GDC-66-042

LITTLE II TEST AUNCH JOE L VEHICLE NASAROJECT P APOLLO FINAL REPORT

VOLUME I MANAGEMENT
MAY 1966

NASA CONTRACT NAS-9-492

t

Prepared CONVAIR DMSION

By DYNAMICS

OF GENERAL For

National

Aeronautics Manned

and Space Administration Spacecraft Texas Center

Houston,

FOREWORD

The Little Joe II Program, a part of theApollo Spacecraft Program and identified by National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Manned Spacecraft Center as Contract NAS 9-492, was awarded to the Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation on 17 May 1962. The program was, in essence, completed with the launch of the last scheduled vehicle on 20 January 1966. The purpose of this report is to describe the vehicles evolved, the results of the tests and the principles employed to accomplish the program requirements. The report is issued in two volumes to simplify the presentation of the material. Volume I contains the managerial and other nontechnical aspects of the program; Volume II contains the design, technical and launch operations portions.

Milton A. Silveira, Program Manager NASA - MSC

L. J. II,

ram Manager L. J. II, Convair Division of General Dynamics

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Little Joe II Program was to man-rate the launch escape system designed by the Space and Information Systems Division of North American Aviation, Inc., for the Apollo Command Module. This objective was to be accomplished on a tight schedule and at a minimum cost. The program was initiated as a result of an intensive survey by NASA of the inventory of launch vehicles; it was discovered that no vehicle existed which had the payload capability and thrust versatility to meet mission profiles at a reasonable cost. The Little Joe II vehicle was designed for an 80,000 pound payload capability. Thrust was provided by off-the-shelf Algol solidp r op e 11 an t motors, manufactured by the Aerojet-General Corp. Versatility of performance was achieved by using only the number of primary motors (up to seven) required to perform the mission. Additional vehicle versatility was achieved by use of two versions of vehicle fins. Fixed fins were used for ballistic trajectories. Thiokol Corporation's Recruit rocket motors were used as booster motors, to supplement lift-off thrust. This report documents, for historic'a/benefit, the philosophies employed, changes found necessary, results obtained and lessons learned during the Little Joe II Program. Hopefully this information will prove useful to future programs. A bibliography lists publications pertinent to the contents of Volume I. In addition, specific supporting material is referenced in the text.

iii

VOLUME I

CONTENTS

Page i. PROGRAM A. B. C. D. PHILOSOPHY ........ 1-1 1-4 1-6 1-11

Summary of Program Philosophy Initial Program Activity ........... Launch Site Activity ............ Flight Summary .............. PHILOSOPHY

2. PROJECT A. B. C. D.

Management ......... NASA Management/Interface Engineering ............... Launch Operations .............

...... .........

2-1 2-7 2-11 2-17 2-18 2-19 2-23 2-26 2-28 2-34 2-35 2-39

E. Tooling ................ F. Manufacturing .............. G. Procurement .............. H. I. J. K. L. Spares and Ground Support .......... Program Control ............. Documentation .............. Interface Coordination ........... Reliability and Quality Assurance ........ SUMMARY ............... Schedule SUMMARY Changes .........

3. SCHEDULE A. Milestones B. Contractual 4. FINANCIAL A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

3-1 3-1

Original Task and Cost ........... Change History .............. Cost Accumulation Summary ......... Manpower Usage Summary .......... Manpower Usage in 1964 ........... Cost Evaluation Summary .......... Management Report Form 533 Summary

.....

4-1 4-2 4-6 4-6 4-6 4-10 4-10

v

CONTENTS

(CONTINUED)
Page

5. DOCUMENTATION

SUMMARY 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-3

A. Major Documentation ............ B. New Documentation ............ C. Submittal Schedule ............. D. Appendix 6. ASSOCIATED A. General B. C. D. E. ................ TASKS AND PROPOSALS ................

6-1 6-1 6-1 6-3 6-3

Control System Test Facility (CSTF) ....... Telemetry Station Assist .......... Spacecraft Umbilical Tasks .......... Proposals ...............

7. ACHIEVEMENTS A. Reporting of New Technology B. "Firsts" ................ C. Innovations ............... 8. PROGRAM A. General CLOSE-OUT ................ STATUS 8-1 ......... 7-1 7-7 7-7

9. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations 10. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions ................ 10-1 .............. 9-1

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography APPENDICES A. Index of Little Joe Documentation ........ B. Contract Change History........... A-I B-I ................ 11-1

vi

VOLUME

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1-1 1-2 1-3 Little Launch Joe IIAs Originally Pad Area

Title Planned .................. Activities for LJ-II/Apollo Program Vs. Final Configuration ....

Page 1-3 1-4

Complex

General Area of Convair at WSMR ..................... Vehicle Historical Schedule Summary

1- 5 ............... Missions Flown at WSMR, Abort LC-36 1-9 ......... 1-10 1-12 ........ 1-13 1-15 1-16 Joe H Program ....... ........ 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-6 2-6 2-7 Vehicle ......... 2-8 2-10 2-10 Joe H ........ 34.75) ....... 2-12 2-15 2-19 vii 1-7 . 1-8

1-4 1-5 1-6

Summary

of LJ-II/Apollo

Pre-Launch Through Thrust Termination/Spacecraft BP-12 Mission A-001 ................. Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 Test With SC-002 Regions at Liftoff ............. Objectives ...........

Sequence

1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-11 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12

LJ-II/Apollo WSMR Apollo Launch Launch Original Final

Abort Flight

Program

Mission Summary

Vehicle

Configuration .................. Chart Chart Contacts

Data Digest Organization

- Little

Organization

- Little

Joe II Program

Key Departmental President Little Project

............... ................ Area .............. ............... of First ............... ............... - Little

Staff Meeting

Joe H Engineering Identification After

Badge Completion History Review

Open House

NASA Organizational NASA/Convair Design Design

Engineering Installation 34.75

Scope

(Typical)

Equipment Bulkhead

Layout

(Vehicle

Station

Assembly

Fixture

.............

ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 2-13 2-14 2-15 Fin Assembly Assembling Overhead Fixture Fixture Afterbody Crane Placing ...................... Production Documenting WSMR" Title ................. Fixture Frame After

(CONTINUED)
Page 2-19 Loading With Parts ...... 2-21 2-22

Station

0 Interface

on Forebody

2-16 2-17 2-18 2-19 2- 20 2-21 2-22

Experimental Typical Interior Photo

Area Final

.............. Configuration Facility Within of Harness .......... the United States .... Routing .

2-24 . 2-24 2-25 2-27 2- 29

of "Little

Checkout of Vendors ................ Control

Geographical Master

Distribution Review

Schedule

Composite First PERT

of WSMR Schedule Information

............ Directly from Convair

2-31

Transmitted ................. ...............

to NASA by Telephone 2-23 2-24 3-i 3-2 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 5-i 6-I 7-i 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 8-1
oo VII1

2-33 2-36 2-41 3-2

List

of Apollo

Documentation of Test Activities

Centralization Milestone Contractual Contract Manpower Manpower Chart

..............

................... Delivery Changes Expenditure ................ ................. - Little Joe II .......... ............ ...........

Vehicle Value Usage Usage

3-4 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-11 4-12

and Funding Summary - 1964 Summary

Cost Accumulation 533 summary Little Control Launch Launch Diagram

................... Schedule ............... ............

Joe II Documentation System Sequence Sequence - Launch Test Facility

5-5 6-2 7-2

Timer Timer

................. - Internal Timer Vacuum Baking View ...........

7-2 7-3

Sequence

............. Blanket ............. ..........

Fin Insulation Afterbody LJ-II

- Installing After

7-5 7-6 ....... 8-2

Insulation Area

Storage

- Air Force

Plant

19, San Diego

PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY

SUMMARY

[ PROGRAM

PHILOSOPHY

SUMMARY

A.

SUMMARY

OF

PROGRAM

PHILOSOPHY

As a prerequisite to manned flightof an Apollo spacecraft, itwas necessary to demonstrate the abilityof the spacecraft's escape system during the launch-boost phase of flight;hence the LittleJoe II program all Apollo Project. manned The Little Joe IT program was an important milestone in the overwas scheduled to accomplish Escape early and System for use on

economical testing that would qualify the Apollo Launch orbital or lunar missions. be accomplished one year from date of go-ahead.

The original schedule required that the first launch

A modified project organization was used to manage the program managers and administratively to their home

this program.

Under

this This

concept, selected senior key supervisors and staff members

reported functionally to group or department.

type of organization afforded close control and coordination within the project as well as with NASA. Simplicity was the keynote of the LittleJoe II design philosophy; this concept was carried through the tooling and manufacturing of corrugated aluminum skin is an example phases of the program as well. The use Alof the result of this approach; this type of to the more

construction provided integral stiffeners and eliminated the need for stringers. though this design represented a minor costly aluminum time. weight penalty when compared

sheet-stringer construction, it greatly reduced design and construction of parts in the vehicle.

In addition, it reduced the overall number

Weight was not a limiting factor in the design of the vehicles, as most versions required several thousand pounds of ballast to satisfythe mission trajectory requirements. The fact that weight was not the limiting factor permitted conservatism of design; e.g., over-designing primary tural proof tests were not required. servative and simple accomplished under level atures were proven minimum. test was much for The as well designed by use fashion; sea-level more use structural members. Many other tests were of the in lieu material As a result many accomplished strucin a conwere The seatempersystems had been kept to a

e.g., tests conditions as the pressure. available

thermal protection material of a vacuum environment. was subjected possible, components testing program to the rocket vehicle which was costs.

severe dynamic

as to high on other foregoing

Wherever off-the-shelf reduced

of readily programs.

As a result, significantly

qualification

philosophy

1-1

The structural design was based on a gross weight of 220,000 pounds, 80, 000 pounds of which was the payload. Length of the payload adapter was established at 300 inches. The structure was also designed for sequential firing with a possible 10-second overlap of four first-stage and three second-stage Algol motors. Potential growth of the vehicle is considerable due to the conservatism of design. The payload can be increased by a considerable margin with little or no change to the present structural design. Accomodations for more powerful motors, even with 10 percent larger diameter, would necessitate only modest structural design changes. Simplified design permitted the use of simplified tooling and manufacturing techniques. Tooling was based upon the minimum required for a 14-vehicle program. Planning took advantage of the high level of worker skills rather than the detailed planning required in large production programs utilizing less skilled workers. Simplicity was also the keynote of GSE design, minimum spares consistent with effective program and spares support. support was based upon

The Launch Operations crew was used for vehicle factory checkout, thereby eliminating dual crews and dual learning curves. This procedure permitted the earliest possible crew familiarization with the vehicle and benefited the program allowing quick response to field type changes.

by

The description of the vehicle, its test schedule, and program requirements as originally planned were covered by NASA/MSC Request for Proposal MSC-62-39P, dated 6 April 1962. This RFP was distributed to contractors by a NASA/MSC letter of the same date. Convair's response was documented by Technical Proposal GD/C-62-114 and, together with supporting cost data, was submitted to NASA/MSC by Letter 11-1-1486, dated 20 April 1962. A letter contract based on this proposal was awarded to Convair on 11 May 1962. Figure 1-1 shows a comparison of the launch vehicle as originally conceived, and the final configuration. Subsequently a Work Statement, GD/C-62-361, dated 20 November 1962, was issued to describe the task as agreed upon in initial negotiations to reflect later program-required in December changes. 1962, and was incrementally modified

Little Joe H was originally scheduled to be launched from Cape Kennedy Eastern Test Range. However, to avoid schedule and support problems which might occur at that facility because of the heavy schedule of high-priority launches, other possible launch sites were evaluated by NASA/MSC and Convair. A launch pad identified as Launch Complex 36 (LC36) at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) previously used for Redstone missile tests, was ultimately selected as most capable of meeting schedule and support requirements. Also, the White Sands Range allowed land recovery which was less costly and complicated than the water recovery procedure that would have been required at the NASA Wallops Island Range. Convair made significant contributions to the modification of existing facilities and the design of required additional facilities. The existing blockhouse and service tower at LC-36 were used. The modifications and additions are discussed in detail in other sections of this report. Figure porting WSMR facilities 1-2 1-2 shows an overall used for operations view of the pad area at LC-36. are illustrated in Figure 1-3. The sup-

C-6062-2

Figure

1-2.

Launch

Complex

Pad Area

In 1964, NASA/MSC performed an interim evaluation of Convair's performance on the project. The results of this evaluation were favorable and are documented by a DD 1446 Form entitled Contractor Performance and Evaluation, General Dynamics/ Convair, Contract NAS 9-492, dated 12 June 1964, and may be referred to for detail performance accomplishment for the period of time reported. B. INITIAL PROGRAM ACTIVITY

Detail design for the fixed fin version vehicle and the launchers started at contract award. Basic structure design for both the vehicle and launcher was essentially completed in December 1962. Fabrication of detail parts for the first vehicle started in August 1962 and in October 1962 for the first launcher. Subassembly of frames for the first vehicle forebody started in January 1963. The afterbody and forebody were mated for proper fit on 22 February 1963. Major assembly of the first launcher was completed 25 March 1963 and installation of the vehicle on the launcher was initiated at that time. One 24 September 1962 Convair recommended and obtained NASA's concurrence that the first vehicle be used as a qualificiation test vehicle employing a dummy payload. The fixed fins and dummy motors were installed and alignment checks for the complete vehicle were eompleted 3 April 1963. The dummy payload was mated to the vehicle on 4 April 1963 and instrumentation and ballast installations were completed 25 April 1963. Final electrical installations and checkout of the launcher were completed April 1963 and the launcher was disassembled and delivered

1-4

NORTH NOMINAL LAUNCH DIRECTION

LITTLE JOE II/PAYLOAD ONLAUNCHER

SERVtCETOWER(GANTRY)BLDG.NO. S - 2_355

TO LAS CRUCES TO ALMOGORDO _ -_._ _

CABLESUPPORT MAST (FORCABLES TO TRENCH, POWER ROOM & BH)

FOR

PYRO READY STORAGE MAGAZINES

SUPPORT OFFICEIN PORTABLE SHED CONVAIR OPERATIONS

R. T AILE 12 MILES I WSMR POST AREA I NASA BLDGS T-118 & T-108 WSMR HEADQUARTERS BLDG 100 CONVAIRMAIN OFFICE & SHOP1540) (BLDG AREA ENCLOSED TECHNICAL AREA ROCKET MOTOR BUILDUPBLDGS 21560 & 21564 WSMR SECURITY BLDG T-S26,,.v_. _ J CONVAIR (

O.

CONVAIRLAUNCH OPERATIONS TRAILER NO. O POWER ROOM IN BARRICADED STRUCTURE BLDG. S'23356 FIN TEST PAD ILC.36 CONTROL SYSTEMS TEST FACILIW (CSTF) BLOCKHOUSE BLDG. NO. S-23350 1,200 FT. FROM LAUNCH PAD 'x 12 _STORAGE SHED

INSPECTIONTRAILERNO. ii _,

GUARD POST

10'x 12' FLAMMABLE STORAGE SHED

ILAUNCH COMPLEX 31 VEHICLE ASSEMB LY BUILDINGNO. NASA TELEMETRY TRAILERS NO. 1 & LITTLE JOE II RECEIVING INSPECTION, ACS FIN ASSY-

i2 CONVAIR RN TEST OPERATIONS / GUARD POST 5' FLAMMABLESTORAGE SHED NO. 11

BLDG 1520WSMR tr_STR. & J BU]LDING 1676 WSMRGUIDANCE & CONTROL LAB (FORCALIBR.) (FOR PITCH-UPCOM'D] MAB 26 H202 STORAGE ALGOL SHAPECHARGE STORAGE NAB 27 ALGOL MOTOR WSMR SECURITY GUARD POST BLDG. 23.501 9.5 MILES 3ROWAVE DATA FROM BLDG. 1512 COMPUTERS MILES

/
ALGOLMOTORPREPARATION & MISC. STORAGE,ETC,

TO EL PASO

CINDER BLOCK HUTS IS) (SQUIBS,IGNITERS, ETC.

C' STATION FOR FPS-16 RADAR TRACKING AND FRW_2 TRANSMISSION FOR COMMAND CONTROL/DESTRUCT SIGNALS. ALSO MFSO STATIONFOR FLIGHTRANGE SAFETY CONTROL VIA COMMAND TO TERMINATE LJ-IILGOL MOTOR THRUST (IFREQUIRED). A

WSMRAIRPORT CONDRON FIELD

C-6062-3

Figure

1-3.

General

Area of Convair

Activities

for Little

Joe II/Apollo

Program

at WSMR

to WSMR on 25 April 1963. Preliminary systems checkout of the vehicle was completed in San Diego on 3 May 1963. A Development Engineering Inspection (DEI) was conducted 9 May 1963 and a number of requested changes were incorporated. Phase 1I of the DEI was held 10 June 1963. A final systems checkout was initiated immediately after this and completed 13 July 1963. The vehicle was then disassembled and delivered to WSMR on 16 July 1963. Engineering design for the attitude control vehicles was initiated on 23 July 1962. The additional structural design required was completed in December 1962 and all systems design was completed in August 1964. Fabrication of detail parts for the first vehicle was started on 30 April 1963o Sub-assembly for the fins and elevons was initiated on 25 July 1963. Major assembly of the forebody was completed on 11 October and the afterbody on 18 October 1963, and these major assemblies were placed in temporary storage. The forebody was removed from storage and final assembly started on 2 December 1963. The afterbody was removed from storage on 12 November and placed on Launcher 12-60-2 for fin flutter tests which were completed on 19 December 1963. Final assembly of the forebody was initiated on 2 December 1963 and the unit was mated to the afterbody on 4 May 1964. Preliminary OCI checkout was initiated on 5 May 1964 and was completed on 20 June 1964. Required changes such as instrumentation, pitch programmer, etc., were incorporated. The final OCI checkout was initiated on 11 August and the Development Engineering Inspection (DEI) was held on 20 August DEI cleanup and OCI checkout were completed on 12 September 1964. The vehicle was disassembled and shipped to WSMR on 15 September 1964. A summary of the typical life-span for this and the subsequent vehicles is illustrated in Figure 1-4. This summary identifies the following phases: 1) basic design and manufacturing, 2) configuration changes and modifications, 3) checkout (on and off site), 4) buildup off site, and 5) launch and/or storage. C. LAUNCH SITE ACTIVITY

Five unmanned flight missions were accomplished during the program. The first was a fixed-fin Qualification Test Vehicle (QTV) launched on 28 August 1963. This was followed by a series of four launchings employing boilerplate or prototype Apollo spacecraft which were capable of in-flight abort tests. Of these, one had fixed fins and three were controllable vehicles. Two pad-abort tests were also accomplished by NAA S&ID and NASA/MSC during the span-time of these tests, as noted in Figure 1-5. The sequence of launch events in Figure 1-6 shows part of the first LJ-II/BP-12 abort mission. The IM-H/SC-002 mission, accomplished on 20 January 1966, completed the flight qualification of the Apollo spacecraft launch escape vehicle (LEV). Figure 1-7 shows the vehicle shortly after liftoff.

1-6

1962

-DEI DISPOSITION, OPEN ITEM 3 MAY REVIEW 1963 __ --____

'''-'allll _NCH 8-28-63 I

CODE
IIIIIIII ,,,,,,,,, _ / BASIC DESIGN AND MFG. CONFIGURATION CHGS. AND MOD CHECKOUT BUILDUP ATWSMR DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING INSPECTION FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW MANUFACTURING ACCEPTANCE EVALUATION STORAGE PREDELIVERY ACCEPTANCE TESTING

12-50-1

J ] I -THRUST TERMINATION GO AHEAD 12-16-63 -FRR518-64 DEI 11-14-63 .... Ill III)111 t _ DEI 11-14-63"

12-50-2

DEI FRR -LAUNCH 5-13-6 _- MAE _ PAT I

12-50-3

IIIIIIIIII

III III

_--

12-50-4

Unlll

III IIII III ,_FRR 12-4-64 I I l ,, _-LAUNCH I 12-8-64 I DE! ] I I iTART

- ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN APPROVAL 5-27-63 12-51-1 ,lllllllllllll Ill

DEI 8-20-64--

I
12-51-2 III1 III IIII IF

MAE

I I I I
DEI I MAE ' I

-FReS-14-65 I I I I
.PAT #2 START
I i i L

-LAUNCH 5-19-65

r-- FRR #i 12-3-65 I I -'FRI_#_1'-14-66 i ; I,I,I -I'AUN(_H ,'1, _H_ _5,1,, 1-20-66

12-51-5

] IIIIIiIIU'"'

III

VEHICLE COMPLETED--

PREPARATION FOR STORAGE--

1962 p_ I

1963

1964

1965

1966 C-606Z-4

"_

Figure

1-4.

Vehicle

Schedule

Summary

I O0

MISSION DESIGNATION A. QTV

PAYLOAD/ APOLLO SPACECRAFT

LAUNCH VEHICLE (VERSION)

DATE MISSIONDESCRIPTIONPURPOSE LAUNCHED

POSTLAUNCH OR OTHERASSOCIATED REPORTNUMBERS

FOR LJ-II LAUNCHVEHICLE QUALIFICATION: DUMMY + INERT LES LJ-II 12-50-1 (FIXED FIN) LJ-II QUALIFICATIONTEST VEHICLE (AT MISSIONA-O01 ABORT PARAMETERS) 8-28-6.3 GD/C-63-193A

B.

FORAPOLLO SPACECRAFT ABORTTESTS: BP-6 BP-12 LJ-II 12-50-2 (FIXED FIN) FIRST PADABORT HIGHDYNAMICPRESSURE (TRANSONIC) ABORT 11-7--6.3 5-13-64 POSTLAUNCH MEMO DATED 11-23-63 MSC-R-A-64-1

PA-1 A-O01

A-O02

BP-23

LJ-II 12-51-1 MAXIMUM DYNAMICPRESSURE (ATTITUDE CONTROL) ABORT LJ-II 12-51-2 HIGHALTITUDE ABORT (ATTITUDE CONTROL) SECONDPADABORT

12-8-64

MSC-R-A-65-1

A-O03 PA-2 A-O04

BP-22 BP-23A SC-002

5-19-65 6-29-65 1-20-66

MSC-R-A-65-2; GD/C-65-143 MSC-R-A-65-3 MSC-R-A-66-3 GD/C--65-190A

C"6062-5

LJ-II 12-51-3 POWER-ON TUMBLING (ATTITUDE CONTROL) ABORT

Figure

1-5.

Historical

Summary

of LJ-II/Apollo

Missions

Flown

at WSMR,

LC-36

(:;..6002-6 I

Figure

1-6.

Pre-Launch

Through

Thrust

Termination/Spacecraft

Abort

Sequence

- BP-12

Mission

A-00I

C-6062 -7

Figure 1-10

1-7.

Launch

Vehicle

12-51-3

with

SC-002

at Liftoff

Each

of the LEV abort

missions

resulted

in safe command

module

landings,

in-

cluding one unscheduled in-flight emergency abort caused by a launch vehicle control system malfunction. These are further described in Volume ]I, Section 2. E of this report. It was concluded from the test results of all missions that the Apollo spacecraft launch escape system was man-rated and the production designs were confirmed. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES AND PARTICIPANTS

The missions had three primary objectives. First was to demonstrate that the launch escape system (LES) could safely rescue the command module (CM} from jeopardy under critical abort conditions. The second objective was to verify the integrity and reliability of the command module's earth landing system (ELS) after abort. The third objective was to confirm the structural integrity of the combined LES and command module when they were exposed to critical abort conditions. The overall program was conducted under the direction of NASA/MSC with the joint participation of NAA S&ID and Convair for their respective spacecraft and Little Joe II vehicle operations. The WSMR adminstrative, range, and technical organizations provided timely and satisfactory facilities, resources, and services as required for each flight mission. These included range safety, radar and camera tracking, command transmission, real-time data display system (RTDS} data, meteorological data, photography, telemetry data acquisition, data reduction, recovery operations, and other data as requested in operational requirements documents. The operational requirements documents were prepared by NASA/MSC for each mission and included the inputs from NAA S&ID and Convair. D. FLIGHT SUMMARY

The first Little Joe II was used as a qualification test vehicle (QTV). It was the function of the QTV to demonstrate its performance in preparation for Apollo Mission A-001. Also, it was of considerable importance, before committing an Apollo payload, to confirm the main design considerations of the launch vehicle: stability, structural integrity and absence of flutter, to give a few examples. The purpose of the subsequent launch vehicles was to propel Apollo spacecraft (or boilerplate simulations of spacecraft) to scheduled test regions from which the emergency escape capability of the launch escape vehicle (LEV) could be demonstrated. The selected test regions represented critical escape regions of the Saturn trajectory envelope, as illustrated by Figure 1-8. In the succeeding paragraphs of this section_ a brief description is given of the purpose of each Little Joe H/Apollo launch (Figure 1-9), the configuration of the vehicle (Figure 1-10) and a summary of the flight events and results (Figure 1-11). More detailed descriptions of the vehicles and flight performance are given in Volume II of this report.

i-II

_'= I-= bO

120K

ALTITUDE,

FT 100K A

l
k_J-JJ

DESIRED TEST REGION NOMINAL TEST POINT ACTUAL TEST POINT

'_" ACTUAL TEST PATH

80K 3 70K _OK

Co: LU

'_

.40K

- 12 -51-1 12-50-2, 1

--

12-50'1

_, co-_

1OK O0 lOO 200 300 400 500 600 q - LBS/FT 2 700 800 DYNAMIC PRESSURE,

i 900

lOOO C-,(,O6Z-S

Figure

1-8.

