DOCSLIB.ORG

Hearings Ibebore the Committee on Science and Astronautics U,S, House of Representatives Ninety-First Congress Second Session

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE APOLLO 13 ACCIDENT HEARINGS IBEBORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS U,S, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 16, 1970 [No. 191 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Astronautics U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 47-591 0 WASHINGTON : 1970 COJIJIITTEE OS SCIESCE ASD ASTROSAUTICS GEORGE P. MILLER, California, Chairmarr OLIS E. TEAGUE, Texas JBJIES G. FCLTOS, Pennsylvania JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota CHARLES A. NOSHER, Ohio KES HECHLER, West Virginia RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana EhIILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut ALPHOKZO BELL, California JOHX W.DAVIS, Georgia THOJfAS 11. PELLY, Washington THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia JOHN W. WYDLER, Sew Tork JOE D. WAGGONSER, JR.,Louisiana GUT T'ASDER JAGT, Michigan DOS FUQUA, Florida LARRY WIKN, JR.,Kansas GEORGE E. BROWS, JR., California D. E. (BUZ) LUKENS, Ohio EARLE CABELL, Texas ROBERT PRICE, Texas BERTRAM L. PODELL, New York LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR.,Connecticut WAYNE N. ASPISALL, Colorado LOUIS FREY, JR.,Florida ROY A. TAYLOR, Xorth Carolina BARRY >I, GOLDWATER, JR., California HENRY HELSTOSKI, New Jersey XiRIO BIBGGI, New York JAMES W. SYXINGTON, Missouri EDWARD I. KOCH, New York CHARLESF. DVCASDER,Czecictive Director and Chief Counsel JOHS A. C.ARSTARPHES,Jr., Cltief Clerk and COitnsel PHILIPB. TEAGER,Counsel FRAsK R. HAMXILL,Jr., Coztnsel 11'. H. BoosE, Tecliiiical Consultant JAMESE. WILSOS, Tecltnical Consultant RICHARDP. HIKES,Staff Consultant HAROLDA. COULD,Technical Consztltant J. THOXASRATCHFORD, Science COllStLltant PHILIPP. DICKISSOS, Technical Consultant W~LLIAMG. WELLS,Jr., Technical Consultant K. GUILDSICHOLS, Jr., Staff Consultant ELIZABETHS. KERSAS,Scientific Research Assistant FRAKK J. GIROUX,Clerk DESIS C. QUIGLET,Publicatioits Clerk RICHARDK. SHULLAW,Assistant Publications Clerk JaJfEs A. ROSE,Jr., Minoritg Staff (11) CONTENTS STATEMENTS June 16, 1970: Page Dr. Thomas 0. Paine, Administrator, NASA _________..___________2 Edgar M. Cortright, chairman, Apollo 13 Review Board [Director, Langley Research Center) ; accompanied by the following members of the Apollo 13 Review Board: Robert F. Allnutt (assistant to the Administrator, NASA Head- quarters) Xeil Armstrong [Astronaut, Manned Spacecraft Center) Dr. John F. Clark (Director, Goddard Space Flight Center) Brig. Gen. Walter R. Hedrick, Jr. (Director of Space, DCS/ R. & D., Headquarters, USAF) Tincent L. Johnson (Deputy Associate Administrator-Engineer- ing, Office of Space Science and Applications) Milton Klein (manager, AEC-NASA Space Nuclear Propulsion Office) George Malley, counsel, Apollo 13 Review Board (chief counsel, Langley Research Center) ______________..________________3 PREPAREDSTATEMEST Edgar 11. Cortright, chairman, Apollo 13 Review Board [Director, Langley Research Center) ______.____________.__________________L_---.--..3 APPEXDIX Summary volume of Apollo 13 Review Board Report _______.__.____.._83 (111) THE APOLLO 13 ACCIDENT TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1970 HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEEON SCIENCEAND ASTRONAUTICS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :05 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Ron. George P. Miller, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN.The committee will be in order. Dr. Paine, hfr. Cortright, members of the Apollo 13 Review Board, we are pleased to welcome you to the committee today for the purpose of presenting findings, determinations, and recommendations of the A 0110 13 Review Board. %r. Paine, I would like to commend you for the appointment of a most competent and outstanding board to review the Apollo 13 ac- cident and the circumstances surrounding it. Mr. Cortright, whom this committee knows well, has distinguished himself not only as an administrator in the NASA Headquarters or- ganization but also as a field center director at Langley Research Center. The other members of the board are similarly well qualified to have participated in this intensive and searching review. As I stated at the time of the Apollo 13 accident the committee de- cided that sufficient time should be allowed for NASA to fully investi- gate the accident and at such time that this investi ation was com- pleted the committee would convene to receive NASa ’s evaluation of the accident. Therefore, I have asked you to appear here today even though the board’s report was only submitted to you yesterday, Dr. Paine, because I feel it is important that the members of the committee receive a first- hand and timely review of the Apollo 13 accident. Dr. Paine, I understand you have a short statement and then Mr. Cortright will go into the details of the accident and the board’s findings. I want to give all members an opportunity to ask questions, so will you please proceed. Before proceeding, I would also like to make a part of the record the fact that Mr. Wilson of the staff of the committee was appointed to act as an obsen-er with the boa.rd. I want to thank you for the courtesies you have shown us and it has given us a new system of liaison. Please proceed, Dr. Paine. (1) 2 STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS 0. PAINE, ADMINISTRATOR, NASA Dr. PAINE.Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on April 17, Dr. George Low and I established the Apollo 18 Review Board under the direction of Mr. Edgar &I.Cortright, director of the Lang- ley Research Center. The instructions to the board are contained in a memorandum dated April 17, and the membership of the board in a memorandum dated April 20, 1970. ~vhichare reproduced in the sum- mary volume of the report you have received. The past 2 months have involved long hours and very hard work by the review board and supporting elements in NL4SA and the indus- trial community. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to them for the thoroughness of their investigation and their dedication to this arduous assignment. Since I received the review board report only yesterday, I hare not had a chance to review it in detail. Nor have I had the benefit of the independent assessment which is being carried out by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. Charles Harrington. The Office of Manned Space Flight is also conducting a separate review of the report. In about 10 days I will receive the results of the safety panel and the manned space flight review. Until I have received and studied these re- ports. I will obviously not be in a. position to give you my evaluation of the board‘s recommendations or NASA‘s future actions. Earlier re announced a change in our lunar landing schedule in- volving a delay of the Bpollo 14 launch from October to the December launch window. However, this is subject to rei-iexT in light of the re- port of the Apollo 13 Reiyiew Board and we n-ill not fly Apollo 14 to the moon until we are confident that we have done everything necessary to eliminate the conditions that caused or contributed to the problems on Apollo 13. I believe that, as we plan man’s future course in space, the preface to this report should be a reminder of the nature of the challenge rre have undertaken. Let me quote : The Apollo 13 accident, which aborted man’s third mission to explore the sur- face of the moon, is a harsh reminder of the immense difficulty of this under- taking. The total Apollo system of ground complexes, launch vehicle, and spacecraft constitutes the most ambitious and demanding engineering development ever undertaken by man. For these missions to succeed, both men and equipment must perform to near perfection. That this system has already resulted in two success- ful lunar surface explorations is a tribute to those men and women who con- ceived, designed, built, and flew it. Perfection is not only difficult to achieve, but difficult to maintain. The im- perfection in hpollo 13 constituted a near disaster. adverted only by outstanding performance on the part of the crew and the ground control team ivhich sup- ported them. The Board feels that the nature of the Apollo 13 equipment failure ho!ds im- portant lessons rrhich, TThen applied to future missions, will contribute to the safety and effectiveness of manned space flight. Afr, Chairman, there has been time for me to reach one conclusion on the report of the Apollo 13 Review Board, and that is that the board and their supporting teams have done a. magnificent piece of technical detective work that carefully reconstructs the background and the events xhich took place aboard Apollo 13 800,000 miles from earth. 3 1 JT-ould110~ like to introduce the chairman of the rerieJT board, Mr. Edgar Cortright, who will briefly discuss the report and respond to your questions. The CH~IIRMAX.Thank you T-ery much, Dr. Paine. FFTe are very happy to have you here, Mr. Cortright. STATEMENT OF EDGAR M. CORTRIGHT, CHAIRMAN, APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD ; DIRECTOR, LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER Mr. CORTRIGHT.Thank you, Mr, Chairman. I have a prepared statement and, vith your permission, I will sub- mit this for the record and attempt to convey to sou JThat the Board has done and what our conclusions hare been in a more informal manner. The CHAIRMAS.Without objection, that rill be the manner in which m-e will proceed. (The prepared statement of Mr. Cortright is as follows :) PREPARED STATEMEST OF EDGAR M. CORTRIGHT, CHAIRJIKX, APOLLO 13, REVIEW BOARD, KATIOSAL AEROSAUTICS AISD SPACE ADJIISISTRATION Air. Chairman and Members of the Committee : I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Committee to summarize tlie Report of the Apollo 13 Review Board. As you know, yesterday I presented this Report on behalf of the Board to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator. Copies of the Report vere given to the Members and Staff of the Committee, and the Report was made public yesterday afternoon, at which time Dr. Paine and I held a press conference.
Recommended publications
  • Gryphon: a Flexible Lunar Lander Design to Support a Semi-Permanent Lunar Outpost

