DOCSLIB.ORG

January 20, 1966 by Ralph B. Oakley Division Historian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
January 20, 1966 by Ralph B. Oakley Division Historian 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris
    r bulletin 109 — february 2002 Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris D. Mehrholz, L. Leushacke FGAN Research Institute for High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques, Wachtberg, Germany W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Darmstadt, Germany Earth’s space-debris environment tracked, with estimates for the number of Today’s man-made space-debris environment objects larger than 1 cm ranging from 100 000 has been created by the space activities to 200 000. that have taken place since Sputnik’s launch in 1957. There have been more than 4000 The sources of this debris are normal launch rocket launches since then, as well as many operations (Fig. 2), certain operations in space, other related debris-generating occurrences fragmentations as a result of explosions and such as more than 150 in-orbit fragmentation collisions in space, firings of satellite solid- events. rocket motors, material ageing effects, and leaking thermal-control systems. Solid-rocket Among the more than 8700 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbits, motors use aluminium as a catalyst (about 15% only about 6% are operational satellites and the remainder is space by mass) and when burning they emit debris. Europe currently has no operational space surveillance aluminium-oxide particles typically 1 to 10 system, but a powerful radar facility for the detection and tracking of microns in size. In addition, centimetre-sized space debris and the imaging of space objects is available in the form objects are formed by metallic aluminium melts, of the 34 m dish radar at the Research Establishment for Applied called ‘slag’.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Program 1 Apollo Program
    Apollo program 1 Apollo program The Apollo program was the third human spaceflight program carried out by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States' civilian space agency. First conceived during the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower as a three-man spacecraft to follow the one-man Project Mercury which put the first Americans in space, Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" by the end of the 1960s, which he proposed in a May 25, 1961 address to Congress. Project Mercury was followed by the two-man Project Gemini (1962–66). The first manned flight of Apollo was in 1968 and it succeeded in landing the first humans on Earth's Moon from 1969 through 1972. Kennedy's goal was accomplished on the Apollo 11 mission when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed their Lunar Module (LM) on the Moon on July 20, 1969 and walked on its surface while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the command spacecraft, and all three landed safely on Earth on July 24. Five subsequent Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last in December 1972. In these six spaceflights, 12 men walked on the Moon. Apollo ran from 1961 to 1972, and was supported by the two-man Gemini program which ran concurrently with it from 1962 to 1966. Gemini missions developed some of the space travel techniques that were necessary for the success of the Apollo missions.
    [Show full text]
  • Emotional Intelligence
    O L O R A D AerospaceO S T E M M A G A Z i N E Orion Lockheed Martin Colorado E.I. Emotional Intelligence Apollopalooza 2019 July \\022v “An Experience for Everyone” Colorado Aerospace STEM Magazine believes that the key to success in seeing higher graduation rates, improved test- Orion Test ing results, student inspiration, creativity, Lockheed Martin excitement and career satisfaction rests in the hands of the teacher. The example and inspiration of individual educators carries tremendous weight on a daily basis, great- ly impacting the quality and effectiveness of the classroom environment. STEM Teaching Career Hill Our mission: Encourage curiosity, Betsy investigation, inspiration, creativity, and innovation; the foundations of every career passion and career in the Colorado workforce. STEM Careers of Tomorrow Laron Walker Wayne Carley Publisher Unlimited distribution is permitted to everyone receiving Colorado Aerospace Emotional Intelligence STEM Magazine. Please feel free to share Pat Kozyra with educators, students, parents and in- terested individuals or organizations. Colorado Aerospace STEM Magazine strives to encourage the educator to better STEM Tools Delights understand the importance of STEM skills, Estes, Boucvalt, their use in every school subject, the need Bryce Cathy and ease of integration into curriculum Steve Curtis, and Bruce Camber and the urgency for students to embrace STEM. To find out more, please send your E-mail request to: Apollopalooza [email protected] Lockheed Martin Orionwww.lockheedmartin.com This month, NASA will test the Orion’s The AA-2 test will last less than three launch abort system (LAS) for the final minutes, but the mock-up module will time, and the team charged with keep- reach up to 31,000 feet at more than 1,000 ing the crew safe from injury during the mph (Mach 1.3) before the LAS fires and most severe phases of space flight will be separates the module from the booster.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Are Edited Excerpts from Two Interviews Conducted with Dr