LJ-]I/Apollo

Abort

Test

Regions

LITTLE JOE II DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

QUALIFICATION TEST VEHICLE (QTV) 12-50-1 DEMONSTRATE CAPABILITY TO PERFORM THE LAUNCH TRAJECTORY FOR MISSION A-O01 DEMONSTRATE ABILITY OF LAUNCH VEHICLE TO CLEAR THE LAUNCHER DEMONSTRATE ALGOL THRUST TERMINATION SYSTEM DEMONSTRATE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF GSE DEMONSTRATE THAT FINS ARE FLUTTER FREE DEMONSTRATE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY FOR MISSION A-D01 DEMONSTRATE ADEQUACY OF PROCEDURE FOR WIND COMPENSATION BY AIMING LAUNCHER IN AZIMUTH AND ELEVATION EVALUATE TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO EFFICIENT LAUNCH OPERATIONS EVALUATE PROCEDURES FOR GROUND COMMAND ABORT FOR APPLICATION TO MISSION A-O01 DETERMINE BASE PRESSURES

APOLLO DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

HIGH D_NAMIC PRESSURE TRANSONIC ABORT A-O01 BOILERPLATE 12 LJ-If12-50-2 LAUNCH VEHICLE DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY OF THE ESCAPE SYSTEM TO PROPEL THE CM SAFELY AWAY FROM THE LAUNCH VEHICLE

MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE ABORT A-O02 BOILERPLATE 23 LJ-II12-51-i LAUNCH VEHICLE DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV PERFORMANCE UTILIZING THE CANARD SUBSYSTEM AND BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER, AND TO VERIFY THE ABORT CAPABILITY IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC-PRESSURE REGION WITH CONDITIONS APPROXIMATING EDS LIMITS DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE LEV IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION DEMONSTRATE SAT SFACTORY LEV POWERON STABILITY FOR ABORT IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION WITH CONDITIONS APPROXIMATING EMERGENCY DETECTION SUBSYSTEM LIMITS DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY CANARD DEPLOYMENT, LEV TURN-AROUND DYNAMICS,, AND MAIN HEAT SHIELD FORWARD FLIGHT STABILITY PRIOR TO LES JETTISON DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL FORMANCE OF SUBSYSTEM DEMONSTRATE FORMANCE OF COVER DURING PER

HIGH ALT TUDE ABORT A-D03 ! BOILERPLATE 22 LJ-II12-51-2 LAUNCH VEHICLE , I DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV pERFORMANCE AT AN ALTITODE APPROXlMATING THE UPPER LIMIT FOR THE CANARD SUBSYSTEM

POWER-ON TUMBLING BOUNDARY ABORT A-D04 S/C 002 LJ-II12-51-3 LAUNCH VEHICLE

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV PERFORMANCE FOR AN ABORT IN THE POWERON TUMBLING BOUNDARY REGION

PERFORMANCE

CAPABILITY (TO ABORT) LES

INTEGRITY

DETERMINE AERODYNAMIC STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ESCAPE CONFIGURATION FOR THIS ABORT CONDITION

DEMONSTRATE ORIENTATION OF THE LEV TO A MAIN HEAT SHIELD FORWARD ATTITUDE I DETERMINE THE DAMPING OF THE LEV OSCILLATIONS WITH THE CANARD SUBSYSTEM DEPLOYED ,

STABILITY LEV

DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY OF THE CANARD SUBSYSTEM TO SATISFACTORILY REORIENT AND STABILIZE THE LEV HEAT SHIELD FORWARD AFTER A POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT

PROCEDURES

! INTEGRITY (STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE) DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE ESCAPE TOWER

DETERMINE THE PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR OF THE BOOST PROTECTIVE, COVER DURING LAUNCH AND ENTRY FRIOM HIGH ALTITUDE

DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE LEV AIRFRAME STRUCTURE BOUNDARyFOR AN ABORTREGIoNINPOWER-ON TUMBLING THE

THE LES WITH THE CANARD THE STRUCTURAL PERTHE BOOST PROTECTIVE AN ABORT IN THE MAXIMUM

ENVIRONMENT

DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL CAPABILITY OF THE PRODUCTION BPC TO WITHSTAND THE LAUNCH ENVIRONMENT DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY OF THE CM FORWARD HEATSHIELD THRUSTERS TO SATISFACTORILY SEPARATE THE FORWARD HEATSHIELD AFTER THE TOWER HAS BEEN JETTISONED BY THE TOWER JETTISON " MOTOR DEMONSTRATE SAT]SFACTORY TION OF THE LEV FROM SM SEPARA-

DETERMINE BASE HEATING DETERMINE FLEXIBLE BODY RESPONSE OF TOTAL LAUNCH VEHICLE PLUS PAYLOAD SEPARATION

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY TIMING SEQUENCE IN THE ELS

RECOVERY

DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY SEPARATION OF THE LES PLUS BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER FROM THE CM DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY SEPARATION OF THE LEV FROM THE SM AT AN ANGLE OF ATTACK

DEMONSTRATE JETTISON OF THE LES PLUS BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER AFTER HIGH ALTITUDE ENTRY

*_

RECOVERY ELS SEQUENCE (OF EVENTS)

DEMONSTRATE PROPER OPERATION OF THE CM-SM SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY OPERATION .................... , vS,,,_ _i_u rr-RruR,v,_,_,_- ,nEELS ,, ,,,_ ur REEFED DUAL DROGUES

DEMONSTRATE PERFORMANCE OF THE ELS Hci_,_TU_ TWO-POINT HARNESS ATTAP_-L ................... VENT FOR THE MAIN PARACHUTES

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE ELS WITH A SPACECRAFT VEHICLE

DEMONSTRATE PROPER OPERATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPONENTS OF THE ELS DETERMINE AERODYNAMIC LOADS DUE TO LOCAL SURFACE PRESSURES ON THE CM AND SM DURING A LITTLE JOE II LAUNCH DETERMINE THE CM PRESSURE LOADS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE PLUME IMPINGEMENT IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION DETERMINE THE AERODYNAMIC PRESSURE LOADS ON SM DURING THE LAUNCH PHASE OBTAIN THERMAL EFFECTS DATA ON THE CM DURING AN ABORT IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION OBTAIN DURING OF THE ON THE TOWER DATA ON THERMAL EFFECTS BOOST AND DURING IMPINGEMENT LAUNCH ESCAPE MOTOR PLUMES CM AND THE LAUNCH ESCAPE DETERMINE THE STATIC LOADS ON THE CM DURING LAUNCH AND THE ABORT SEQUENCE DETERMINE THE DYNAMIC LOADING ON THE CM INNER STRUCTURE DETERMINE THE DYNAMIC LOADS AND THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF THE SM DURING LAUNCH DETERMINE THE STATIC PRESSURES IVPOSED ON THE CM BY FREE STREAM CONDITIONS AND LES MOTOR PLUMES DURING A POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT OBTAIN DATA ON THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF THE CM DURING ELS SEQUENCE OBTAIN THERMAL DATA ON THE BPC DUR-

DETERMINE PRESSURES ON THE CM BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER DURING LAUNCH AND HIGH ALTITUDE ABORT DETERMINE VIBRATION AND ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT AND RESPONSE OF THE SM WITH SIMULATED RCS QUADS

LEGEND ENVIRONMENT (EFFECTS INDUCED)

FIRST-ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE SECOND-ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE

THIRD-ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE

ING A POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT OBTAIN ACOUSTICAL NOISE DATA INSIDE THE CM AT AN ASTRONAUT STATION DELIVER THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT TO

LITTLE JOE II/ APOLLO COMPATIBILITY

DEMONSTRATE LITTLE JOE iI-S/C COMPATIBILITY DELIVER THE APOLLO BOILERPLATE SPACECRAFT TO THE DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRATION OF THE LEV

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY

PERFORM-

DELIVER THE APOLLO BblLERPLATE SPACECRAFT TO THE DI_SIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRA_FION OF THE LEV

ANCE OF THE LAUNCH VEHICLE ATTITUDE CONTROL SUBSYSTEM DELIVER THE APOLLO BOILERPLATE SPACECRAFT TO THE DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRATION OF THE LEV

THE DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRATION OF THE LEV

C-60b2Al'

Figure

1-9.

WSMR Apollo

Flight

Program

Mission

Objectives

1-13

APOLLO MISSION

- NUMBER - LAUNCHWEIGHT (LBS) - NUMBER -WEIGHT (LBS) - BALLAST (LBS)

QTV 57, 165 DUMMY CSM MOCKUP LES 24,225

A-D01 57,930 BP-12 25,335

A-O02 94,331 BP-23 27, b92

A-O03 177,189 BP-22 27,836

A-OO4 13% 731 SC-002 23_ 185 9,361 12-51-3

PAYLOAD

LAUNCHVEHICLE

- NUMBER

12-50-1

12-50-2

12-51-1

12-51-2

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION AIRFRAME -WEIGHT INC. MOTORS (LBS) - BALLAST (LBS) - FIXED FIN - CONTROLLABLEFIN - 1ST STAGE RECRUIT - IST STAGE ALGOL - 2ND STAGE ALGOL PITCH PROGRAMMER PITCH-UP CAPABILITY SIGNAL FILTER-2ND ORDER SIGNAL FILTER-NOTCH REACTIONCONTROL AERODYNAMICCONTROL ELEVON ACTUATORHYD. SUPPLY RANGESAFETY DESTRUCT THRUST TERM & ABORT PITCH-UP & ABORT ABORT X X X X X X LOCATED IN PAYLOAD 3 24 2 5B .37 X LOCATED IN PAYLOAD 13 45 X X X X 1 39 36 32,941 X' . 32,595 X X 6 ). 6 i 4 2 X X 5 2 2 X X X X X DUAL X 58,030 8,609 144,309 5,044 101,328 5.,867

PROPULSION

3 3 X X X X X DUAL X

ATTITUDE CONTROL -

X X X X X SINGLE X

RF COMMAND

ELECTRICAL

- PRIMARY - INSTRUMENTATION

X 3 66 24 X X

INSTRUMENTATION -RFTRANSMITTERS - TM MEASUREMENTS - LL MEASUREMENTS RADARBEACON - LAUNCH VEHICLE - PAYLOAD

C-6062-I0

Figure

1-10.

Launch Vehicle

Configuration

Summary

1-15

I F -L o'_

MISSION DESIGNATION & TITLE APOLLO PAYLOAD LITTLE JOE II NO.

QTV QUAL. TEST VEHICLE DUMMY 12-50-1 8/28/65, 9:00 AM

A-O01 TRANSONIC ABORT BP-12 12-50-2 5/13/64, 6:00 AM

A-O02 MAX. Q ABORT BP-22, 12-51-1 12/8/64, D 25" 84 2' 8:00 HRS NONE 8:00 AM

A-O03 HIGH ALT. ABORT BP-22 12-51-2 5/19/65, 6:01 AM

A-OO4 POWER-ON TUMBLING BOUNDARY ABORT SC-002 12-51-3 1/20/66, 8:17 AM

DATE & TIME (MST) LAUNCH AZIMUTH LAUNCH ELEVATION COUNTDOWN TIME MAJOR DELAYS

4 56.'5 82 = 48' 6:10 HRS NONE

2,46 20' 81 19' 6:40 HRS POSTPONED FROM 5/12/64 BECAUSE OF IWEATHER

356" O' 84" O' 8:25 HRS NONE

348 = 29' 84 O' 6:27 HRS POSTPONED FROM 1/18/66 BECAUSE OF RANGE T/M DELAY OF 17 MIN.

FLIGHT EVENT TIME PITCH PROGRAM START RCS "ON" SCHEDULE SECOND-STAGE IGNITION RF COMMAND DESTRUCT COMMAND AT 32.4 SEC (NOTE 1) THRUST TERMINATION & LEV ABORT AT 28.4 SEC ABORT IN TEST WINDOW PITCH-UP AT 33.6 SEC (FOLLOWED BY TIME-DELAYED ABORT) ABORT OUTSIDE TEST WINDOW, BUT ACCEPTABLE SATISFACTORY ABORT & EARTH LANDING 0.0 SEC -1 TO+ 8 SEC; +11 SEC & ON 0.0 SEC -4 TO + 16 SEC (NOTE 2) (NOTE 2) 21.0 36.4 SEC

SEC

PITCH-UP AT 70.8 SEC (FOLLOWED BY TIMEDELAYED ABORT) ABORT IN TEST WINDOW

BOOST PHASE RESULTS

PASSED THROUGH TEST WINDOW

TEST REGION NOT REACHED BECAUSE OF FLIGHT CONTROL FAILURE SATISFACTORY LOW-ALTITUDE ABORT & EARTH LANDING BROKE UP UNDER HIGH CENTRIFUGAL FORCES INDUCED BY RAPID ROLLING MOTION 100% TO ABORT

APOLLO LEV RESULTS

ACCEPTABLE ABORT (RE-CONTACT WITH BOOSTER) AND EARTH LANDING INTACT TO IMPACT WITH GROUND

SATISFACTORY ABORT & EARTH LANDING

POST-ABORT CONDITION OF BOOSTER

DESTROYED BY THRUST BROKE UP "UND"ER TERMINATION BLAST HIGH AERODYNAMIC FORCES

INTACT TO IMPACT WITH GROUND

BOOSTER DATA ACQUISITION (% OF MEASUREMENTS) NOTES: 1. 2.

100% THROUGHOUT FLIGHT

100% TO ABORT

96.5% TO ABORT

100% TO ABORT c-6062-11

DESTRUCT DID NOT OCCUR. VEHICLE DISINTEGRATED BEFORE SCHEDULED EVENT.

Figure

1-11.

Launch Data Digest

The first two launch vehicles were alike with respect to configuration and mission profile. Both were fixed-fin vehicles, dependent upon the inherent stability of the total vehicle to achieve a successful ballistic trajectory to the test region. One Aerojet-General Algol and six Thiokol Chemical Co. Recruit solid-propellant rockets made up the propulsion package. The Algol 1D, Mod 2 sustainer motor provided an average sea-level thrust of 96,530 lbs for 42.1 seconds, with a peak thrust of 116,600 lbf. Each Recruit TE-29-II, Mod. 1B booster rocket was rated at 37, 1O0 lbf at sea level and was expended approximately 1.5 seconds after ignition. The principal difference between the QTV and A-001 vehicles was that the QTV had
/

a dummy payload which did not separate from the launch vehicle in flight as did the BP-12 payload on the A-001. The QTV (Vehicle 12-50-1} made a successful flight, passing through the test "window, as shown in Figure 1-8. All objectives were satisfied (Figure 1-9), except for the WSMR Command Destruct subsystem. The destruct signal was received and detonated the safe-and-arm unit; however, the primacord did not propagate the detonation to the shaped charges on the Algol case. Mission A-001 -- Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 successfully boosted the Apollo boiler _ plate (BP-12} to the planned test region. Upon command from the ground the LEV separated from the booster. At a preset altitude, the escape tower was jettisoned from the command module. Following this was the parachute deployment and landing of the command module. The vehicle was equipped with a dual RF command thrust termination subsystem as an aid to LEV separation at high subsonic speed. Because the abort test point was reached while the Algol motor was developing high thrust, clean separation of the LEV under such conditions would not be possible. For this reason the thrust was terminated (via ground radio command} by splitting the motor case. The ground-initiated command to terminate thrust and initiate the LEV abort was based on elapsed flight desired test conditions. time, which proved to be accurate enough to achieve the i

The remaining three launch vehicles, Nos. 12-51-1, -2, and-3, incorporated flight controls. While the attitude control systems (ACS} for all three were of the same basic type, they differed in some details, as summarized in Figure 1-10. Common to _ all was: 1) an autopilot to provide sensing (attitudes and rates for three axes}, logic, and control commands, and 2} hydraulically actuated aerodynamic controls. Vehicles 12-51-1 and -2 included reaction controls, operating on a preset schedule, in parallel with the aerodynamic controls. These reaction motors, fueled by 90% hydrogen peroxide, were mounted in back-to-back pairs at the root of each fin. Thrust termination was not used on any of these vehicles, not being needed to assure clean separation of the LEV. Mission A-002 -- With simultaneous ignition of two Algols and four Recruits, Vehicle 12-51-1 boosted the Apollo BP-23 to a high dynamic pressure abort. A pitch programmer caused the vehicle to pitch down at a constant rate, starting at liftoff, such that the vehicle would, at the test point, approximate the Saturn flight path angle as well as Mach number and dynamic pressure. At the predetermined flight conditions, as given by a real-time display system (RTDS}, a signal was transmitted by radio link to the launch vehicle, commanding a pitch-up maneuver. 1-17

At LEV abort time, the pitch-up maneuver approximated the limits of the proposed Saturn Emergency Detection Subsystem (EDS). As a result of an error in the RTDS meteorological data, the pitch-up command was transmitted 2.4 seconds early. This produced an abort of the LEV at a dynamic pressure 25 percent greater than planned, but at the correct Mach number. Because the launch escape system stiffness and mass distribution differed from the mathematical model used for design, the autopilot filters were not able to prevent coupling of the fundamental structural bending mode with the attitude control subsystem. The resulting elevon oscillation, although it had no noticeable effect on the vehicle stability or flight path, excessively depleted the hydraulic fluid supply and pressure. The lowered pressure reduced the elevon hinge-moment capability such that the planned angle of attack at LEV abort time was not fully attained. Despite the noted departures from the mission plan, the LEV exceeded the desired conditions from which a successful recovery and landing were made. Indeed the extra high dynamic vided a demonstration of structural integrity of the LEV at near-limit pressure load. abort pro-

Mission A-003 -- This mission was scheduled to demonstrate with Apollo BP-22 the LEV performance at the upper limit of altitude for the canard subsystem and the ability of the subsystem to orient the LEV With its main heat shield forward. Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 had a propulsion system of six Algol motors, fixed in two stages of three each. The autopilot was augmented with a set of new filters, designed to block the feedback of the first bending mode to the elevon control which occurred on the previous flight. Also, the pitch-up function was deleted, not being required for this mission. Very shortly after lift-off the vehicle began an uncontrolled roll which accelerated with increasing velocity of flight; prior to second-stage ignition and while still at low altitude, the launch vehicle disintegrated. The break-up severed the abort "hot lines," resulting in initiation of the LEV escape sequence. Despite this severe "test," the LEV performance was excellent. The command module was recovered, together with useful data. Mission A-004 -- Demonstration of satisfactory LEV performance and of structural integrity of an Apollo spacecraft for abort in the power-on tumbling boundary region were the primary objectives of Mission A-004o Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 boosted Apollo SC-002 on this mission with excellent results. The motor configuration was two Algols and five Recruits for first stage and two Algols for second stage. (The second-stage firing phase constituted the first time the Algol motor had been ignited at altitude, and was successful.) The attitude control system of Vehicle 12-51-3 differed from that of Vehicle 12-51-2 in two major respects: the reaction control subsystem was deleted, not being required for this mission, and the pitch-up function was installed. Also, the pitch program was preset to commence 20 seconds after lift-off.

1-18

At preseleeted flight conditions, as displayed on the RTDS plotboard, the launch vehicle was commanded to pitch up through an angle which would ensure tumbling of the LEV while the escape rocket was burning. This was accomplished, followed by successful stabilization, orientation, and recovery of the command module. Indeed, all launch vehicle phases of the mission went as planned in this final, and most successful, flight of the Little Joe II launch vehicle. In conclusion, the series of tests described was successful in qualifying the Little Joe II as a launch vehicle and the Apollo launch-escape and earth-landing systems for manned missions. All indications from Missions A-001 through A-004 confirmed that, had they been manned missions, the astronauts would have landed safely.

1-19

PROJECT

PHILOSOPHY

PROJECT PHILOSOPHY

A.

MANAGEMENT

The Request for Proposal directed the Contractor to establish a strong I_JII organization, headed by a Program Manager and removed from other Contractor programs to the extent necessary to prevent interference with a timely completion of the Apollo program. To achieve this, a modified project organization was proposed and initiated as shown in Figure 2-1. The philosophy of this type of organization was that project key supervisors and staff members reported functionally to the Program Manager but administratively to their home group or department. They responded to the project line organization, to each other and to direction from the Program Manager to integrate and accomplish the tasks of the project. In addition, there remained a link of responsibility with the home group or supervisor to ensure that high quality design or manufacturing operations were achieved, proper procedures were followed and schedule requirements were met. The assignment of talented senior personnel to the project was one of the principal reasons for its ultimate success. Personnel were transferred into the project as tasks required and were returned to their home department upon the completion of their tasks. This promptly ensured

a supply of top-grade people, continuity of experience and a minimum number of people on the project as required by the tasks. This variation of personnel with work load is reflected in Section 4 and is shown in more detail in the sample of manpower application in 1964, also in Section 4. Except for minor personnel changes, the organization shown until June 1965. At that time, the primary design task had been Engineering and Launch Operations activity were grouped under the re-emphasis on test and the necessity for even more closely during this period. The revised organization is shown in Figure in Figure 2-1 applied accomplished and one head to recognize integrated operations 2-2.

The organization was designed to include elements that were required on a fulltime basis. Part time support from other Convair departments and groups, as required, was assured on an as-required basis by identifying the individual in that department who would represent the department or group and had the responsibility of providing the support when requested. This method of identification of "contact people" is shown in Figure 2-3.

2-1

t'O I

I--I_-A-|

VICE FT_ES_DENT & GEmRAL MANAGER R, A, Nelle

I
PROGRAM M_AG_R

I
RELIABILITY CONTROL & QUALITY ASSURANCE w. L, ohnst_

I
SVS. INTEGRATION CHANGE CONTROL PLANS CONTROL D.G. Mol_y

i
NASA SAN OIEGO OFFICE LIAISON H G. S_ W.F.

I
DOCUMENTATION CONTROL Bm*_ B.E.

I
PflG;RAM C(_IlTROL Ca_,.

I
SUBCONTRACT COST C0_TROL N, Gran_

DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER

0EPUTY I>ROGRAM MANAGER

DEPUTY pROGRAM MANAGER

Tu_ le

I
STRUCTURAL OESIGN J.E. Bu_son VEHICLE

[
& INSTRUMEN TATION R, E, Mal= VEHICLE CONTROL

I
& DESIGN J K. Lessl_ GSE PLANNING

I
SUPPORT N. L We_r TECH_'/_CAL

[
_, ASSEMBLY C. S Stran_ FABRICATION 0 L. Hunle_ TOOLING

I
I I

t
OPERATIONS A. R _ MATERIAL

I
& EVALUATION M, L Edelste,n LAUNCH OLANNINC COORDINATION A.W. Kellogg LAUNCH TEST

LAUNCH OPERATIONS SUPPORT A.C. i 0chief

'

'

]1

[[

I[
C-bOb2-12

PERSONNEL SHOWN UNDER THE PROGRAM MANAGER ARE FULL-TIME REPRESENTATIVES ASSIGNED TO THE LrtTL JOE II PROORAM. THESE REPRESENTATIVES WILL REPORT FUNCTIONALLY TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER dNOADMINISTRA'FIVELY TO THEIR HOME DEPARTMENT OTHER DEPARTMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE LITTLE JOE II ,_ROGR_M THROUGH THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR NORMALLY-ASSIGNED SUPPORT RESPONSISIUTIES, WILL BE REPRESENTED BY COOROINATORS WHO SPEi_O AS '_UCH TI_E AS REQUIREO ON TH_S PROGRAM.

Figure

2-1.

Original

Organization

Chart-

Little

Joe IT Program

,,_o..o.<.<,FoG,.
PROGRAM: I SUBJECT! FORM32ONE LITTLE JOEII PR(X;RAMMANUAL PROGRAM GENERALORGANIZATION OYIIAMIC/CONVAIR I I I

.,._,,
J.R. 9emp_y [ A/C PROGRAMS .L H. Fm vICE PRESIDENT

f*'/..'_
12,-A-S PREPARED PROGRAM MNIAGER 8Y OATIE C, H. Helm 6-7-bS APP_ROVED: 1 b* OF PMNO. 1

PROGR_I M_T. AIRCRAFT I DIRECTOR

I PROGR_ U#,NAGEE1

I
CTL & QUAL. ASSURANCE W. L..lahnlcem

I
CHANGECONTROL pLANSCONTROL R. Pit, ms

I
OFFICE LIAISON V.J. Pad(

I
CONTROL R.C. _lel

I
CON'i_ROL 8. E. C4,dn

I
ADMh_ISTRATOR C.W. Pamw

I
SUBCONTRACT CONTROL N. Grind

I
SPAREE W.D. Bame

;
& CONTROL

;
COML. SALES

;
PROD.SERVICEE

;
PARTS

I REL'AUT* I
COIiTROL

CONTRAC'S' I
COML. SALES

PROG'P_-- I --ER'A" "V'_ I CONT"CT" ]l

I
I DEPUTYPROGRAM

I
LAUNCH PLNG. &EVALUATION M. I. EdelsLein

OG,T,_OGRAM '--4i I
GSEpLANNING & DESIGN J.K. Lesslq TECHNICAL SUPPORT N.L. _

MANAGE R ENGR, &01_.

I
MANAGER OFF-SITE OPERATIONS A.W. Kella._ A.C.

__

MANGER

1
TOOLING O.L. HuRley

VEHICLECONTROL & IqSTRUMENTATION R. X, ,k_m'ml

FABRICATION & ASSEMBLY Oe_kx

| I

;
ENG,,EERI,_

:
I ADMINISTRATION QUAL. CTL. &INSPECTION W.E. _/,/ifl_ltO n I I r ENGINEERING : CONTRO L W. W* Fe_lton I [

[
MANUFACTURING SUPPORT O.L. TO(I( I ; MANUFACTURING A. W, Kellc_lg : ENGINEERING ] ENGINEERING

;
MANUFACTURING I I

;
TOOLING

I
I

ASSIGNED THE LITTLE JOE II PROGRAM.THESEREPRESENTATIVES TO WILL REPORT PERSONNEL SHOWN UNDERTHE PROGRAM ANDADMINISTRATIVELYTO THEIRHOME MANAGER AREFULL TIME REPRESENTATIVES FUNCTIONALLYTO THE PROGRAM MANAGER DEPARTMENT, OTHERDEPARTMENTS CONTRIBUTING THE LITTLE JOE II PROGRAM TO WILL EE REPRESENTED BYCOORDINATORS WHOSRENDAS MUCHTIME ASREQUIREDON THIS PROGRAM.

HROOG. NORM RESPONSIBILITIES ] I TOERFGRMANOE E DFTHEIR LL* SS'NEDSU_OOR ] RELIA"ILIT* I I

C-6062-13

L'_ I

Figure 2-2.

FinalOrganizationChart - LittleJoe ]IProgram

miNiMAl.

IDYNIM_Iq_I - LITTLE JOE II

Coewmk'OAHs/on PROGRAM MANUAL

m. 12-A-2 _.lmt_ le _ C.H.Hahn _w.,.