    Gryphon: a Flexible Lunar Lander Design to Support a Semi-Permanent Lunar Outpost

    AIAA SPACE 2007 Conference & Exposition AIAA 2007-6169 18 - 20 September 2007, Long Beach, California The Gryphon: A Flexible Lunar Lander Design to Support a Semi-Permanent Lunar Outpost Dale Arney1, Joseph Hickman,1 Philip Tanner,1 John Wagner,1 Marc Wilson,1 and Dr. Alan Wilhite2 Georgia Institute of Technology/National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 A lunar lander is designed to provide safe, reliable, and continuous access to the lunar surface by the year 2020. The NASA Exploration System Architecture is used to initially define the concept of operations, architecture elements, and overall system requirements. The design evaluates revolutionary concepts and technologies to improve the performance and safety of the lunar lander while minimizing the associated cost using advanced systems engineering capabilities and multi-attribute decision making techniques. The final design is a flexible (crew and/or cargo) lander with a side-mounted minimum ascent stage and a separate stage to perform lunar orbit insertion. Nomenclature ACC = Affordability and Cost Criterion AFM = Autonomous Flight Manager AHP = Analytic Hierarchy Process ALHAT = Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology ATP = Authority to Proceed AWRS = Advanced Air & Water Recovery System CDR = Critical Design Review CER = Cost Estimating Relationship CEV = Crew Exploration Vehicle CH4 = Methane DDT&E = Design, Development, Testing and Evaluation DOI = Descent Orbit Insertion DSM = Design Structure Matrix ECLSS = Environmental Control & Life Support System
  • Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems

    Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160008869 2019-08-29T17:47:59+00:00Z CHAPTER 12 Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems John A. Halchak Consultant, Los Angeles, California James L. Cannon NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama Corey Brown Aerojet-Rocketdyne, West Palm Beach, Florida 12.1 Introduction Earth to orbit launch vehicles are propelled by rocket engines and motors, both liquid and solid. This chapter will discuss liquid engines. The heart of a launch vehicle is its engine. The remainder of the vehicle (with the notable exceptions of the payload and guidance system) is an aero structure to support the propellant tanks which provide the fuel and oxidizer to feed the engine or engines. The basic principle behind a rocket engine is straightforward. The engine is a means to convert potential thermochemical energy of one or more propellants into exhaust jet kinetic energy. Fuel and oxidizer are burned in a combustion chamber where they create hot gases under high pressure. These hot gases are allowed to expand through a nozzle. The molecules of hot gas are first constricted by the throat of the nozzle (de-Laval nozzle) which forces them to accelerate; then as the nozzle flares outwards, they expand and further accelerate. It is the mass of the combustion gases times their velocity, reacting against the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle, which produce thrust according to Newton’s third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. [1] Solid rocket motors are cheaper to manufacture and offer good values for their cost.
  • Apollo 13 Mission Review

