Science training history of the Apollo astronauts

330 Pages·2015·9.17 MB·English

by  William C. Phinney

NASA/SP-2015-626
Science
Training
History
of the
Apollo
Astronauts
William C. Phinney
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Apollo 17 crewmembers Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt conducting a practice EVA in the southern Nevada
Volcanic Field near Tonopah, NV (NASA Photograph AS17-S72-48930).

ii
NASA/SP-2015-626
Science
Training
History
of the
Apollo
Astronauts
William C. Phinney
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Cover photographs: From top: Apollo 13 Commander (CDR) James Lovell, left, and Lunar Module Pilot (LMP)
Fred Haise during a geologic training trip to Kilbourne Hole, NM, November 1969 (NASA Photography S69-
25199); (Center) Apollo 16 LMP Charles Duke (left) and CDR John W. Young (right) during a practice EVA at
Sudbury Crater, Ontario, Canada, July 1971 (NASA Photograph AS16-S71-39840); Apollo 17 LMP Harrison
Schmitt (left) and CDR Eugene Cernan (right) during a practive EVA at Lunar Crater Volcanic Field, Tonopah,
Nevada, September 1972 (NASA Photograph AS17-S72-48895); Apollo 15 CDR David Scott (left) and James Irwin
(right) during practice geologic EVA training at the Rio Grande Gorge, Taos, NM, March 1971 (NASA Photograph
AS15-S71-23773)

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When I retired from NASA several of my coworkers, particularly Dave McKay and Everett Gibson, suggested that,
given my past role as the coordinator for the science training of the Apollo astronauts, I should put together a history
of what was involved in that training. Because it had been nearly twenty-five years since the end of Apollo they
pointed out that many of the persons involved in that training might not be around when advice might be sought for
future missions of this type. The difficult lessons learned during that training should be made available in print for
the benefit of any similar programs in the future. With financial aid from NASA the work got underway with
interviews, collection of files & photos, visits to archives, and assembly of notes from individuals who were
involved. Thanks are due to: Mike McEwen, Dave McKay, Gordie Swann, Bill Muehlberger, Gene Shoemaker,
Jack Sevier, Jim Head, Farouk El-Baz, Gerry Schaber, Jack Schmitt, John Young, and John Dietrich for taking the
time to discuss with me their roles in and assessments of the training as well as providing copies of documents and
photos that were crucial to the accuracy of the history; Ray Zedekar for providing the detailed daily schedules of the
various Apollo crews; Paul Lowman for providing several documents regarding early astronaut training; and Gary
Lofgren, Fred Horz, and Don Morrison for providing copies of the detailed schedules that they kept as science
trainers for the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 crews respectively. Special thanks go to Uel Clanton who allowed me to
spend a few days with him at his home going through his extensive collections of recordings and documents as well
as his personal recollections of the early training. Two other persons who deserve special thanks are Jodie Swann
who led me through the maze of USGS documents to glean the useful ones and Pat Patnesky, the official NASA
photographer throughout the training, who helped select a few photos from the thousands that he had taken. Thanks
are also due to the helpful staffs during my visits to the National Archives Pacific Region at Laguna Niguel,
California and The University of New Mexico Libraries at Albuquerque. Their aid in finding the proper boxes in
their storage areas and copying and mailing to me the selected documents was invaluable. And finally the
persistence of Dean Eppler in getting the completed history out of limbo and off to publication is greatly appreciated.