,pus 10" _ | e_ Z ereTM12117165

MInT

KEY

DEPARTMENTAL

CONTACTS

'

MO_AM _N_V

PURPOSE

To degignate departmental repre0entatives assigned as key contacte for support and assistance on the Little Joe II program. KEY Name B. V. Allen R, B. *N. C. R. E. Bullock Cavin DEPARTMENTAL CONTACTS Department DataSystemt Estimating Program Material Control Operations LF Plant LF Plant or Function Mail Zone 170-1g 195-40 210-40 847-40 t70-31 Extension KM 3728 1561 12_2 583 14O7

Grand H. H_.hn

CortIigure.tlon Management Technical Budgets Industrial Still

k Program Procedure0 & Manuall

J. P. J.

A. S. L.

Holland Kenny Hoover

Reports

227-00 lq4-00

4g) KM 2481 428 715 453 60_

Graphics&

Propolals

226-00 225-00 B21-20

M. H. Miller R. V. M. A. Montgomery Petricola

Photography Control l, Work

Production

Factory Methods Measurement Government Aircraft

423-00

C. C.

W, B.

Powers Robinson

Contracts Parts

I10-10 ll3-00

KM

891 588

Service

*oo41L.t. *,l

l PROGRAM

MANUAL

"

12"A")

z 'lag' 10=_ l o_ z

Name J. J. L. A. F. C. Sanderson Snyder Stuckey

Department Cost Accounting

or

Function

Mail

Zone.

Extension KM lZgl 14i_ 646

19]-10 52b-20 149-01

Engineering

Administration Aircraft

Reliability Control. Progran_s

C,

Waliman

Reliability Programs Manufacturing

Control.

Aircraft

149-01

1254

3.

W. Woodhouse

Development

491-20

KM

806

All above-Ueted telephone extemtions prefixed by Kearny Mesa Plant extensions; those not identified prefix are Lindbergh Field Plant extensions.

KM are by a

C,_06Z-|4

Figure 2-4

2-3.

Key Departmental

Contacts

Having

the Program

Manager

report

directly

to Convair's

President

proved

very

valuable in ensuring proper support and cooperation from all Convair elements. Participation in staff meetings (Figure 2-4) ensured that the President and his staff were fully cognizant of the program status and any problems. PROJECT INTEGRATION

At the inception of the program, it was recognized that the type of project organization which had been established gave an excellent opportunity and means to employ the techniques that establish and maintain a team spirit, invaluable in accomplishing an efficient and tightly scheduled task. Some of the techniques used were: Physically locating the engineering and directly supporting personnel area to assure that they "knew each other" and could "talk to each other" see Figure 2-5. in a common efficiently;

Establishing a Program Manual (Figure 2-3 is a sample page) that collected all pertinent organizational and procedural data directly applicable to the project. The preparation and distribution of this manual ensured that each organizational element understood their job definition, their responsibilities, their relation to the other organizational elements, and the procedures that affected their activity. Establishing a Project Memorandum procedure to document all important personal and telephone discussions with NASA personnel and major vendors, meetings, trips, test results and other type of information of general interest. These memorandums or "PM's" were distributed to all project personnel concerned, immediately after preparation, to ensure that they were kept up to date on project changes or status. Copies were also sent to key NASA/MSC personnel and to the BuWeps' personnel representing NASA/MSC, to confirm the telephone discussions and meetings results and to give personnel a comprehensive and "instant" visibility of the program. Scheduling Staff meetings twice a week in the early phase of the program to ensure rapid recognition and solution of problems and dissemination of pertinent information to the key personnel. After completion of the development phase of the project, these meetings were reduced to one a week. Providing all project personnel an opportunity to view films of vehicle and to hear the results of their efforts as demonstrated in the flights. launches

Issuing Design Information Bulletins (DIB's) to establish and ensure comprehensive knowledge of all important design parameters. These DIB's were a short form of system and subsystem specifications which, because of their brevity and method of preparation, ensured that project personnel concerned were aware of important limitations and parameters that might otherwise be "buried" and unrecognized in a more detailed specification. Taking special steps which would allow project personnel to identify themselves with the project and as part of the team. The most successful one was the use of a special identification badge. An example of this is a publicity photograph as shown in Figure 2-6. 2-5

C-6002-15

Figure

2-4.

President

Staff Meeting

C-6062-16

Figure 2-6

2-5.

Little

Joe IT Engineering

Area

C-_062-17

Figure

2-6.

Project

Identification

Badge

Holding an open house upon completing the first vehicle to give project personnel a chance to show the results of their efforts to families and friends. See Figure 2-7. Recognizing individual Convair newspaper. PROJECT DESIGN efforts of project personnel by providing publicity in the

The project design and operating philosophy was established early in the program. In summary and in the order of importance, it was- necessary that all aspects of the vehicle, launcher, etc., be sufficiently reliable that the accomplishment of a test mission be practically guaranteed; required that the vehicle and launcher be reliable and yet be available in time to accomplish the missions in accordance with NASA program schedules; recognized that costs were obviously always important but, for this project, that it was more important that the vehicle be inherently reliable, on schedule, and of a reasonable weight. B. NASA MANAGEMENT/INTERFACE GENERAL The NASA management of the Little Joe II Program consisted of the usual government-contractor interface of contracting officer and technical monitors. The personnel assigned to these responsibilities during the span of the program, and their 2-7

L_ I OD

direct support, are shown in Figure 2-8. The contracting officer, resentative of the Government, directed all changes in the contract defined and developed.

as the official repas the program was

The initial phase of the Little Joe H program was monitored by a NASA/MSC Project Officer, who was the focal point of contact with the contractor and was responsible for both technical and program control functions. In April 1964 these functions were divided, with the program control function remaining under the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (Project Officer) and technical direction assigned (outside the ASPO) to the Technical Manager. INTERFACE TECHNIQUES

Immediately upon the task award, mutual steps were taken by NASA/MSC and Convair to establish and ensure a clear interface and efficient channel of communication between the NASA Program Manager, Project Office, Test Office, and the Convair counterparts. This was necessary to keep costs at a minimum and efficiently coordinate changes in task or philosophy as they occurred. These interface techniques included: 1) frequent, almost daily, telephone contact and periodic meetings which were documented by the previously described PM's to ensure proper understanding of directions. Based on these documented discussions and directions, Convair was able to immediately respond to and plan NASA-directed changes in advance of formal project office or contractual notification. Changes in philosophy or design approach found necessary during design development were communicated to the NASA in the same manner so that work could proceed, with mutual agreement, in the new direction; 2) frequent formal and informal design reviews at Convair and at NASA/MSC (Figure 2-9), beginning in July 1962 and continuing through the remainder of the program. Development Engineeering Inspections (DEI's} were conducted for each launch vehicle. The DEI's were held at the completion of manufacture to determine that the product, including GSE, met the design requirement necessary to accomplish the mission objectives; 3) special effort in identifying changes which were individually authorized by NASA Contract Change Authorization (CCA). These changes were defined in detail, cost-estimated, and rapidly submitted to NASA as Contract Change Proposals (CCP). All substantiation data requested by NASA to assist in fact-finding were readily supplied, and the changes were negotiated and incorporated into the Contract and Work Statement in convenient packages. Treating the changes in this manner allowed easier understanding by NASA of the change definition and the breakdown of the costs, and provided good control of the costs; and 4) emphasis on the importance of the interface between the Convair and NASA launch operations crews, sInce successful launch activity depended on good coordination and cooperation. These teams were encouraged to work together and solve mutual problems in a relatively independent manner but, at the same time, ensure that the "home office" was kept fully informed of status and action and of any necessity for top level direction or agreement. NASA and Convair engineering and reliability personnel were encouraged to work together to the limit of their defined authority to solve common problems. Their discussions and agreements were documented by PM's to ensure that all key Project Personnel, including Project Management, were kept informed of such discussion. 2-9

DATE MAY 1962 AUGUST 1962 APRIL 1964 JUNE 1964 FEBRUARY 1965 AUGUST 1965

CONTRACTING OFFICER G.J. G.J. G.J. STROOP MEHAILESCU MEHAILESCU

PROJECT OFFICER W.W. W.W. R.G. PETYNIA PETYNIA BROCK

TECHNICAL MANAGER

PROGRAM MANAGER

M.A. M.A. M.A.

SILVEIRA SILVEIRA SILVEIRA M.A. SlLVEIRA

C-6062-19

G.J. MEHAILESCU N.J. N.J. BEAUREGARD BEAUREGARD

M. E. DELL M. E. DELL M.E. DELL

Figure

2-8.

NASA

Organizational

History

C-b062-20

Figure 2-10

2-9.

NASA/Convair

Design

Review

Although it was originally planned by MSC to locatea NASA resident representative at the Contractor's facility, it was decided that the resident BuWeps representatives at Convair could adequately represent NASA's interests in engineering, quality control, contracts and procurement. Due to a well-established, working relationship between BuWeps and Convair, this method of supporting NASA's interests was very successful. A form of interface document called the Open Action Log was established early in

the program to identify topics which required action and solution between NASA and Convair. The Open Action Log was periodically revised to document intermediate action taken during the problem solution or to define how and when the solution was achieved; ensured that both parties remained cognizant of the item and the action requirement incumbent upon them, and historically documented the steps taken in solution of the problem. C. ENGINEERING GENERAL The basic designphilosophyfor the LittleJoe IIemphasized simplicity and reliability.The objectiveswere readilyachieved, sincespace and weight requirements were not critical.The LittleJoe IIengineeringactivity encompassed allengineering phases from design concept and systems integration through detailedcomponent checkout and installation liaison; see Figure 2-10. The various disciplines were assembled intoone projectarea to facilitate coordinationand communication. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Drawings and specifications produced in accord with Convair's commercial practice were entirely adequate for procurement-of-fabrication purposes and less costly than specifications prepared to formal military requirements. Manufacturing required only composite mechanical detail and installation drawings, along with wire data tables. In-line schematics facilitated testing and operations; harness diagrams and isometric layouts were not used. Installation and routing of wiring harnesses were accomplished in the factory by experienced technicians guided by engineering liaison and a general installation specification. Documentation of completed installations is covered by photographs (see Figure 2-17 for sample). Initially, wires had end identification only but stamped identification repeated along the wire length was subsequently added at the at the request of NASA. SYSTEM DESIGN for each mission were created to produce the specifications for

Mission Parameters -- Required flight parameters by NASA/MSC, and modified by hardware limitations system design. Flight Environments environmental parameters launch or actual mission

-- The vehicle systems were designed to the most severe that could be logically identified regardless of the time of parameters. The initial environmental parameters were 2-11

b,3 I I--, t_

OFFICE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION _ TECHNICAL

_ ;

PROJECTINTEGRATION CUSTOMERLIAISON INTERFACE COORD.

PROJECT>
STAFF --SYSTEM LAYOUT DRAFT CHECK VENDORLIAISON ABM FTI TEST SUPPORT COMPONENTS INSTLDRAFTENGR. CHECK FACILITY LIAISON PROCEDURES (OCP) TEST AID ENGR. FTI INTERFACESPECS CHECKOUT- FACTORY FIELD DOCUMENTSUPPORT VEHICLEDESC. TEST PLAN HDWELIST _7 = OFF-BOARD RECOVERYIDENTo TESTING SUBSYSTEM
QUAL. =. I

' i i

ATT. CONT. ELECTRICAL IGNITION DESIGN LANDINGSLAuNCHER RANGESAFETY RF COMMAND INSTRU. T/M STRUCT. MECH. GSE

m .=

:l =

.I _ .=

!
m ,i

? =' ==

In I

i I
I I I

, , i I I I I

a, =,, , =

I i
III " i i

C-6062-21

Figure

2-10.

Design

Engineering

Scope

(Typical)

- Little

Joe

II

established at the start lists the design criteria

of the program, for environment.

using

MIL-STD-810

as a guide.

D.I.B.-12-015

System Requirements -- Requirements were carefully reviewed for each mission to ensure maximum performance with minimum hardware. For example, instrumentation was limited to those functions which would enable performance evaluation for a particular mission; that is, there was no "standard package" to be used for all missions. Similarly, all other systems were designed to exact mission requirements. Each launch vehicle, therefore, had a different configuration. Standard approved parts were used wherever possible, thus holding special development to a minimum. The launch vehicle afterbody, for example, accepted either fixed fins or controllable fins. Likewise, ground control and monitoring were interfaced to the vehicle via from two to seven standard umbilical connectors. System Concepts -- The initial system concepts were provided by Convair and were based on simplicity of design and off-the-shelf components to ensure the required reliability. As mission planning progressed, it became evident that launch vehicle reliability must approach spacecraft reliability to ensure recovery of the payload. All system concepts were therefore reevaluated by NASA and the basic nature of the systems was redefined. The type of control required and the kind of systems used is shown in the following list: System System Single Ignition Attitude Electrical Radar Beacon Control X* X** X X** X* ** some some X Type Dual X Timing X Control Preflight Activation X X Method Command X X X X Sensing

Range Safety RF Command Instrumentation

* Contains ** Contains

redundant circuitry dual circuitry

Single

systems

were those

containing

the minimum

number

of components

re-

quired to perform the function. Single systems were used: 1) where ground control enabled a countdown hold in the event of malfunction; for example, the launcher control systems or, 2) provide secondary functions during flight; for example, the 2-13

instrumentation system or, 3) where complexity of design and cost for implementation of other concepts was not advisable; for example, the attitude control system. Dual Systems, comprised of two identical single systems which performed the same function, were used to ensure flight functioning. These systems (for example, the RF command system) were so designed that no single failure would prevent functioning or cause nonscheduled functioning. Redundant systems are combinations of a prime system and secondary system; the secondary system provides control if the prime system does not function. No redundant systems were installed in the launch vehicle, although specific circuits, such as thrust termination and delayed pitch programmer start employed redundancy to ensure success. The structural concept of the vehicle was unique in that the vehicle skin was formed from the dies used for commercial roofing. The vehicle skin material was 24ST aluminum alloy and the fact that it was corrugated allowed the outer shell to serve as a closing skin as well as a stringer combination when used with the ring frames. Conservatively heavy gauge skins were used in the design of the vehicle structure, as weight was not of prime importance. Primary structural connections not permit the use of forging dies. COMPONENTS Selection in a system. -- Each required component was carefully Selection steps were as follows: selected and screened for use were "hog-outs" from billet stock as quantity did

- Design function. - Environment characteristics. - Life expectancy. - Failure rate. Test -- Individual components were functionally tested to design parameters prior to installation in the vehicle system. Component testing was expanded in midprogram to include limited environmental tests (see Reliability Philosophy in this section, and Section 5A in Volume I1) in an effort to eliminate manufacturing defects. These limited environmental tests included temperature, vibration and altitude. Late in the program component burn-in after installation was initiated on selected parts to further reduce the failure rate. INSTALLATIONS Configuration -- Installations were carefully planned to allow a broad spectrum of vehicle systems to be installed as required by each mission. The initial layout provided for maximum component density in the equipment section. For individual missions, installations were deleted or added as required; see Figure 2-11. Vibration testing was performed on typical installations. Each installation was approved by 2-14

34 9 I0 12 38 28

FIN III 9 55 29 18 17 40 30 5 37 41 _6

41

.59 23

32 51 3c 2 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 54 35 56 37 38 39 40 41 42

SUPPORT HOOKS (REF) BATTERY INSTALLATICN - RF COMMAND SYSTEM ANTENNA I_ISTALLATICN RF COMMAND SYSTEM RECEIVER INSTALLATION - RF COMMANDSYSTEM COUPLER INSTALLATION - ANTENNA RF COMMANDSYSTEM SAFEAND ARMINSTALLATION - RF COMMANDSYSTEM BOXINSTALLATION- RELAY ABORT AND DESTRUCT POWERCHANGEOVER SWITCH INSTALLATION - VEHICLE BATTERY INSTALLATICN- VEHICLE ELECTRICAL DIODE INSTALLATION - VEHICLE, ATTITUDE CONTROL TERMINAL ,BOARD INSTALLATION - VEHICLE, ELECTRICAL COVER INSTALLATION - VEHICLE UMBILICAL TERMINAL BOARD INSTALLATION - RF COMMAND SYSTEM RATE GYROINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL INVERTER INSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL GYROINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL TIMER INSTALLATION - IGNITICN, ATTITUDE CONTROL BOX INSTALLATION - IGNITION CONTROL CONTROL UNIT INSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL BOX INSTALLATION - RELAY, GYROCONTROL BOX INSTALLATION - PITCH-UP ATTITUDE CONTROL FILTER INSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM BOX INSTALLATICN - RELAY PITCH PROGRAMMERCCNTROL SIGNAL CONDITIONINGBOX INSTALLATION ELECTRICAL SENSORAND RELAY BOX INSTALLATION - - INSTRUMENT SYSTEM CONTROLBOX INSTALLATION - TIMER, IGNITION RELAY INSTALLATION - INVERTER CONTROL SHUNT INSTALLATION - BATTERY, ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE INSTALLATION - SHORTING, IGNITION PITCH PROGRAMMER INSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM BOX INSTALLATICN - AMPLIFIER INSTRUMENT SYSTEM BOX INSTALLATION - RELAY, BATTERY, RF COMMAND SYSTEM TELEMETRY INSTALLATION - VEHICLE, RF-1 ANTENNA INSTALLATICN - WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM COUPLER INSTALLATION - ANTENNA, WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM MODULE INSTALLATICN -WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM LANYARD INSTALLATION - S AND A, WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM COUPLER INSTALLATICN - ANTENNA T/M, ATTITUDE CONTROL ANTENNA INS_ALLATICN - T/M, ATTllUDE CONTROL TRANSDUCEPINSTALLATION - PITCH pHI:CRAMMER ACCELERCMETER INSTALLATION - INSTRUMENT UPPER AND LOWERBODY RELAY INSTALLATION - INSTRUMENT SYSTEM

7 FIN IV 11 15 27-41 0 0 FIN II

28 3

O 10 1 22 6 34 8 14/." "5/" /-_., _ X

13

FIN I

18 17

29

-(

c-_eoz-22 Fi&,ure 2-11. Equipment Installation Layout (Vehicle Station 34.75)

2-15

Dynamics margin. Control

as well as stress

personnel

to ensure

an adequate

environmental

design

Assemblies

-- Standard

welded

boxes

were

fabricated

for control

assem-

blies. The boxes matched structural corrugations when mounted zontally. Redundant relays in any given assembly were oriented to minimize failures due to common vibration modes.

vertically or horinormal to one another

Support Equipment -- Ground support equipment and facility were designed to accommodate system changes and additions. Facility junction boxes were provided initially with 25% spare capability. Provisions were made in consoles and equipment racks for added circuit distribution. Nearly all GSE was portable to enable use at several sites. Support Equipment costs were significantly reduced by the use of blanket specifications for given classes of equipment; refer to Volume H, Major GSE, for details. D. LAUNCH OPERAT_NS

In Convair's experience, Launch Operations has proven to demand crew adaptability, versatility and quick response to the pressures occasioned by prelaunch and countdown procedures. With this background Convair organized their off-site operations in a pattern capable of responding rapidly and efficiently to last minute changes. Flexibility and versatility were the governing factors in establishing the operational procedures and in selecting personnel. Original planning was based on the schedule in the RFP. It was anticipated that the field assembly and checkout of a vehicle would require approximately one month and that launching would be at the close intervals indicated; therefore the launch operations crew would be used for vehicle factory checkout, thereby eliminating dual crews and dual learning curves. This procedure permitted the earliest possible crew familiarization with the vehicle and benefited the program by allowing quick response to field type changes. The launcher installation was the first scheduled task at WSMR. Since this one-

time task overlapped the factory checkout of the first vehicle, a special team comprised of personnel involved in the trial launcher assembly at the factory was used so as not to interrupt the launch vehicle team. The resident off-site staff was initially organized as primarily an administrative and material group to support the temporary crews. As the program developed, the amount of test site work between lannchings increased, primarily due to configuration changes and added tasks. As this was recognized, the support and quality control supervisors, along with a small crew, were established as resident employees at WSMR. Later, two engineers were added to this crew. During the last year, a resident crew of 25 was used for administration, material and quality control, facility refurbishment, modification and telemetry station operation and maintenance.

2-17

Early in the program considerable differences existed between factory and field checkout procedures, due primarily to the significant differences in the configuration of the factory and field test facilities. This meant that field operations were undertaken with essentially "unproofed" procedures. An excessive amount of procedure revision had to be accomplished in the field - a significant unplanned task and a threat to work schedules. Starting with the third launch vehicle, relief from this situation was effected wiring, facilities. cedure Testing factory, RCS}. field. by modification of the factory test facility with respect to configuration of test consoles_ power supplies, recorders, etc., to closely simulate the WSMR Additionally, the Apollo Procedure standard format was adopted for propreparation. Concurrently, NASA introduced the Predelivery Acceptance (PAT) plan, which called for realistic trial conduction and proofing, at the of the field procedures (less those involving the payload, ordnance, and the This resulted in a significant improvement in future checkout operations in the

Generally, the Launch Operations philosophy established at the start of the program remained valid. It was sufficiently flexible to cope with schedule changes and the extended test operations period. The unforeseen task of considerable facility maintenance and modification between launchings and the requirement for more comprehensive component testing was accommodated. The methods of operation readily accepted new tasks such as the Control System Test Facility (CSTF) operation and the manning of the NASA telemetry station. In all aspects Operations test range E. of this work, close coordination was maintained program with NASA Field contractors and the

personnel, organization.

and through

them

with the other

TOOLING

The tooling philosophy covering the general tool design and tooling manufacturing policy was based on limited production requirements (maximum of 14 vehicles} and rapid incorporation of engineering changes. The planning and tooling approach was guided by achievement of production schedules through minimum planning and tooling; it made use of worker skills rather than depending on a completely tooled production program. The basic objectives of producibility and value control were implemented by tooling functions to assure practical and economical product manufacture. Detail fabrication of sheet metal and machine parts was accomplished with standard equipment and standard tools in most instances. Mandatory tools were furnished as necessary for forming operations. Machine parts in the fin attachment areas were adequately tooled to make fin attach points interchangeable. Subassembly tools were provided where dictated by complexity and tolerance requirements (spars, frames and bulkheads), and were fabricated in the most economical method; see Figure 2-12. .Assembly tools provided means for positioning and clamping. The fin assembly fixture, built in the vertical position, was used for positioning pre-assembled spars,

2-18

C,-bOb2-23

Figure

2-12.

Bulkhead

Station

34.75

Assembly

Fixture

skin panels and barrel attach located from clips previously

fittings. riveted

Ribs to which the skin was attached were to the spar assemblies; see Figure 2-13.

The barrel assembly fixtures were built in the vertical position with provisions for positioning pre-assembled frames, rings, bulkheads, skin sections, fittings, etc. ; see Figures 2-14 and 2-15. A control tool established vehicle-to-launcher orientation points to ensure interchangeability. Optical measuring instruments were used extensively throughout both the tooling and production programs to establish and maintain maximum efficiency of dimensional control. The design and limited required quantity of the launcher and other ground support equipment was planned and accomplished without the need for fabrication or assembly tooling. F. MANUFACTURING The manufacturing philosophy was, in many aspects, paced by the engineering

philosophy and the resultant tooling philosophy; that is, simplified design required minimum tooling, which in turn permitted the use of simplified manufacturing techniques. Conversely, minimum tooling and planning necessitated the use of highly skilled workmen with multiple abilities. Thus, a high degree of work force versatility was achieved, resulting in a maximum manhour usage rate. 2-19

Cjo062-25

Figure

2-14.

Assembling

Afterbody

Fixture

After

Loading

With

Parts 2-21

Manufacturing activity and parts stores were located in the Convair Experimental Production area to provide central control. This area also gave more ready access highly skilled workmen and previously developed, simplified procedures and techniques. Figure 2-16 illustrates the production area.

to

The philosophy of mock-up in the production units was employed in the manufacture of hydraulic and electric systems. Satisfactory hydraulic clean room techniques were achieved by using low-cost portable clean rooms and by remodeling permanent facilities. Production hydraulic systems were manufactured from the first-article mock-up. Electrical and installation systems were fabricated and assembled in modular installations and bench checked, using breadboards wherever possible, prior to installation in the vehicle. The area-to-area wire routing in the vehicle was determined and reviewed by Shop, Engineering, and Reliability and Quality Control (Inspection} to determine the best routing and clipping. Documentation of the final configuration was covered in photos similar to that shown in Figure 2-17. The factory checkout arrangement was set up to represent field conditions as nearly as possible. Launcher 12-60-2 and a simulated blockhouse (referred to as "Little WSMR") similar to the installation at Complex 36 at WSMR, was located immediately adjacent to the Experimental Department. The installation was used not only to accomplish checkout of the vehicle but also to proof the checkout procedure; see Figure 2-18. G. PROCUREMENT

Material Department support of the Little Joe II program was accomplished with existing department personnel and basic functional units. The program was managed on a project basis; specific individuals within each section were assigned to control and monitor the program and worked under the coordination of the staff specialist assigned to the Program Manager. Emphasis was on the use of streamlined systems and procedures in a projectized approach without duplication of existing operations. Material release was accomplished at the on-board level, using an Advance Bill of Material (ABM). Vendor data and spares, wherever possible within contract authority, were released concurrently with production requirements and all releases were expedited to the Purchasing Department for immediate procurement action. Complete forecast and purchase parts cost control records were maintained at the on-board level. Weekly and monthly contract status reports were produced for monitoring on-hand and on-order balances in terms of quantity and dollars and the monthly contract status reports were maintained as a permanent historical data file. All requirements were parts listed and submitted to the 705 computer facility, and the material release analyst maintained manual records of requirements and inventory transactions of all highcost items. Monthly sampling audits of all inventory group areas, including stockroom

2-23

C-6062-27

Figure

2-16.

Experimental

Production

Area

C-6062-28

Figure 2-24

2-17.

Typical

Photo

Documenting

Final

Configuration

of Harness

Routing

C-6062-29

Figure

2-18.

Interior

of "Little

WSMR"

Checkout

Facility

control, were conducted. Stores requisitions parts were prepared manually. Aecountability with contract requirements.

for outside purchases and subcontract records were maintained in accordance

Procurement was accomplished within the existing Purchasing Commodity Groups. However, specific coordinators were appointed in the Raw Material, Systems, and Subcontract groups to monitor the procurement activity and assure action compatible with program requirements. SUBCONTRACTOR RELATIONS

Vendor Selection -- Only vendors qualified and approved in accordance with NASA requirements were invited to participate in the NASA Little Joe II Program, (reference NASA Quality Publications NPC 200-2, NPC 200-3). Contract awards were made in accordance with good purchasing procedures and Convair standard practices, approved by NASA. Procurement Committee meetings consisting of Purchasing, Engineering, Reliability, and NASA (as required) were held prior to selection of suppliers on major procurement/subcontract items. Type of Contract -- All Purchase Orders were placed on a firm fixed-price basis except the Walter Kidde reaction control system, a development item, which was a CPIF contract.

