„The Gagarin Thing“

June 27th, 1961

The subject of this laboratory study was the so-called “Gagarin Thing”, an object of unknown purpose found in the Vostok 1 module upon its return to Earth. As the circumstances of its appearance onboard remain uncertain (the only thing we can confirm is that the object had not been part of the module’s equipment on startup), our laboratory was entrusted with the task of subjecting the item to specific examinations and tests. The objective of the project was to specify the type of item we were dealing with.
Manipulating the object soon proved to be a serious problem. The high temperature it released made its removal from the side of the cabin rather challenging and required a high expedition of energy. The means by which the object was attached to the body of the cabin was found be some sort of an “energetic source”.

A vertical cut through the cabin where the GT was found

“The Energetic Source”

Apart from emitting excessive heat and light, the “source” was also later found to be the epicenter of harmful radiation. It took no more than a few days for unwelcome symptoms to manifest in the organisms of those who had manipulated the object, and as the deadline for developing sufficient protection was too short, we were forced to separate the “source” from the object to ensure no one was harmed. Due to this unfortunate factor, the “source” was subjected only to three tests; their results are described in reports that have already been provided.
As the “source” displayed no inclination of decreasing its thermal activity, and since the surface of the object offered no apparent control mechanism, we subjected the “source” to direct cooling. The device used allowed an adequate cooling medium, in this case liquid nitrogen, to reach a specific area of the object. No change of temperature was recorded at first. We subsequently gradually intensified the power of the cooling medium, always closely monitoring the process. In one moment, the effect of the nitrogen was being applied to almost half of the “source’s” surface, but it turned out that this line was never to be crossed. The test resulted in an unexpected explosion and the “source” was irrecoverably damaged.
This catastrophe did have one positive effect – the activity of the “source” faded, thus decreasing the potential hazard of the object. Furthermore, it turned out that the body of the object itself was not damaged by the explosion in any way.
As a result of this turn of events, it was decided to remove the “source” from the body and continue the research under the protection of the KGB and the military.
Separating the “source” from the body of the object was a very demanding process. In the short time allotted, it was impossible to determine the way in which the “source” was “attached” to the body of the “Gagarin Thing”, not to mention the perpetual fear of a sudden unexpected reaction. In the end, the separation had to be executed by the use of powerful mechanical methods. A small opening had been created during the separation process, but it was later sealed due to the danger of the surroundings negatively influencing the potential inside structure of the “Gagarin Thing”, perhaps even damaging its yet undiscovered contents.

“The Body“

After the removal of the abovementioned “source”, the “body” of the object became our primary source of interest. It showed no visible signs of activity and it was also less difficult to manipulate.
The first task was to cast some light on the reason for the object’s specific shape, reminding one of the letter “T”. The question most in need of addressing was the function the object had originally had. Had it been a tool, a spare part, some sort of a machine or an instrument, or had it served a completely different purpose?

The object clearly consisted of two parts:
1. The first part was dubbed “the Handle,” an informal name which was the result of one of the laboratory workers leaning the object against the wall. As one of his colleagues immediately pointed out, it reminded one of a “broom,” and it must be said that this realization was not an isolated phenomenon. As a matter of fact, “the Gagarin Thing” was called so immediately upon its discovery in the landing module. In the end, the actual part was named after its humorous and ironic nickname.
2. The other part the object consisted of was the so-called “Wing.” However, it remains a question as to whether this aerodynamically shaped object did actually serve this function.
The obviously aerodynamic properties of the object pose a riddle, although both parts seem to maintain them. The streamlined shape of the body is orientated in a completely unsuitable direction, especially considering the positioning of the source on the underside of the wing. It appears that the source is directly opposing the advantage offered by the object’s aerodynamic properties, since if it had truly been the intention of the source to propel the object forward in the direction it inclines to move in without opposition, then its aerodynamic parameters would have to look differently, starting with an up to 180 degrees change of orientation. The hypothesis of the flying object therefore had to be abandoned.
If the existing aerodynamic shape was in fact utilized to lift the object in the direction which poses most problems, it might be possible to suggest a theory regarding some sort of a “hovering” movement. It remains undecided, though, what sort of a function such movement would have.
Yet another theory offers the following solution: The object was meant for flight, but was, at the same time, designed to resist extreme conditions, mainly the surrounding friction. The object may even have been part of a more complex unit – in that case, the “source” would not have necessarily had to be related to the actual propelling of the object, but could have served a completely different purpose, such as detection, communication, signalization, combat, or other.
This particular theory is supported by the fact that the surface of the object is extremely resistant to any kind of manipulation. As can be seen from the reports already mentioned in this study, even the use of modern technology failed to penetrate more than the very surface. One of the several tests we ran did, however, manage to slightly damage the topmost layer of the object. We had to cease running them, though, in the fear that repetitive sampling would strip the surface of its scientific value.
In conclusion, the entire team has agreed that it would be recommended to postpone further research until new methods are developed, ideally such that would prove more effective and damage the object less, allowing it to be examined in a way that would not lead to its complete destruction.

Boris Mihaylov
(supervisor of a team of experts selected by the construction office in Podlipky)