The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology Volume 2

297 Pages·2015·9.37 MB·English

NASA SP-4009
l
~~·~o~\0 ml~$]'@~u~~~
GD
~~DmJJW~$
THE a' .· ...··---.·--...--..-----------------------------·····­
APOLLO SPACECRAFT
A CHRONOLOGY
VOLUME II
November 8, 1962-September 30, 1964
by
Mary Louise Morse andJean Kernahan Bays
THE NASA HISTORICAL SERIES
Scientific and Technical Information Office 1973
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $3.20 Stock Number 3300-;0455 (Paper Cover)
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 69-60008

FOREWORD
This, the second volume of the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology, takes up
the story where the first left off, in November 1962. The first volume dealt
with the birth of the Apollo Program and traced its early development. The
second concerns its teenage period, up to September 30, 1964.
By late 1962 the broad conceptual design of the Apollo spacecraft and the
Apollo lunar landing mission was complete. The Administrator formally
advised the President of the United States on December 10 that NASA had
selected lunar orbit rendezvous over direct ascent and earth orbit rendezvous
as the mode for landing on the moon. All major spacecraft contractors had
been selected; detailed system design and early developmental testing were
under way.
On October 20, 1962, soon after Wally Schirra's six-orbit mission in
Sigma 7, the first formal overall status review of the Apollo spacecraft and
flight mission effort was given to Administrator James E. Webb. The writer
of this foreword, who was then the Assistant Director for Apollo Spacecraft
Development, recalls George Low, then Director of Manned Spacecraft and
Flight Missions under D. Brainerd Holmes, discussing the planning schedule
for completion of the Mercury Project in 1963, initiation of Gemini flights
in 1964, and the start of Apollo earth orbital flights in 1965. Major design
features of the spacecraft and subsystems were discussed and so were facilities,
training, flight mission plans, and resources. At the conclusion of the review,
Mr. Webb, Dr. Dryden, and Dr. Seamans commented favorably on the over­
view provided and on the accomplishments and hard planning that had been
completed. The chronology of events during the subsequent two years, as
summarized herein, provides an interesting comparison with the plans as
discussed that day; we came very close to what was planned for 1963 and
1964.
During 1963, formal contract negotiations with the previously selected
major spacecraft contractors were completed. In addition most of the con­
tractors for major facilities and support activities on the ground were
selected. ~he latter group included Radio Corporation of America to fur­
nish the spacecraft vacuum test chamber at Houston, Bell Aerosystems for
the lunar landing training vehicle, Philco Corporation as prime contractor
for the Mission Control Center, Link Division of General Precision, Inc., for
the lunar mission simulators, and International Business Machines for the
Real Time Computer Complex at Houston's Mission Control Center.
Also in 1963 the Office of Manned Space Flight was reorganized under its
new leader, George E. Mueller, to strengthen its systems engineering and
integration role in overall management of the Apollo-Saturn Program. In
111
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHRONOLOGY
December Dr. Mueller brought in General Sam Phillips as Deputy Director
of the Apollo Program. Soon thereafter Phillips was named Apollo Program
Director. A comparable reorganization took place at the Manned Spacecraft
Center in Houston as the tempo of spacecraft module design and develop­
ment increased. At the same time, the prime contractors were-selecting and
completing negotiations with their subcontractors and suppliers for the
thousands of subsystems and components involved. The government-indus­
try team for carrying out the Apollo spacecraft and flight mission related
tasks was essentially complete by late 1963. Concurrently, similar activities
were proceeding for the Saturn launch vehicles at the Marshall Space Flight
Center and for launch site preparation at the Kennedy Space Center, as it
was named by President Johnson on November 28, 1963.
Meanwhile, a series of basic program decisions were made; these enabled
the spacecraft and lunar landing mission design teams to proceed into detail
design. Among these decisions were the following:
• Nominal earth landing would be on the water. This was a change
from the original plan which provided for earth landing in either Australia
or the southwestern United States. The change was made primarily to take
advantage of the softer impact conditions afforded by water landing, al­
though the operational flexibility afforded by ocean landing was an addi­
tional favorable factor.
• CSM to LM transposition and docking would be by the free flying
mode. This meant that, after injection into translunar trajectory, the crew
would detach the CSM from its launch position and would rotate the space­
craft 180° and manually maneuver it into a docked position with the LM.
• The crew would operate the LM from standing position.
• The spacecraft g11idance computer would use micrologic design.
• The Lunar Module would have a four-legged, deploy(lble landing
gear. This was a change from the original Grumman configuration which
had five legs.
• The Lunar Module would be capable of supporting the effective
operation of two men on the lunar surface for up to 24 hours, plus 24 hours
in flight.
At the same time, rapid progress was made on the development of the
spacecraft, on the Saturn launch vehicles, and on the facilities to support
them. Typical events in 1963 included:
• The service propulsion prototype engine successfully completed initial
firings.
• The first of a number of parachute malfunctions occurred during
development drop tests.
• The impact test facility for development and verification of the
Command Module landing system at the North American plant in Downey,
California, was completed.
• Flight of Saturn SA-4 verified the capability of the Saturn first stage
to operate satisfactorily after a simulated in-flight failure of one engine.
lV
FOREWORD
• The Little Joe II launch complex at White Sands was completed and