2-25

Vendor performance:

Control

-- The following

were used

as tools

to ensure

on-schedule

- PERT Charts, Walter Kidde, GANTT Charts - Field Service Surveillance. - Reliability Requirements were involved. - Engineering - Buyer's assist Check,

Monthly

and Checks. areas.

Source

Inspection

where

special

processes

in technical

both telephone

and on the spot.

Overall vendor performance on the Little Joe II Program was good, and supported program schedules. There were some serious problem items but these were solved by a team effort of NASA, Convair and the vendor. By close vendor coordination and symposiums at Convair and at the supplier's facility, the vendors were made to feel that they were part of a team and that they shared in the successful launches. One of the most important steps in achieving a team effort was accomplished meeting held in the Convair Engineering Auditorium with NASA and all suppliers to attend. This included a showing of the successful launch of Vehicle 12-51-1. by a able Most

of the suppliers expressed high appreciation of this effort. Geographical distribution of vendor within the United States that participated in the Little Joe II program is shown in Figure 2-19. Vendor Cost Control -- A Material Purchased Parts Cost Control Record was initiated to maintain cost control. This record carried a breakdown of the material estimate from the Engineering floor to the Purchasing bogie, not only for procurement, but for Engineering in the estimate, corrective action was taken. H. SPARES AND GROUND SUPPORT Department and provided a as well. If costs exceeded those

The Spares and Ground Support Equipment (GSE) philosophy was based upon simplicity of design and minimum spares consistent with effective program support. Initially, thirty-one spare parts and six ground support items were identified for the fixed-fin vehicle. During the program, however, the complexity of the vehicle systems increased and, as a result, the number of items increased until, at the end of the program, 577 items of vehicle and launcher spares and 530 items of GSE and spares were identified, excluding OCP or government-furnished test tools. Documentation Plan, GD/C 62-02. of the Logistics Support approach was presented in the Support By approval of the plan, NASA/MSC allowed the contractor to spares and GSE without the formality (and reThe items were listed in the Hardware List costs were collected and submitted by ConHigh-dollar or very special items were

identify and procure needed low-dollar sultant delay) of a provisioning board. GD/C-62-170. tract Change Periodically, associated Proposal for negotiation.

2-26

LEGEND NASA/MSC HOUSTON NASA/WSTF [] GD/CONVAIR VENDORS

C-6062-30

Figure

2-19.

Geographical

Distribution

of Vendors

Within

the United

States 2-27

discussed with NASA and agreement for use obtained before procurement or design action was initiated. Status of needed support material was reported in the Hardware Utilization List, which was developed prior to each scheduled launch.

Because of the increase in the number of required parts, several areas required special effort to assure adequate, timely support. For both price and schedule considerations, all requirements (test, production, spares} were ordered concurrently. Deliveries for significant or costly components were timed to ensure support of the factory assembly/checkout operations as well as test site usage. In addition to the normal spare parts and GSE was the sizable number of required small parts - bulk items and consumable materials. Because individually each was inexpensive, and normal methods of ordering and documenting would have been disproportionate to item costs, the initial site quantities were determined and procured. Adjustments and additions were made as necessary during the program. NASA required preparation of a Performance and Interface Specification and an acceptance document such as an Operational Checkout Procedure for each item of GSE. It was soon realized that the cost of the associated nonrecurring documentation frequently exceeded the actual cost of the single article needed. As a result, different identification and procurement procedures were used for off-the-shelf items, low cost articles and tools supporting system checkouts. Commercially available units were ordered only after efforts had been made to obtain them from NASA. Many of the lowdollar checkout tools were developed from simple sketches using materials already available. Other, somewhat more complicated nonstandard GSE portable test equipment was covered under a blanket interface and performance specification. In addition to the range of items furnished for the field, a few unique items were also manufactured for factory use in vehicle handling and checkout. I. PROGRAM C ONTROL

Strong program control was recognized as essential to meet the program schedule and cost requirements. This involved long range planning as well as detail follow-up of drawings, changes, procurement and subcontract, interface requirements and task accomplishment; see Figure 2-20. Milestone charts (Figure 3-1 in Section 3) were established and maintained in accordance with contractual and interface requirements and were the basis for overall long range planning. PERT networks were developed at a level suitable for monitoring the major program milestones and integration of tasks within Convair and NAA in accordance with the NASA PERT Handbook. The PERT system was supplemented by a Convairdeveloped task control technique known as PRESTO (Program Review and Statusing Operation), which provided timely schedule control at a detail design level for all departments involved. This system generated computer tab listings for monitoring the "footstones" and was directly oriented with the PERT milestones. During the 2-28

C.-b002=31

Figure

2-20.

Master

Schedule

Review

development and operation of the PERT system, some refinements were made by NASA and Convair to the Lockheed 7090 computer program then in use. Improvements to network and computer format concepts were proofed at Convair, recommended to NASA and ultimately used by the NASA Program Analysis and Evaluation Office in developing the new NASA/PERT and Companion Cost System. Convair changed to this system in October 1963. Early in the program, detailed Gantt (Bar) type schedules for first articles (vehicle and launcher) were established and maintained in conjunction with the PERT/ PRESTO system. Standard Gantt-type schedules were used throughout the program for coordination between departments, and to document progress. These internal program schedules included such tasks as testing, changes and proposals and were also used for cost control and estimating purposes. Cost accumulation and manpower usage charts (Figures 4-1 and 4-2 in Section maintained monthly for the major phases of the program, depicted material dollars expended and man-hours expenditure versus planned manhours. Task control and Gantt schedules were used as aids for relating cost to schedule and were used in conjunction with the monthly Financial Management Report (Form 533). At the request of NASA, additional program control functions were established at WSMR and proved highly effective for management. A Program Control Analyst was assigned to the operations team to implement these controls and coordinate all 2-29 4),

activity with San Diego. accomplished as follows

These controls were mission-oriented (see Figure 2-21 for examples): missions, developed Vehicles in great

by vehicle

and were

PERT -- The first three controlled by PERT networks PERT networks, was discontinued Operations

12-50-1, 12-50-2, and 12-51-1, detail. PRESTO was not used.

were The

used as a basis for preparation of Gantt type operations by contract for the final two missions, Vehicle 12-51-2 Schedules -- These schedules depicted on standard

schedules, and 12-51-3. format all

calendar

tasks to be accomplished for the period between launches. The tasks included facility refurbishment, modification and checkout, and vehicle buildup, checkout and launch. A summary plan was issued to show overall mission milestones, and each phase of operation was broken down into separate detail schedules. When PERT was discontinued, some of the PERT concepts, specifically constraints, interdependencies and slack, were used in development of the Gantt schedules. Weekly Schedules and Daily Work Plans -- During each vehicle operation at WSMR, detailed schedules showing constraints and slack were issued weekly and encompassed the next two weeks of operations. These schedules, showing daily tasks, required NASA approval and took precedence over all other current schedules. A status meeting was held each day with NASA and Convair operations engineers to determine the operations for the following day. A daily work plan broken into two-hour increments was issued as a result of these meetings. The weekly schedules were discontinued at the start of integrated operations with the spacecraft and resumed again prior to next vehicle delivery. Management Briefings -- Briefing meetings were held periodically to discuss schedule status and open action and shortage items with NASA and Convair management. For this purpose, 30-inch x 40-inch display charts were maintained and minutes documented by Program Control. Weekly review meetings were conducted with the program management staff in

San Diego and periodic meetings were held with NASA at a frequency of approximately three weeks, to review overall cost and schedule performance. Although formal minutes for these meetings were not maintained, pertinent action items and management direction were documented by Project Memos. WSMR reports, transmitted daily to San Diego by teletype, served as a PERT update report as well as a general progress report to management. Weekly reports were also transmitted from WSMR and were forwarded to NASA/MSC. Beginning in September 1962, PERT update and analysis reports were submitted to NASA/MSC by teletype every two weeks. The update reports proved unsatisfactory due to lengthy preparation, processing and transmittal time; a data transceiver system installed in October. 1962 provided direct card-to-card transmittal by use of a dataphone. The data transceiver system substantially reduced overall transmittal and processing time and eliminated update errors experienced by the manual method. Convair was the first NASA/Apollo Program contractor to implement this system; see Figure 2-22. 2-30

i_ '

_4

Cjo062-33

Figure

2-22.

First PERT Information to NASA by Telephone

Transmitted

Directly

from

Convair

Copies of the PERT networks were maintained and updated at MSC and the resultant computer reports were distributed within the NASA management organization. Identical computer reports were processed at Convair, evaluated by Program Control, and recommendations were presented to the program management staff. Change Control -- Change control was employed by Convair to ensure orderly and expeditious handling of all changes to Engineering design, specifications, and program plans. Changes were evaluated by the System Integration Staff Member or his delegated alternate to confirm their desirability, necessity, and effect on the program, and to approve them for further action. A Convair Change Board which met once a week and was headed by the System Integration Staff Member processed the approved changes and was responsible for the origin and maintenance of change history records, coordination of all department activities toward the implementation of changes, and the establishment of change schedule and cost estimates. It was the responsibility of the Convair Change Board to report any problems in schedule, cost, etc., to the System Integration Staff Member for resolution. The Convair Change Board was comprised of representatives from Engineering, Material, Tooling, Program Control, Manufacturing Control, Factory, Spares, Contract Department, and ProgramManager's Staff, as required. Every attempt was made to keep Convair-originated changes to a minimum. Major program changes were approved by NASA, using a Contract Change Authorization (CCA).

2-33

The Systems Integration Staff Member maintained a Change Review Item (CRI) file. An individual folder was prepared for each change action being considered, was identified by a CRI number (e.g., CRI 121). The numbers were assigned in consecutive order. The CRI file folders contained all pertinent information and documentation of the change process, such as cost proposal outline or work statements, estimates, estimate back-up data, correspondence and project memos, work authorization forms, etc. Finally if a Contract Change Proposal (CCP) was submitted, copy of the CCP, with its letter of submittal and price breakdown, was placed in the file. A log of the CRI's was maintained by the Systems Integration Staff Member. Pertinent information was entered in the log form as evolution of the changes occurred in a typical manner as illustrated in the following:
Status CRI NO. 377 CRI Orgn. Date 12-2065 CCP NO. 209 Title Manuf& test of lcgical & control units Open Closed Cncld. Closed Orgu. and Ref. NASA Go Ahead Yes Agency CCA 94 AUTHORIZATION Contract Ltr. to Cust. 110-7-66 -208 on 2-11-66 Sales Order 566-1196 WAP NO. D354030 Effectlvity 12-51-3 & -4 Remarks CCP Reqd. Submit with 366, 376, & 378.

From a historical viewpoint,some 380 CRPs were originated. Not allofthese were processed to a conclusionnor were allofthem requested by NASA. J. DOCUMENTATION

The documentation philosophy was to provide complete and accurate documentation to NASA in accordance with the requirements and schedule set forth in the NASA Work Statement, GD/C-62-361. Initial documenation requirements were quite extensive and consisted of approximately 60 different types of data in the following eight major categories: Specifications. Program Plans and Reports. Progress and Status Reports. Nonscheduled Reports and Data. Data types ranged from one-time directed Qualification Reports and Data Quality Control Reports. Drawings. Support Manuals. to weekly distribute submittals. Little Joe II documenta-

requirements that Convair

In June 1963,

NASA/MSC

tion to other NASA agencies and Apollo contractors. mentation was forwarded to up to fifteen addressees 2-23 for sample list of addresses.

Under this arrangement, docuin addition to MSC. See Figure

2-34

In March 1965, direction was received from NASA significantly distribution of documents and deleting various previously-required Overall, documentation format. Convair documentation submittals were 99% within

reducing documents. schedule,

extended

and the and

was considered

by NASA to be accurate

and complete

in content

Appendix "A" is a list of documentation contractors during the Little Joe II Program. K. INTERFACE COORDINATION

produced

by Convair

and its major

sub-

Continuing coordination was required to establish compatible system interfaces during the development and flight operation phases of the project. A procedure was established to define the framework within which NASA/MSC, North American Aviation, Inc., - S&ID and Convair could coordinate and document all the interfaces. A similar procedure was also established for coordinating the interfaces with the contractors for rocket motors - Aerojet-General Corporation and the Thiokol Corporation. At the beginning of the program it was the MSC's goal to achieve interface coordiuaLioa through the use of an Interface Control Document (ICD), which was the instrument by which the physical, functional, operational, and environmental interfaces were defined. It recorded, by means of formal engineering data, the mutual agreements between two or more contractors so that compatibility between designs could be established. INTERFACE COORDINATION WITH NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, SPACE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION (NAA S&ID) INC. , -

Initially, NAA, S&ID was assigned contractual responsibility for interface coordination. The first interface meetings were concerned with the interchange of technical data, coordination activities, procedural considerations, and finally, the format of the document(s) which would delineate interface control procedures. NASA/MSC chaired the initial meetings, the first of which was held 18 July 1962. During the period of time between the first meeting and the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding, coordination was conducted on an informal basis and recorded by Project Memos, meeting minutes, or suitable letters. After the initial coordination by NASA, interface control was handled almost exclusively by the contractors. A Memorandum of Understanding signed on 24 June 1963 established the framework for technical and management coordination between NAA (S&ID) and Convair. This memo was prepared in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Documentation Requirements of Contract NAS 9-150. The current issue of the Memo of Understanding, revised 21 February 1964, covers communications, coordination meetings, interface control, the Preparation Manual (Appendix A) and Detailed Interface Implementing Instructions (Appendix B). Appendix B prescribes the communication chain, formal correspondence, informal exchange of technical information, visits, agenda, minutes of meetings, action items, 2-35

2-36

2-37

ICD drawings, changes and authorized signatures. Most importantly, the document delineates the person-to-person contact for the various engineering disciplines and points of interface. Interface coordination with NAA (S&ID} resulted in the completion of four Interface Control Documents concerning the following missions: 1) Mission A-001, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-50-2 and Payload Boilerplate 12 (BP-12) Document Number MH01-04010-414 dated 17 March 1964, 2) Mission A-002, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1 and BP-23 Document Number MH01-04012 dated 6 October 1964, 3) Mission A-003, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-2 and BP-22 Document Number MH01-04Q11-414 dated 30 March 1965, and 4) Mission A-004, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-3 Document Number MH01-04013-414 dated 6 August Interface coordination required thirty-eight the Memorandum of Understanding. Of special requiring resolution were defined and identified INTERFACE COORDINATION and Spacecraft 1965. 002 (SC-002)

formal meetings in accordance importance, items not resolved for further action. CORPORATION

with or

WITH AEROJET-GENERAL

In the interface coordination meeting with Aerojet on 24 May 1962, it was agreed that an interface document should be prepared as soon as possible as a coordinated effort, with Aerojet having contractual responsibility for the ICD. A series of biweekly conferences between NASA/MSC, Aerojet and Convair was planned. The meetings were chaired by MSC and the minutes were the responsibility of the host contractor. During the course of these meetings, various problems were resolved relative to the technical material, requirement changes, design changes, data presentation and funding. Any exchange of technical data outside of the biweekly meetings was to be made with a simultaneous submittal to NASA/MSC. Interface Control Document and technical interchange meetings were held more often than biweekly at the start of the program; however, after the technical aspect of the program and the vehicle missions became established, the meetings became less frequent. In July 1963, a copy of Aerojet's Interface Control Document, Report No. 0667TICD-1 dated 1 July 1963, was received. Technical meetings and telephone conversations relative to particular technical problems continued successfully. Later in the program NASA/MSC asked if Convair could continue without updating the ICD, and proceed on the basis of Aerojet engineering drawings. Convair agreed that drawings could be used. INTERFACE COORDINATION WITH THIOKOL

The initial technical meeting with Thiokol was held at their plant on 9 July 1962. The basic technical problems relative to the use of Recruit rocket motors in the launch vehicle, and all aspects of motor performance and installation, were reviewed. In effect, this meeting started the interface coordination task.

2-38

From the inception of the Little Joe II program, there was no plan by NASA/MSC to formally establish a Thiokol interface control document similar to that for the Algol motor and for NAA, S&ID end items. Interface problems were resolved and technical coordination was accomplished by several visits to Thiokol and by telephone calls and correspondence. Use of the Recruit motors did not pose the performance and technical problems to the degree that was experienced with the Algol motors. Therefore, it was possible to accomplish the overall coordination task in a simple manner. Under similar circumstances, this type of approach is feasible and workable. L. RELIABILITY MANAGEMENT The original Reliability program was formulated using MIL-R-27542 (USAF) "Reliability Program for Systems, Subsystems, and Equipment" as a guide. The program was organized and implemented to ensure emphasis on reliability in all program phases. Highlights of the program included: 1) comprehensive design and change review, 2) participation in component selection and subcontractor sul_veillance, 3) participation in factory and field checkout, 4) extensive failure analyses and corrective action activities, 5) coordination of integrated test program, and 6) documentation and reporting of reliability activities. NASA/MSC reliability in the noted activities. and quality assurance engineers participated with Convair AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

in January of 1964, Convair was directed to comply with NASA document NPC 250-1, "Reliability Program Provisions for Space System Contractors." The major additional activities resulting from implementing NPC 250-1 were: environmental acceptance testing of components, increased reliability surveillance of suppliers, and increased reporting requirements. The Quality Control Program was based on the NASA Quality Publication NPC 200 series specifications and the concepts which had proven successful on previous programs. This program encompassed, with few exceptions, all NASA requirements. Application of the Quality Control Program throughout the design, development, fabrication and operational stages ensured delivery to NASA of high quality, reliable launch vehicles and related support equipment. Control of the assembly and changes in an Operation denced by Inspection Stamps OIL. of the vehicle was achieved by the listing of original tasks Inspection Log (OIL). Completion of each step was evion the Operations Controlled Parts List (OCPL) and the

Stringent cleanness controls were established for hydraulic systems. Incoming components were subjected to a contamination particle count prior to receiving inspection functional test. After component installation the system was again analyzed for

2-39

contamination. Original cleanness requirements were revised to more stringent levels following the Vehicle 12-51-2 incident. One of the changes in the procedure instituted at this time was the use of the Millipore bomb sampling technique for the hydraulic system. The soldering specification was also updated from MSFC-PROC a NASA requirement for improved quality and reliability. DESIGN REVIEW More than 1000 drawings and drawing changes were reviewed by reliability and quality assurance engineers during the Little Joe II program. Each system design was analyzed and major design changes were reviewed. Formal design reviews were held and the meeting minutes were submitted to NASA. Test procedures and test reports were approved by reliability engineering. COMPONENT SELECTION 158A to 158B, as

Extensive use of the Interservice Data Exchange Program (IDEP) data files enabled the engineering group to select components which were previously qualified to the Little Joe II environments. All requests for procurement (more than 6,000) were initiated by design engineering and reviewed by reliability and quality control engineers. Reliability data required from suppliers included: 1) a history of component usage, 2) a reliability analysis and estimate, and 3) a failure mode and effect analysis. In the case of a major subcontractor such as the Walter Kidde Co., NPC 200-3 was applicable and a Reliability Program Plan, Quality Control Plan, etc., were required. A Convair inspector was stationed at Walter Kidde Co. for approximately four months during the production and test of this subsystem. TEST PROGRAM Coordinator for the Little Joe II program and was The centralization of test activities (Figure 2-24) one primary source of information and at the same objectives were achieved. More detailed informaVolume II of this report. IN VEHICLE CHECKOUT AND LAUNCH checkout at All anomalies

A reliability engineer was Test responsible for all test activities. provided program management with time assured that all reliability test tion on the test program is given in RELIABILITY PARTICIPATION

Reliability and design engineers participated in vehicle and facility San Diego, WSMR, and in recovery team operations after each launch. discovered during system Report. Flight anomalies

and vehicle checkout were presented in a Reliability Summary were presented in a Post-Launch Reliability Summary. was thoroughly action. Reliawith component

All failures were reported to NASA within five days. Each failure investigated and analyzed to determine cause and appropriate corrective bility engineers contacted or visited suppliers as required in connection failures. 2-40

PREDICTED

ENVIRONMENTAL

DATA

TEST ANALYSIS PROGRAM MANAGER TEST REQUIREMENTS TEST RESULTS _ TECHNICAL GROUPS

I
DESIGN GROUPS TEST REQUIREMENTS RESULTS I TEST

PREO,CTEO OATA ENVIRONMENTAL I _

POLICY

STATUS TEST LAN

QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

SUPPLIERS QUALIFICATION DATA

RELIABILITY GROUP TEST RESULTS AND STATUS

DEVELOPMENT TESTS, QUALITESTS

_
t

I1_1
RELIABILITY DATA O_ICY UALIFICATION AND SUPPLIERS PURCHASE APPROVAL

I
? t TEST PLANS _i RESULTS STATUS

FICATION

LABORATORIES

PURCHASING

I
QUALIFICATION AND RELIABILITY REQ'TS.

IP II"

QUALIFICATION RELIABILITY DATA

COORDINATOR

TEST --

TEST PLANS
TEST RESULTS

,NSPECT,ON
ACCEPTANCE TESTS

SUPPLIERS

STATUS AND PLANNING

t
PERT NETWORK TEST RESULTS TEST PLANS i C-6062-35 OPERATIONS ACCEPTANCE TESTS

PROGRAM CONTROL

I b-a

Figure

2-24.

Centralization

of Test

Activities

The amount of testing required for individual components was increased during the span of the Little Joe II program. Prior to the launch of Vehicle 12-51-1 Convair initiated an environmental acceptance (Limited Stress) test program on all functional components. The purpose of this program was to reject marginal parts and thereby increase confidence in vehicle system reliability. The environments selected included vibration (one-third qualification level), high temperature and low pressure, depending upon the type of component being tested. (Refer to Volume II for program results. ) Spare component burn-in was initiated prior to the launch of Vehicle 12-51-3. A review of failure records indicated that 75% of the components that failed had less than five hours of operation and 95% had less than 50 hours. The program's purpose was to ensure that critical components installed in the vehicle had accumulated at least 50 hours of operation. The implementation of this program would fail after only a few hours of operation. QUALITY CONTROL eliminated components which

Quality Control traceability activities consisted of a system of serial numbering and identification, plus controlled stocking which permitted tracing of all significant material and functional items from receipt through storage, fabrication, assembly and delivery. Raw material was traceable to the foundry. The final configuration of each launch vehicle and its conformance to released engineering drawings was assured through an audit of planning paper against blueprints prior to acceptance. Verification of launch vehicle configuration status was a prerequisite to Predelivery Acceptance Tests. All articles received were subjected to a thorough receiving tor source inspection was provided at the vendor's or supplier's inspection was not feasible. inspection. Contracfacility when receiving

A narrative end-item report, prepared in accordance with NASA Quality Publication NPC 200-2 and NASA Statement of Work, GDC-62-361, was submitted for each end-item delivered under the contract. The first report for each launch vehicle was furnished to NASA concurrent with vehicle shipment from San Diego; the second report was furnished at the time of final NASA acceptance, and vehicle launch, at WSMR. The reports were compiled in narrative form with attachments as necessary, covering the periods from subassembly installation through final acceptance of each end-item. Classes were conducted at Convair and at Vendor's facilities, task. to assure that at

employees were properly prepared to accomplish Convair was allocated in the following manner:

the assigned

This training

2-42

Nondestructive (includes Magnetic Welding Soldering X-Ray

Testing Radiographic, & Particle). Penetrant, 1,174 hours

509 hours and crimping and interpretation 5,710 hours

reading

114 hours 45 hours 88 hours 7,460 hours (total)

Explosive

handling technique

Oil sampling

In the fields of nondestructive testing and soldering, the employee was tested to ensure that he could perform to specification requirements. Certificates were issued and maintained either through demonstration of quality or by refresher courses.

2-43

I SCHEDULE

SUMMARY

SCHEDULE

SUMMARY

A.

MILESTONES

The time-sequenced milestones shown An Figure 3-1 reflect major events of the total program, Sheets 1 and 2 portray completion events for contracts, engineering, tooling, production, material procurement, GSE, testing and documentation. These milestones correlate with the events of the PERT Networks and Gantt charts used for internal B. schedule control and for biweekly CHANGES reporting to NASA.

CONTRACTUAL

SCHEDULE

Figure 3-2 shows the evolution of each vehicle's final delivery date. Changes to the contract through Contract Change Authority (CCA} and/or Contract Change Proposal (CCP) provided the accession of delivery dates. When a contract change specified only a launch date, the delivery date was automatically established as sixty days prior to the launch date. The chart illustrates NASA/MSC's original plan for a short, low-cost program versus the program span that eventually developed. The majority of the schedule dates incrementally directed or authorized by NASA/MSC were due to replanning of the NAA S&ID payload to be flown, or because of changes in MSC test requirements. In essence, Convair met all of the schedules for which At could be held solely responsible. The chart also emphasizes that a test program such as Little Joe II wherein the payload is contracted separately from the booster requires flexible and responsive planning. This was successfully achieved on this program by: 1) building basic vehicles early and holding them until payload and test requirements were defined, 2) emphasis on commonality between vehicles, 3} close coordination between contracto_ and customer, and 4) fast response to changes as they were identified.

! I'

3-1

D VEHICLES 2 LAUNCHERS

1962

--

1963

_:_t_'. olu'_".,,'/8'.g:: oS
G0-AHEAO] CONTHACT NAS9-492 ( _ DEFINITIVECONTRACT

i+ot:,,+_,'cT
\

OEL,VER'ES ON S'TE
SUBSYSTEMS FF VEHICLE ENGINEERNG MATERIAL TOOLNG FACTORY

+++

LAUNCHER GROUND SIIPPORTEQUIPMENT

I
/
l [ I I

OPERATIONALCHECKOUT/FACTORYCOMPLETE [ / NTO STORAGE SANDIEGO / / I / / LAUNCHER START I I ENGNEERING 1ST RELol MATERIAL 1ST MATL.