    Apollo 13 Mission Review

    APOLLO 13 MISSION REVIEW HEAR& BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS SECOR’D SESSION JUR’E 30, 1970 Printed for the use of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 47476 0 WASHINGTON : 1970 COMMITTEE ON AEROKAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico, Chairman RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska STUART SYMINGTON, bfissouri MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona STEPHEN M.YOUNG, Ohio WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio THOJfAS J. DODD, Connecticut RALPH T. SMITH, Illinois HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Florida J4MES J. GEHRIG,Stad Director EVERARDH. SMITH, Jr., Professional staffMember Dr. GLENP. WILSOS,Professional #tad Member CRAIGVOORHEES, Professional Staff Nember WILLIAMPARKER, Professional Staff Member SAMBOUCHARD, Assistant Chief Clerk DONALDH. BRESNAS,Research Assistant (11) CONTENTS Tuesday, June 30, 1970 : Page Opening statement by the chairman, Senator Clinton P. Anderson-__- 1 Review Board Findings, Determinations and Recommendations-----_ 2 Testimony of- Dr. Thomas 0. Paine, Administrator of NASA, accompanied by Edgar M. Cortright, Director, Langley Research Center and Chairman of the dpollo 13 Review Board ; Dr. Charles D. Har- rington, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel ; Dr. Dale D. Myers, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, and Dr. Rocco A. Petrone, hpollo Director -___________ 21, 30 Edgar 11. Cortright, Chairman, hpollo 13 Review Board-------- 21,27 Dr. Dale D. Mvers. Associate Administrator for Manned SDace 68 69 105 109 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIOSS 1. Internal coinponents of oxygen tank So. 2 ---_____-_________________ 22 2.
  • Apollo 13--200,000Miles from Earth

    Apollo 13--200,000Miles from Earth

    Apollo13"Houston,we'vegota ­ problem." ­ EP-76,ProducedbytheO fficeofPublicA ffairs ­ NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration ­ W ashington,D.C.20546 ­ U.S.GOVERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE,1970384-459 ­ NOTE:Nolongerinprint. ­ .pdf version by Jerry Woodfill of the Automation, Robotics, and Simulation Division, Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058 . James A. Lovell, Jr., Commander... Fred W. Haise, Jr., Lunar Module Pilot... John L. Swigeft, Jr., Command Module Pilot. SPACECRAFT--Hey, we've got a problem here. Thus, calmly, Command Module Pilot JackSwigert gave the first intimation of serious trouble for Apollo 13--200,000miles from Earth. CAPSULECOMMUNICATOR--ThisisHouston;say again, please. SC--Houston, we've hada problem. We've hada MainBbusundervolt. By "undervolt"Swigert meant a drop in power in one of the Command/Service Module's two main electrical circuits. His report to the ground began the most grippingepisode in man's venture into space. One newspaper reporter called it the most public emergency and the most dramatic rescue in the history of exploration. SC--Andwe hada pretty large bang associatedwith the cautionandwarning here. Lunar Module Pilot Fred Haise was now on the voice channel from the spacecraft to the Mission Control Center at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Manned Spacecraft Center in Texas. Commander Jim Lovell would shortly be heard, then again Swigert--the backup crewman who had been thrust onto the first team only two days before launch when doctors feared that Tom Mattingly of the primary crew might come down with German measles. Equally cool, the men in Mission Control acknowledged the report and began the emergency procedures that grew into an effort by hundreds of ground controllers and thousands of technicians and scientists in NaSA contractor plants and On university campuses to solve the most complexand urgent problem yet encountered in space flight.
  • Science Fiction Stories with Good Astronomy & Physics

