JANUARY 20, 1966
BY RALPH B. OAKLEY DIVISION HISTORIAN
NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. SPACE and INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION JANUARY 20, 1966
APOLLO PROGRAM
BY RALPH B. OAKLEY DIVISION HISTORIAN
NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. SPACE and INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION Foreword
The past is a prelude to the future.
FORE WORD
Four and a half years have passed since President Kennedy and the United States Congress established a national goal of landing a man on the moon, before the end of the decade.
This brief history is designed to be a working tool for use during the second half of this great adventure. It is expected that by presenting the events of the past in perspective this document will become a handy reference to accomplishments of the first half of the program. It is hoped that this volume will be of value to those directly and indirectly concerned with North American's portion of the Apollo program.
This history contains a chronology of significant events, as well as material on the management of the program, a record of some of the breakthroughs in technology, a report of the hardware produced to date, and the many tests performed to man-rate the equipment.
Plans call for an annual revision, which will add new information of significance for those who are charged with the responsibility of managing a great part of the nation's lunar landing program.
Ralph B. Oakley Division Historian
January 20, 1966 CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD . ii
1 INTRODUCTION . 1
2 CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY 3
3 INITIAL STATEMENT OF WORK . 14
4 SCHEDULES 17
5 DESIGN . 18
6 RELIABILITY . 2 5
7 MANUFACTURING . 27
8 SITE ACTIVATION . 30
9 FACILITIES . 3 1
10 SUBCONTRACTING . 3 2
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 S&ID Employment. 2 List of Apollo Mockup Articles . 3 List of Apollo Boilerplate Articles . 4 List of Apollo Spacecraft . 5 Apollo Flight Chronology . 6 Profiles of Apollo Spacecraft - 1966. 7 Apollo Spacecraft and Launch Vehicles . 8 List of Major Apollo Subcontractors Introduction - Sect. 1
Now it is time to take longer strides - time for a great new American enterprise - time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.
I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.
No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.
President John F. Kennedy
INTRODUCTION
The Apollo program was first announced by NASA at an industry conference July 29, 1960. A bidders' conference on feasibility study contracts was held at Langley Field on September 13, 1960 by the Space Task Group, which eventually became a part of the Manned Spacecraft Center, located at Houston.
On October 25, NASA announced that General Dynamics, General Electric, and Martin had been selected to conduct separate studies of this advanced spacecraft program. NASA completed its internal studies of the feasibility of the Apollo lunar mission program in January 1961, and the contract studies were completed in May of that year.
On May 25, President Kennedy called for a stepped-up U. S. space program, and asked that the nation establish a goal of landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Introduction - Sect. 1
In July, after receipt of the RFP, North American's Space and Information Systems Division began the proposal effort on the task that was to become the most ambitious ever attempted by man.
In September, John Paup was named Division Vice President and Program Manager. Milt Sherman was named Assistant Program Manager, and Charles Feltz was named Chief Engineer. More than 100 engineers were assigned to the proposal effort.
One set of the three-volume proposal was hand-carried to NASA's Apollo Office in the Hotel Chamberlain at Hampton, Va. on October 9. Fifty sets were shipped to NASA by air. Work continued on the program, with almost 100 engineers continuing to devote full time to the effort.
On November 28, 1961, NAA was notified it had won the Apollo spacecraft contract. - The historic mission to land a man on the moon officially was under way. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY
July 2 9 Project Apollo, an advanced spacecraft program to land men on the moon, was announced by NASA.
September 13 NASA briefed prospective bidders on the Apollo project study contract at an industry conference in Virginia.
October 25 NASA selected Convair, General Electric and Martin to conduct individual feasibility studies of an advanced manned spacecraft as part of the Apollo project.
December 5 H. A. Storms was named head of North American Aviation's Missile Division.
December 16 The name of the Missile Division was changed to Space and Information Systems Division (S&ID).
January NASA internal studies of a manned lunar-landing program
were completed. Both a direct-ascent trajectory using- large Nova-type launch vehicles and orbit rendezvous techniques using Saturn- type launch vehicles were considered.
Final reports on Project Apollo study contracts were sub- mitted by Convair, GE, and Martin.
May 25 President Kennedy presented a plan to Congress for acceler - ating the space program based on a national goal of landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade.
June North American Aviation's S&ID announced its intention to submit a proposal for the Apollo spacecraft.
July 18 NASA-Industry Apollo Technical Conference was held in Washington, D. C. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
July 2 8 NASA issued an RFP to 12 companies, including North American Aviation (NAA) for the Apollo spacecraft.
August 1 NASA presented a briefing to potential Apollo spacecraft contractors.
August 9 NASA selected MIT's Instrumentation Laboratory to develop the guidance and navigation system for the Apollo spacecraft.
September 11 NASA announced that S&ID was awarded the contract for the Saturn S-11, which was to be used as the second stage for the lunar -mission launch vehicle.
September 19 NASA announced that the recently established Manned Spacecraft Center would be located in a new facility to be constructed at Houston, Texas.
October 9 The proposal for the Apollo program was submitted to NASA's Space Task Group at Langley Field, Virginia.
October 11 A team of 12 men, including J. L. Atwood, H. A. Storms, and J. W. Paup presented an oral briefing to the NASA Space Task Group in Virginia, on NAA's proposal for the Apollo spacecraft program.
November 28 NASA announced that a contract had been awarded to S&ID for the Apollo spacecraft program.
December 5 Negotiations for the Apollo contract, were held at Williamsburg, Va. Changes in the original Statement of Work were estab- lished, including the addition of the boilerplate program.
December 2 1 The first four major Apollo subcontractors were announced by S&ID. They were: Collins Radio, telecommunications systems; Garrett Corporation's AiResearch Division, environmental control equipment; Honeywell, Inc. , the stabilization and control system; and Northr op Corporation' s Ventura Division, parachute earth landing system.
December 21 Letter contract No. NAS9-150, authorizing work on the Apollo program beginning January 1, 1962, was signed by NASA and NAA. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
January 22 The first Apollo engineering order was issued to fabricate the fir st mockups of the Apollo command and service modules.
January 27 The preliminary master plan for manufacturing the Apollo spacecraft was released.
February 9 NASA announced that General Electric had been awarded a contract to provide integration analysis of the total Apollo space vehicle, including launch vehicle and spacecraft interface, to assure reliability of the entire system. GE was also named to develop and operate equipment to check out the Apollo systems.
February 13 Lockheed Propulsion Company was selected to design and build the solid-pr opellant launch- escape motor for Apollo .
February 14 NAA announced that S&ID would take over part of the U. S. Air Force plant at Tulsa for work on Apollo and other projects.
March 2 The Marquardt Corporation was selected by S&ID to design and build the reaction-control rocket engines for the Apollo spacecraft.
March 3 The Aerojet-General Corporation was named as the S&ID subcontractor for the Apollo service module propulsion system.
March 9 Pratt and Whitney was selected by S&ID to build the Apollo fuel cell.
March 23 Avco Corporation was selected to design and install the ablative material on the spacecraft outer surface.
March 23 Tests on two early Apollo wind tunnel models were completed at the jet Propulsion Laboratory and at Langley Field. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
The mockup of the Apollo command module, prepared by S&ID in support of the Apollo proposal, was shown to the public for the first time, through the visit to S&ID of news media representatives .
April 6 Thiokol Chemical Corporation was selected to build the solid rocket motor to be used to jettison the Apollo launch escape tower.
April 19 H.A. Storms announced that 700, 000 square feet of office and manufacturing area in the Downey complex would be transferred to S&ID from the Autonetics Division.
Dr. John C. Houbolt of NASA' s Langley Research Center reported a number of possible advantages for a lunar mission utilizing a lunar -orbit rendezvous technique rather than a direct flight from the earth, or an earth-orbit rendezvous flight.
June 16 NASA announced that the Apollo propulsion system would be tested at a new facility at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico.
June 20 A temporary water pool, 20 by 20 feet and 10 feet deep was completed for interim flotation and water -impact tests of the Apollo command module.
July 5 The first spacecraft parachute drop test was conducted at El Centro, California.
July 11 NASA announced that the lunar rendezvous mode would be used for the moon mission. This new plan called for develop- ment of a two-man lunar excursion module to be used to reach the surface of the m~onand return the astronauts to the lunar -orbiting command module. NASA Administrator James Webb said this method was the most desirable from the standpoint of "time, cost, and mission accomplishment.