v
Table of Contents

Section I: GENERAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 1
1. Background and Rationale ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Section II: EARLY GENERAL TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 11
1. Introduction (Setting the Stage) ...................................................................................................................... 11
2. Early attempts at science in space on manned flights ..................................................................................... 16
3. The influence of Apollo commences .............................................................................................................. 21
4. Apparent conflicts .......................................................................................................................................... 31
5. Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 34
6. Flagstaff simulations, time-motion studies, tools, etc. ................................................................................... 41
7. Setting up the training by USGS and MSC .................................................................................................... 48
8. The training itself ........................................................................................................................................... 54
9. Departure of USGS Group from Houston ...................................................................................................... 58
10. Continuation of the training after USGS departure ...................................................................................... 61
11. Reactions of astronauts to training ............................................................................................................... 69
Section III: MISSION-ORIENTED TRAINING ....................................................................................................... 71
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 71
2. Groups involved in science training ............................................................................................................... 71
3. Interfacing with advisory committees ............................................................................................................ 78
4. Integration of groups and disciplines in traverse planning ............................................................................. 89
5. Rationale for content and types of training ..................................................................................................... 93
6. Field training for surface-science procedures ................................................................................................. 98
7. Command Module training for orbital science ............................................................................................. 133
8. Simulations based on lunar traverses ............................................................................................................ 149
9. Evolution of organizations, procedures, and tools ........................................................................................ 150
Section IV: SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 168
1. Background of the problems......................................................................................................................... 168
2. Overcoming the problems ............................................................................................................................ 169
3. Successes and disappointments in the training ............................................................................................. 171
4. Recommendations for future training efforts of this nature .......................................................................... 176
Section V: APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 179
APPENDIX A: TRAINING SCHEDULES: EARLY TRAINING ..................................................................... 179
APPENDIX B: OUTLINE OF COURSE CONTENT: ....................................................................................... 198
APPENDIX C: BOOKS AND SUPPLIES FOR GEOLOGY TRAINING OF ASTRONAUTS, 1964 .............. 214
APPENDIX D: EVALUATION FORM FOR FIRST SET OF GEOLOGY TRAINING ................................... 216
vi
APPENDIX E: GEOLOGY FIELD EXERCISES: EARLY TRAINING ........................................................... 219
APPENDIX F: ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS FOR SCIENCE TRAINING AT MSC: 1963-1970 ............... 226
APPENDIX G: SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS ON THE APOLLO MISSIONS ................................................... 230
APPENDIX I: GEOLOGY FIELD EXERCISES FOR APOLLO MISSIONS .................................................... 232
APPENDIX J: APOLLO 14 SCIENCE TRAINING SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 256
APPENDIX K: APOLLO 15 SCIENCE TRAINING SCHEDULE ..................................................................... 258
APPENDIX L: INFORMAL NAMES FOR SURFACE FEATURES IN THE
APOLLO 15 LANDING AREA ................................................................................................... 261
APPENDIX M: APOLLO 16 SCIENCE TRAINING SCHEDULE .................................................................... 264
APPENDIX N: APOLLO 17 SCIENCE TRAINING SCHEDULE ..................................................................... 268
APPENDIX O: SCIENCE WORKING PANEL CHARTER ............................................................................... 271
APPENDIX Q: BRECCIA SAMPLING PROCEDURES ................................................................................... 284
APPENDIX R: CUFF CHECK LISTS ................................................................................................................. 285
APPENDIX S: APOLLO 12 TRAINING DEBRIEFING .................................................................................... 287
vii