    Science Fiction Stories with Good Astronomy & Physics

    Science Fiction Stories with Good Astronomy & Physics: A Topical Index Compiled by Andrew Fraknoi (U. of San Francisco, Fromm Institute) Version 7 (2019) © copyright 2019 by Andrew Fraknoi. All rights reserved. Permission to use for any non-profit educational purpose, such as distribution in a classroom, is hereby granted. For any other use, please contact the author. (e-mail: fraknoi {at} fhda {dot} edu) This is a selective list of some short stories and novels that use reasonably accurate science and can be used for teaching or reinforcing astronomy or physics concepts. The titles of short stories are given in quotation marks; only short stories that have been published in book form or are available free on the Web are included. While one book source is given for each short story, note that some of the stories can be found in other collections as well. (See the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, cited at the end, for an easy way to find all the places a particular story has been published.) The author welcomes suggestions for additions to this list, especially if your favorite story with good science is left out. Gregory Benford Octavia Butler Geoff Landis J. Craig Wheeler TOPICS COVERED: Anti-matter Light & Radiation Solar System Archaeoastronomy Mars Space Flight Asteroids Mercury Space Travel Astronomers Meteorites Star Clusters Black Holes Moon Stars Comets Neptune Sun Cosmology Neutrinos Supernovae Dark Matter Neutron Stars Telescopes Exoplanets Physics, Particle Thermodynamics Galaxies Pluto Time Galaxy, The Quantum Mechanics Uranus Gravitational Lenses Quasars Venus Impacts Relativity, Special Interstellar Matter Saturn (and its Moons) Story Collections Jupiter (and its Moons) Science (in general) Life Elsewhere SETI Useful Websites 1 Anti-matter Davies, Paul Fireball.
  • Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon 440 Document II-1 Document Title

    Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon 440 Document II-1 Document Title

    440 Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon Document II-1 Document Title: NASA, “ Minutes of Meeting of Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight,” 25–26 May 1959. Source: Folder 18675, NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Within less than a year after its creation, NASA began looking at follow-on programs to Project Mercury, the initial human spacefl ight effort. A Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight was created in spring 1959; it consisted of top-level representatives of all of the NASA fi eld centers and NASA Headquarters. Harry J. Goett from Ames, but soon to be head of the newly created Goddard Space Flight Center, was named chair of the committee. The fi rst meeting of the committee took place on 25 and 26 May 1959, in Washington. Those in attendance provided an overview of research and thinking related to human spacefl ight at various NASA centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and the High Speed Flight Station (HSFS) at Edwards Air Force Base. George Low, then in charge of human spacefl ight at NASA Headquarters, argued for making a lunar landing NASA’s long-term goal. He was backed up by engineer and designer Maxime Faget of the Space Task Group of the Langley Research Center and Bruce Lundin of the Lewis Research Center. After further discussion at its June meeting, the Committee agreed on the lunar landing objective, and by the end of the year a lunar landing was incorporated into NASA’s 10-year plan as the long-range objective of the agency’s human spacefl ight program.
  • Apollo Over the Moon: a View from Orbit (Nasa Sp-362)

    Apollo Over the Moon: a View from Orbit (Nasa Sp-362)

    chl APOLLO OVER THE MOON: A VIEW FROM ORBIT (NASA SP-362) Chapter 1 - Introduction Harold Masursky, Farouk El-Baz, Frederick J. Doyle, and Leon J. Kosofsky [For a high resolution picture- click here] Objectives [1] Photography of the lunar surface was considered an important goal of the Apollo program by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The important objectives of Apollo photography were (1) to gather data pertaining to the topography and specific landmarks along the approach paths to the early Apollo landing sites; (2) to obtain high-resolution photographs of the landing sites and surrounding areas to plan lunar surface exploration, and to provide a basis for extrapolating the concentrated observations at the landing sites to nearby areas; and (3) to obtain photographs suitable for regional studies of the lunar geologic environment and the processes that act upon it. Through study of the photographs and all other arrays of information gathered by the Apollo and earlier lunar programs, we may develop an understanding of the evolution of the lunar crust. In this introductory chapter we describe how the Apollo photographic systems were selected and used; how the photographic mission plans were formulated and conducted; how part of the great mass of data is being analyzed and published; and, finally, we describe some of the scientific results. Historically most lunar atlases have used photointerpretive techniques to discuss the possible origins of the Moon's crust and its surface features. The ideas presented in this volume also rely on photointerpretation. However, many ideas are substantiated or expanded by information obtained from the huge arrays of supporting data gathered by Earth-based and orbital sensors, from experiments deployed on the lunar surface, and from studies made of the returned samples.
  • NASA - Apollo 13