Julv 13 NASA officially informed S&ID of the selection of the LOR mode for lunar mission flight.
Julv 16 Beech Aircraft Corporation was selected to build the storage tanks for super critical gases. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
1962
July 23 S&ID1s first employee for the Apollo Program arrived at Cape Canaveral, Florida.
August 2 The heat shield for Apollo BP-1 was completed five days ahead of schedule.
August 7 The first completed boilerplate model of the Apollo command module (BP-25), was tested in the ocean, near the entrance to the Los Angeles Harbor.
August 2 1 The first full-scale chamber tests of the Apollo service module propulsion system were conducted by Aerojet General.
August 22 The length of the Apollo service module was increased from 11 feet 8 inches to 12 feet 11 inches to provide space for additional fuel.
August The first test incorporating data acquisition in the Apollo test program was completed at El Centro. The test consisted of monitoring data returned by telemetry during a parachute dummy-load test.
September 6 Because of funding limitations, NASA deleted five Apollo mock-ups, three boilerplate articles, and several GSE items from the contract.
September 7 Apollo command module BP-1 was accepted by NASA and delivered to the Engineering Development Laboratory for land and water impact tests.
September 10 Apollo command module BP-3, showing the arrangement of the cabin interior, was shipped to NASA at Houston.
October 23 At the request of NASA, about 300 pieces of Gemini GSE were examined by S&ID engineers. It appeared that about 190 items would be usable on the Apollo program.
October 31 The firm-cost proposal for the definitive Apollo program was completed and submitted to NASA.
November 7 Grumman Aircraft was named by NASA to design and build the LEM. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
December 28 Rocketdyne completed the first test of the Apollo command module reaction- control engines.
January 14 The fir st meeting between S&ID and Grumman engineers on the Apollo LEM was held at Downey.
February 15 The Apollo impact-test facility was completed.
February 15 Apollo BP-6, to be used for parachute tests at El Centro, was completed.
February 19 S&ID announced that all six engines of the Apollo spacecraft were successfully fired during 1962.
March 6 Apollo BP-9, to be used at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center for dynamic tests, was completed.
March 8 Apollo BP-6, to be used for pad abort tests at White Sands, was completed.
March 11 Apollo BP-2 was dropped into the water at the impact-test facility.
April 3 Charles Frick resigned as NASA/MSC Apollo Program Manager. Robert 0.Piland was assigned as NASA's Acting Apollo Program Manager.
May 3 Apollo BP-19 was dropped from a C-133 aircraft at El Centro during tests of the Northrop parachute -landing system.
May 22 The Apollo fuel cell being built by Pratt & Whitney passed the ZOO-hour mark during tests.
May 24 Apollo BP-15 to be used for Saturn launch environment tests was completed.
June 12 D. Brainerd Holmes, Director of NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight, resigned to return to private business. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
July 23 Dr. George E. Mueller was named Director, NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight.
August 14 The definitive contract for Apollo was executed by NASA. The contract covered the work through May 15, 1965.
September 6 Apollo command module BP-3 was destroyed during parachute tests at El Centro. The third parachute failed to deploy as planned.
October 14 Dr. Joseph Shea, previously with NASA Headquarters, was named Apollo Program Manager at MSC.
October 22 Apollo command module BP-19 made a successful drop from 13, 000 feet during parachute tests at El Centro.
November 7 The first launch test-a pad-abort test of BP-6-was successfully conducted at White Sands.
December 6 P&W delivered the first prototype Apollo fuel cell to S&ID.
January 8 President Johnson in his State of the Union Message said "We must assure our pre-eminence in the peaceful exploration of outer space, focusing on an expedition to the moon in this decade, in cooperation with other powers if possible, alone if necessary. 'I
February 17 Apollo C/M BP-13 was shipped to Cape Kennedy for the first orbit test.
February NASA directed S&ID to install canard surfaces on the forward end of the Apollo launch escape rocket motor, in order to provide a means for aerodynamically orienting the Command Module to a blunt-end position during parachute recovery. The retractable canard surfaces were subsequently tested during actual flight tests, and found to be more effective than the strakes, which were considered earlier. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
February A boost protective cover was added to the launch escape system (LES) in order to protect the windows of the command module and the heat shield surfaces from soot from the LES motor.
April 15 D. D. Myers, S&ID Vice President, was named Program Manager for Apollo, succeeding S&ID Vice President John Paup, who was named assistant to President H. A. Storms.
May 13 The second test flight of the Apollo program occurred at White Sands when BP-12 was launched by a Little Joe I1 vehicle during a high- stress, high- speed abort test. The launch escape system worked as planned, except that one of the three parachutes cut loose. The command module was landed without damage.
May 28 Apollo command module BP-13 was placed in orbit from Cape Kennedy following launch by a Saturn I booster. This was the first Apollo vehicle to be placed in orbit, and the third Apollo test flight.
June 30 NASA took custody of AF Plant 16, the government-owned portion of the Downey plant.
September 18 Apollo BP-15 was successfully orbited at Cape Kennedy by a Saturn I two-stage launch vehicle. This was the fourth Apollo test flight.
December 8 The fifth Apollo test flight occurred at White Sands when BP-23 was lifted off the pad by a Little Joe I1 in a high Q abort test.
December 2 9 A 30-foot mockup of the Apollo LEM adapter was delivered to Cape Kennedy by helicopter from S&ID1sTulsa plant.
February 16 Apollo BP-16 was launched from Cape Kennedy in a micro-
meteoroid test. A Pegasus- satellite was carried aloft in a modified Apollo service module. All equipment functioned as planned. This was the sixth Apollo test flight. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
April 14 Dr. Joseph Shea, NASA's Apollo Program Manager, announced that future structures for Apollo service modules would be built at S&ID1s Tulsa plant.
May 19 Apollo BP -22 was launched at White Sands in a planned high- altitude test of the launch escape system. The Little Joe I1 disintegrated at low altitude, resulting in an unscheduled but successful low-altitude abort test. This was the seventh test flight.
May 25 The second Pegasus satellite was put into orbit at Cape Kennedy during the Saturn I launch of Apollo BP -26. This was the eighth Apollo test flight.
June 29 Apollo BP-23A was successfully launched at White Sands during a pad abort test. All systems functioned as planned. This was the ninth Apollo test flight, and the fifth abort test. This boilerplate module was previously designated BP -23, and had been launched at White Sands during a high Q test.
July 16 The Pregnant Guppy returned the heat shield for Apollo SC-009 after installation of ablative material by AVCO. On the eastbound trip of the PG, the aft heat shield for SC-011 was delivered to AFCO, four weeks ahead of schedule.
July 30 Apollo BP-9A was launched at Cape Kennedy, and was used to place the third Pegasus Meteoroid Detection Satellite into orbit.
August 11 LEM Adapter No. 3, was shipped from S&ID Tulsa via helicopter to Cape Kennedy. This adapter was scheduled for use on the 009 super-circular re-entry mission.
August 13 Apollo Service Module SC-012, was delivered to the clean room area of Building 290, following the completion of the structural assembly.
August 19 The Apollo earth landing system (ELS) was given a parachute qualification drop test (No. 62-2) using BP-19 at El Centro. This was the second in a series of nine qualification tests, which demonstrated the function of the ELS in a medium altitude abort condition. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
August 3 0 The Apollo service module propulsion system engine was fired 29 times during the week at White Sands. The tests ran from 5 to 60 seconds each.
September 19 The fuel cell for the Apollo spacecraft completed the first phase of the qualification tests being conducted at the Pratt and Whitney plant. The initial tests included endurance runs of 366 hours in a vacuum chamber.
October 1 Three 43" Apollo flotation bags were completed and packaged. These bags were to be used to turn the command module upward, if it assumes an apex down position after landing or due to wave action.
October 7 The fir st of four scheduled Apollo LEM adapter ordnance separation test firings was successfully accomplished at the Verdigris Test Site near the S&ID Tulsa plant.
October 8 Apollo command and service modules, Spacecraft No. 002, were shipped to White Sands for the power-on tumbling abort test scheduled for December.