Section I: GENERAL OVERVIEW

1. Background and Rationale

The science that had been accomplished in space up to the selection of the original astronauts on April 9, 1959
consisted mainly of solar and atmospheric physics studies from balloons and sounding rockets. The assignment of
astronauts to the newly formed NASA had nothing to do with the development of scientific exploration of space.
Their main objective was to surpass the Soviet Union in all aspects of manned spaceflight from the first man in
space to manned orbital flights to whatever else was possible. Future scientific studies of space were expected to be
conducted by means of unmanned spacecraft. But on April 12, 1961, when the Soviets became the first nation to put
a man in space by sending Yuri Gagarin into one complete orbit of the Earth, President Kennedy was forced to look
for a dramatic event that would spur the U.S. space program to a position of unmistaken leadership in the space race.
By May 25, 1961 President Kennedy had decided on the nature of this dramatic event when he presented his famous
message to Congress calling for a manned lunar landing to be accomplished before the end of the decade, to be
known as Project Apollo.
Although the initial goal of Apollo was stated only as landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely a
question soon arose about what might be done by a man once he was on the lunar surface. Max Faget, the director
of engineering at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), is quoted as saying “it wouldn’t look very good if we went
to the Moon and didn’t have something to do when we got there” (NASA SP-4214, p. 20-22). There had already
been some discussions about the use of unmanned spacecraft and instruments to scientifically study the nature of the
Moon. Therefore, the immediate answer to the question was to conduct scientific studies such as collecting samples,
deploying instruments, and taking photos that would help scientists understand the origin and evolution of the Moon.
Despite the reluctance of most space scientists to accept the use of manned missions to conduct space exploration, it
soon became clear that Apollo was going to accomplish such exploration. As the planning for Apollo proceeded,
the manned lunar landing evolved into several lunar landings to be followed by even more elaborate lunar bases,
mobile laboratories, and flying machines that would be undertaken throughout the 1970s.
As the Apollo plans progressed both the direction and speed of NASA’s efforts began to change. New spacecraft
had to be designed to test many aspects of manned flight including more than one man in the spacecraft, orbital
rendezvous techniques, physiological effects of long-duration flights, and many other things. The urgency for
planning and developing rockets, spacecraft, guidance, communications, and operations to meet the needs of Apollo
gave these efforts the highest priority. At this stage science efforts were given low priority, except where they
applied directly to the success of the Apollo missions. Clearly, some unmanned spacecraft were also needed to map
the lunar surface from lunar orbit and to determine the nature of the lunar soil by landing on the surface. All of
these requirements that had to precede a lunar landing required drastic modifications in NASA’s organization,
staffing, budget, and facilities. In addition, there was a need to consider what type of training was necessary for the
astronauts.
At first, the initial training for the astronauts, whose task was primarily to fly spacecraft, was thought to be similar to
that of test pilots who needed to learn how to use the controls and instruments required to fly their craft. As more
thought was put into the nature of the training required for flying spacecraft a training program was designed to
include some of the scientific needs that might be necessary in this new endeavor. The first of these science training
programs started in May 1959 and included mechanics and aerodynamics, space physics, principles of guidance and
control, navigation in space, elements of communication, and basic physiology. Each astronaut also spent time at a
planetarium studying star recognition and celestial navigation.
As the time for John Glenn’s first orbital flight approached in early 1962 scientists were beginning to suggest
various types of observations that might be attempted by man from Earth orbit: taking photos, describing cloud
cover, observing lightning in squall lines, looking for comets, noting frequencies of meteor flashes, sketching the
zodiacal light relative to star background, and describing auroral observations. On December 8, 1961 John Glenn,
Scott Carpenter, and Wally Schirra, the astronauts scheduled for the next three Mercury missions, met with the
Astronomy Subcommittee of NASA's Space Sciences Steering Group to hear about the suggested observations that
they might make from orbit. This was the very first scientific briefing for mission experiments that might be carried
1
out by the astronauts. During John Glenn’s 5-hour Mercury flight of February 20, 1962 he was able to make many
of the suggested astronomical observations as well as provide photos of Earth with a camera that he had purchased
at a local drug store. He took photos of cloud formations, dust storms in the Sahara Desert, sunsets, and many other
features. This led Homer Newell, who was in charge of the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters, to form
the Ad Hoc Committee on Scientific Tasks and Training for Man-in-Space. This committee suggested numerous
observations and experiments that could be carried out by the astronauts. Throughout the remainder of the Mercury
Program the astronauts conducted many of these experiments and took some excellent photos of several terrestrial
features, some of which were in areas that had not been explored previously.
The success of the experiments in the Mercury Program led to an RFP for experiments to be carried out during the
Gemini Program. The Manned Space Flight Experiments Board (MSFEB) was formed in January of 1964 to
evaluate experiments proposed for both Gemini and Apollo. More than 50 experiments in astronomy, biology,
atmospheric sciences, medicine, radiation effects, micrometeoroids, space environment, and Earth sciences were
carried out during the one and a half years of the 10 flights in the Gemini program, which ended in November 1966.
During Gemini there were many opportunities for the investigators to spend time with both the astronauts and the
supporting crew members. Clearly, by the end of the Gemini program the science experiments program was
developing rather rapidly. The cooperation of astronauts, flight controllers, and principal investigators (PIs) was a
major accomplishment and contributed to extremely successful results.
In the midst of the Mercury Program a second group of astronauts was brought on board in mid-September 1962 and
another basic science training program was designed. Because the new program would be more extensive than the
earlier one and because there would be much more additional material, both the original astronauts and the second
group were to participate in the new program. From October 1962 through January 1963 this science program
covered astronomy; aerodynamics; space physics; selenology (mainly lunar geology); propulsion; physics of orbital
flight; computers; medical aspects of space flight; navigation and guidance; a two-day trip to a planetarium for
navigational aspects of astronomy; and a two-day field trip to Flagstaff, Arizona, to study Meteor Crater and
volcanic features and observe lunar features by telescope.
While the early science training was being accomplished through January 1963 the role of science for the Apollo
program was being discussed and taking many different directions, involving many different groups, including the
newly formed MSC in Houston, NASA Headquarters, and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Most
importantly, in September 1961, the Space Task Group (STG) at Langley was assigned to move to Houston which
had been selected as the location for MSC and was to be the focal point for all of the manned spacecraft activity.
Initially there was little interest at MSC in any aspects of science outside of what was required for the operational
aspects of a lunar mission which included such items as the nature of the lunar surface temperatures, the extent of
the lunar vacuum, and all of the other pertinent conditions of the lunar surface environment, and how they changed
during the course of lunar day and night. Scientific expertise was required also to help set up training facilities that
simulated lunar conditions for use to test equipment to be used on the lunar surface, to test the mobility and comfort
of spacesuits, and to provide training programs for astronauts.
Starting in late 1961 NASA Headquarters began readjusting its science programs to accommodate the precursor
studies needed for Apollo. Over the next few years various committees, working groups, and summer studies were
convened by Headquarters to propose guidelines for the science to be accomplished during Apollo and the training
that the astronauts would need. As planning for Apollo science experiments and the associated training for the
astronauts got under way at NASA Headquarters in 1962, there were concerns about the manner in which both of
these activities should be conducted, especially from the engineers and operations personnel at the newly formed
MSC in Houston. These concerns were elaborated in a series of memos during 1963. Two memos written by
Homer Newell indicated that MSC management did not appreciate what space science and manned spaceflight could
do for each other and, in his opinion, the few scientists who were at MSC served only in support roles providing data
to the engineers. These MSC scientists were almost exclusively recent graduates who were relatively inexperienced
in research and had no scientific research under way. Starting in early 1963 Newell urged both NASA Headquarters
and MSC to support the development of science research facilities and a more research-oriented program for space
science in general at MSC. MSC was generally unresponsive to these suggestions until 1970 when several
significant additions were made to the research facilities and personnel.
The USGS had programs of lunar mapping and crater studies well under way by the early 1960s. In addition they
commenced a study in July 1964 under the title Manned Lunar Explorations Investigations, containing five separate
projects: 1) Lunar Field Geological Methods, 2) Lunar Field Geophysical Methods, 3) Lunar Field Surveying
2