    Interviews with Dr. Wernher von Braun Editor's note: The following are edited excerpts from two interviews conducted with Dr. Wernher von Braun. Interview #1 was conducted on August 25, 1970, by Robert Sherrod while Dr. von Braun was deputy associate administrator for planning at NASA Headquarters. Interview #2 was conducted on November 17, 1971, by Roger Bilstein and John Beltz. These interviews are among those published in Before This Decade is Out: Personal Reflections on the Apollo Program, (SP-4223, 1999) edited by Glen E. Swanson, whick is vailable on-line at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/sp4223.htm on the Web. Interview #1 In the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology, you are quoted as saying "It is true that for a long time we were not in favor of lunar orbit rendezvous. We favored Earth orbit rendezvous." Well, actually even that is not quite correct, because at the outset we just didn't know which route [for Apollo to travel to the Moon] was the most promising. We made an agreement with Houston that we at Marshall would concentrate on the study of Earth orbit rendezvous, but that did not mean we wanted to sell it as our preferred scheme. We weren't ready to vote for it yet; our study was meant to merely identify the problems involved. The agreement also said that Houston would concentrate on studying the lunar rendezvous mode. Only after both groups had done their homework would we compare notes. This agreement was based on common sense. You don't start selling your scheme until you are convinced that it is superior.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII
    America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII Course No: B05-005 Credit: 5 PDH Dominic Perrotta, P.E. Continuing Education and Development, Inc. 22 Stonewall Court Woodcliff Lake, NJ 076 77 P: (877) 322-5800 [email protected] America’s Greatest Projects & Their Engineers-Vol. VII The Apollo Project-Part 1 Preparing for Space Travel to the Moon Table of Contents I. Tragedy and Death Before the First Apollo Flight A. The Three Lives that Were Lost B. Investigation, Findings & Recommendations II. Beginning of the Man on the Moon Concept A. Plans to Land on the Moon B. Design Considerations and Decisions 1. Rockets – Launch Vehicles 2. Command/Service Module 3. Lunar Module III. NASA’s Objectives A. Unmanned Missions B. Manned Missions IV. Early Missions V. Apollo 7 Ready – First Manned Apollo Mission VI. Apollo 8 - Orbiting the Moon 1 I. Tragedy and Death Before the First Apollo Flight Everything seemed to be going well for the Apollo Project, the third in a series of space projects by the United States intended to place an American astronaut on the Moon before the end of the 1960’s decade. Apollo 1, known at that time as AS (Apollo Saturn)-204 would be the first manned spaceflight of the Apollo program, and would launch a few months after the flight of Gemini 12, which had occurred on 11 November 1966. Although Gemini 12 was a short duration flight, Pilot Buzz Aldrin had performed three extensive EVA’s (Extra Vehicular Activities), proving that Astronauts could work for long periods of time outside the spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Hack the Moon Bibliography
    STORY TITLE SOURCES General Sources for Many Topics and Stories - the following books served Digital Apollo by David A. Mindell as sources of both specific and general information on the Apollo Project and were utilized in many places across the website. Journey to the Moon: The History of the Apollo Guidance Computer by Eldon C. Hall Apollo 13 by James Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir by Don Eyles Apollo 8 by Jeffrey Kluger Left Brains for the Right Stuff by Hugh Blair-Smith Apollo by Zack Scott Ramon Alonso's Moon Mission Grammar Ramon Alonso Interview MIT Science Reporter:The Apollo Guidance Computer -- https://infinitehistory.mit.edu/video/mit-science-reporter%E2% 80%94computer-apollo-1965 Apollo's Iron Man: Doc Draper https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/27/obituaries/charles-s-draper-engineer-guided-astronauts-to-moon.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1987/07/28/charles-draper-dies-at-age-85/4bdedf80-c033-4563-a129- eb425d37180a/?utm_term=.ab5f7aaa7b19 http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloffame/detail.php?id=6 http://news.mit.edu/2015/michael-collins-speaks-about-first-moon-landing-0402 https://www.nap.edu/read/4548/chapter/7#126 Digital Fly-By-Wire Left Brains For The Right Stuff by Hugh Blair-Smith www.nasa.gov https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/july/flight-training-magazine/fly-by-wire www.aircraft.airbus.com aviationweek.com/blog/1987 http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2011/t_5.html The Amazing DSKY: A Leapfrog in Computer Science E-2567 -- Operations & Functions of the MINKEY
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Orion Launch Abort System
    Constellation Program: Astronaut Safety in a Launch Emergency The Orion Launch Abort System When astronauts rocket to the moon notice and setting the stage for a safe aboard NASA’s Orion crew exploration landing. vehicle, they will lift off in a spacecraft that can escape safely should a malfunction in Making its first flights early in the next the launch vehicle occur. decade, the Orion/Ares I launch system is being developed by the Constellation The Orion launch abort system (LAS) will Program as it prepares to send human offer a safe, reliable method of pulling the explorers back to the moon, and then entire crew out of danger in the event of an onward to Mars and other destinations in emergency on the launch pad or during the the solar system. climb to Earth orbit. Mounted at the top of the Orion and Ares Launch Abort Sequence I launch vehicle stack, the abort system will be capable of automatically separating the If a launch pad or in-flight emergency spacecraft from the rocket at a moment’s occurs, the abort and attitude control Orion’s launch abort system is designed to pull the crew module to safety in an emergency. motors will ignite, pulling the Orion crew module safely free of the Ares I launch vehicle. Th e abort motor will generate 400,000 pounds of thrust in a Nose Cone fraction of a second, rapidly pulling the crew to safety while the attitude control motors maintain stability. Attitude Control Motor (Eight Nozzles) After the vehicle is safely away from the booster, the attitude control motor will reorient the capsule before the crew module is released from the abort system to Interstage begin its controlled descent.