October 20 The first actual Apollo spacecraft, SC-009, was accepted by NASA and subsequently shipped to Cape Kennedy. All pre- viously completed Apollo vehicles had been boilerplate and mockup articles. Spacecraft 009 was scheduled for a super- circular re-entry flight early next year.
October 25 Apollo Command Module SC-009 arrived at Kennedy Space Center. The Service Module, which was shipped October 22 on the Pregnant Guppy, was temporarily delayed at Houston due to engine trouble in the airplane.
November 5 An Apollo Command Module equipped with a new aft heat shield and unitized couch was dropped into the water pool at Downey. There appeared to be no damage to the shield or aft bulkhead. Water leakage was negligible.
December 8 NAA signed Apollo Contract Supplemental Agreement No. 115 and returned it to NASA for final approval. This SA changed the Apollo contract from a CPFF to a Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee contract. Incentive provisions became effective Oct. 3, 1965. SA-115 covered the period ending Dec. 3, 1966. Chronological Summary - Sect 2
December 17 Employment in S&ID reached a high point of 35, 385 persons on Dec. 17. By the end of the year, employment dropped to 35, 297. During 1965 there was a net increase of 5, 125 employees.
December 22 The Apollo Spacecraft LEM Adapter (SLA) for SC-011 was accepted by NASA at S&ID1sTulsa Facility nine days ahead of schedule.
December 26 Apollo SC-009 was mated with the Saturn S-IB at the Kennedy Space Center.
December 31 Apollo Command Modules accepted by NASA by the end of 1965 were as follows
Mockups 11 Block I -7 Block I1 18 Boilerplates 18 plus two refurbished (All Block I)
Spacecraft 2
January 19 NASA approved Supplemental Agreement No. 115, which converted the Apollo Contract from a CPFF to a CPIF type of contract.
January 20 A power-on tumbling abort test of the Apollo escape system was successfully conducted at White Sands with the launch of SC-002. This was the sixth and final launch escape test. The LES was then declared qualified. Initial Statement of Work - Sect. 3
INITIAL STATEMENT OF WORK
The Statement of Work which accompanied the Apollo Request for Proposal which was issued by NASA on July 28, 1961, defined the project and some of the project elements. The Statement of Work is quoted in this section to indicate the requirements which were established by NASA at that time, and to document the baseline upon which the NAA proposal was based.
Program Obiectives
The ultimate objective of the Project Apollo is the landing of men on the moon, observation and exploration by the crew of the landing area, and safe return to earth. Intermediate objectives of the project include scientific observations in the earth-moon space and lunar reconnaissance prior to lunar landing. It is expected that these objectives will be achieved from a combination of earth-orbital, circum-lunar, lunar - orbital, and lunar -landing missions . In addition to achieving these primary objectives, it is intended that the Apollo spacecraft be designed so that it will be adaptable for use as an earth- orbital vehicle in conducting a variety of scientific and technological services.
Project
Project Apollo is a multiphase project with each phase serving to the extent possible as qualification for the subsequent phases. The various project phases are planned to overlap, and are as follows:
Phase A. The Phase A spacecraft will be designed for lunar landing and return. Phase A, however, will be limited to manned, low-altitude, earth-orbital flights from super-orbital velocities. Both types of flights will be accomplished with the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle. The first portion of this phase, approximately the first year, will include contractor and subcontractor efforts emphasizing detail design and analysis, preparation of detail specifications, development of special manufacturing techniques, and the fabrication of breadboards, hardware and a detailed engineering mock-up. The specific objectives of Phase A are as follows:
Qualification of systems and features for the lunar landing mission within the constraints of the earth orbital environment. Qualification of the heat protection and other systems for the lunar mission through the conduct of reentry tests from super orbital velocities.
Study of physiological and psychological reactions and the capability of personnel under extended periods in space environment.
Development of the flight and ground operational techniques and equipment for space flights of extended periods.
Conduct of experimental investigations as needed to acquire information for the lunar mission.
Phase B. This phase will consist of circumlunar, lunar-orbital, and parabolic reentry test flights employing the C-3 launch vehicle for the purpose of further development of the spacecraft and operational techniques, and for lunar reconnaissance.
Phase C. This phase will consist of manned lunar-landing and return missions employing either Nova- clas s launch vehicles or C - 3 launch vehicles, using rendezvous techniques for the purpose of lunar observation and exploration.
De sign Re sponsibility
The responsibility of the contractor in relation to the design, manu- facturing, and operations of the spacecraft was set forth in the RFP statement of work as follows.
Contractor's Tasks
The contractor shall be responsible for design, manufacturing, and operations in relation to space vehicle, ground support equipment, ground operational support system, and training equipment to the extent stated in the following paragraphs.
Design. The contractor shall conduct design analyses of the complete ground and flight system necessary to assure optimum spacecraft design and compatibility of the spacecraft design with all other parts of the flight and ground systems. Detail design responsibilities are described below. The use of Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) or Industry Standard Equipment (ISE) shall be investigated and proposed by the contractor where feasible and practical. The contractor shall Initial Statement of Work - Sect. 3 determine and conduct the research and development program required to support his design effort. He shall request the participation of NASA or other Government facilities where appropriate.
Space Vehicle. The contractor shall conduct those design analyses of the complete space vehicle system necessary to assure optimum spacecraft design and compatibility of the spacecraft design with the launch vehicle. The contractor may recommend changes to the launch vehicle if such changes are desirable for space vehicle optimization. The contractor shall conduct complete analyses of the spacecraft interface requirements to assure compatibility with the launch vehicle.
Spacecraft. The contractor shall be responsible for the integration of the spacecraft modules.
Command and Service Module. The contractor shall be responsible for the detail design of the command and service modules, with the exception of the navigation and guidance system, the research and development instrumentation, and the scientific instrumentation. The contractor shall be responsible for integrating the navigation and guidance system, the research and development instrumentation, and the scientific instrumentation designs with the command module and with the appropriate subsystems of the space vehicle. The contractor shall also design the test spacecraft for use with the Saturn C- 1 research and development launch vehicles.
Space Laboratory Module. The contractor shall be responsible for design integration of the space laboratory module into the spacecraft design. This responsibility shall include detail interface design and design analysis of allowable "envelopes" for space laboratory detail design to assure spacecraft-module and spacecraft-launch vehicle compatibility. Schedules - Sect 4
SCHEDULES
The prime milestone of the Apollo Program is to land a man on the moon before the end of this decade. Schedules for all items in the program relate to this goal.
The first major change in the schedule occurred during the negotiation of the letter contract at Williamsburg, Virginia, in December 1961, when the boilerplate program was added. This change resulted.in the issuance of Master Development Schedule (MDS) No. 1, dated April 25, 1962. Work in process and follow-on vehicles were added to provide for program continuity in the fabri- cation of vehicles to be deliveredafter the period of the original contract.
In the summer of 1962, the lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) mission was adopted in lieu of a direct mission or an earth-orbital rendezvous; all three of which had been under consideration. The LOR mission required significant changes to the command module, service module, and adapter. The new con- cept and attendant changes were reflected in MDS No. 4 and later refined in MDS No. 5, which were published on September 18, 1962, and on October 12, 1962, respectively. During 1963, additional changes were imposed on the pro- gram, which was rephased according to MDS No. 7 issued on March 23, 1964. This resulted in the addition of two spacecraft, three boilerplates, and five system trainers. As a result of continuing change activity, combined with extensive revisions in the ground-test program and deletion of the man-rated Saturn I booster, MDS No. 8 was released December 23, i964. Further refine- ments to this schedule resulted in MDS No. 8, Revision 3, dated March 1, 1965.
MDS No. 9 was released Nov. 24. The new schedule was prepared to reflect the establishment of milestones set forth in the new incentive contract. The earliest milestone tied into the incentive contract was scheduled for Nov. 30, 1965, which called for the drop test of Spacecraft 009 at the Downey Impact Test Facility. The drop occurred on Nov. 27, three days ahead of the scheduled date.
Incentive provisions of the Apollo contract were effective Oct. 3, 1965, and were called out in Supplemental Agreement 115 which was approved by NASA on Jan. 19, 1966. Design - Sect. 5
DESIGN
This section deals with the design of the spacecraft. It contains a brief description of the five major parts that comprise the Apollo spacecraft:
Command Modules Service Module Launch Escape System Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), Spacecraft LEM Adapter (SLA) which houses the LEM and which connects the Apollo spacecraft to the Saturn launch vehicle.