FABRICATION ASSEMBLY MAJOR ASSEMBLY ITEM

I LAST TR START 1ST REL l REL NO Z I ,_ST l I MFG COUP I eRA w )ISTOSP / 1STVEH. I / '-t--Ol-"t-O I START I / / I

luL'/
/

NO.'.
NO 1

-+-""
I NO 2 SCHEMt ACTUALFEB 64

++.'+_O.,._;CT

_I
LALLAVAIL M_. COUP. 2NOVEH,

START / /I I(0 Start I / I qPCPll REL. I

IO

I //I I //I LAST STRUCT. I

t I I O-IICOMP. I I I I I I couP, [NO. NO. 2 31NO 4 I _ Io"l--OI I el I

I I

I I

FACTORY

FABRCAT ON & ASSEMBLY FUNCTORALTEST STAI

GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ENGNEERINO MATERIAL FACTORY

///lll/lllllI li:s+ eEL. I

l
/

SURT1 _ / | /

I LAST ELECT. REL. I ALL AVAIL.

I _!

n9. ; I N0. I I I I I I

11 eND. 21 I I / I I /

I
/

I I I

I I I I
I

eNG. z COMP

COUP I

I I

I I

I NO2COMPJ 0-41 I I O-41

I /

FABRCATiON&ASSEMBLY I
FUNCTIONAL PROOFING / TEST I START

/ l

I S#ARTI I I Am I
1 I I

lSt.

MATL.

1 I LAST I / REL. (_,--4NALL AVAIL. / ] I I t I ] I/ I IO_COMP. ] Fm

I I I I COMF. I / /

[l

I I I
I

ATTITUDECONTROL BREADBOARD ENGINEERING MATERIAL

TOOUNG SUBCONTRACT

1ST eEL _ START [

qwr-ot
/ 1 I I

( eEL. ZSTMATL, OiLASTREL.

LASY_YO.I I' I I l l I 1
I !

Ill

FACTORY FABRCATi6N MAJORITEM ASSEMBLY ACFVEHICLE GO-AHEAD TESTING ENGINEERING MATERIAL TAA.,m_ .vv_.._ SUBCONTRACT FACTORY FABRICATION ASSEMBLY DOCUMENTATION GENERAL LAUNCHOPERATIONS MISSION (BY TEST FACILITY OCCUPANCY PROPULSION SYSTEM(GFP] ALGOL ALL SYSTEMSTEST /EVALUATION FLIGHTREPORT I )

START I

LONGLEAD 2VEHICLES AATL, iN _I_}GSE STAiT _

I I I I I

I I I l I _ ALL AVAIL, AUTOPILOTSYS. I ICOmF.I t I I ONDOCKS.D. I / I / t I I o---_ I I I 1 I _ I i I / I I I I COUP. 1 I / COUP. I STARTI I COUP, IMAR. '64 I

11--I
/

STARTr'AB NO, 3-4

START! J|l
n I n

IREACT. CONT.SYS. I d -C MP' MOCKUPAVAtL %! )N ,10 o,2 STJPIT AUTOPILOTSYS, qJ START O--_ I

O' N0. 1

NO. 1 ,ONO. 2 QTV

I
NO, 1

I +CNERCHECNOUT ,
+ LEGEND 0 0'--"0 SCHEDULE ACTUAL LATE TO SCHEDULE AHEAD SCHEDULE OF

+u+

'
_ ACF FF RCS RE-SCHEDULE ATTITUDECONTROL FIN RXED RN REACTION CONTROL SYS

C-6062-36-1

Figure

3-1.

Milestone

Chart

(Sheet

1 of 2)

3-2

STATUS CUT-OFF DATE: DECEMBER31,

1965

GO-AHEAD/CONT RACT NAS 9.-492 DELIVERIES ON SITE LAUNCHER GROUNDFF VEHIcLESUPPORT EQUIPMENT INTO STORAGE- SAN DIEGO ACF VEHICLE GO-AHEAD MATERIAL TOOLING

CCA NO. 18 TO CONTRACT I

CCA N _. 49 I [ q 0. i TO CONTRACT , | CCA NO. 76 TO CONTRACT OCCA NO. 92 TO CONTRACT _ CCA NO, 57 TO CONTRACT CCANO. 89 TO CONTRACT I I I I I AC G_E CONTRACT I CLOSE-OUT

N )" 2! i

I I NO. 1

NO. 3 t NO, 4 (m_

NO, 1 SCHEM.

I'1
A LAVAI

NO, 2 SCHEM. ,N .

_|I

0.3

.,

eCCA O. N 96

RCSNO. 1

R( LNO.2_RC! NO. 3

FABRICATION ASSEMBLY

,NIO,2 ,0,. _0 3

NO .3 N, .4

FACTORY COMPLETE GROUNDSUPPORT EQUIPMENT

SUBCONTRACT I " "'l FACTO N'''roD.NP*N)'2_11o) " i'',,)=.rill |! (

MAJOR ITEM ASSEMBLY OPERATIONAL CHECKOUT/ NO.1 *NO.2 *N( . 4 I ENGR. COMP. C I GSE

I10o 2

NO. 3 ;

NI

; LAUNCHER CHECKOUT PROPULSION SYSTEM (GFP) ALGOL NO 3

NO. 3

,3.4

NO

%!

ALL SYSTEMS T EST/EVALUATION FLIGHT REPORT LAUNCH OPERATIONS (BY MISSION) CONTRACT CLOSE-OUT

N 14 _ i ....

RECNUT

i _
SCHEDULE ACTUAL LATE TO SCHEDULE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE

_ un _
_

_O "

--

D_

LEGEND

NOTE: ATTITUDE CONTROLVEHICLES 2, 3, 4, DESIGNATED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) ARE THE SCHEDULED OPERATIONAL CHECKOUT/FACTORY COMPLETE DATES PRIOR TO THE STORAGEPERIOD. SUBSEQUENTSCHEDULED DATE FOR THESE VEHICLES DESIGNATES OPERATIONAL CHECKOUT/FACTORY COMPLETE AFTER THE STORAGEPERIOD.

0_0 ACF FF RCS

RE-SCHEDULE ATTITUDE CONTROL FIN FIXED FIN REACTION CONTROLSYS

C-6062 -36-2

Figure

3-1.

Milestone

Chart (Sheet 2 of 2) 3-3

Figure 3-2.

Contractual

Vehicle Delivery Changes

FINANCIAL

SUMMARY

]FINANCIAL

SUMMARY

A.

ORIGINAL

TASK AND COST

The request for a proposal on the Little Joe II vehicle was submitted to Convair and other Contractors by a letter from NASA/MSC dated 6 April 1962. The Work Statement transmitted with this letter was identified as "Little _/_oe-6_iYIT_uest for Proposal MSC-62-39P, Apollo Procurement Office, Manned Spacecraft Center', dated 6 April 1962. The Work Statement identified five launches, three in 1963 and two in 1964. The first two launches in 1963 were to be Max q Abort tests and the third was to be a High Altitude Atmospheric Abort. The first launch in 1964 was to be a VeryHigh Altitude Abort and the final launch a confirming Max q Abort. The exact schedule for these launches is shown in Section 3, Figure 3-1. A Max q Abort configuration was f identified at that time as a vehicle employing two Algols and seven Recruits, which _ I were scheduled to aehieve a peak altitude of approximately 52,000 feet and a dynamic pressure of 1,060 pounds per square foot. A High Altitude Abort configuration defined a vehicle requiring six Algols fired in a 3-3 sequence and achieving a peak altitude of 340,000 feet. The Very-High Altitude Abort was to employ seven motors fired in a 4-2-1 sequence, and achieve apogee at approximately 1, 650, 000 feet. The Contractor was requested to submit a proposal on the construction and

launching of. seven vehi_ic,_{_o were to be_ or spare vehicles) and to separately identify the costs associated with the design and development of an attitude control system. Also required was one launcher and one lot of documentation, services, ground support equipment and spare parts. It was p assumed at that time that the vehicle would be delivered Kennedy, Florida. to, and fired from, Complex 56, Pad 5, at AMTC, Cap_____%e

A bidders' conference was held in Houston on6 April 1962 and attended by repres_s-_ Lockheed California Co., C_t Corporation, Boeing Company, General Dynamics/Convair, Martin-Marietta Corporation, Charlotte Division, Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., American Aviation, Inc., North American Aviation, Aerojet, and Thiokol. Minutes of this conference were subsequently forwarded to the Contractors by NASA/MSC letter dated 1_. Convair submitted its proposal GD/C-62-114 dated April 1962 to NASA/MSC by letter 11-1-1486 dated 20 April 1962. In this letter Convair estimated a cost $4 391 074 for five fixed-fin vehicles, one launcher, one set of documentation, and support for five launches. A similar package cost for seven instead of five vehicles 4-1

was estimated at_ In addition, support equipment and $134,482 for spare

budget estimates of $58,393 parts were submitted.

for ground

Convair was awarded a Letter Contract dated 11 May 1962 which, based on changes in MSC plans and discussions with Convair, authorized five Little Joe II fixed-fin vehicles, one launcher, a design study of an attitude control system which could be added to the vehicles, and the required documentation, services, GSE and spares. The Letter Contract also retained the plan to launch from Cape Kennedy, but it was anticipated that the launch site might be changed to White Sands, and Convair was requested to evaluate that site and make recommendations to MSC on its use. In subsequent discussions and meetings with NASA/MSC, all of which were documented by Project Memoranda (PMs), various changes to the plans were identified and documented in Contract Change Proposals, CCP-1 through -43, which were negotiated into a definitive contract dated 18 February 19_3. The primary changes in plans as represented by these CCPs were: manufacture and delivery of four fixed-fin vehicles, with the exception that parts for the fins for one of the vehicles would be made but not assembled; decision to launch the vehicles from the White Sands Missile Range; delivery of two launchers, one to be used at White Sands and one to be retained at Convair as a back-up and to be used in vehicle checkout as desirable; and better definition of vehicle design, documentation requirements and launch support responsibility. Convair supplemental results was authorized by a separate task to study and propose an autopilot control system which could be included in attitude control vehicles. study were presented to NASA on 16 July 1962 and, among other and The items,

of this

i recommended the use of a continuous-f|ring, solid-propellant supplementary control system which would employ a diverter valve to allow guidance thrust in the various quadrants during flight. NASA/MSC directed Convair to base the supplemental control system on an H20_ system developed for the second stage of the Scout, and thin was the principle employed on the vehicles. This study was completed in mid-February 1965 for a cost of approximately $47,000. B. CHANGE HISTORY

Throughout the entire program a total of fifteen separate Contract negotiations were held between Convair and NASA. This negotiation history sets forth, in chronological order, each negotiation with a brief description of the major cost items involved. Refer to Appendix B for the CCP's involved in each negotiation. The first negotiation was held in December, 1962. The negotiated cost was $5, 936,754. This package, usually referred to as the Basic Contract, included the following major items: design, manufacture and delivery of four fixed-fin launch vehicles with developmental testing of vehicle systems; design, manufacture and delivery of two launchers; documentation services consisting of Type I, II, and HI documentation for the duration of.the Contract; studie_ to establish attitude control system requirements and design and development of an attitude control system,

4-2

including qualification testing; and off-site base facilities and perform tasks necessary

services to cover the activation to launch four launch vehicles.

of the test

The second negotiation was held in April, 1963. The negotiated cost was $337,456, and covered changes to the existing program to launch a qualification test vehicle prior to the scheduled Apollo tests. This required acceleration of factory completion of the four launch vehicles and the two launchers. Launch dates were moved up for the first two vehicles. An additional telemetry system and an instrumentation transmitter system was incorporated in the Qualification Test Vehicle (12-50-1), which was equipped with a simulated payload consisting of the payload adapter, command module and a government-furnished _]0ort tower. The launch pad configuration was redesigned, making necesary the relocation of all rooms and associated wiring and equipment previously located beneath the launch pad. The third negotiation was held_3_ The n egotiatefl cost was $2,113,203. The major change provided for two additional launch vehicles which incorporated the attitude control subsystem as developed under the basic contract. The additional vehicles were identified as 12-51-1 and 12-51-2. The fourth negotiation was held in September, 1963. The negotiated cost was $354,737. This cost covered study activity and several relatively small changes requested as a result of the Design Engineering Inspection held on 3 May 1963. In addition tothe minor changes, provision was made for additional ground support equipment as a result of the two additional attitude control vehicles. Fabrication of an additional breadboard autopilot system for use at NASA/MSC was also covered. Deletion of the dummy payload and limitation of the instrumentation system to the control system of Vehicle 12-51-1 was covered. This amounted to a substantial credit to NASA. load. NAA BP-22 payload was used in lieu of the previously planned dummy pay_ /_ \

The fifth negotiation was held in December, 1963. The negotiated cost was $468,297. Significant changes included: study and revision of the attitude control subsystem to comply with a NASA directive to provide closer tolerance on the attitude of high altitude abort; revision of the instrumentation signal conditioning and calibration system to change from signal conditioning boards and signal modules to terminal boards and a signal conditioning box with deletion of certain R and Z calibration functions; revision of Operational Checkout Instructions (OCI's) to conform with the results of a NASA review of Convair Operational Checkout Procedures; and incorporation of a prototype Reaction Control System into the Convair Attitude Control System breadboard test program. The sixth negotiation was held in April, 1964. The negotiated cost was $774, 161. The major changes negotiated were: modification of an existing government-furnished Project Mercury H202 system service trailer and a stripped H202 trailer to fulfill H202 servicing requirements of the Little Joe II reaction control system on two vehicles. Included were fin test stands, and testing and checkout of the reaction control system and hydraulically-controlled aerodynamic system on each fin;

4-3

additional

and revised

items

of ground support

equipment

for support

of checkout

operations of Vehicle 12-50-2 and on were provided as a result of new H202 requirements; vibration testing of the reaction control system, instrumentation, and autopilot systems, and the coverage for Acceptance Data Packages for Vehicles 12-50-1, -2 and -4, Vehicle 12-51-1, and Launcher 12-60-1; and redesign of the umbilical disconnect to provide for approximately 100 more wires, added because of system growth. The seventh negotiation was held in May 1964. Negotiated cost was $1,269, 977. 4 The one change involved provided for two additional attitude control launch vehicles j which were the same as Vehicle 12-51-2 except for deletion of the Walter Kidde \_ reaction control subsystem. Provisions for installation of the reaction control system were retained. Task and cost included landline instrumentation, applicable documentation, GSE, spares and on-site engineering support of Operations Services. Off-site launch activities were not covered. The eighth negotiation was held in July, 1964. The negotiation cost was $651, 051. This cost covered the effect of several schedule changes associated with Vehicle 12-50-1, as well as additional quality assurance and program control services at WSMR, incorporation of a dual-thrust termination system and addition and revision of ground support equipment for attitude control vehicles. The ninth negotiation was held in September, 1964. Negotiated cost was $816,043 and included the following: modification of Vehicle 12-51-1 to meet the requirements of Mission A-002. This involved study and some modification of the attitude control subsystem due to vehicle mission parameter changes from the original design; vibration testing of the reaction control system to a 30g level - vibration tests on the aerodynamic control hydraulic system installed in an attitude control fin and test fixture were also covered; installation of long-run cables from the launcher to the blockhouse (at WSMR) to accommodate attitude control vehicles; provision of an attitude control test fin, delivered to Houston together with fin test stand design drawings, and Convair Engineering assist to NASA/MSC during attitude control fin system tests conducted there; and addition and revision of ground support equipment to support the modified vehicle and Mission A-002. The tenth negotiation was held during October, 1964. Negotiated cost was $413,081. Two major changes were covered. A minimum crew of Launch Operations personnel performed test, operations support and other tasks as directed by NASA/ WSMR during and between Little Joe II missions. Convair was also authorized to provide maintenance and operation of a NASA telemetry trailer at WSMR. The task in general consisted of setting up, calibrating and operating a government-furnished ground station to support vehicle pre-launeh test and checkout, and collecting and recording flight data. Additional coverage included maintenance and repair activities to maintain, troubleshoot and repair ground station equipment such as recorders, discriminators, de-commutators, receivers and monitors.

4-4

The eleventh negotiation was held in January, 1965. Negotiated cost was $207,492. The major changes covered: miscellaneous change incorporation as a result of the Design Engineering Inspection of Vehicle 12-51-1; provision for a WSMR range safety system kit and an additional range safety system antenna set for Vehicle 12-51-1; and design and manufacture of an alternate range safety system kit, together with qualification testing of Beckman Whitley destructor, installation of the original range safety system kit to provide dual capability, and deletion of the existing thrust termination capability from the RF command system. The twelfth negotiation was held in March, 1965. The negotiated cost of $600,234 covered the effect of NASA-directed schedule changes on Vehicles 12-50-2, 12-50-3, 12-50-4, 12-51-1, 12-51-2 and 12-51-3, together with modification to the launcher and the Test Base Facilities to meet the requirements of BP-22 and S/C-002 umbilical installations. In addition, added and revised items of ground support equipment were covered and the maintenance and operation of the NASA telemetry trailer was extended to 20 June t965. The thirteenth negotiation was held in June, 1965. Negotiated cost was $2,104,676. The change cost values negotiated at this session were substantially above the normal change averages because a large number of tasks were covered in some of the individual CCP's. The tasks covered: modification of two vehicles (12-51-2 and 12-51-3) to incorporate design changes which would meet the requirements of respective Missions A-002 and A-004; modification of the range safety system to cl_ange from a Yardney battery and a high-energy safe-and-arm unit to a Goulton Battery and a lowenergy safe-and-arm unit. Also, the primacord wrap-around system was deleted and a series of three firing tests were included, to demonstrate the capability of the system to provide range destruction of the six-Algol motor configuration; addition and revision of ground support equipment to support new mission requirements; and incorporation of miscellaneous NASA-requested changes to provide additional checkout procedures on vehicle subsystems. A DEI was conducted on Vehicle 12-51-2 and several miscellaneous changes resulting therefrom were incorporated. Launch Operations Services not previously negotiated for support of the five vehicle program were also covered; for example, the effect on Launch Operations of vehicle configuration changes, rescheduled delivery and launch dates, launcher and facility configuration changes and the requirements for additional program control and quality assurance at the test base. Previously negotiated launch operations tasks were subsequently deleted and credited to NASA. The fourteenth negotiation was held in September, 1965. Negotiated cost was $1, 330, 155 and covered the updating of Vehicle 12-51-4 to the Vehicle 12-51-3 configuration. In general this consisted of incorporating changes associated with the attitude control subsystem such as autopilot gains and adjustments, filters, pitch programmer, exponential pitch-up system, gyro spin monitor and the additional hydraulic system capacity installation. The vehicle task included incorporation of changes associated with the ignition system, dual thrust termination provisions, RF command with abort and pitch-up capability, range safety system and improved dual

4-5

on-board timers. A hydraulic/GN_ system was added which doubled the previous capacity and ensured system capability under conditions which might be encountered on future flights. Design and parts were provided to update the NASA/MSC test fin and elevon assembly to the same hydraulic support equipment for support of Vehicles nance and operation of the NASA telemetry system 12-51-2 trailer capability. Additional ground and on was provided, and maintewas extended to 31 December 1965.

The fifteenth negotiation to date was held in March 1966. Negotiated cost was $426,968. Major changes covered were: post-flight investigation and failure analysis to determine the cause of the in-flight failure of Vehicle 12-51-2, along with investigation and analysis of the attitude control system performance observed during Predelivery Acceptance Testing of Vehicle 12-51-3. Tasks previously negotiated for Vehicles 12-50-3 and 12-50-4 but not then required were defined, estimated, and credited to NASA. Convair maintenance and operation of the NASA telemetry trailer was extended through 31 January 1966. The effect of schedule revisions on Vehicle 12-51-3 was covered, together with failure analysis of the vehicle instrumentation system and attitude control system components as a result of difficulties experienced. Deletion of previously negotiated tasks on Vehicle 12-51-4 was considered and resulted in a substantial credit to NASA. Provisions for storage of Vehicle 12-51-4 were also made. The sixteenth (final) negotiation was held in May 1966. The negotiated cost of $103,260 was to provide for additional direct effort peculiar to the contract close-out, which could not be directly identified to the contractual task as it was originally constituted. This completed the Little Joe H negotiations. C. COST ACCUMULATION SUMMARY

The contract value, funding, and expenditure chart shown in (Figure 4-1) displays requirements and expenditures for the total program. This chart was used by Convair and NASA/MSC as a control tool to evaluate incremental funding requirements and dollar expenditure. The chart was updated monthly and issued concurrently with the Form 533 financial report, which is summarized in Figure 4-5. D. MANPOWER USAGE SUMMARY in equiva-

The manpower usage summary chart in Figure 4-2 shows the variation lent direct personnel employed on the program during its life span. E. MANPOWER USAGE IN 1964

This manpower chart in Figure 4-3 shows a breakdown of equivalent personnel usage on a weekly increment for Operations Services-WSTF, Reliability, Engineering including Operations Services-San Diego, Manufacturing, and the total program. This chart covers a period of one year (1964) and is considered typical for the launching of two vehicles (12-50-2, fixed-fin, 13 May 1964; and 12-51-1, attitude control, 8 December 1964). 4-6

I oo

C-6062-39

Figure 4-2.

Manpower Usage Summary

EQUIVALENTMANPOWER ONEYEAR- 1964 400 35O 3OO 28O 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 8O 6O 4O 2O 0

JAN :*_ I

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC C_06240

Figure

4-3.

Manpower

Usage

- 1964

F.

COST

EVALUATION

SUMMARY

A breakout of manhours and material dollarsexpended on the program invarious categoriesofvehiclestructure,systems and operations(identified Figure 4-4) in provides a means of comparing and evaluatingprogram costs as they might apply to other projects. The Convair work order accounting system does not directly provide cost information in the form desired for this report. The figures given in the summary are derived from the accounting system actuals and are considered to be approximate. Identification of recurring and nonrecurring costs have been generalized. neering and Tooling costs are normally nonrecurring; the Engineering costs shown as recurring are to be considered as the effect of changes. Manufacturing, Quality Control and Materials Changes are not distinguished from original tasks may be practical to estimate the effect of changes nonrecurring versus recurring costs. Engithat are

costs are normally recurring. for these departments; however, it by applying the ratio of Engineering

The "Other" category includes all other departments not covered by the previous identifications, such as Shipping, Plant Engineering and Program Management and arc considered as recurring costs. The "Other" category with reference to Launch Operations is identified as the Administrative function. Research and development costs are not included. G. MANAGEMENT REPORT FORM 533 SUMMARY Financial Management to NASA every month. Joe II Program. Report, Figure was prepared by 4-5 is a s_mmary

NASA Form 533, the Contractor's the Budgets Department and submitted of the total expenditures on the Little

4-10

ENGR (HRS) 0 FIXED - FIN VEHICLE STRUCTURE NR FIXED - FIN VEHICLE STRUCTURE R CONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURENR CONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURE R QTV PAYLOAD NR VEHICLE SYSTEM (PROP & ELEC) NR VEHICLE SYSTEM (PROP & ELEC) R VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION(5 VEH) NR VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION (5 VEH) R VEHICLE CHECKOUTSUPPORT NR COMPONENTS&SYSTEM TESTS NR TOTAL LAUNCHER#1 LAUNCHER LAUNCHER #2 WSMR FACILITIES TOTAL L.O. WSMR SITE PREP. & LAUNCHERINST. L.O. FIX FIN VEHICLE (2) L.O. CONTROLLABLEFIN (3) L.O. MISCELLANEOUS TASKS TOTAL GSE GSE SPARES VEHICLE SPARES TOTAL ATTITUDE CONTROLSYSTEMS: HYDRAULICS HYDRAULICS REACTION CONTROL REACTIONCONTROL AUTOPILOT AUTOPILOT VEHICLE CHECKOUTSUPPORT COMPONENT& SYSTEM TEST TOTAL NR NR R R R NR R NR NR 44,200 13,200 16,000 2,000 4,900 26,200 35,500 18,500 19,800 14,000 13,900 208,200 14,200 5,400 3,300 1,300 24,200 400 53,B00 90,000 8,800 154,000 36,200 [

TOOL ENGR & MFG. (HRS) 36,500

MFG. INCL. QC (HRS)

QC WSMR (HRS)

OTHER (HRS)

MATERIAL ($)

141,300 4,600 300 50,900 1,200 78,300 45,100 10,300 41,400 327,100

7,400 700 700 8,200 5,100 1,300(R) 1,300 24,700

375,000 70,000 17,000 90,000 295,000 78,000 925,000

] 20,800 20,800

26,800 700 27,500 4,300 17,300 52,600 16,600 90,800 700 6,400 22,200 200 29,500

1,900 700 2,600 2,700 10,000 26,000 200 38,900 1,800

125,000 125,000

4,600

37,400 1,000 6,300 44,700

366,000 26,000 111,000 503,000

36,200

4,600

1,800

NR R NR R NR R NR NR

21,000 2,500 22,000 2,500 20,300 9,600 9,500 8,400 95,800

7,900 10,400 600 7,200 26,100

400 400 500 200 1,500

65,000 328,000 123,000 140,000 656r000

ALSO INCLUDES THAT STRUCTUREWHICH IS COMMON FOR CONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURE. PRIMARILY COSTS ASSOCIATEDWITH CONTROLLABLE FIN DESIGN.

NR R

NON-RECURRING RECURRING
Cjo062-41

Figure

4-4.