    NASA - Apollo 13

    Press Kit NASA - Apollo 13 Ä - 1970 - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ä - 2010 - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Restored version by Matteo Negri (Italy) Web: http://www.siamoandatisullaluna.com NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WO 2-4155 I NEWS WASHINGTON,D .C. 20546 TELS4 WO 3-6925 FOR RELEASr? THURSDAY A.M. 2, 1970 RELEASE NO: 70-~OK April P R F. E S S K I T 2 -0- t RELEASE NO: 70-50 APOLLO 13 THIRD LUNAR LANDING MISSION Apollo 13, the third U.S. manned lunar landing mission, will be launchefi April 11 from Kennedy Space Center, Fla., to explore a hilly upland region of the Moon and bring back rocks perhaps five billion years old, The Apollo 13 lunar module will stay on the Moon more than 33 hours and the landing crew will leave the spacecraft twice to emplace scientific experiments on the lunar surface and to continue geological investigations. The Apollo 13 landing site is in the Fra Mauro uplands; the two National Aeronautics and Space Administration ppevious landings were in mare or ''sea" areas, Apollo 11 in the Sea of Tranqullfty and Apollo 12 in the Ocean of Storms. Apollo 13 crewmen are commander James A. Lovell, Jr.; command module pilot momas K. MBttingly 111, and lunar module pilot Fred W. Haise, Jr. Lovell is a U.S. Navy captain, Mattingly a Navy lieutenant commander, and Haise a civllian. -more- 3/26/70 Launch vehicle is a Saturn V. Apollo 13 objectives are: * Perform selenological inspection, survey and sampling of materials in a preselected region of the Fra Mauro formation, c Deploy and activate an Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) , * Develop man's capability to work in the lunar environment.
  • 4. Lunar Architecture

    4. Lunar Architecture

    4. Lunar Architecture 4.1 Summary and Recommendations As defined by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), the lunar architecture is a combination of the lunar “mission mode,” the assignment of functionality to flight elements, and the definition of the activities to be performed on the lunar surface. The trade space for the lunar “mission mode,” or approach to performing the crewed lunar missions, was limited to the cislunar space and Earth-orbital staging locations, the lunar surface activities duration and location, and the lunar abort/return strategies. The lunar mission mode analysis is detailed in Section 4.2, Lunar Mission Mode. Surface activities, including those performed on sortie- and outpost-duration missions, are detailed in Section 4.3, Lunar Surface Activities, along with a discussion of the deployment of the outpost itself. The mission mode analysis was built around a matrix of lunar- and Earth-staging nodes. Lunar-staging locations initially considered included the Earth-Moon L1 libration point, Low Lunar Orbit (LLO), and the lunar surface. Earth-orbital staging locations considered included due-east Low Earth Orbits (LEOs), higher-inclination International Space Station (ISS) orbits, and raised apogee High Earth Orbits (HEOs). Cases that lack staging nodes (i.e., “direct” missions) in space and at Earth were also considered. This study addressed lunar surface duration and location variables (including latitude, longi- tude, and surface stay-time) and made an effort to preserve the option for full global landing site access. Abort strategies were also considered from the lunar vicinity. “Anytime return” from the lunar surface is a desirable option that was analyzed along with options for orbital and surface loiter.
  • Apollo 15 Press