This section also contains a brief description of some of the significant engineering tests which have been conducted in connection with the design of the spacecraft and a description of some of the changes which have occurred to date.
Description of Spacecraft
Command Module. The command module is the Apollo spacecraft's on-board control center for all flights, including the mission to the moon. It provides living, working, and leisure -time quarters for the three -man crew.
The cone-shaped command module is 12. 8 feet in diameter at the base and 11. 7 feet high. Fully loaded, it weighs 9500 pounds. It has four windows through which the astronauts can make navigational reckonings and observe flight progress and moon-orbit rendezvous operations.
The command module consists of two shells: an inner crew compartment and an outer heat shield. Ablative materials are applied to the outer structure as a protection against the 5, 000-degree temperature generated during reentry.
Sides of the heat shield are constructed primarily of stainless steel honeycomb-brazed between stainless steel sheets. Design - Sect. 5
The crew compartment is constructed primarily of aluminum honeycomb bonded between aluminum alloy sheets.
Matching mechanical fasteners lock the inner and outer shells together. Between the walls is a two-layer micro-quartz fiber insulation varying in thickness from 0. 08 to 1. 50 inches.
This construction makes the command module relatively light, yet gives it the ruggedness to withstand the strain of high acceleration during launch and return to earth, the shock and heat of reentry, the shock of landing, and the possible impact of meteorites during flight.
The inner crew compartment is air -conditioned to a temperature of 75 degrees. The atmosphere contains 100 percent oxygen at a pressure of 5 psi.
Television and telemetry, tracking and radio equipment provide two -way communication with earth. They also provide communication among the astronauts during the moon exploration and moon-orbit rendezvous. These and other systems-such as the reaction control, earth landing, parts of the environmental control, stabilization and control, and parts of the electrical power systems-occupy the available space in the module.
Although the crewmen will be able to move from one station to another in the command module, they will spend most of the time on especially designed couches made of aluminum and titanium and padded with a plastic-encased nylon webbing. To absorb the shock of landing, the assembly rests on six crushable honeycomb shock struts. Two additional struts absorb lateral-g forces. Control devices are attached to arm rests.
Service Module. The service module is a cylinder 12.8 feet in diameter and approximately 13 feet long. It houses the main propulsion engine for return from the moon and the midcourse cor- rections, and it houses systems supporting the command module and crew. These include the electrical system, reaction control engines, and part of the environmental control system. The outside skin is honeycomb bonded between aluminum sheets. The module weighs about 50, 000 pounds including fuel. Design - Sect. 5
Propellants and various systems are housed in six pie -shaped sections surrounding the main engine. These sections are separated by aluminum radial beams.
Attached to the command module during the flight to the moon, the service module will be jettisoned just prior to entry into earth's atmosphere when returning from outer space.
Lunar Excursion Module. The lunar excursion module, built by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., will land two men on the moon and return to lunar orbit for rendezvous with the command module. The LEM resembles the cab of a two-man helicopter mounted on metal legs. It is about 19 feet in diameter and, standing on its legs, is about 19 feet tall.
This module has essentially the same kinds of systems found in the command and service modules: propulsion, environmental control, communications, and guidance and control. In addition, it contains portable equipment for exploring the lunar surface.
Launch Escape System. The launch escape system is an emergency system to be used in event of a booster failure before or during launch.
The system consists of a 10-foot latticed titanium tower built by S&ID, two Lockheed Propulsion Co. motors (the launch escape motor, and a pitch-control motor) and a Thiokol Go. tower jettison motor. The entire system is about 33 feet long and weighs less than 6,500 pounds.
In an emergency, the system will lift the command module to a height sufficient for the three main landing parachutes to deploy for a safe landing. At the height of this trajectory, the launch escape system is jettisoned from the command module.
The escape system can be activated by the launch crew in the blockhouse, the astronauts in the command module, or by a special electronic sensing system. If there is no malfunction in the booster, the launch escape system is jettisoned shortly after ignition of the booster second stage.
The Adapter. The adapter, sometimes referred to as the SLA, for Spacecraft LEM Adapter, is manufactured at the S&ID Tulsa plant. It is a tapered cylinder, 28 feet long, 12. 8 feet in diameter at the top Design - Sect. 5
and 21. 6 feet in diameter at the base. It connects the service module to the Saturn launch vehicle, and is used to house the LEM during the early stages of the flight to the moon. rccllnic;~l TIighlights <111dDcsign Changes
Thc ~p~~cccl-aftdcsign, as envisioned by NASA in 1961, reflected the l\no\\n requircmcnts at that time. No one had ever designed a vehicle to carry ~ncnto the rnoon and back. The use of the Saturn V as a three-stage 1,1unch \.chicle and the selection of a lunar rendezvous technique were not '~nnouncedby NASA umtil July 11, 1962.
This change and others of major importance to the design of the space- craft, as \yell as some of the key engineering tests conducted to date, are described in the following paragraphs.
LOR Mission Mode Selected - July 1962. The change from a lunar landing spacecraft to a lunar excursion module (LEM) landing, with the command and service modules (CSM) remaining in lunar orbit, had a major impact on both vehicle module design and mission technology. It required a new service module and adapter design and revisions to the command module to incorporate LEM rendezvous and docking provision and LEM/CSM inter-vehicular transfer.
Gemini Engines Selected for C/M Reaction Control Svstem - August 1962. The initial concept of using new engines for the CM-RCS was revised to utilize Rocketdyne engines alre<~dyunder development for the Gemini spacecraft.
RCS Breadboard Testing Initiated - January 1963. Cold-flow testing of both command and service module reaction control systems was initiated at Downey, using development -type hardware for the engine and propellant systems arranged in fran?eworks to simulate equipment placement in the flight vehicle.
Nuclionic Propellant Gaging Concept Selected - May 1963. A concept whereby radio-active particle emissions were to be used to measure the propellant in the RCS tanks was selected to overcome problems associated with gauging irregular and unpredictable shaped masse s in a zero-g environment. This concept represented a first application of the technique and, when fully developed, was expected to advance the state of the art for future use. Design - Sect. 5
Matrix EIc>at Sliield Concept Selected - December 1963. The heat sllicld design was changed from one using a large number of ablative tilcs individu;~llyattached to J. stainless steel substructure to one in which ;in open-face fibre glass honeycomb was bonded to the substructure dud thC honeycomb cells filled with ablative material. This concept circi~unventedanticipated problems in attaching and sealing the individual tilcs.
SL:\ Petal Concept Selected - December 1963. Spacecraft design lilnitations required the LEM to be stored in the adapter connecting the boost vehicle to the Apollo CSM and that the LEM be exposed in flight for CSM transposition and docking. A concept was adopted whereby a portion of the spacecraft LEM adapter (SLA) was to be split into four panels, or petals, and hinged outward to accomplish the necessary LEM exposure.
Boost Protective Cover and Canards Adopted - February 1964. Design of the LES was revised to include a conical cover to fit over the command module. This cover, attached to the base of the LES tower, was designed to protect the heat shield and windows from sooting during launch escape and tower jettison motor firings and is jettisoned with the tower. Deployable canards (small aerodynamic surfaces near the top of the LES) were added to help turn and stabilize the CM, blunt-end forward, during launch-escape operations.
Primary Water Landing Selected - February 1964. Conversion from a land recovery to a water recovery as the primary mode of operations was instituted to minimize impact-systcm requirements and thereby conserve structural weight. 'This chdnge resulted in the need for a means to maintain the CM in an upright position for extended recovery operations.
Fuel Cell Vacuum-Endurance Test Completed - March 1964. A 400- hour vacuum-endurance test of the Pratt & Whitney fuel cell was successfully completed at P&W as part of the design verification testing. This test utilized a single-fuel cell module with varying electrical loads applied to it during the operational period.
Parallel Fuel Cell Operation Accomplished - April 1964. Two fuel cell modules were connected in parallel and successfully operated for the first time in the S&ID test facilities. This test was relatively short (approximately ten hours after a nine-hour warmup), during which both modules shared a common electrical load. Design - Sect. 5
Coinuatibilitv of S~acecraft and Ground-Based Telecommunications Equipment Verified - May 1964. Tests to verify compatibility of the telecomi~lui~ic~~tionsequipment located in the spacecraft and that on the ground as part of the Manned Space Flight Network were completed by NI.\SA. With one small exception, subsequently corrected, all c quipment proved compatible.