Cost Accumulation

Summary

- Little

Joe II 4-11

i Ma b.3 SUBDIVISION WORK OF OR ELEMENTS OF COST ENGINEERINGHOURS ENGINEERING TOOLING MANUFACTURING QUALITY CONTROL MFG. PROC. SPECS SHIPPING MATL & SUBCONTRACT OTHERDIRECTCOSTS DIV. ADMIN. & GEN. OFF. TOTAL COST NOTES: 1. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCTURE FOR 8 VEHICLES, FIXED FINSFOR 4 VEHICLES AND INSTRUMENTATION FOR 5 VEHICLES. 2. COSTS FOR CONTROLLABLE FINS AND CONTROL AND GUIDANCE SYSTEMS FOR 4 VEHICLES. 3. COSTS FOR INITIAL STUDY TO DETERMINE THE METHOD OF ATTITUDE CONTROL TO BE EMPLOYED ON CONTROLLABLE VEHICLES. 4. SEGREGATION OF HOURS ASSOCIATED WITH RELIABILITY TASKS SUCH AS: A. RELIABILITY ENGINEERINGACTIVITIES. B. SUPPLIER RELIABILITY COSTS. C. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND INSPECTIONACTIVITIES AT WSMR. (1) LAUNCH VEHICLE 215,000 $2,475,000 341,000 2,094,000 495,000 3,000 74,000 1,562,000 44,000 261,000 $7,349,000 DOCUMENTATION 62,000 $676,000 91,000 SPARES & GSE 36,000 $ 400,000 47,000 292,000 98,000 (2) ATTITUDE CONTROL 121,000 $1,612,000 51,000 681,000 153,000 (3) AUTO PILOT 1,000 $ 5,000 4,000 1,000

LAUNCHER 24,000 $245,000 186,000 202,000 47,000 .... 4,000 .... 10,000 42,000 $888,000

OPERATIONS 179,000 $1,998,000 674,000 150,000

TOTAL 638,000 $ 7,411,000 625,000 3,947,000 1,035,000 3,000

24,000

1,004,000 33,000

102,000 3,070,000 62,000 4,000 $47,000 1,439,000 / _17,694,000 _'" 49,000 $ 565,000 1,342,000

1,000 84,000 $852,000

4,000 417,000 $3,243,000

249,000 $1,429,000

3,000 382,000 $3,886,000

(4)TOTAL RELIABILITYHOURS TOTAL RELIABILITYCOST TOTAL CONTRACT HOURS

c--a062-42

Figure 4-5.

533 Summary

DOCUMENTATION

SUMMARY

I DOCUMENTATION

SUMMARY

A.

MAJOR

DOCUMENTATION

Following is a list of the major Program Documentation and recurring reports submitted on the Little Joe II program. These documents may be consulted for detailed information on the appropriate functional disciplines and program status: Program Program Launch Documentation Plan Vehicle Familiarization Plan 1st Launch 2nd Launch 3rd Launch 4th Launch 5th Launch Test Plan Plan Manual Report Number

GDC 62-177 CS 63-003 GDC 62-168 GDC 64-119 GDC 62-166A GDC 62-166B GDC 62-166C Supplement Supplement GDC 62-174 GDC 62-205 GDC 62-202 Plan GDC 62-222 GDC 62-281 12-50-1 12-50-2 12-51-1 12-51-2 12-51-3 GDC GDC GDC GDC GDC 62-330 64-037 64-233 64-356 65-083 I 11 (original) (NPC250-1)

Reliability Facilities

Program Plan

Manufacturing Support Quality Plan Control

Maintenance End Item Test

Plan Plan

5-1

Launch Vehicle Manual

Description

12-50 Vehicles 12-51-1 12-51-2 12-51-3

GDC GDC GDC GDC

63-034 64-236 64-365 65-145

Hardware Recurring

List Documentation Progress Progress Reliability Financial Weight Failure Quality Reports Reports Status Report Report Reports (Form

GDC 62-170

Monthly Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly B.

Management and Balance Summaries Reports

533)

NEW DOCUMENTATION is a list of documentation requirements introduced during the course of

Following the program:

Extended Distribution of Documentation - Documentation imum of 14 additional NASA agencies and Apollo contractors. Acceptance Data Package - Documentation updated as required for final NASA acceptance Recovery Identification components requiring post Manuals - Identified, launch recovery. delivered of vehicle by word

to be submitted

to a max-

with each vehicle. prior to launch. description

Material

and photographs,

Launch Operation Limitations Documents for launch vehicles, launcher, and GSE. Weekly Reliability week. Reliability Assessment Reports each vehicle including the following - Contained sections: Summaries - Summary

- Contained

launch

operations

limitations

of all reliability

activity

during

each

complete

reliability

assessment

for

Vehicle/Mission Descriptions. Reliability Assessment. Single Point Failures. Anticipated Environmental Conditions. Qualification Status. Reporting and Corrective Action Summary.

- Failure

5-2

Design Review/Open Action Items. Development Engineering Inspection/Open Operational Time Records. Deviations. Test Programs. Qualifications. Reliability Included

Items.

- Additional - Structural

Post Launch unusual incidents. progress.

Summary - Summary with particular attention paid to any proposed corrective action and associated studies in

Flight Readiness Reports - Contained report for each subsystem launch complex included vehicle certification of readiness Operations Program C. Requirements Requirements SCHEDULE a typical Little Document Document

vehicle description and GSE. Prepared for flight. - Facilities

and complete status just prior to launch

and

requirements requirements

for each launch. for the program.

- Facilities

SUBMITTAL Figure

5-1 shows

Joe II Documentation

Schedule.

D.

APPENDIX Appendix A is a listof alldocumentation prepared for the Little Joe ]Iprogram.

5-3

oinpaqos

uoi_uoumoo(I
"_MPL

1I oo OI_T_I I_oTd_/L

"I-g oan_T_I

LO

LO

]lflQIH3S NOIIVINlWI130Q t11111 II 301"

,,:,_,,,,,,,.,.,., ..,,,,.,,,,,..

[ ASSOCIATED

TASKS AND PROPOSALS

I ASSOCIATED

TASKS

AND PROPOSALS

A.

GENERAL were rein the follow-

During the course of the program several tasks that became necessary lated to but not directly covered by the contract. These tasks, discussed ing, were added as a result of separately negotiated CCP's. B. CONTROL SYSTEM TEST FACILITY (CSTF)

The schedule associated with the introduction of the reaction control system (RCS) for Mission A-002 dictated an accelerated effort to provide checkout facilities at WSMR. The CSTF was established to verify operational readiness of the hydrogen peroxide reaction control system and the aerodynamic control system on an individual fin basis, prior to installation on the launch vehicle. Convair designed and supervised the activation of this facility at NASA. The installation, located at Launch Complex 36, is shown in Section rl. Specifications and drawings were prepared to the Corps of Engineers format in approximately 90 days from approval of Convair's preliminary proposal. The formal Corps of Engineers invitation for bids was issued on 8 June 1964. Bids were opened on 26 June and construction started on 15 July 1964. The facility was completed on 15 September 1964 and its checkout operations were initiated on 18 September 1964. The CSTF, shown in Figure 6-1, consisted of a concrete test pad and a prefabricated steel building. The test pad had lighting, fire protection, and anchors for the fin test stands. The building was insulated and equipped with air conditioning, required for temperature stabilization. Complete specifications for the CSTF were covered by Invitation for Bids INV. NO. ENG (NASA)-29-005-64-9, issued by the Corps of Engineers at Albuquerque. C. TELEMETRY STATION ASSIST ground station support to the program during checkout for recording of the composite RF signals, was obtained The single NASA telemetry van used initially was between the operations on Launch Vehicles 12-50-2 and integrated into a single unit, with some equipment located

NASA provided telemetry and flight. Back-up support, from WSMR only during flight. supplemented by a second van 12-51-1. The two vans were

6-1

_i!iii

C-b062-44

Figure

6-1.

Control

System

Test

Facility

in an interconnecting

anteroom.

Extensive

van rewiring

and modification

was required

plus the addition of some new equipment. Convair engineers and technicians assisted in the modification and documentation of the configuration of the completed facility. Sufficient modules of the new combined station were operational the week ending 24 October 1964 to support checkout the station was fully operational. operations, By the week ending 14 November 1964

Initially Convair and NASA personnel jointly manned the station for Vehicle i2-51-1. Beginning 1 January 196S Convair assumed, with NASA systems engineers' participation, the complete operation and maintenance of the station and furnished all subsequent support for both the launch vehicle and the spacecraft. This support applied to checkout and launch operations and serviced BP23A in addition to the High Altitude Abort and Power-On Tumbling Abort missions. Further information is given in Volume II, Section 5A. D. SPACECRAFT UMBILICAL TASKS Inc., contracted with Convair under purchase order in installing and testing special payload umbilical

North American Aviation, M5W7XA-830008 for assistance provisions on the launcher. tasks

One of these

was for the BP-12

configuration.

Convair

conducted

tests

at

San Diego to demonstrate the satisfactory operation and timing of the spacecraft umbilical retracting cycle, which was documented in Report SL-63-033, dated 26 June 1963. A second part of this assignment required that Convair install and rig the spacecraft umbilical harness on the launcher, at WSMR. As a second basic task, NAA called for a similar type of retracting test (reported

in Report SL-64-140-1, dated 25 January 1965) and umbilical installation and rigging, for the BP-22 configuration. In addition, Convair was commissioned to install the umbilical ejection gas storage bottle, plumbing, control valve, and control wiring on the launcher. Minor modifications to the service tower to accommodate this configuration was performed by NASA/WSMR. installations is given in Section 4A, Spacecraft Umbilical,

A description of Volume II. E. PROPOSALS

of these

During the Little Joe 11program Convair, independently and with NASA/MSC, worked with other NASA and governmental agencies to make them aware of the vehicles' potential for other test programs and to assist them in their evaluation of this potential. In some cases, official proposals were submitted. This activity included: Responding proposal GD/C to a request from Grumman Aircraft 64-002-1, -2 and -3 dated 29 January Engineering Corporation 1964 for the construction by of

6-3

shrouds and adapters to be used with Little Joe II in testing the LEM propulsion systems. NASA subsequently decided not to flight test these systems prior to use on the Saturn. Proposing to the Air Force Space Systems Division, in 1963, the use of Little Joe ]1 to test the Dyna Soar control and characteristics in its re-entry corridor prior to orbital flights. This'was dropped when the Dyna Soar program was cancelled. Providing, in August 1963, flight performance and costs in response to a request from the Gemini Project Office of NASA/MSC who was considering the feasibility of suborbitally testing the Gemini abort escape system and heat shield prior to Titan flights. The Gemini office decided to rely on sled testing for this purpose. Working with NASA/MSFC in late 1962 on the feasibility of using a modified or growth version of Little Joe II for suborbitally testing the Multi-Mission Module. This effort ended when the MSFC program was cancelled. Assisting ited proposal the Ryan Aeronautical Company in preparing arLd submitting an unsolicNo. 63B017, dated 20 March 1963, to NASA/MSFC. This proposed the

use of Little Joe II as a test vehicle to prove the feasibility of using the flexible wing principle in recovering Saturn boosters. No action was taken by NASA/MSFC to allot funds and pursue the concept. Working with NASA/WSMR and NASA/MSFC in 1965 on the possible Joe II as a basic part of a 1/3-scale simulation of the Saturn V to obtain mation on airflow instability and resultant acoustic effect. NASA/MSFC decided to attempt to obtain this type of data by wind tunnel testing. use of Little in-flight inforeventually

Proposing to NASA/LRC in 1965 the use of the booster axLd surplus Minuteman vehicles to create a relatively low-cost, medium payload orbiLtal booster to replace the Scout and some of the Thor versions. NASA/Headquarters did not agree with the desirability of such a program, although it is understood that NASA/LRC did some study work, with favorable results, on the subject. Cooperating with JPL, NASA/LRC, the Mars Mariner program in evaluating the "lander" at high altitudes simulating is still under consideration. AVCO and other contractors associated with the use of the vehicle to test the "probe" and Mars atmospheric density. This application

Supporting an investigation by NASA/FRC on the use of the vehicle for in-flight testing of the M-2. A NASA report TM-X-56006 dated 1964 summarized the results of the investigation and concluded, it is understood, that the plm_ was feasible and desirable. The present status or future of this plan is unknown. Working with various contractors and the Air Force Space Systems Division to investigate the practicality of using Little Joe II to test the Gemini abort system when used on conjunction with the MOL. It is understood that this possibility is still under consideration by some elements in the MOL program.

6-4

Providing, in proposing the hypersonic ram this proposal is

in 1963, information to the General Electric Company to assist them use of the booster to the Air Force for pre-orbital flight testing of a jet airplane. This program was stretched out and it is assumed that still being considered. of using Little Joe of Saturn I-C stages

Supporting NASA/MSFC since early 1965 in their consideration II to demonstrate and evaluate the principle of recovery and reuse utilizing parachutes. This program is still under consideration.

Many other contacts have been made by visit and correspondence to all NASA agencies, SSD, BSD, ARPA, NRL, SANDIA and various contractors working with these agencies. Discussions were also held with Australian and Mexican officials. To support this activity, Convair has prepared and distributed two sales brochures; Little Joe Performance Capabilities (GD/C-65-197 dated September 1965) and Little Joe II Future Potential dated June 1965. Convair is continuing, with the assistance of NASA, to respond to inquiries on specific application possibilities.

6-5

7 [ ACHIEVEMENTS

I ACHIEVEMENTS

A.

REPORTING

OF NEW TECHNOLOGY Provisions that were incorporated in the initial Little Joe II con-

The new General

tract includes a "Reporting of New Technology" clause and a revised "Property Rights in Invention" clause. The procedure devised to monitor this contractual requirement is covered by Project Memorandum 12-E-6, in the Little Joe II Project Manual. In accordance with this procedure, a program monitor was made responsible for the review of design drawings, Engineering design notebooks, Industrial Engineering history folders and related manufacturing processes, on a regular basis for reportable items. Reports were submitted on a semiannual basis, with a final report upon completion of contract work. All reportable items were reviewed with Convalr's Patent Counsel prior to submittal to NASA. The procedure further defined the requirement be imposed on subcontractors having purchase orders in excess of $50,000. The program monitor for this activity was always a member of the Little Joe II Project Office, and, as such, constantly reviewed all changes and new designs. This assignment, with the previously described review responsibilities, ensured that all reportable items were identified. The Little Joe II program was based on engineering a product around conventional structural and off-the-shelf components. Therefore, only two new technology items were developed and reported during the span of the contract. These were: TIMER-LAUNCHER SEQUENCE, CONVAIR P/N 12-61325-3

The launching sequence timer was designed to fill the need for a combined countdown time display light control and propulsion ignition control that were positively synchronized. This timer synchronizes the countdown lights and ignition, and subsequent timing of the second stage propulsion motors during flight. See Figures 7-1 and 7-2 for timer illustrations. A basic timer diagram and its operation is shown in Figure 7-3. Control switches on the countdown console permitted holding the countdown at any desired time but retained the countdown time display lights at the time of stoppage. Continuance of countdown could be resumed from the point of interruption, or reset to the starting point could be accomplished by energizing the reset circuit.

7-1

C,-6062..45

Figure

7-1.

Launch Sequence

Timer

C-0062-46

Figure 7-2

7-2.

Launch

Sequence

Timer

- Internal

View

THE LAUNCHSEQUENCETIMER PROVIDES DISCRETE ONESECONDCOMMANDS TO THREE ELECTRICALLY ISOLATEDCIRCUITS: AUXILIARY LAUNCHFUNCTIONS(NOT SHOWN). EARLY TIME OUT DUE TO COMPONENT FAILURE ORTRANSIENTS IS PREVENTED

(_

A ONE-PULSE-PER-SECONDSOLIDSTATE GENERATORPULSES MASTER STEPPING SWITCH "A" THROUGHAN #

CONTROLLEDPOWERIS APPLIED AT TIMER START, REMOVEDAT TIMER STOP ORRESET.

MOTOCRSW. O C.OU, ,.,o,,, ,ONOO NT O ' ,

/

APPLIED DURINGGROUNDOPERATIONS.

1-PULSE/SEC. GENERATOR I I

SCR SWITCH

r--7;r--_ ' '

,
'

i STEPPER I MOTOR I

......

RESET TO START POSITION SWITCH I I _[

i..................
p-

GSELAVEPULR S

, ,, ___, ,_,L;-----..-:-.,'-r-_ >J.._L_ I I u I / _15" I

IO-SEG, PULSE ON '_)"TOSLAVE , IO-SEC. PULSE ON "7"TO SLAVE

.,., 9 ., ' 9..1 'L_ ; o

o2 o2

';. s .3.

. _. .;3 9.o."
o4

'I

_
1-STEP/SEC. SWITCH 1-STEP/SEC. SWITCH

r I

SCR SWTCH

I'S_'E_P-ER-T RESET TO START IMOTOR I POSITIONSW_TCH

110 00 10

SWITCH "A" TRIGGERSTWO SLAVE STEPPING SWITCHES THROUGHSCR SWITCHCIRCUITS. TIME SWITCH "A" REACHES "0", STEPPING _

'_ _
r

L__
..... SCR _ I I

, , .t. F--'_/I_-4 --'_--L'_"

L/
iSIEPPER ' I _ IMOTOR f"--r

; _o.q%2o 1"---";"-" ,30

I i

",,,"

_..4o
70 60 50 rl-STEP/IO.SEC. SWITCH

1-STEP/IO-SEC.
I RESET TO START I l f .... SWITCH 2010 O0

STEPPING STEPS EACH _--ISWITCH ONCE 'B"

"A" REACHES "7"

SWITCH "C"STEPS ONCE EACH TIME SWITCH

SWITCH I

I ------'-' POSITION SWITCH

4%-_0_'_I_I::_ i:::O'l

! _

'

L.....

! .I

I--_q

- ....

lJ I

-J

",0,-

so,

, I"

_" "

6O'_o 8o

,09o

"B"APPLY 28 VDC POWER AND GROUND TO EXTERNAL CONNECTIONS. LOADS ARE CONNECTEDTO RECEIVE POWERAT CHOSEN ONE SECONDINTERVALS BETWEENOAND SWITCH "B"MAY BE USED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE EXCITATION ONLY TO A GROUNDED LOAD.

ON

_/0010

MOTOR IGNITION 20 30 40 s0 60 70 8090100110\/0 1

_ 7 8 9 \ /O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 _'''-

S 6

COUNTDOWN LIGHTS ARE POWERED BY ISOLATED SWITCH WAFERS THE AUXILIARY LAUNCH FUNCI IONS (NOT SHOWN) OPERATE SIMILARLY,

(-IS

I;R_D _;_ __; =;

3RD RELAYsMOTOR IGNITION

44
COUNT-DOWN

_I_ ....
15 _ _ TO O0-SECONDS

LIGHTS PROM 16_

C_247

Figure

7-3.

Diagram

- Launch

Sequence

Timer 7-3

The timer has many applications in industry where one-second timing intervals are adequate. Modification to increase the frequency of the pulse generator to ten per second would reduce the intervals to one-tenth of a second if a more precise timing was required. BASE THERMAL PROTECTION

This is a method of applying a heat insulating material to aluminum alloy surfaces having severe irregularities, and using a curing heat cycle which is compatible with aluminum alloy limitations. Pre-molding the insulating material is not necessary. See Figures 7-4 and 7-5 for views of fin and vehicle base insulation. The combination of insulating material and adhesive agent, and the application procedure, was developed specifically to provide thermal protection for the base surfaces of the Little Joe II Test Booster from the heat of the engine jets during flight. The insulating material was Dow Coming Uncured Silicone Rubber DC6510 and the

adhesive agent was Union Carbide Silicone Primer Y-3395 or Y-3459. Rubber and/or primer produced by other companies were tried and found effective, but the selected combination proved most satisfactory in the test conducted under Little Joe H conditions.

C.-6062--48

Figure

7-4.

Fin Insulation

- installing

Vacuum

Blanket 7-5

C-6062--49

Figure

7-5.

Afterbody

Insulation

After

Baking

The installation process consisted of the following: thoroughly cleaning the surface, roughing it with a wire brush or similar abrasive, recleaning, applying a primer with a brush, allowing to dry, and applying the uncured ru.bber by adding layers as required to achieve the desired thickness over the metal _urfaees. Uniform pressure was applied to the entire covered area by vacuum or other means; the area was heated to 250F and held for 30 minutes and then allowed to cool, with pressure maintained. The finished product was a soft, tough rubber (appro_:imately 30 shore hardness) tenaciously bonded to the aluminum alloy base. When exposed to high temperature the exposed surface would char, but the back surface would remain cool. The thickness required was determined by the rate at which the rubber _vould char in the environment to which it was exposed. Apparent future applications are for thermal protection, insulation, or protection of surfaces against corrosive elements to which the semicuring silicone rubber is resistant. LISTING OF SUBCONTRACTORS AFFECTED clauses were inNew Jersey, and California. Pertechnology.

Reporting of New Technology and Property Rights in :Inventions cluded in the purchase order to Walter Kidde Company, Belleville, Whittaker Corporation, Controls & Guidance Division, Chatsworth, formanee of work on these purchase orders did not produce any new

7-6

_B_'_ ''FIRSTS'' A number accomplishment, 1)

of achievements in the United

on this States

program space

represented

a "first

time," were:

at time

of

program. diameter

Some of these vehicle launched

Little Joe II represented the largest States at the time of its first flight. Little Joe II's thrust with all-solid-propellant Little lifted and weight were booster.

by the United

2)

the highest

ever

associated

3)

Joe II's gross payload on a launch vehicle.

of 38,200

pounds

(including

ballast)

was the largest

4)

The thrust of the reaction control motors time of the first attitude control vehicle. Little floe II's first launching was the first plished on the Apollo Program.

was the highest

ever

flown at the

5)

self-propelled

flight

test

accom-

6)

The corrugated structure of the vehicle was independently was the first time it had been proven in flight. On the 12-51-3 Little Joe II flight, and in flight for the first time. Algol motors were

conceived

and it

7)

ignited

at an altitude

8)

This vehicle was the first all-aluminum rubber for base heat protection.

launch

vehicle

utilizing

an ablative

9)

The Little Joe II program was the first to execute a planned catastrophe in flight (thrust termination) to prove an abort system under an actual flight condition which required a safe abort. The last flight was the highest altitude an abort vehicle system to employ has ever been tested. three Algol motors in

10) 11)

The Little Joe II vehicle a cluster configuration.

was the first

C.

INNOVATIONS

The followingmethods of operationwere developed during the Little Joe IIprogram and subsequentlyadoptedby other NASA Apollo program contractors. PERT DATA TRANSCEIVER SYSTEM

PERT update and analysisreports were originally submittedto NASA/MSC by teletypeevery two weeks, startinginSeptember 1962. The update reportsproved unsatisfactory due to lengthypreparation,processing and transmittaltime. A data transeeiversystem installed October 1962 provided direetcard-to-cardtransmittal in by use of a data-phone. This system substantially reduced overall transmittal and

7-7

processing time and eliminated update errors experienced by the manual method. Other NASA Apollo Program contractors subsequently implemented this system. OPERATIONAL CHECKOUT PROCEDURES

Procedures for vehicle systems checkout were initially written to a Convair format which assumed a high degree of technical expertise by the operators. Although this concept proved satisfactory for factory checkout on the first vehicle, it deviated too widely from the procedures which had previously been used by NASA at other launch sites. NASA, with the cooperation of Convair, NAA and Cape Kennedy personnel, outlined a set of ground rules for procedure writing. The ensuing rough draft was designated Apollo Procedure No. 1 (AP-1) and was reviewed by management, engineers and operators. Comments were returned to NASA/MSC. AP-1 was completely revised to accommodate the operational methods required for the Apollo program; the revised document was entitled, Apollo Documentation Procedure No. 2, Standard for the Preparation of Operational Checkout Procedures (AP-2). The AP-2 format specified exact location, nomenclature, time sequence and operator for any given operational step. This format theoretically enabled operational performance by relatively inexperienced personnel. With the introduction of the AP-2 specification, all Convair procedures were created by electronic data processing (EDP). The EDP permitted tape storage of finished documentation and also simplified changes and reproduction. In common with other detailed specifications of this type, certain waivers were required, to fit the AP-2 format to the particular electronic data processes used by Convair. This detailed AP-2 procedure continues in use by other NASA contractors.

PROGRAM

CLOSE-OUT

STATUS

PROGRAM CLOSE.OUT STATUS

A.

GENERAL

Convair and NASA, late in 1965, recognized the need for a plan to effect an orderly close out of the Little Joe II program. The plan provided a single source document which brought together all pertinent information, defining departmental action and identifying the procedures governing the action. The document further provided a schedule for the efficient close out of Contract NAS 9-492. (Reference GD/C 66-020, Contract Close'Out Plan, NASA Project Apollo - Little Joe II Project). By NASA direction, terminal close out of the program was modified to the extent that existing vehicles and significant GFP components and materials would be stored through the year 1966. Storage of these materials was based on the premise of possible reactivation of Convair San Diego and WSMR facilities for additional launches of the Little Joe II. NASA's Contract Change Authorization (CCA) #96 and Revision #1 thereto provided contractual direction. Arrangements were made by NASA to store the Little Joe 1"[vehicles in Air Force Plant 19 in San Diego. See Figure 8-1 for views of storage area. Vehicles 12-50-3, 12-50-4 and 12-51-4 are preserved and stored in Mylar bags. Suitable desiccant bags are used to control moisture content. All tooling, GSE and GFP equipment has been preserved, packaged, and stored with the vehicles. Launcher 12-60-2 is preserved and stored in place in Convair's Experimental Department' s Yard. Materials that were not retained for future use were forwarded to Disposition Stores. These materials were surveyed by DCASPRO for final disposition action. There are 1500 outside purchased (OSP) line items and 200 material items with an extended value of under $100 which have been processed. There are 250 outside purchased (OSP) and 30 miscellaneous items with an extended value of over $100 which have been assigned to a disposition schedule and circulated to other government agencies for possible use. All drawings, specifications and reports microfilmed and forwarded to NASA/MSC. of contractural requirement have been

Convair activity at WSMR was closed out on 23 March 1966. Launcher 12-60-1 has been stored in place at WSMR, Launch Complex 36. All launcher storable and other disposable materials were turned over to ZIA, a WSMR on-site NASA contractor. NASA is responsible for maintenance of Launcher 12-60-1. Those GFP materials required for reactivation of Little Joe II were returned to Convair, San Diego, for preservation and storage. 8-1

C-6O62-50-1

C-6062-50-2

Figure 8-2

8-1.

LJ-II

Storage

Area

- Air Force

Plant

19, San Diego

(Sheet 1 of 3)

CJo062-50-_

C=6062-50-4

Figure

8-1.

LJ-II Storage Area - Air Force

Plant 19, San Diego (Sheet 2 of 3) 8-3

C,-6062-50-5

Figure

8-1.

LJ-II

Storage

Area - Air Force

Plant

19, San Diego

(Sheet 3 of 3)

Maintenance of those items stored in Air Force Plant 19 in San Diego has been negotiated as a separate contract with Convair and extends through 1966.

