green River Trail and Interurban Trail,
and increased marketing and communication about the City’s cultural events like
the farmers’ market and Cornucopia Days. The panel cautioned staff about
introducing retail into the industrial valley, as many retail centers are currently
struggling to keep spaces rented. Panel members felt that the Kent valley doesn’t
have sufficient population density to support a large number of retail and restaurant
establishments. Staff also questioned the panel about the concept of housing in the
industrial valley, and affordability for the average wages in the valley was a primary
concern. Many Kent industrial valley workers can’t afford to live in Kent, so they
live in Pierce County and commute long distances to work. Some panel members
also felt that housing in the valley would not be financially viable for developers.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Innovative Community
9
Packet Pg. 89