B1ocl.r I Unmanned Missions Defined - June 1964. The unmanned Block I spacecraft mission objectives were defined with sufficient clarity to initiate final design of the automated controls. These controls, in kit form, can be installed or removed in the factory or at field sites as future missions dictate either manned or unmanned flight.
Block I1 Design Go-Ahead - November 1964. The addition of a lunar excursion module to the spacecraft configuration required CM revisions to add the necessary LEM provisions. Schedule considera- tions dictated a two-phase development program whereby the C/S mod- ules were first developed without the LEM (Block I) and a subsequent redesign made to incorporate the LEM plus other subsystem advancements (Block 11). This design go-ahead was given after an intense Block I1 program definition phase.
Initial Compatibility of ACE/Spacecraft/Checkout Facilities Confirmed - November 1964. Compatibility of the acceptance checkout equipment (ACE) with spacecraft equipment and the S&ID checkout facilities was initially confirmed by operating all equipment together for the first time, using house Spacecraft No. 1 (Boilerplate 14). Compatibility was demonstrated, although numerous improvements have resulted from these and subsequent tests.
Comprehensive Contract Specifications Added - January 196 5. Comprehensive contract specifications were added to the program to provide a firm base line for configuration, performance, and interface requirements. Although exhibits to the contract attempted to define many of these requirements, they proved inadequate for the manage - ment of a program having the scope of Apollo.
First Spacecraft 001 Hot Firing - February 1965. The service propulsion system (SPS) installed in Spacecraft 001 (service module) was fir st hot-fired at the Propulsion System Development Facility at the White Sands Missile Range. This development test was the fir st involving an inter action between the SPS and spacecraft-type structure. Design - Sect. 5
Heat Shield and Impact System Verified for Spacecraft 009 Flight - April 1965. Tlle structural integrity of the heat shield and the adequacy of the impact system for recovery of the command module as part of Spacecraft 009's mission was demonstrated by a series of water drops using Boilerplate 28 in the S&ID Impact Test Facility. SC-009 will be the fir st actual Apollo spacecraft recovered from flight. -411 previous tests utilized boilerplate hardware.
Integrated ECS Testing Initiated - May 1965. Testing of a completely integrated environmental control system was initiated in the S&ID Downey complex. These initial tests, using all ECS components and colltrols and actual or simulated spacecraft equipment installed in a CM inner shell within a vacuum chamber, were unmanned but are being extended to include crew systems and men in the loop. Reliability - Sect 6
RE LIABILITY
Fro111 its inception, the reliability program was planned to provide for a concentrdted effort toward producing reliable equipment during the de sign pilase, ratllcr tha~to rely on improvements by correcting problems identified during field usage. Emphasis was placed on the importance of d'iy-to-d,~~coordinated effort on the part of design and reliability organi- zat ions in developing equipment with the highest possible inherent reliability. Formal reviews of the designs were planned at specific points during the evolution of the equipment to provide for management evaluation of pro- gress, and to assure that day-to-day efforts were effective in producing a reliable product. The same joint design and reliability working relationship \\.as developed in testing to assure an integration of requirements into the development test program that would provide maximum data for measuring reliability.
A ground rule required that all failures be closed out prior to a flight. This necessitated the implementation of a closed-loop failure-reporting system to assure the prompt identification and resolution of hardware failure s.
The numerical reliability objectives for the Apollo command and service modules were developed on the basis of objectives established for overall lunar-landing mission success and crew safety in the NASA state- ment of work. The specific values identified were 0. 90 for mission success, 0. 999 for crew safety. Using these values, NAA developed specific reliability objectives for the command, service and lunar landing modules. An apportionment study then provided reliability objectives for each of the subsystems in the three Apollo modules.
A minor change was made to the command and service module reliability goals when the method of landing on the moon was changed from a direct landing concept to one of lunar orbit and rendezvous. Instead of the lunar excursion module being assigned the reliability goal previously defined for the lunar landing module, an adjustment was made, and the command and service module reliability goal was firmly established.
Although the NASA statement of work identified design reliability goals and required a reliability demonstration, it did not stipulate a confidence level at which the demonstration was to be accomplished. In early Reliability - Sect 6 discussions with NASA personnel, no specific value was stated. NAA and NASA jointly deteril~inedthat a true reliability demonstration program was impractical on Apollo because of the high reliability requirements, long unis sion duration, and the exotic environments to be encountered. This ~neantthat an even greater emphasis needed to be placed on development of an integrated test program to provide maximum possible data from development, qualification, acceptance, integrated systems, and flight testing for proving system capability and asses sing reliability.
To as sure the accomplishment of sufficient tests (development, qualification, and integrated systems), and to prove equipment performance capability prior to a specific flight, NAA and NASA adopted a concept con- sisting of the certification test network (C TN), which identifie s te st requirements (based on the most stringent conditions to be experienced in the flight) for flight vehicles. This program assures the integration of all ~estinginto a meaningful set of specific test requirements for each equip- ment item on a flight vehicle. A report of the status of the CTN is presented by N-A-A to the Flight Readiness Review Board just prior to the launch of the flight vehicle. Manufacturing - Sect. 7
MANUFACTURING
Ten wooden mock-ups were built in 1962 for use in providing engineering configuration and systems information, as well as for developing manufac- tur ing methods .
The first mock-up drawing was received on January 15, 1962, and fabrication effort began February 9. The fir st mock-up, for cabin exterior equipment, was completed on June 11, 1962, Two additional mock-up requirements, Mock-up #22 command module and Mock-up #23 partial command module, service module, and launch escape tower were added in 1963 and were completed in February and November 1964, respectively.
Initially, two distinct types of boilerplates were to be fabricated; those of a simple, cold-rolled steel construction for drop impact tests and the more complex models to be used with Little Joe I1 and Saturn launches. In February, 1962, the concept of dual tooling needed to support each type of boilerplate was dropped, and the steel construction was changed to welded aluminum. All boilerplates then were integrated into a single line to enable use of standard tooling.
Four boilerplates were completed in 1962, the first of which was Boilerplate 25, a command module with the primary function of providing the U. S. Navy early experience in handling the water recovery operation. Boilerplate 1 was completed on September 7, 1962, and was the initial boilerplate to undergo land and water impact tests.
Five boilerplates were completed in 1963, and the total requirements at that time were for 18 boilerplates. Six of these were drop test, and 12 were launch, dynamic, and micrometeoroid or pad abort articles. The complete mating and alignment of Boilerplate 9 command module, service module, adapter, and launch escape system was accomplished February 28, 1963 in the Navaho test tower. This was the initial successful mating of a major vehicle structure. Boilerplate requirements were increased to'their present figure of 20 in 1964 by the decision to refurbish Boilerplate 6 corn- mand module for parachute recovery and Boilerplate 23 command module for pad abort. All have now been completed and delivered. Eight boilerplates were completed in 1964, and four of them were launched. Boilerplate 22 was completed and shipped to WSMR by March 17, 1965. Boilerplates 16 and 26, the Pegasus micrometeoroid vehicles, although completed in 1964, were launched in 1965. Manufacturing - Sect. 7
Space craft service module subassembly operations began in May, 1963, and the first aft bulkhead was bonded in July, 1963. Service module assembly operations began in August, 1963, and the initial structur a1 assembly, Spacecraft Service Module 00 1 was delivered to systems installation on January 2, 1964.
Spacecraft command module subassembly operations began in August, 1963. In-house cold plate eutectic bonding operations began August 30, 1963, and the first cold plate was completed and delivered to MIT on October 2, 1963. The initial crew compartment weld assembly, Spacecraft 006, was completed on January 23, 1964, and the crew compart- ment bonded assembly was completed February 19, 1964. The fir st spacecraft hardware item to be delivered, Spacecraft 001 service module, was shipped to WSMR December 18, 1964. The primary spacecraft heat shield assemblies, those for Spacecraft 006 command module, were com- pleted through a fit check and shipped to AVCO for ablative application on July 18, 1964.