8-4

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

The success set forth in this

of the Little Joe II program suggests that the various philosophies management volume should be considered for integration into future complexity paragraphs. and scope. More specific recommendations are de-

programs of similar fined in the following Customer's

Technical

Direction

- Single source

direction

in this field provides

the key for a clear communications link. Clear communication insures rapid response to change action, minimizes the fog factor and promotes efficient and economical operations. Customer Approved Sources - It is incumbent on the contractor that these sources be frequently re-evaluated to assure that procedures, practices and skill levels are in accordance with the Customer's requirements. Furthermore, the Customer should maintain intensive surveillance of the approved sources to assure that their credentials remain current. Customer Specification and Documentation Requirements - The contractor should frequently review Customer imposed specifications and contractual requirements in terms of program application. He should determine whether imposed requirements are warranted in relation to the program cost and schedule effect. For example, the NASA GSE specification MSC-GSE-1A requires a separate specification and formal drawing for each individual piece of equipment. In many cases the time involved in preparing specifications and drawings and obtaining approval of them far outweighs the cost of the individual piece of GSE. Waivers to specifications and the use of blanket specifications can materially reduce end item cost and realization time. The Little Joe II resolution of this problem is discussed in detail in Volume II, Section 4. D, GSE Documentation, of this report. The docume_ation ated for real necessity. economy realized.
4_

distribution generally imposed on a contractor In many eases distribution may be minimized

should

be

evalu-

and thus

Centralized

Control

of Testing

Activities

- Control

of qualification

and system

test-

ing was vested in the Reliability Group. By combining all testing activity under the cognizance of one group, efficiency and economy were realized. The inherent character and philosophy of reliability engineers assures an ideal guardianship for the testing activities.

9-1

Vendor Integration - The philosophy of ensuring that the vendor is a part of the team is considered by Convair to be an important part of vendor relations. The normal procedure of vendor evaluation, i.e., drawing review, specification review, test report review, facility and manufacturing capability review does not complete the loop. Closing the loop requires one more step - that of integrating the vendor into the program. The vendor must have a thorough understanding of the program philosophies and guide lines and must be kept current with changes thereto. By making him a part of the program, he shares the burden of success or failure. Integration means the vendor's understanding of the importance of his product to the the total system and the impact that his performance could have on the program. Configuration Status - A configuration audit was required upon completion of each vehicle manufactured and checked out at San Diego, and again at the time of acceptance by NASA at WSMR. This configuration audit was maintained by a manual method of individual recording and filing of each shop task as reflected on the completed and approved planning card. For future programs of this nature, it is recommended that the configuration status be maintained through a system in which the complete task from original design and including subsequent change activity be computer processed to establish a master tape file record. As factory tasks are completed and accepted by Quality Control, data from these historical records should also be computer tape recorded so that at specified times during production and at vehicle completion these tapes could be compared to provide configuration status. This would provide an accurate, timely and less laborious final report as well as a continuous schedule status. Use of WSMR - Convair recommends that NASA accomplish more of its test programs at WSMR. The facilities are excellent, the management is efficient and, in particular, the resident NASA crew is of a high level, versatile, dedicated and cooperative in accomplishing a task efficiently and to schedule.

9-2

10

CONCLUSIONS

10 [ CONCLUSIONS

The Little Joe II program provided a low-cost launch vehicle which was adaptable to a wide range of mission requirements. The recent test series which successfully proved the capability of the Apollo launch escape system used only a part of the launch vehicle capability; thus, the creation of Little Joe II not only enabled accomplishment of a major milestone for the Apollo program but established a capability for future sub-orbital programs.

10-1

11 [ BIBLIOGRAPHY

11 I BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Aerojets) Contract

Interface Close-Out

Control Plan,

Document, NASA Project

Report Apollo

Number - Little

0667-TICD-1 Joe II Project,

dated

1 July 1963. 66-020.

GD/C

DD 1446 Form (entitled:) Contractor Performance Convair, Contract NAS9-492, dated 12 June 1964. D. I.B.-12-015. Documentation Hardware List, Requirements Little of Contract

and Evaluation,

General

Dynamics/

NAS 9-150.

Joe 11 Project,

GDC-62-170.

Interface Control Document, Mission A-0Ol, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-50-2 and Payload Boilerplate 12 (BP-12) Document Number MH01-04010-414 dated 17 March 1964. Interface Document Interface Document Control Document, Mission Number MH01-04012 dated A-002, Little Joe II Vehicle 6 October 1964. 12-51-1 and BP-23,

Control Document, Mission A-003, Little Joe II Vehicle Number MH01-04011-414 dated 30 March 1965.

12-51-2

and BP-22,

Interface Control Document, Mission A-004, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-3 and Spacecraft 002 (SC-002), Document Number MH01-04013-414 dated 6 August 196S. Letter Little Little 11-1-1486, Joe II Future Joe Performance dated 20 April dated 1962. June 1965. dated September 1964. No. 1. Proposal, 1965.

Potential

Capabilities, June

GD/C-65-197 1963, revised

Memorandum NASA Contract NASA Project GDC-62-114,

of Understanding, Change

February

Authorization

(CCA) No. Little

96, and Revision Joe H - Technical

Apollo Test Launch Vehicle, dated April 1962.

NASA Quality Publication - Inspection System Materials, Parts, Components, and Services, NASA Quality Publication - Quality N1_-200-2 dated April 20, 1962. NASA Quality Publication NPC 200. Program

Provisions for Suppliers of Space NPC-200-3, April 1965 Edition. Provisions for Space System Contractors,

11-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(CONTINUED)

NASA/MSC

Request

for Proposal

MSC-62-39P,

dated 6 April 1962. System, GDC-62-361,

NASA Statement of Work for Suborbital dated 20 November 1962. Project Reliability Reliability Soldering Memorandum Program Program Specification 12-E-6,

Test Launch Vehicle

in Little Joe II Project Subsystems,

Manual. MIL-R-27542 (USAF).

for Systems, Plan

and Equipment,

(NPC 250-1),

GD/C 64-119.

MSFC-PROC Launch Vehicle

158B. - Little Joe H, GDC-62-202, dated 21 Sept. 1962.

Support Plan - Test

11-2

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
INDEX OF LITTLE

JOE DOCUMENTATION

Document Number Accelerometer, A69TC-20-30, Qualification Testing of Accumulator, Hydraulic, Little Joe II, Qualification Test Procedure for Accumulator, Hydraulic, Little Joe II Aerodynamic Attitude Control System, 90-03500-003, Qualification Test Accumulator, Accumulator Hydraulic, Test Plan Piston Seal Test Results GDC P/N Report PM-12-2217 PM- 12- 2291 DF-12-115 DL-M-63-144 GDC 64-224 GDC 64-319

Drawing Number

Actuator Dynamic Spring Rate Determination (Test Procedure) Adaptation Kit, Air Conditioning Ducts, Little Joe II P/N 12-93006, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Adapter, Forward Fin Pin Tool, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Aerodynamic "A" Tests Attitude Control System, Category II

12-09290

ZZC 63-060 ZZC-63-011

12-09285

Aerodynamic AttitudeControlSystem, LittleJoe Production Fin, Hydraulic and Pneumatic, Test Procedure for Aerodynamic Coefficients for Little Joe II Apollo, Based on Wind Tunnel Tests Aerodynamic Data for Little Joe H with 316 Inch Service Module 502 Fins

GDC 63-137 AD-LJ-004 T-12-25 DC-12-018 GDC 63-137 Addendum CS-63-010 C -

Aerodynamic Heating - Little Joe II Booster Aerodynamic and Inertia Cross-Coupling on Little Joe II Stability, Effects of Aerolastic Coefficients of the 50 sq. ft. Fin with a 15 sq. ft. Movable Control Surface Airframe Maintenance and Repair Manual (12-50-1)

A-1

Document Number Airframe Maintenance Vehicle 12-50-2 Airframe Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-1 Airframe Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-2 Airframe Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-3 and Repair and Repair and Repair and Repair Manual, Manual, Manual, Manual, Launch Launch Launch Launch CS-63-035 CS-64-009 CS-65-001 CS-65-001A GDC 63-102 T-12-31 PM-12-2252 T-12-26

Drawing Number

Air Loads for Structural Design of Little Joe H Algol Motor Pressure Decay with Thrust Termination, Little Joe H Algol Motor Staging, RFC 5P-I Algol Rocket Propellant Grain Temperature Variation with Air Conditioning Removed, Little Joe II Algol Thrust Termination, Little Joe II - Mission J Algol Thrust Termination, Effect of Primacord Explosion on Fiberglass Bulkhead, Little Joe H Alignment Kit, Vehicle, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Amplifier, Attitude Control and Logic, Electromagnetic Interference Test Report (CES Electronic Products} Amplifier Package, Rawco, Test Report, Quality Assurance Tests on Analog Study of Little Joe H/Apollo Launch Without Reaction Control Numbers of Recruit Motors Boilerplate 22 and with Various

T-12-30 T-12-28 GDC 64-071 12-09121

GDC 64-311 DC-12-019

Apollo High q Abort (A-001) Mission, Little Joe II Launch Vehicle 12-50-2, Launch Operations Program and Schedule Apollo Mission A-003 (Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2/ Apollo BP-22) Stability Analysis of Attitude Control Fin Static Proof Test Planning Report, Little Joe II Attitude Control and Logic Amplifier, Part of the Attitude Control Subsystem, Specification for Attitude Control and Logic Amplifier for Use in the Little Joe H Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 and on, Qualification Test Report for Attitude Control System Anomalies

GDC 63-228

D-65-9 SL-63-024 12-03101 GDC 64-327

PM-12-2391

A-2

Document _b]ect Attitude Control System Maintenance Manual (12-51-1) Attitude Control System Maintenance Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 and Repair and Repair Number CS-64-014 CS-65-006 GDC 64-332 D-65-5 and GDC 62-335 GDC 62-190 DC-12-012

Drawing Number

Attitude Control System, Integrated, Tests Attitude Control System, Integrated, Tests, Vehicles 51-2 and 51-3, Test Objectives Procedures for

Attitude Control Subsystem, Specification for Attitude Control Subsystem Study Attitude Control System and Subsystems with Simulated Little Joe H Vehicle, Test Procedures for Attitude Control System Tests, Integrated, Little Joe II 51-2, NASA Apollo Project Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude Control Subsystem, Specification for Attitude Reference Subsystem Study for the Little Joe II Vehicle Attitude Reference System, Model GR10A-1, Part Number 22650, General Dynamics/Convair Part Number 12-03100-3, A Component of the Little Joe II Test Vehicle, American Gyro Test Report Aut0pilot and Instrumentation Systems, Little Joe II 12-51-1 Vehicle, Vibration Test Procedure for Autopilot Noise, Little Joe II Autopilot Signal Filter, Little Joe H, Design Feasibility Study Autopilot System, Little Joe II 12-51-1, Vibration Test Procedure for Autopilot System Little Joe II 12-51 Vehicle, Vibration Qualification Test Report for Autopilot System, Test Procedure, Vibration Qualification Testing on, prepared in Accordance with Specification GDC 64-230 for General Dynamics/ Convair (Wyle Laboratories} Azimuth Trucks, Specification for Base Heat Barrier Installation, Procedure for Base Heating - LittleJoe IIMission "F" Base Thermal ProtectionMaterials Insulation Methods Investigation

12-06104

D-65-18 DC-12-006 26336 12-03100

GDC 64-189 DC-12-020 GDC 65-098 GDC 64-230 GDC 64-340 3503 -

GDC 62-284 T-12-17 -

12-09260 12-07100 12-07000

A-3

Document Number Battery, Gulton Ind., Test of Little Joe II Vibration 564-1-64-193 GDC 64-324

Drawing Number -

Battery Power-Pack Used with Radio Receiver Set AN/DRW-11, Gulton, Specification for Qualification Tests of Battery, RCS, Vibration Qualification Test of Battery System Protective Diode Assembly, Airborne, Temperature Test Report Battery, Yardney 5500 for Model 12 - Little Joe H, Servicing and Storage of Batteries, Yarduey 65100 Vehicle Power for Model 12 - Little Joe II, Servicing and Storage of Blast Criteria - Little Joe H Launch Pad Design Bolts, High Strength, in Structural Steel Installation Burst Disc Evaluation Kidde Co.) Catalyst Test Catalyst space Checkout Checkout Checkout Bed Life, Procedure Bed Life Division Manual, Manual, Manual, Test, P/N 242568 (Walter

DL-M-64-44 GDC 64-297 T-12-13 MPS 24.03 WK-D-AAW-0109

12-06106 12-06107

Motor Assembly, P/N 892602, for (Walter Kidde Co.) Test, Little Joe II, Kidde AeroReport Vehicle 12-50-1 Vehicle 12-50-2 Vehicle 12-51-1

TP-333 R-1648 GDC 63-073 GDC 63-187 GDC 64-114 12-09274 DC-12-004 DC-12-024 12-03262 GDC 62-259 GDC 62-258 VC&I-66 VC&I-73 CS-63-011 CS-63-036 12-03261 12-03260

Clamp, GN 2 Regulator Vent, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Clearances of Little Joe H During Launch Command Amplitude and Time Constant on the Mission "J" Pitch-up Maneuver, Effect of Command Destruct Antenna Coupler, Specification for Command Command Command Arming Command Arming Command Manual Command Manual, A-4 Destruct Antenna, Specification for Destruct Subsystem, Specification for Destruct Subsystem, Power, Signal and Control Unit (Breadboard) Test Procedure Destruct Subsystem - Power, Signal and Unit (Breadboard) - Test Report Destruct System Maintenance and Repair (12-50-1) Destruct System Maintenance and Repair Launch Vehicle 12-50-2

Document Subject Command Destruct System Tester, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Command Receiver, Little Joe II Qualification Vibration and Acceleration Tests Compression Panels Tests, Corrugated 2024-T3 Aluminum Number GDC 62-219 564-1-64-177 SL-62-036 SL-62-048 GDC 64-263

Drawing Number 12-09111

Compression Test, 12-07900-3 Multi-Bay Panel, Corrugated 2024T3 Aluminum Alloy Conic TM Transmitter Temperature/Frequency and Antenna Conducted EMI Tests, Test Report for Console, Attitude Control, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Console, Attitude Control Fin Test, Little Joe II P/N 12-61338-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Console, GSE Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 Console, GSE Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Console, GSE Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Console, Thrust Termination, Little Joe II P/N 12-61344-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Contract Close-Out Plan, Little Joe H Project Control Surface Calibration Gage, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Control System of the Little Joe II, Integrated System Tests Control Unit Development Tests - Little Joe II Attitude Control System Controller, Pitch Over, Model BB10A-1, Part No. 25880, GDC P/N 12-03102, A Component of the Little Joe II Test Vehicle, Qualification Test Report Converter, AC/DC, Specification for Qualification of Converter - DC to DC, Specification for Converter - DC to DC, Report of Contractor's Tests on Model ARI 175 (Astronetic Research, Inc.} Converter - Solid-State DC to DC, Model 175, Electromagnetic Interference Test Report, (Astronetic Research, Inc.) Converter Transducer, AC/DC, Qualification Test Report for

12-09125 12-09129

CS-63-017 CS-63-041 CS-64-017 -

12-09128

GDC 66-020 DC-12-010 VC&I-69 A34-26877A

12-09122

GDC 64-315 ARI 189-A GDC 63-179 12-01100

GDC 64-346

A-5

Subject Corrective and Preventive Action, Little Joe H Summary Report for Vehicle 12-51-3 Cylinder, Hydraulic ServoAerodynamic Attitude Control, Qualification Test Procedure for Data Reduction and Analysis Comments for Flutter

Document Number GDC 65-190 GDC 63-106

Drawing Number -

DF-12-107 DF-12-108

Instrumentation on Little Joe II QTV #1 (fixed fin) Data Station Procedures (Recommended) for Vehicle Response Data Reduction for Little Joe II QTV Magnetic Tape Records Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50 Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe H Test Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 Design Engineering Vehicles 12-50-2 Design Engineering Vehicle 12-51-1 Design Engineering Vehicle 12-51-1 Inspection (NASA) Little and 12-50-3 Inspection Inspection (NASA) Little (NASA) Little Joe IT Joe II Joe H

GDC GDC GDC GDC GDC

63-034 64-236 64-365 65-145 63-139

GDC 63-229 GDC 64-264 GDC 64-264 Addendum A GDC 64-033 GDC 62-163 GDC 63-204 DC-12-023 D-65.-15 D-65-40 SD-147 -

Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) of Thrust Termination System, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-50-2 Design Information Bulletins Design Review Presentation, Little Joe IT Attitude Control Vehicle Design Thrust Misalignment (NASA Mission A-002) Design Thrust Misalignment for Mission for Mission "J" "N, " NASA

Mission A-003, Little Joe H Design Thrust Misalignment for Mission "Q," NASA Mission A-004, Little Joe II Destructors, Explosive, Models 173-1-A-1 and 173-1-A-7, Report of Environmental and Firing Tests (Beckman and Whitley) Detonating cord Compatibility Tests, Little Joe H (GDC P/N 12-03271-1 and -3) Aerojet-General Test Report) Detonating Cord Firing Tests, Little Joe II, Aerojet General Test Report

A-6

Document Subject Development Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2, Summary Report Development Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-3, Summary Report Differential Pressure for Little Joe II Skin, Missions "E" and "F" Displacements of Little Joe IT During Document Revision Methods Launch Number GDC 65-092 GDC 65-172 T-12-24 DC-12-003 GDC 62-156 GDC 62-157 D3026A01 DF-12-111

Drawing Number

Documentation Summary, Little Joe II Drawing List, Little Joe II Dynamic Thrust Load on the Structural Integrity the Little Joe II Thrust Bulkhead, Preliminary Analysis of the Effect of Dynamic Thrust Oscillations Measured General Algol Engines, Verification Pertinent to on Aerojetof Data

of

DF-12-113

Eagle SignalPart No. ATS79, Corresponding to Convair P/N 97-37225-012, Qualification to Little Joe IIEnvironments (EagleSignal)

Eagle SignalP/N ATS75, Corresponding to Convair P/N 97-37225-013, Qualificationests to Little T Joe H Environments (EagleSignal) Eagle SignalDivision,ATS75 and ATS79 Qualification 37-11-26-1 Test Report Eagle SignalTime Delay Relay, Part No. ATS75, GDC 64-360 Electromagnetic Interference Test Report Effect of Explosion and Rapid Decomposition of the T-12-29 Hydrogen Peroxide used for Reaction Control, Little Joe II Electrical Distribution System Maintenance Repair Manual (12-51-1) Electrical Subsystem, Specification for Electrical System Maintenance and Repair Vehicle 12-50-1 and CS-64-013 GDC 62-261 CS-63-012 GDC 66-010 12-06260

Manual,

Electromagnetic Susceptibility Test Report on C. E.S. Electronics Products, Inc., Convair Part Number 12-03101-3 Emergency formance Shower, Pallet Mounted, GSE Perand Interface Specification for

GDC 62-330

12-09277

End Item Test Plan (12-50-i)

A-7

Document _bject End Item Test Plan, Little Joe II Launch Vehicle 12-50-2, Apollo Mission A-001 End Item Test Plan - Vehicle 12-51-1 End Item Test Plan, Little Joe H Test Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 End Item Test Plan, Vehicle 12-51-3 Little Joe H Test Launch Number GDC 64-037 GDC 64-233 GDC 64-356 GDC 65-083 GDC 62-308 4680

Drawing Number

12-09100

Environmental Control, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Environmental Tests on Astronetics Research P/N 175 DC to DC Converter, Action Laboratories, Inc., Report of Exhaust Jet Plume Effects

GDC 63-137 Addendum A GDC 62-166 GDC 62-166C Supplement I GDC 62-166C Supplement II GDC 62-160 GDC 63-081 DC-12-009 DC-12-029 D-65-17 D-56-39 CS-62-011 CS-63-003 4282

Facilities Facilities Apollo Facilities

Plan Plan, Convair Operations Requirements Mission A-003 (BP-22/LJ H 12-51-2) Plan, Apollo Mission A-004

(SC-002/LJ H 12-51-3) Facilities Requirements (White Sands) Factory Trial of Launch Vehicle Operations Procedure, Little Joe H High q Failure Analysis, Little Joe II Failure Analysis, Little Joe H BP-23, Mission J Failure Analysis, Little Joe H Vehicle 51-2, Apollo Mission .%-003 Failure Analysis, Little Joe H Vehicle, 51-3, Apollo Mission A-004 Failure Summary (Monthly) Familiarization Manual, Launch Vehicle Familiarization Manual, Launch Vehicle Filter, Audio, Genistron Inc. P/N GF6536, GDC P/N 93-78304-003, Qualification Test Report, Low Temperature, High Temperature and Vibration Test of Filter, Hydrogen Peroxide, Specification for Cleaning and Conditioning Filtering Unit, Hydraulic, Little Joe II P/N 12-91042-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Filtering Unit, Hydraulic, Test Procedure A-8

12-00261 12-09303

12-91303

Document Sub]'ect Financial Management Report (Monthly) Fin and Elevon Assembly, Little Joe H, Special Vibration Test Procedure for Fin, Attitude Control, Little Joe II, Results of Ground Vibration and Associated Stiffness Test Fin Bolt Installation/Removal Tools, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Fin Flutter Analysis, Little Joe H Attitude Control, Using Ground Vibration Test Modes Fin Structural Response Test, Little Joe H, Evaluation Test Report Fin Slings, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Fin Warpage, Effects of, on the Trajectory of Little Joe II QTV Shot Finish Specification, Little Joe II Fixed Fin Flutter Analysis Fixed Fin (Cantilevered) Little Joe H/Apollo, Ground Vibration Test Results Flight Flutter Instrumentation for Little Joe II Qualification Test Vehicle, Status Report Flight Flutter Test Instrumentation (Required) for Little Joe II Qualification Test Vehicle Flight Report, Launch Vehicle, NASA Project Apollo, Little Joe II QTV - Model Version Vehicle 12-50-1 Flight Simulation, Little Joe II Vehicle 51-2 Forebody Mating Stand, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Free-Floating Control Surface Analysis, Little Joe II Fuel Tank Assembly, P/N 892586, Vibration Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Fuel Tank Assembly, P/N 892586, Vibration Report (Kidde Aerospace Division) Test Test Number NASA Form 12-4714 GDC 64-023 DF-12-120 12A4714 GDC 62-311 DC-12-007 DF-12-102 GDC 63-055 DF-12-110 DF-12-105 GDC 63-193 533

Drawing Number -

12-09109

12-09103

12-00004 -

D-65-27 GDC 62-212 D-65- 28 TP-325 R-1636

12-09104

General Performance Capabilities Ground Air Conditioning, Little Joe H Ground Service Supply Hoses, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Guidance Accuracy Study of Little Joe II Vehicle

GDC 62-349 T-12-10 DC-12-005

12-09119

A-9

Document Number Gulton Battery Qualification Power Pack 24V0.180P, Test Report for Little Joe H, GDC 64-350

Drawing Number

Hardware List, Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle Hardware Utilization List - 12-50-1 Hardware Utilization List12-50-2 Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-1 Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-2 Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-3 Hose Adapter, Kit, Little Joe H P/N 12-91026 Hose Kit, Bladder Leak Test, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hose Kit - High Pressure Nitrogen, Little Joe H P/N 12-91040, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hose Set, Extension, Hydraulic Cart, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hose Set, Extension, Hydrogen Peroxide, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hose Set, Extension, Pneumatic, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hydraulic Actuator Assembly and Components, A History of the Vibration Testing Performed on Hydraulic Servocylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude Control, GDC P/N 12-40100-850, Qualification Test Procedure for Hydraulie Servocylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude Control System, Little Joe H, Qualification Test Report on Hydraulic Servoeylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude Control, GDC Part No. 12-40100-805, Special Qualification Test Procedure for Hydraulic Servocylinder, Little Joe H Aerodynamic Attitude Control System, GDC Part No. 1240100-805, Qualification Test Report for Hydraulic Subsystem in the Little Joe H, Vibration Qualification of Hydraulic System, Attitude Control, Little Joe H, Vibration Qualification Program for Hydraulic System Filtration Study, Little Joe II Attitude Control, Report of

GDC GDC GDC GDC GDC GDC

62-170 63-149 64-040 64-237 65-007 65-164

12-09280 12-09288 12-09265

PM-12-2251 GDC 64-309

12-09281 12-09282 12-09283

GDC 64-347

GDC 65-171

GDC 65-200

DF-12-118 GDC 64-193 GDC 65-162 -

A-10

Document Subject Hydraulic and Pneumatic System, Aerodynamic Attitude Control tion Qualification Test Report Little Joe II System, VibraNumber GDC 64-322

Drawing Number -

Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) Fuel Tank, P/N 892586, Acceptance Test Procedure (Walter Kidde Co.) Hydrogen Peroxide Reaction Control System, Little Joe II, Category "B" Test Igniter Installation Tool, Recruit Engine, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Inclination Screw Jacks, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Instrumentation Breadboard, Little Joe H, Test Report for Instrumentation System, Little Joe H 12-51-1 Vehicle, Vibration Test Procedure for Instrumentation Multiplexed Circuit Verification Test, Test Report Instrumentation System Turn-On Voltage Transient, Determination of, Test Report Instrumentation System, Vehicle, 12-51-1, Vibration Qualification Interchangeability and Status and Replaceability, for Little Joe H Test Report Definition Preliminary, Final, Apollo

WK-D-AAW-0095 ZZC-64-032

GDC 62-385 GDC 64-349 GDC 64-231 GDC 64-285 GDC 64-293 GDC 64-280 GDC 65-139 GDC 65-143

12-09116 12-09261

12-00014-1 -

Investigation Report, Post Flight, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-2 Investigation Report, Post Mission A-003 Flight Flight,

Launch Operations Program and Schedule for Facility Preparation and Launcher Assembly Launch Operations Program and Schedule, Little Joe H High q, Qualification Test Vehicle Launch Operations Program and Schedule, Little Joe H Launch Vehicle 12-50-2, Apollo High q Abort (A-001} Mission Launch Site Activities Report (Weekly) Launch Site - Preliminary Specification for Little Joe II LauncherBlockhouse Requirements Launcher Maintenance (12-50-1) Electrical and Repair Facility Manual

GDC 63-083 GDC 63-046 GDC 63-288

GDC 63-289 CS-63-015

A-11

_bject Launcher Maintenance Vehicle 12-50-2 Launcher Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-1 Launcher Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-2 Launcher Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-3 Launcher Test Mast, and Repair and Repair and Repair and Repair Proof Manual, Manual, Manual, Manual, Launch Launch Launch Launch