    [Show full text]
  • Nasa's Commercial Crew Development
    NASA’S COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011 Serial No. 112–46 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70–800PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia PAUL D. TONKO, New York SANDY ADAMS, Florida JERRY MCNERNEY, California BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama Tennessee FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) C O N T E N T S Wednesday, October 26, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Apollo Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Architecture Decision Revisited
    Student Session II Paper No. GT-SSEC.E.2 The Apollo Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Architecture Decision Revisited David M. Reeves1 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Michael D. Scher2 University of Maryland National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Dr. Alan W. Wilhite3 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Dr. Douglas O. Stanley4 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, ABSTRACT The 1962 Apollo architecture mode decision process was revisited with modern analysis and systems engineer tools to determine driving selection criteria and technology/operational mode design decisions that may be used for NASA’s current Space Exploration program. Results of the study agreed with the Apollo selection of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mode based on the technology maturity and politics in 1962. Using today’s greater emphasis on human safety and improvements in technology and design maturity, a slight edge may be given to the direct lunar mode over lunar orbit rendezvous. Also, the NOVA direct mode and Earth orbit rendezvous mode are not competitive based any selection criteria. Finally, reliability and development, operations, and production costs are major drivers in today’s decision process. 1Graduate Research Assistant, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Student Member. 2 Graduate Research Assistant, University of Maryland, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Student Member. 3 Langley Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Associate Fellow. 4 Langley Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Member. Page 1 of 12 Pages Student Session II Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • Applied Aeroscience and CFD Branch Overview
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140009378 2019-08-31T20:33:41+00:00Z Applied Aeroscience and CFD Branch Overview Gerald J. LeBeau Dr. Benjamin S. Kirk Applied Aeroscience and CFD Branch Engineering Directorate Houston, Texas USA 1 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Principal Mission: Human Spaceflight International Space Station MPCV Orion Commercial Crew Mission Control Astronauts 2 The Future of Human Space Exploration NASA’s Building Blocks to Mars Expanding capabilities by visiting an asteroid in a Lunar distant retrograde orbit U.S. companies provide affordable access to low Earth orbit Exploring Mars and other deep space Learning the destinations fundamentals aboard the International Traveling beyond low Earth Space Station orbit with the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew capsule Missions: 6 to 12 months Missions: 1 month up to 12 months Missions: 2 to 3 years Return: hours Return: days Return: months 3 Earth Reliant Proving Ground Earth Independent Aeroscience Technical Competencies (1) Aerodynamic Characterization (2) Aerothermodynamic Heating (3) Rarefied Gas Dynamics (4) Decelerator (Parachute) Systems Ground Testing Modeling and Simulation Flight Testing 5 Principal JSC Initiatives & Aeroscience Support 1. Operate the International Space Station • Aerodynamic & aerothermodynamic response for rarefied flows • Plume modeling for visiting vehicles • ISS end-of-life disposal 2. Develop the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle Orion • Develop aerodynamic & aeroheating databases • Support development of the parachute recovery system
    [Show full text]
  • Results of the Tenth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Test Flight SA-10, MPR-SAT-FE-66-11, July 14, 1966
    HUNTSVILLE ALABAMA U N MPR-SAT-FE-66-i t J (Supersedes MPR-SAT-65-14) July 14, 1966 X69-75421 (ACCE$$}0_IN_) ./BER) " (THRU) _; <k/ ,ooo_, o (NASA'CR OR T__) (CATEGORYI _. AVAILABLE TO U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND CONTRACTORS ONLY RESULTSOFTHETENTHSATURN, LAUNCHVEHICLE [u] .C,_BsTfIc_o _ c_a_ _£Sk "+ , / +. _ ,+1 -: • 1_ ,t:_ 'v- Sc_e_t;*; SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP GROUP-4 _/ Down_r_W_L3y_rvats; Declasf_ars. %, L " \ ',., ". MSFC - Fo_m 774 (Rev Ma_ 1_66) C • _, SECURITY NOTE This document contains irrformation affecting the national defense of the United States within the meaning of the Espionage Law, Title 18, U.S.C. , Sec- tions 793 and 794 as amended. The revelation ol its contents in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law. MPR-SAT-FE-66-11 RESULTS OF TIIE TENTH SATURN I LAUNCII VEIIICLE TEST FLIGHT SA-IO By Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group George C. Marshall Space Flight Center AI3STIIA CT This report presents the results of the early engi- neering evaluation of the SA-10 test flight. Sixth of the Block II series, SA-i0 was the fifth Saturn vehicle to car W an Apollo boilerplate (BP-9) payload and the third in a series to carry a Pegasus payload (Pegasus C). The performance of each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations. This test flightof SA-10 was the tenth consecutive success for the Saturn I vehicles and marks the end el the Saturn I program This was the third flight test of the Pegasus meteoroid technology satellite, the third flight test to utilize the iterative guidance mode, the fourth flight test utilizing the ST-f24 guidance system forboth stages, andthe fifth flight test to dem- onstrate the closed loop performance of the path guidance during S-IV burn.
    [Show full text]