Spacecraft 009 heat shield assemblies were completed through fit check and shipped to AVCO October 30, 1964, completed, and received back at S&ID April 26, 1965. The Spacecraft 009 command and service modules were transferred December 23, 1964 to Building 290 for systems installations, and systems installation was completed March 24, 1965. The Spacecraft 009 launch escape system was completed May 7, 1965, representing the first spacecraft launch escape system completed. The Spacecraft 009 crew com- partment heat-shield structur al-assembly operations were completed May 29, 1965, marking the initial structural completion of an AVCO-covered crew compartment heat shield assembly.
Manufacturing Proce s se s
Manufacturing processes developed thus far during the program include:
Wrap- Around Tooling. Wr ap-around tooling for location and application of spacecraft command module inner crew compartment-interior secondary-structure tees and brackets was developed. These structural members, bonded to the primary structure of the command module, are the members to which all equipment bays are attached. The wrap- around tools provide for accurate location for each group of these secondary structural members regardless of minor deviations in the inner mold line of the command module inner structure. Manufacturing - Sect. 7
Buna-N Rubber. Buna-N rubber heat-r esistant material was applied to titanium tubing on the Apollo launch escape towers.
Cold-Bond Cure Process. A successful cold-bond room-temperature cure process was developed for application of secondary structure attach meil~bersto the exterior and interior of the spacecraft command inodule. The primary application of this process is for bonding secondary structure members to the exterior of the command module. These members serve as attachment points for the command module heat shields.
Boost Protective Cover. A combined effort with Engineering resulted in bonding of a flexible boo st-protective cover for Boilerplate 2 3. This bonding of Armalon material to an ablative cork material was a manufacturing fir st.
Hand Soldering of Circuit Boards. A new technique of hand soldering multilayer circuit boards was developed. These boards, which have up to eight layers of circuitry, contain electrical leads that must be soldered through all layers. Through development of this technique, 100 -percent soldering penetration can be realized without damage to the circuit boards from exces sive heat. Until this development, multi- layer circuit boards could not be successfully soldered.
Removal of Electrical Modules From Circuit Board. A method of removing electrical module s from multilayer circuit boards was developed. This improvement enabled rework of these boards and resulted in a considerable savings in scrapped boards.
Megger Testing Eliminated. A method to eliminate megger testing of individual wires for "J" box models was developed.
Precision Holes. A method was developed by Manufacturing for dry cutting of up to five-inch diameter precision holes in stainless steel (CRS) honeycomb core panels, using a tre -panning type cutter. This development solved a major production problem since the only known previous method of cutting acceptable holes in this type of material was through the use of an electrical discharge process. Site Activation - Sect. 8
SITE ACTIVATION
In March 1964, a new Apollo organization, Site Activation, was formed. Tll~lnew organization devotes full time to assuring that all test and operation sites, both at Downey and in the field, are activated in time to meet the program schedules. This involves follow-up on the design, release, pro- curclnent or fabrication, shipment, and installation of all types of hardware required for thc tests.
The initial Apollo site activation efforts involved test facilities at White Sands, Cape Kennedy, Clear Lake, Texas, and Downey.
The first major milestone was the completion in August 1964 of initial activation effort at the Downey site for the start of BP-14 testing.
The next major milestone was the completion of site preparation for the launch of BP-23 at Launch Complex 36, White Sands. Shortly thereafter the activation task was completed for the Service Propulsion System (SPS) of AFRM 001 at Propulsion System Development Facility (PSDF) in February 1965. At this time, a total site activation force of 520 persons was engaged at all sites.
Completion of the activation effort at the Downey site for Spacecraft 009 in June 1965 marked another major milcstonc.
During the last year, thc Site Activation work Sorce at the Florida facility has grown from a small element oS management personnel to more than 300 persons participating in thc preparation of 19 facilities for receipt of Apollo spacecrafts. The first of thesc is Spacecraft 009, scheduled to arrive in October 1965.
The Clear Lake Facility Site Activation effort commenced in March 1964 with the establishment of the site management function. Facilities - Sect. 9
FACILITIES
When the Apollo contract was announced in November 1961, the division facilities at Downey consisted of all of the buildings north of Imperial Highway, with the exception of Buildings 3 and 6, which were occupied by Autonetics. The NAA-owned buildings south of Imperial at that time were also Autonetics buildings. The S&ID-Downey complex then known as AF Plant 16 amounted to approximately 1. 2 million square feet of buildings and structures. The following summary of the S&ID facilities expansion program reflects the overall impact of the Apollo program on plant resources:
Expansion of Facilities
Buildings 3 and 6 were turned over to S&ID by Autonetics in 1962.
The NAA-owned Buildings 2, 4, and 5 were acquired by S&ID in April of 1963, when Autonetics moved to the Anaheim facility. By April 1964, Buildings 302, 303, and 305 on Bellflower Avenue were leased. Two of these structures Buildings 303 and 305 were newly constructed. The area of these buildings totals approximately 1, 300, 000 square feet.
Several buildings were leased at sites near Downey. These were Compton (May 1964), Building 31 2 in North Long Beach (May 1964), Torrance (March 1962), Warner Road in Anaheim (May 19651, El Segundo (1963), and Building 318 at the intersection of Lakewood and Bellflower Blvd (May 1965).
S&ID jointly occupies with Douglas Aircraft Co. , Air Force Plant 3 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Move-in began in August 1962.
Facilities for Arsollo
Division facilities used primarily for the Apollo program engineering, manufacturing, test, and management operations are the NASA Industrial Facilities at Downey, and a portion of the Compton complex. The NASA Industrial Facilities, Downey, formerly Air Force Plant 16, were taken over by NASA on July 1, 19 64.
Currently, Apollo direct departments occupy 690, 800 square feet at Downey and Compton, but the central functions located at Downey are con- tributing a high proportion of their efforts to the Apollo program, S&ID on December 1, 1965, occupied 5.6 million square feet in all areas. Subcontracting - Sect. 10
SUBCONTRACTING
A.s early as August of 1961, the Material Department had begun inves- tigating potential sources in support of the NAA proposal for the Apollo program. With early conceptual hardware definitions used for statements of work, budgetary proposals were requested and received from a large base of subcontractors. In review of the total system requirements during the make-or-buy process, it was determined necessary to select certain major subcontractors, based on capability and experience, to assist in the NAA proposal activity. These subcontractors, referred to as team members, were held to a minimum to allow normal competitive procurement on the majority of major systems. Four team members were requested to help with NAA.'s technical proposal. They were Minneapolis-Honeywell, stabili- zation control; Collins Radio Company, communications; A-iResearch, environmental control; and, Northrop, earth-landing system. A-fter receipt of the Apollo prime contract in November of 1961, request for proposals were is sued for firm proposals for seven additional major subsystems.
A. comprehensive source selection procedure was developed, based on a 2000-point rating system used previously on the F-108 and B-70 programs. The procedure included field surveys of subcontracts, obtaining detailed cost, management, and technical proposals in specified formats; and evalua- tion by two separate technical teams, as well as cost, quality assurance, manufacturing, and management evaluation teams.
Results of the evaluations were then reviewed by the S&ID Management Council. The final source selection recommendations were then presented to the North A.merican Source Selection Board. This procedure was used on those subcontractors designated as majors, generally defined as systems of high dollar value and extremely complex.
Significant Events
Significant events in the major subcontractors1 efforts since the inception of the program are:
Wood mock-ups and breadboards were delivered in the fourth quarter, 19 62. Subcontracting - Sect. 10
Development and fabrication of hardware began at the subcontractors three months after receipt of order from S&ID. Hardware for the last initial design verification test was started in the last quarter of 1962.
Initial hardware from major subcontractors was delivered, July 1964, for use in integrated systems testing conducted with the house spacecraft, Boilerplate 14.
Qualification testing started in 1964. The first qualification tests successfully completed were of the launch escape and pitch control motors, completed in January 1965.
Other major subcontractor's qualification tests are now in process, with completions anticipated in time to support program requirements.