the first Little Joe II test article was launched successfully.
• The LM-1 lunar module mockup was completed.
• Prototype fuel cells were delivered by Pratt & Whitney to North
American.
• The first pad abort test was successfully completed at White Sands.
• The J-2 engine successfully completed its initial long duration firing.
The Mercury Program ended with Gordon Cooper's 34-hour earth orbit
mission on May 15-16, 1963, the unmanned Lunar Orbiter Project was
approved, and scientific guidelines for the Apollo mission were promulgated.
A new group of 14 astronauts, including Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins, who
were destined to join Neil Armstrong in the first lunar landing mission,
was selected in October 1963.
Dr. Mueller, in the fall of 1963, introduced something that was to have
a mighty effect on "landing before this decade is out." It was called "all-up
testing." Under the "all-up" concept, launch vehicle and spacecraft develop­
ment flights were combined, with all elements active and as close to lunar
configuration as possible, beginning with the very first flight. This plan
replaced the more conventional approach of making initial launch vehicle
tests with dummy upper stages and dummy spacecraft.
Because the Saturn I flight program was of an interim non-lunar con­
figuration, it was curtailed and four manned earth orbital flights with the
Saturn I launch vehicle were canceled. The Saturn IB development for
manned flight was accelerated and all Saturn IB flights, beginning with
SA-201, would carry operational spacecraft. Similarly, the Saturn V develop­
ment flights, beginning with 501, would be in "all-up" configuration and
vehicle 501 would be used to obtain reentry data on the Apollo spacecraft.
The first manned flight on both the Saturn IB and V would follow two
successful unmanned flights, so that the first manned flights could be as
early as vehicles 203 and 503 for the IB and V, respectively. This would
exploit early successful flight operation of the new launch vehicles by re­
ducing the total number of flights required to qualify the lunar flight con­
figuration for manned operations. The first manned flight on a Saturn V
did of course take place on vehicle 503 in December 1968-the successful
A polio 8 mission.
Another Mueller innovation was the Apollo Executives Group, which
first met in the fall of 1963. It brought together senior officials of the major
Apollo-Saturn contractors, such as the Presidents of North American, Boe­
ing, and Grumman, with senior NASA Manned Space Flight executives
(Mueller, von Braun, Gilruth, and Debus). These periodic meetings proved
to be an excellent mechanism for opening lines of communication at the
top, for assuring timely top management attention to the most·important
problems as they arose, and for assuring a coordinated t~am effort on the
many faceted Apollo-Saturn activities. A similar group of Gemini Execu­
tives was also set up; there was considerable cross-communication between
v
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHRONOLOGY
the two since several of the same organizations were involved in both pro­
grams.
During 1964 ground and flight development activity accelerated further
and the first of many flight components, the launch escape rockets built by
the Lockheed Propulsion Company, successfully completed qualification
testing.
In early 1964, the Block II CSM lunar-orbit-rendezvous configuration
guidelines were forwarded by NASA to North American, and the Block II
mockup was formally reviewed in September of that year. The Block I
configuration had been configured before the LOR mode was chosen; as a
consequence, it did not have the docking and crew-transfer provisions which,
among other changes, were incorporated in the Block II.
The first Gemini mission, a successful unmanned test flight, was launched
on April 8. Ranger VII provided the first close-up pictures of the moon in
July. Project FIRE provided flight data at Apollo reentry speeds, and Saturn
I flights SA-5, SA-6, and SA-7 were successfully completed during 1964.
SA-7, the seventh straight Saturn I success, provided a functional verifica­
tion of the Apollo Launch Escape System jettison. The unbroken string of
Saturn launch successes presented a far different picture from earlier days
when a 50% launch success record was considered exceptional.
In summary, the two years covered by this volume of the Chronology saw
the essential completion of the putting together of the Apollo government­
industry team, substantial maturing of the design, verification of many
essential design features by test, streamlining of the flight program through
adoption of the all-up concept, and the acquisition of first data about the
Iunar surface from the Ranger Program.
As this volume comes to a close, there were still four years to go before
the first manned Apollo mission, and nearly five years to the first lunar
landing. Many difficulties lay ahead, but the course had been marked and
giant strides had been taken along that course.
John H. Disher
Deputy Director) Skylab Program
Former Director) Test Division
Apollo Program Office
Vl
CONTENTS

PAGE
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vlll
THE KEY EvENTS . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

PART I: DEFINING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS; NOVEMBER 8, 1962,

THROUGH AUGUST 28, 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART II: DEVELOPING HARDWARE DISTINCTIONS; AUGUST 30, 1963,

THROUGH APRIL 2S-30, 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

PART III: DEVELOPING SOFTWARE GROUND RULES; APRIL 29, 1964,

THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

APPENDIXES
I. Glossary of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

2. Spacecraft Weight by Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

3. Major Spacecraft Component Manufacturers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

4. Flight Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

5. Apollo Program Flight Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

6. Hardware Manufacture and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

7. Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

8. Organizational Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Vll