    Apollo 15 Press

    6 pwwmr%wp NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TELS. WO 2-4155 NEWS WASHINGTON,D.C. 20546 WO 3-6925 FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY A.M. July 15, 1971 RELEASE NO: 71-1I9K PROJECT: APOLLO 15 (To be launched no P earlier than July 26) R contents E GENERAL RELEASE 1-8 COUNTDOWN 9-11 Launch Windows 11 Ground Elapsed Time Update 12 S Launch and Mission Profile 13 Launch Events 14 Mission Events 15-32 S EVA Mission Events 21-29 Entry Events 33 Recovery Operations 34-36 APOLLO 15 MISSION OBJECTIVES 37-39 Lunar Surface Science 40 Passive Seismic Experiment 40-47 Lunar Surface Magnetometer 47-50 Solar Wind Spectrometer 50-51 Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment and Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment 51-52 K Lunar Heat Flow Experiment 52-55 Lunar Dust Detector Experiment 55 ALSEP Central Station 55-56 Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector Experiment 56 Solar Wind Composition Experiment 56 SNAP-27--Power Source for ALSEP 57-58 Lunar Geology Investigation 59-60 Soil Mechanics 60 Lunar Orbital Science 61 Gamma-Ray Spectrometer 61 X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer 61 Alpha-Particle Spectrometer 61 Mass Spectrometer 62 24-inch Panoramic Camera 62 3-inch Mapping Camera 62-63 Laser Altimeter 64 Subsatellite 64-66 UV Photography-Earth and Moon 66 -more- 6/30/71 -i2- Gegenschein from Lunar Orbit 66 CSM/LM S-Band Transponder 67 Bistatic Radar Experiment 67-68 Apollo Window Meteoroid 68 Composite Casting Demonstration 68A Engineering/Operational Objectives 69 APOLLO LUNAR HAND TOOLS- 70-74 HADLEY-APENNINE LANDING SITE 75-76 LUNAR
  • Endless Possibilities at NASA Congestion, and Evaluating New Aircraft Designs

    Endless Possibilities at NASA Congestion, and Evaluating New Aircraft Designs

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681 NP-2014-12-579-LaRC www.nasa.gov LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER 2014 iv 1 With the launch of Orion in December, NASA took the first steps toward the future of human space exploration. Langley contributed critical elements to the mission: a launch abort system, structural impact testing, recovery testing, heat shield validation, and wind tunnel testing. The flight test went flawlessly and met NASA’s key objectives. NASA/George Homich A D8 airliner concept from a team led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is tested in Langley’s 14 by-22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel. NASA is working with industry and university partners to develop technologies and systems for aircraft that will reduce noise, emissions and fuel consumption. NASA Photos in this publication are by David C. Bowman of NASA Langley unless otherwise credited. 2 3 t’s time once again to recognize many of the past That work includes reducing aircraft noise around year’s accomplishments while looking ahead to airports, boosting fuel efficiency, relieving air traffic another year of endless possibilities at NASA congestion, and evaluating new aircraft designs. ILangley Research Center. In 2014, NASA’s Environmentally Responsible The pages of this report highlight steps we’ve Aviation program used an innovative manu- At right: Space Launch System taken and progress toward enabling human models have been tested in several facturing process to build a 10,000-pound Langley wind tunnels, including exploration of the solar system, as well as our composite aircraft structure for testing at this one in the Transonic Dynamics work helping improve the air travel system and Langley.
  • Interviews with the Apollo Lunar Surface Astronauts in Support of Planning for EVA Systems Design

    Interviews with the Apollo Lunar Surface Astronauts in Support of Planning for EVA Systems Design

    NASA Technical Memorandum 108846 Interviews with the Apollo Lunar Surface Astronauts in Support of Planning for EVA Systems Design Mary M. Connors, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California Dean B. Eppler, SAIC, Houston, Texas Daniel G. Morrow, Decision Systems, Los Altos, California September 1994 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035-1000 Interviews with the Apollo Lunar Surface Astronauts in Support of Planning for EVA Systems Design MARY M. CONNORS, DEAN B. EPPLER,* AND DANIEL G. MORROW** Ames Research Center Summary was to explicate any other insights that could help further the planning process. Focused interviews were conducted with the Apollo astronauts who landed on the Moon. The purpose of The intended primary audience for this study is mission these interviews was to help define extravehicular activity planners and scientists and engineers responsible for (EVA) system requirements for future lunar and planetary EVA system design. However, we anticipate that various missions. Information from the interviews was examined aspects of the report may also be of interest to a wider with particular attention to identifying areas of consensus, readership and it is written to be accessible to anyone since some commonality of experience is necessary to aid with a general interest in EVA. the design of advanced systems. Results are presented This study followed a request made by the Office of under the following categories: mission approach; Exploration, NASA Headquarters, to the New Initiatives mission structure; suits; portable life support systems; Office at Johnson Space Center (JSC). The study team dust control; gloves; automation; information, displays, was headed by Robert Callaway of the New Initiative and controls; rovers and remotes; tools; operations; Office and included members of the Crew and Thermal training; and general comments.