Designated Subsvstems
In October 1964, a new Apollo A-ssistant Program Manager was named who was responsible for designated subsystems. Designated Subsystem Project Managers were appointed for each subsystem, with the responsibility of managing and directing the many A.pollo subsystems. This realignment of responsibility provides a single control point over all matters affecting the subsystem project, and assures that management actions and directions relating to S&ID functional organizations are properly implemented. In addition, this change in organizational structure is more closely aligned to that of the customer, and provides a better channel of communication. 35,000
30,000
25,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT
20,000
15,000
10,000
5000
Figure 1. S&ID Employment
- 34 - Completion Date I Utilization Number Description Utilization Site Scheduled Actual - ---. El-Early 1962 Two built and later identified M- 1 CM - Complete E2-Mar. 1962 as Evaluators El & E2 -. I I 1 62 I Two built. M-2 CM - Cabin Interior Engineering Design Evaluation Studies 1 Downey 1 I -- M-3 CM - Cabin Interior Engineering Design Evaluation Studies 1 June 62 1 - M-4 SM - Partial I Evaluate Interface Between SM & Adapter I Downey I 1 June 62 I -- . . Determination Location of All Exterior M-5 CM - Cabin Exterior Equipment. Official Configuration Control Downey June 62 -- Mocku~ -1 M-6 SM & Adapter Interface Between SM & SLA (Deleted April 1962)
-. -. -- --. -- M-7 SM I Design Evaluation of SM and It's Components I Downey I I June 62 1 -- -- I .- CM Airlock & Docklng (Deleted Aprll 1962) -. - - - cMsM LEs Adapter Evaluate Size. Weight and CG of Spacecraft I Downey -- I For Handling and Transportation Studies I Life Systems (Structural Shell Became Evaluator E5) (Deleted 3-26-62)
-- - Evaluate Size, Weight and CG of Spacecraft CM SM LES & Adapter For Handling and Transportation Studies Downey Dec 62 -- Maintain Current Configuration of Crew Crew Support Systems Support Equipment 1 Downey / I Dec 62 I -- 1 Crew Support Systems Evaluate Crew Support Equipment (Deleted 3-26-62) -- - Crew Support Systems Evaluate Crew Support Equipment (Deleted 3-26-62) g 0 -- n X CM SM LES & Adapter Evaluate Handling & Transportation (Deleted 3-26-62) C -- 'd SM (Partial) & Adapter > Evaluate Mating with Adapter (Deleted 3-26-62) P Interface 2 -- 0 SM Evaluate Mating with Adapter (Deleted) r -Interface !?
Figure 2. List of Apollo Mockup Articles Utilization Completion Date Number Description Utilization Remarks Site Scheduled Actual
Simulation of Complete Spacecraft From M-18 Downey 12-31-62 CM SM & Adapter Earlier Mockups.
M-19 CM SM LES & Adapter Evaluate Inspection & Assembly Procedures (Deleted)
M-20 CM Antenna Radiation Pattern Test (Deleted)
Evaluate Interfaces Between LEM and S-IVB M-21 S-IVB Adapter (Deleted) Adapter
M-22 CM Evaluate Interior and Exterior Arrangement MSC Houston Aug 63*
MSFC M-23 CM SM & Partial LET 12-31-64 Huntsville
Block I1 Mockup Review. Subsequently for M-24 CM Dec 65 Wiring & Tubing Mockup by Manufacturing.
Block I1 Mockup Review. Subsequently for Downey M-25 SM Dec 65 Wiring & Tubing Mockup by Manufacturing
M-26 CM Lower Eq. Bay Block I1 Tooling Mockup Downey Feb 65
M-27 CM Fwd. Deck Block I1 Tooling Mockup Downey Feb 65
M-27A CM Docking Mech. Block I1 Downey 4-30-65
M-28 CM - Interior Block I1 Mockup for Astronaut's Review Downey 4-30-65
M-29 SM Block I1 House Test Model (Same as 2H-1) Downey June 66
. n X C a > P 2 n r m V1
Figure 2A. List of Apollo Mockup Articles ::Shipping Date Utilization Completion Date I Mission No. Date Number Description Utilization Scheduled Launched Site Per MDS-9 ] ] (L/V NO. ) 1 1 / Land and Water Impact Tests I~owney 1 Sept 62 I I I I Land and Water Impact Tests Downey Dec 62
Prequalification Tests of Parachute Recovery Svstem
Water Impact Tests (Deleted)
Parachute Recovery (Deleted Aug 62)
Early Qualification Tests of LES During Pad PA- 1 & miteSands July 63 11-7-63 BP-6 ICM LES Abort (-) I I I I I BP-6A /CM (Refurb BP-6) Parachute Recovery Tests IE~Centro I I Sept 64 ( I I
BP-6B ICM (Refurb. BP-6A) Parachute Recovery Tests I El Centro I I I
Water Impact Tests (Deleted)
Water Egress & Flotation Tests (Deleted)
Determine Dynamic Structural Compatibility MSFC CM SM LES & Adapter +of Spacecraft With Saturn I Launch Vehicle Huntsville Orbital Launch Carrying Third Pegasus Cape Kennedy BP-9A CM SM & LES Micrometeoroid Detection Satellite
Water Egress & Flotation Tests (Deleted)
+Spacecraft Recovery & Logistics Equipment Tests (Deleted) Early Qualification Tests of LES During A-001 Maximum Q Conditions. Launch Vehicle: White Sands Little Joe I1 Water Impact Tests 1 Downey I I Determine Spacecraft Compatibility With A-101 n Cape Kennedy Jan 64 (SA-6) 5-28-64 BP-13 CM SM & LES Saturn I Launch Vehicle During Launch. B
Figure 3. List of Apollo Boilerplate Articles Util~zation . Completion Date Mission No. Date Number Description Utilization Site Schedule Actual (L/V No. ) Launched
I -4 I -1I CM SM & LES I Block I House Boilerplate 1 ~awney 8-28-64 1 sept 64 I I 1I 1 Determine Launch Exit Environment Effects A-102 Cape Kennedy on Apollo-Saturn Combination June 64 (A) 9-18-64
BP-19 I CM I Parachute Recovery Tests
BP-20 CM & LES Pad Abort Tests (Deleted)
BP-21 CM & LES Backup for BP-6, -12 & -23 (Deleted Aug 62)
Evaluate LES Performance During Abort at A-GO3 BP-22 CM SM & LES High Altitude White Sands 3-19-65" 3-19-65::: 5-19-65 Launch Vehicle: Little Joe I1 (-) Evaluate LES Performance During High Q A-002 BP-23 CM SM & LES Abort White Sands 9-18-645% Sept 64 12-8-64 T.;lnnrh Vehirle. Little Tne TT (-) Evaluate LES Performance During Pad PA-2 BP-23A CM & LES White Sands May 65 6-24-65 Abort. Launch Vehicle: Little Joe I1 Deleted (-)
BP-24 Hovering Control Verification (Deleted)
vp
Water Recovery and Handling Tests MSC Houston
Orbital Launch Carrying Second Pegasus A-104 BP-26 CM SM & LES Micrometeoroid Detection Satellite Cape Kennedy 8-17-643: Aug 64 5-25-65 Launch Vehicle: Saturn I (SA-8) t-2 Determine Dynamic Structural Compatibility MSFC M BP-27 CM SM & LES 10-2-64:: Oct 64 P With Saturn IB & Saturn V Huntsville 'd I t- BP-28 CM Land Impact Tests Downey July 64 /'$ m 4-16-65 BP-29 CM Flotation Tests MSC Houston 4-30-65:: 65
Unmanned LEM Flight 0 BP-30 CM SM LES & SLA Cape Kennedy 9-30-66" (AS-206) t- Launch Vehicle: Saturn S-IB V)M
Figure 3A. List of Apollo Boilerplate Articles > Date Utilization Mission No. Number Description Launched
Block I Spacecraft
SC-001 Service Module Only Propulsion Tests White Sands 12-11 -64" 12-11-64
Power-On Abort Tests White Sands 10-8-65:> Oct 65 A-004 1-20-66 SC-002 CM SM & LES Launch Vehicle: Little Joe I1
SC-OOZA CM (Refurb. 002) Structural Tests During Land Impact Downey 4-8-66
SC-003 High Altitude Abort (Deleted)
SC-004 CM SM & Sim. Tower Structural Tests During Simulated Loads Downey 7-16-65 July 65
Verification of Structural Integrity and SC-004A CM 004) Downey 11-26-65 11-26-65 Intermodular Compatibility
SC-005 CM 2nd Static Test Article (Deleted) House Spacecraft No. 2. Systems CM SM & LES T~~~~ Performance and Compatibility Within and D~~~~~ 3-26-65 Between Major Modules and Associated GSE Acoustic, Water Impact and Psst Landing Downey & 9-29-65 SC-007 CM SM & Sim. Tower Tests MSC 2-28-66*
SC-007A Refurbisher SC-007 Post Landing Tests MSC 2-28-67;>
SC-008 CM SM Thermal Vacuum Tests MSC 3-14-66*
Unmanned SupercircularReentry Tests SC-009 CM SM LES & SLA Cape Kennedy 10-24-65* 10-24-65* AS-201 2-26-66 Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB
Backup for SC-002 Test Vehicle SC-010 CM SM & LES White Sands 5-31 -66* Launch Vehicle: Little Joe I1 Unmanned Supercircular Reentry Tests SC-Oll CM SM LES & SLA Cape Kennedy Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB
First Vehicle Capable of Manned Flight. 0) Cape Kennedy SC-012 CM SM LES & Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB Tl 0 m SC-013 CM SM & LES House Spacecraft No. 3 (Deleted) ' 0 . jd b Possible Manned Orbit Flight. SC-014 CM SM LES & SLA Cape Kennedy hl Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB H *Shipping Date
Figure 4. List of Apollo Spacecraft b Ir 4
5W U - 4 10a
W31 ilpauuax ade3 suo?ss?~pauuem sno~1.e~ 2"&,"1 vTS S3'5 WS W3 I0 I-3S PIa?qS sasa& umn>eA 1eurzay.I UolsnoH 3SYi 3eaH ~JV9 ws 143 PIarqS Laumoa sqsa~IFIW~~~~S J?%~+s z-SZ WH 33v 9 Y\ISWD, PIa?YS Aaumoa sqsad xa3efi pue punoxy) zjez3a3eds leaH 13V 4 WS IRI3 Yi31 9 (Ie?Ja3=W (paza~aa) z 'ON ~jex3a3edsas no^ an-1~1qv9 PI~T~S I -HZ J-H 7319) ws m3
13e~~a3ed~11 ~3018
A uxnles :ap?yaA yDune? Y\137 ilpauuax ade3 020-35 s3saL Lz~uaa~xe1nsxr3xad-n~ pauueurun 9 v7s s3'I WS Yi3
(paw~aa) VI~~ISpauue~un v1s 9 SZ'I ws ~3 610-3s BI-s - U.wes puz - A11enru1
(pa3alaa) %q8?1~pauuem 3s 1 - L1~er3-1~1 v7S 9 5x7 mS W\I3 8 10-3s
Y A um3es :ap?qa~y~une? N3'I Apamrax adz3 apyqah q3une1 q%~msuo~~e~ado umop3uno3 9 V1S S31 WS W3 L10-3s qaune? aqen~enx03 198?1.$ pauueurun
(pa3alaa) p 'ON 3jex3a3eds asnoH LaMoL 31 9 Ws W3 910-3s
VTS 9 (1 'ON) N3? ilpauuax ade3 W~T$0 ~lsa~ 1euo-1wxado (11ays)~s'(81-dff) 143 510-3s
qexsasads I y301g
1paq3une7 .ONUO?SS!W uor~ezi~y%n uorjdyz~saa x aqurnN a?ea paInpaq3S uoqezr~~~n aaea uoqaldruo3 APOLLO FLIGHT CHRONOLOGY
Apollo -No. -Date -Site Description Vehicle Result Nov. 7, White Pad Abort: Test the launch BP 6 Successful 1963 sands, escape system's ability to New work in emergency before Mexico launch while on the pad
May 13, White Transonic abort test: - BP 12 Successful 19 64 Sands, Utilizing Little Joe I1 New which simulates a Saturn V Mexico in trouble in high stress, high speed region
May 28, Cape Proved spacecraft compati- BP 13 Successful 19 64 Kennedy, bility with Saturn I space Florida vehicle. Went into earth orbit (SA-6)
Sept. 18, Cape Determine space vehicle BP 15 Successful 19 64 Kennedy, launch exit envir onrnent Florida on Saturn I (SA-7)
Dec. 8, White High Q abort test to verify BP 23 Successful 1964 Sands, launch escape, earth land- New ing systems and canard sub- Mexico systems (Little Joe 11)
Feb. 16, Cape Pegasus Micrometeoroid BP 16 Successful 1965 Kennedy, Detection Satellite -the Florida Apollo test spacecraft housed and protected the Pega sus payload until reaching orbit where Apollo was jettisoned, permitting the satellite to deploy (SA-9)
Figure 5.- Apollo Flight Chronology
- 41 - No.- -Date -Site Description Vehicle Result 7 May 19, White Planned high-altitude launch BP 22 Partially 1965 Sands, escape system test to deter- suc ce s sful New mine performance of launch (Boost vehicle Mexico escape vehicle canard sub- guidance mal- system, and to demonstrate functioned orientation of launch escape causing pre- vehicle (Little Joe 11) mature low- altitude abort. Apollo systems functioned per - fectly, pulling command module away from depris and lowering it safely to earth. )
8 May 25, Cape Second Pegasus Meteoroid BP 26 Successful 1965 Kennedy, Detection Satellite...... Florida An Apollo test spacecraft housed and protected the Pega sus payload until reaching orbit where Apollo was jettisoned, permitting the satellite to deploy (SA-8)
9 Jun. 29, White Pad Abort: Second test of BP 23A Successful 19 65 Sands, the launch escape system's New ability to work in emergency Mexico before launch and while still on the pad atop a Saturn. The canards, boost protec- tive cover, jettisonable apex cover and dual reefed drogue chutes.
Figure 5A. Apollo Flight Chronology-
- 42 - L -No. -Date -Site Description Vehicle Result 10 Jul. 30, Cape Third Pegasus Meteoroid BP 9A Successful 19 65 Kennedy, Detection Satellite...... Florida An Apollo test spacecraft housed and protected the Pegasus payload until reaching orbit where Apollo was jettisoned, permitting the satellite to deploy (SA- 10)
11 Jan. 20, White Final abort test utilizing SC 002 Successful 19 66 Sands, actual spacecraft to test New escape in high tumbling Mexico region. This completed the abort test phase, qualifying the astronaut escape system for man- ned flights (Little Joe 11)
Figure ~BIApollo Flight Chronology Figure 6. Profiles of Apollo Spacecraft - 1966 Figure 7. Apollo Spacecraft and Launch Vehicles
APPROX. VALUE COMPANY SYSTEM AS OF APRIL 1966
Bell Aerosystems Company Positive Expulsion Tanks for Reaction Buffalo, New York Control System
Beckman Instruments, Inc. Data Acquisition Equipment Fullerton, California
Col l ins Radio Company Communications and Data Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Control Data Corporation Digital Test Command System Government Systems Division Minneapolis, Minnesota
I A Cosmod yne Corpora tion Liquid hydrogen, l iquid oxygen -.I Torrance, California ground support equipment and I unique detail spares of liquid hydrogen and l iquid oxygen transfer units
Dalmo Victor Company Ma in Communications (Deep Space) A Division of Textron Antenna Systems Belmont, Cal ifornia
Electro-Optical Systems, Inc. Temperature and Pressure Micro Systems, Inc. (Subsidiary) Transducer Instrumentation Pasadena, Cal ifornia
Garrett Corpora tion Environmental Control System Ai Research Mfg. Division Los Angeles 45, California Figure 8A. List of Major Apollo Subcontractors (Cont) C
0z E ," S 0 2 0's 0 .- CV) 4
3 .-as 0 -0zq Q :.S .E oara,-a APPROX. VALUE COMPANY SYSTEM AS OF APRIL 1966
Leach Corporation Apollo flight qua1 ification Azusa, CaI ifornia recorder
Ling-Temco-Vaught, Incorporated Selective stagnation Da l las, Texas radiator system
Lockheed Propulsion Company Launch Escape and Pitch Control Redl ands, Califom ia Motors
The Maquardt Corporation Reaction Control Motors for Service Van Nuys, California Mod ul e
Microdot, lncorporated Stress measurement system Instrumentation Division South Pasadena, California
Motorola, Inc. Up-Data Link Digital Scottsdale, Arizona
Northrop Corporation Earth Landing System Ventura Division Newbury Park, California
Radiation lncorporated Automated Telemetry Data Melbourne, Florida Processing System (During Vehicle Testing)
RCA Electronics Television Cameras Princeton, New Jersey
Figure 8C. List of Major Apollo Subcontractors (Cont)