Document Number CS-63-039 CS-64-015 CS-65-007 CS-65-007A SL-62-065 GDC 62-220 -

Drawing Number

12-95203,

and Operational

Launcher Position Control, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Load Bar, Three Recruit Installation, P/N 1291036-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Limitations, Launch Operations, Little Joe H Logic and Control Amplifier, Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude Control System Qualification Test for Logic and Control Amplifier, Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude Control System, Qualification Test Report for Logic and Control Amplifier, 12-03101-1, Serial No. S-N3, Failure Analysis of Logic and Control Amplifier 12-03101-3 Modified, Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude Control System, Qualification Test Report for Logic and Control Unit Test, Little Joe II, Preliminary Analysis Maintenance Plan

12-09112 12-09294

GDC 64-307 GDC 65-210

GDC 65-219

GDC 66-501 GDC 66-046

DC-12-017

GDC 62-281 TP-326

Manifold and Burst Disc Assembly, P/N 842396, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Manifold and Burst Disc Assembly, P/N 842396, Vibration Test Report (Walter Kidde Co. ) Manifold, Hydraulic Test, Little Joe II P/N 12-91041-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Manufacturing Plan Materials Evaluation for Base Thermal Protection Materials Evaluation for Launcher Thermal Protection A-12

R-1616 12-09302

GDC 62-205 RT-62-040 RT-62-039

Document Subject Materials Report (Semi-Annual) Measurement Subsystem, Specification Measurement Subsystem, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1, Specification for Measurement System Maintenance and Manual (Vehicle 12-50-1) Measurement System Maintenance and Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Measurement System Maintenance and Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Number GDC 62-257 CS-63-013 CS-63-037 CS-64-011 CS-65-022 -

Drawing Number 12-01101 12-01103 -

for Launch Repair Repair Repair

12-06108

Measurement System Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch Vehicle 12'51-3 Megging of GD/Convair Installed and/or Cable and Wire, Little Joe II Launch Terminated Site,

Specification for Missile Base Heating - Little Joe IIMission "E," Seven Algol Rocket Configuration Missile Destructor (Safeand Arm Device) ofthe Destruct Subsystem of the LittleJoe IILaunch Test Vehicle, Specificationor Reliabilitynd f a Qualificationesting T Mission "F" Performance Evaluation,LittleJoe II Mission "J" to Five Magnitudes of an Exponential Pitch Command (1.1 Second Time Constant) and Comparison with the Step Response, Little Joe II Motor, Prototype Evaluation Tests, Little Joe II (Walter Kidde Co.) Motor Support Cradle, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Motor and Valve Assembly, P/N 873945, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Motor and Valve Assembly, Development and Qualification, P/N 873945, Vibration Test Report (Kidde Aerospace Division) Narrative End Item Report, Ground Ground Launch Support Support Console EquipEquip-

T-12-20 GDC 64-295

DC-12-008 DC-12-026

R-1592 GDC 62-216 TP-330 R-1643 & Supplement A 12-09108

GDC 63-155 GDC 64-241 GDC 63-154

ment (12-50-1) Narrative End Item Report, merit (12-71-1) Narrative End Item Report, (12-50-1)

A-13

Subject Narrative End Item Report, Launch Facilities (Model 12-80} Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 Narrative End Item Report, Launcher 12-60-1 Narrative End Item Report, Launcher 12-60-2 Nonlinear Stability Analysis of Apollo Mission A-003 (Little Joe H Vehicle 12- 51- 2/ApoUo BP-22) Nonstandard Low Cost GSE, Little Joe If,Performance and Interface Specification for Nonstandard GSE Portable Test Equipment, Little Joe II, Performance and Interface Specification for Operations Manual, Little Model Version 12-50-1 Operations Manual, Little Model Version 12-50-2 Operations Manual, Little Model Version 12-51-1 Operations Manual, Little Model Version 12-51-2 Joe II Launch Joe rI Launch Joe II Launch Vehicle, Vehicle, Vehicle,

Document Number GDC 63-181 GDC 63-153 GDC 64-008 GDC 64-242 GDC 65-043 GDC 65-155 GDC 63-152 GDC 64-065 D-65-16

Drawing Number -

12-09301 12-09278

GDC 63-072 GDC 63-085 3538 12-08901 12-08902

Joe H Launch Vehicle,

Oscillators, Qualification Test Report for T-D 1291A1B2B, Mount T-D 1470A-1-A (TeleDynamics) Oscillatory Thrust Investigation, Little Joe II, Proposed Packaging Requirements for Reaction Control Systern Components - Little Joe II, Specification for Panel Vibration Analysis Parts, Identification of PETN Signal Wiring Firing Tests, Little Joe II Aerojet-General Test Report PERT Events Document Pitch Programmer for Attitude system, Specification for Reference Sub-

DF-12-122

DF-12-106 MPS 28.06 GDC 62-226 -

12-00260 12-03102

A-14

Document Subject Pitch Programmer, of the Attitude Procedure Attitude Reference Subsystem Control System, Qualification Test Number GDC 65-208

Drawing Number

Pitch Programmer, Attitude Reference Subsystem for the Attitude Control System, Qualification Test Report for Platform, Destruct Charge Installation, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Platform, Range Safety System, Little Joe II P/N 12-91016-801, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Platform, Range Safety System, Little Joe II P/N 12-91037, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Platforms, RCS Servicing, P/N 12-91033, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for PMP Schedule Dates Portable GSE, for Test Equipment, Little Joe H Standard Performance and Interface Specification Report of

GDC 65-218

12-09270 12-09296

12-09297

GDC 62-227 -

12-09289 12-09298

Potentiometer, Feedback, Testing Study, Power-On Base Drag for Mission "E" Power-On Power-On uration Power-On uration Power-On uration Total Total Total Total Drag for Mission Drag Drag Drag "J"

GDC 65-163 GDC 63-137 Addendum B GDC 63-137 Addendum D -

for the 3 - 2 Algol

Config-

GDC 63-137 Addendum E GDC 63-137 Addendum F GDC 63-137 Addendum G R-1620 & I A-15 12-09126

for the 3 - 3 Algol Configfor the 2 - 2 Algol Config-

Power Room Equipment Rack, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Pressure Control Valve - P/N 892591, Vibration Test Report for (Kidde Aerospace Division} Primacord Vibration Testing for Little Joe II Aerojet-General Test Report Procurement Specification Format Program Plan Program Requirements Document, Little Joe 11 Progress Report (Monthly) Progress Report (Quarterly}

Addendum -

GDC 62-145 GDC 62-177 GDC 65-032 -

Subject Proposal (Little Joe II- Technical Proposal) Proposal (Little Joe II - Cost and Contractual) Proposal - Launch Test Vehicle Propulsion Subsystem, Specification for Propulsion System Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 Propulsion Launch Propulsion Launch System Vehicle System Vehicle Maintenance 12-50-2 Maintenance 12-51-1 and Repair and Repair Manual, Manual,

Document Number GDC 62-114 GDC 62-115 GDC 62-291 GDC 62-260 CS-63-014 CS-63-038 CS-64-012

Drawing Number 12-02260

Qualification Status List (12-50-1) Qualification Status List, Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Qualification Status Vehicle 12-51-1 Summary, Little Little Little Joe II, Joe H, Joe H, Part 24280-3

GDC 62-368 GDC 63-169 GDC 64-234 GDC 65-008 GDC 65-156 24280-3

Qualification Status Summary, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 Qualification Status Summary, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 Qualification Test Procedure

for Sterer

GD/Convair Specification No. 12-04103 (Sterer Engr.) Quality Control Performance Audits, Summary of (Quarterly) Quality Control plan Quality Report (Monthly) Quick Disconnect Assembly, Couple and Uncouple Characteristics (Walter Kidde Co. ) Range Safety System (12-98-14) Range Safety System Little Joe H Test Test Program, (12-98-14) Little Final Joe II Report,

CVR 48-02-70 GDC 62-222 CVR 48-02-67 R-1614

GDC 65-068 GDC 65-077 SE20D-2 26012_ and Supp. 1 & 2

Rate Gyro System, Model SE20D-2, American Gyro Design Specification Rate Gyro Assembly, American Gyro P/N 21690, GDC P/N 94-43002-001, A Component of Little Joe II Test Vehicle, Qualification Test Report (American Gyro} Reaction Control Basic Requirements

PM-12-261

A-16

Document Subject Reaction Reaction Control Control - Hydrogen Jet-Induced Peroxide System Study Aerodynamic Forces on Number AD-LJ-005

Drawing Number 12-02601

Little Joe II Stability and Control Characteristics, Effect of Reaction Control Module System Assembly Procedure, Tank Installation, P/N 892631, 892613 (Walter Kidde Co. ) Reaction Control Motor, Effects of On/Off Delay Time on Stability and Control of Little Joe II Reaction Control - Solid Propellant System Study Reaction Control Subsystem, Little Joe II Reliability Testing, Static Firing Tests (Kidde Aerospace Div. ) Reaction Control System, Little Joe II P/N 892630, Acceptance Test Procedure (Walter Kidde Co.) Reaction Control System (892630) Little Joe II, Acceptance Test Procedure (Walter Kidde Co.) Reaction Control System, Little Joe II, Component Qualification Support Data (Walter Kidde Co.) Reaction Control System for Launch Stabilization of Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2 on Apollo Mission A-003, Effectiveness of Reaction Control System Malfunctions on Little Joe II Mission J, (NASA A-002) Effect of Reaction Control Systems (Module), P/N 892631 and 892613, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co. ) Reaction Control System Monopropellant Module, Specification for Reaction Control System Qualification Test Results, Bibliography and Summary of (Kidde Aerospace Div. ) Reaction Control System Study Reaction Control System, P/N 892630, Little Joe H, Vibration Test Report (Kidde Aerospace Division) Receiver, AN/DRW-ll UHF-FM, Qualification Test Plan for Receiver, AN/DRW-ll, Qualification Test Report for Receiver, Little AN/DRW-11 Joe H Launch Test (P/N 12-32044-1) for use in Vehicle 12-51-1 and on, Report for

151238

DC-12-016 12-02600 R-1645 Rev. A WK-D-AAW-0107 151736 R-1591 D-65-21

DC-12-025 TP-336

12-02603 R-1694

GDC 62-247 R-1680 Rev. A PM-12-1339 GDC 64-120 GDC 64-339

Qualification

A-17

_bject Recovery Recovery Recovery Identification Identification Identification of Vehicle 12-50-2 of Vehicle 12-51-1 of Little Joe II Vehicle

Document Number GDC 64-077 GDC 64-243 GDC 65-035 GDC 65-123 CS-64-010 5632 -

Drawing Number -

12-51-2 (Component Descriptions) Recovery Identification Manual, Vehicle 12-51-3 RF Command Subsystem, Little Joe II Launch Vehicle, Specification for RF Command System Maintenance and Repair Manual, Vehicle 12-51-1 RF Noise Filter, Part No. GF6099 (Genistron} Vibration Testing on (Rototest Laboratories) Reliability Assessment Report, Mission A-002, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-1 Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Reliability Summary, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1, Addendum I Reliability Assessment Report, Little Joe II, Apollo Mission A-003 (12-51-2) Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Reliability Summary, Apollo Mission A-003 (12-51-2} Reliability Assessment Report, Little Joe II Apollo Mission A-004 (12-51-3} Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Reliability Summary, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-3 Reliability Plan (Part 1) Reliability Plan Part II, Reliability Test Plan Reliability Program Plan (NPC 250-1) Reliability Report, Little Joe H (Walter Kidde Co.) Reliability Status Report (Quarterly) Reliability Summary (Weekly) Reliability Testing - Static Firing Procedure for Reaction Control System Module - P/N 892630 (Walter Kidde Co. ) Relief Valve Assembly, P/N 873948, Vibration Test Report (Walter Kidde Co. } Requirements for Work and Resources (RFWAR} at White Sands Missile Range Reservoir, Cylinder, 400 cu. in., 500 PDI, P/N 23711537, Qualification Test Report for (Taveo} Rigging Fixture, BP-22 and AFR-02 Umbilical (P/N 12-91035-1) GSE Performance and Interface Specification for A-18

12-03270 -

GDC 65-109 GDC 65-109 Addendum I GDC 65-222 GDC 65-222 Addendum I GDC 62-168 GDC 62-204 GDC 64-119 R-1586

TP-332

R-1617

&

GDC 62-160 63-106 12-09295

Document Subject Rocket-Motor Induced Airflow over the Fins of Number TS-12-47 TS-12-43

Drawing Number

Little Joe H, Study of Rolling Moments on Vehicle 12-51-3 Produced by Thrust Misalignment metrical Flow, Control of

Such as Those and Unsym-

Safe and Arm Unit Lanyard Installation, Design Verification Test Safe and Arm Unit Lanyard Installation, Additional Design Verification Tests

Little Little

Joe II, Joe II,

PM-12-817 PM-12-892 GDC 64-086 GDC 63-134 GDC 63-133 12-09272 12-09271 PM-12-2264 LJ-WS-04-5029-F TP-338 12-09292

Safety Kit, High Pressure Hose, GSE Performance and Interface Specification Sampling Requirements, Hydrogen Peroxide, Little Joe II Service Cart, Hydraulic - Attitude Control System, Requirements for Service Unit, Pneumatic - Attitude Control System, Requirements for Servicing Trailer, Hydrogen Peroxide, GSE Performance and Interface Specification Servicing Trailer, Pneumatic and Vacuum, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Servocontrol Valve (Moog) P/N 12-04101-1, S/N 14, Reliability Test of Servovalve, Little Joe II, Failure Analysis Report Shipping Crate, Little Joe II Reaction Control, Vibration and Shock Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co. ) Shipping Crate, Little Joe II Reaction Control System, Shock Test Report for (Walter Kidde Co.) Sling - Aft Vehicle, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Sling, Auxiliary Hydraulic Package, Little Joe H P/N 91004-3, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Sling - Forebody, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Sling - Recruit Engine, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Solid Rocket Booster Capabilities Stability Analysis - Little Joe II

R-1628 GDC 62-214 12-09106 12-09264

GDC 62-213 GDC 62-215 GDC 62-294 DC-12-011

12-09105 12-09107 -

A-19

Document Number Stand, Reaction Control System Test, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Statement of Similarity Between Models 89G122 and 89G26, (GDC P/N 12-02605-1) (Custom Components) Statement of Work (NASA) Statement of Work (Convair) CPO 26-201-44 Static Inverter, 3 Phase, 500 VA, for use in the Attitude Control Subsystem, Specificatio n for Static Inverter, Type 39B64-3-A 175 VA, Final Engineering Report of Tests Conducted on (Bendix - Red Bank Division) Storage Cradle and Pad, GSE Performance and interface Specification for Storage Unit, High Pressure Nitrogen, Little Joe H P/N 12-91039, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Stress Analysis, Little Joe H Attitude Control Mounting Rack (Walter Kidde Co. ) Stress Analysis of Little Joe H QTV Dummy Payload Structure Stress Analysis Fins of Little Joe H Attitude Control GDC 62-361 GDC 62-369 645 & Supp. 1 & 2 GDC 62-209 -

Drawing Number 12-09273

12-06103

12-09101 12-09299

R-1588 GDC 63-040 GDC 63-037 GDC 63-037 Addendum I GDC 63-039 Addendum HI GDC 63-041 GDC 63-038 GDC 63-038 Addendum I GDC 63-039 GDC 63-039 GDC 63-039 Addendum H GDC 63-036 GDC 62-278 TS-12-50 -

Stress Analysis for Little Joe II Attitude Control Fins, Ballast Installation for Vehicle 12-51-3 Stress Analysis, Ballast Installation for Vehicle 12-51-3 Stress Analysis, Ground Handling Joe II Launch Vehicle Equipment, Little

Stress Analysis of Little Joe H Launcher Stress Analysis of Retract Mechanism and Mast Extension for BP-22 and AFR-2 Stress Analysis, Stress Analysis, Control Stress Analysis Little Joe II Launch Vehicle Hydraulic System No. 2, Attitude - Vehicle Ballast Installations

Stress Analysis of Little Joe H Stabilizing Fins Structural Design and Loads Criteria Structural Suitability of Little Joe II for Apollo Mission A-004 Test Point (Mission Q) Support Arm Protection Kit, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for A-20

12-09117

Document Subject Support Plan Switch, Power Changeover, Kinetics, GDC P/N 98-62775-005, Qualification Test Report Switch, Pressure, Tavco P/N 2144324, Qualification Test Report to Test Report No. 56-104, Tavco P/N 214432, Pressure Switch (Tavco) Tank, Conditioning - Components, ance and Interface Specification GSE Performfor 60355 Number GDC 62-202 GDC 65-101 63-104

Drawing Number -

12-09276 -

Technology, New, Semi Annual Report of Teflon, High Pressure, Aircraft Hose Assemblies, Aeroquip 676000 Series and AR1211 and AR1212 Type, Report of Test on Temperature Measurement Subsystem, Specification for Test Console, GSE Performance ification for Test Panel Interface Test Plan and Interface Specand

GDC 62-218

12-01102 12-09110 12-09118

Pressure Leak, GSE Performance Specification for

GDC 62-175 CS-64-019 GDC 64-326

12-05100

Test Set, Launch Sequence Timer, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Test Stand, Hydraulic, Maintenance and Repair Manual Tester, Ignition Harness, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Thermal Effects vs H20 2 Pressure Rise on Little Joe II Reaction Control System for Vehicle 12-51-1, Test Report Thermal Protection, Launcher, Little Joe II Thrust Bulkhead Vibration Test, Little Joe II Thrust Structure Model Photo Stress Tests Thrust Termination Subsystem, Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle, Specification for Thurst Termination System Tests, Little Joe II (12-98-11), Final Report Tie-Down Criteria for Little Joe II Launch Vehicle Tie-Down Kit, Vehicle, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Timer, Ignition/Sodeco Counter Compatibility, Report

12-09127

T-12-2 DF-12-114 SL-62-038 GDC 64-101 GDC 62-278A Addendum I &

12-03268 -

12-09120

Test

GDC 64-312

A-21

Subject Timer, Launch Sequence, ference Test Plan Electromagnetic Inter-

Document Number GDC 64-329 GDC 64-169 VC&I-124 VC&I-109 VC&I-80 -

Drawing Number 12-06263

Timer, Launch Sequence, 12-61325-3, Test Report, Modification for High Energy Transients Timer, Launch Sequence, Failure Mode and Transient Analysis Timers, 12-61325-1 and -3, Functional Test, Results of Timers, 12-61325-1 Results of and -5, Functional Test, and -5, Specification

12-06100 12-06261

Timer, Launch Sequence Functional Test of Timer - Ignition for Delay

- 12-61325-3 Programming,

Timer - Launch Sequence, for use in the Ignition Subsystem of the Little Joe n Launch Test Vehicle, Qualification Tests of Timer, Launch Sequence (12-61325), Test Report Input Voltage Transient Effects Timer, Launch Sequence, Qualification Test Report for Timer, Launch Sequence, 12-61325-801, S/N 003, Qualification Test Report Tool, Quick Disconnect Drain, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Trailer, Hydrogen Peroxide Servicing, Maintenance and Repair Manual Trailer, Pneumatic and Vacuum Servicing, Maintenance and Repair Manual Trailers, H20 2 - Pneumatic Number Cross Reference GSE, List Little Joe II Part

GDC 64-244 GDC 64-073 GDC 65-102 CS-64-021 CS-64-020 GDC 64-117 GDC 65-079 CS-6"3-018 CS-63-042 CS-64-018 CS-65-010 12-09275

Transducer Performance, Wiancko 54581, Bourns 723, Comparison of Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe (12-50-1) Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe (12-50-2) Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe (12-51-1) Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe (12-51-2)

A-22

Document Subject Transfer Room Equipment Rack, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Two Hundred Inch Service Module Number GDC 63-137 Addendum H VC&I-291 GDC 65-124 SL-64-140 SL-64-140-1 SL-63-033 24170

Drawing Number 12-09123 -

Umbilical

Connector,

Deutsch,

Test

Plan

for

Umbilical Connector (Deutsch) Test, Little Joe H Umbilical Disconnect Set (A-14-024) Retraction Test Planning Report, Little Joe II Umbilical Disconnect Set (A-14-024), Little Joe II, Retraction Test Results Umbilical Retraction Test, Little Joe II Launcher Valve Assembly, Pneumatic Pressure Reducer, Sterer Part No. 24170, Convair Specification 12-04102, Similarity Qualification Test Report (Sterer Engr. and Mfg. Co.) Valve Assembly, Pneumatic Selector, Lock Open, Sterer Part No. 24280-3, Convair Specification Control Drawing 12-04103-3, Supplemental Qualification Test Report for (Sterer Engr. & Mfg.) Valve, Pressure, Control, P/N 892591, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Valve Assembly, Relief, P/N 873948, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Vent Seal, Vehicle Conditioned Air, P/N 12-93000-1 and -3, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Vent Unit, Hydrogen Peroxide System, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Vibration Tests, Ground, Outline of Vibration and Acoustic Qualification Tests for Equipment Installed in Little Joe II Vehicle Vibration Telemetry Components, Qualification Tests Voltage Monitor Transducer Subsystem, tion for Qualification Testing of Voltage Monitor Transducer Subsystem, II Test Launch Vehicle, Qualification for SpecificaLittle Joe Test Report

24280-3 Appendix

TP-329 TP-328 12-09114

GDC 63-150 DF-12-101 DL-M-63-111 GDC 64-185

12-09279 12-06262

A-23

Subject Weather and Conditioned Air Cover, GSE Performante and Interface Specification for Weight and Balance Report (Monthly) Wind Limitations on Launching of Little Joe H 12-51-3 (Apollo Mission A-004) Wind Tunnel Test Data of AN. 03 Scale Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3

Document Number GDC 62-210 TS-12-49 GDC 63-025 CS-63-016 CS-63-040 CS-64-016 CS-65-008 CS-65-023

Drawing Number 12-09102 -

A-24

APPENDIX
CONTRACT Little CHANGE

B
HISTORY

Joe II Contract NAS 9-492

CCP No. 1 2 3

Title Structural Provisions for Simultaneous Operation of Seven 2A Algols Revised Launcher Design Manufacture and Deliver tional Launcher One Addi-

Initiated By NASA Convair NASA

Authority CCN 1 7-5-62 Letter on 9-28-62 TWX R24195Z 7-24-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9- 28- 62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9-28-62

Neg. No. 1

Customer Order Basic Contract

4 5 6 7 8 9

Contractor Responsibility for InFlight Stage Firing Addition of Forebody to Payload Adapter Structural Attachments Delete Contractor Motion Picture Coverage at Cape Thrust Structure Test Increase Launch Factor From 1.3 Use of Silver-Zinc Canaveral Model Photo Stress

NASA NASA NASA Convair NASA NASA

Vehicle Load to 1.5 Batteries in

10 11

Lieu of Rapid Activation and Other Electrical Circuit Changes Conduct Launchings at White Sands (Planning) Two Additional Launch Vehicles

NASA NASA Letter 7-6-62 NASA

Letter

on

on

7-16- 62 TWX R241915Z 7-24-62 Letter on 7-17-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Basic Contract

12

13

Attitude Control System Design, Development, Installation and Operation Algol Rocket Nozzle, Establishment of Nozzle Angle Setting by Contractor at Test Site

NASA

B-1

CCP No. 14

Title Contractor Responsibility Launcher Requirements Pad Incorporation of Third Destruct Antenna Increased surement Structural for All on Launch Command

Initiated By NASA

Authority Letter on 9- 28-62 Letter on 9- 28-62 and Superseded Letter on 9- 28-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9- 28-62 Letter on 9-28-62 APO Ltr. 8-6-62 Letter on 9-28-62

Neg. No. 1

Customer Order Basic Contract Basic Contract

15 16 17 18

NASA Canceled Convair NASA Letter on 6-26-62 Convair Convair NASA/ Convair NASA NASA/ WSMR Coord. Meetings Convair NASA Letter on 7-31-62 on NASA/ WSMR Meetings 8-1, 2-62 NASA/ WSMR 7-31, 8-1 NASA DR Mtg. 8-14

Instrumentation (MeaSystem) Requirements Design Refinements

by CCP 22----1 Basic Contract

19 20 21 22 23

Use of April NPC 200 Series Quality Documents in Lieu of Earlier Issues Differences Between Submitted Test Plan and Convair Work Statement Launch Vehicle Umbilical Relocation Increased Launch Requirements Increased surement Relocation Operations

Instrumentation (MeaSystem} Requirements of Algol Destruct Charge

24 25

Crawlway 34.75

Provisions

on Bulkhead of Type I

Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9-28-62

Increased Quantities Documentation Addition Vehicle of Guy Wire

26

Provisions

27

Destruct

System

Revision

Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on

28

Launch

Sequence

Timer

9-28-62 Letter on 9- 28-62 Basic Contract

29

Revised

Firing

Sequence

- (4-3)

NASA

B-2

CC P No. 30 Title Revised Program Quantity and Schcdule (Revise schedule, reduce quantity of vehicles from 7 to 4 and related changes to procurement of attitude control system and manufacture of fixed fins). Test Shot of LittleJoe IILaunch Vehicle Revised Payload Length

Initiated By Authority

Neg. No.

Customer Order

31 32

NASA Letter on 1 Basic APO Ltr. 9-28-62 Contract 9-14-62 NASA TWX on 9-25-62 Disapproved ......................... NASA TWX R031400 Z 10-62 1 Basic Contract

33 34 35 36 37

AutopilotTest Installation First in Vehicle Determination ofAcoustic and Vibration- Algol Motors Fin Loading Revision Blockhouse toTransfer/Power Room Wiring - Installation of Cancellation of NASA Attitude Control Breadboard Fixed Fin Ground VibrationTests Revision of Launcher Vehicle Support Arm Launcher Structural Revision Rocket Blast Protection Additional Ground Fin Flutter Analysis Revisions

Disapproved.......................... NASA Convair PM-12258 1 1 Basic Contract Basic Contract

Disapproved.......................... NASA TWX 11-15 R011800 Z 11-1-62 PM-12385 PM-12368 PM-12385 PM-12385 NASA Ltr. Ref. CA 11-29-62 Verbal 11-19 & 11- 21 NASA TWX 12-123 Rll154OZ 1 Basic Contract Amend 1 Basic Contract

38 39 40 41 42

NASA NASA Convair Convair Convair

Support

Equipment

43

Omission of Instrumentation, hicles 2, 3 and 4 Vehicle Air Conditioning (Additional Inlet Door)

Ve-

NASA

44

Revisions

NASA

B-3

CCP No. 45A Qualification

Title Test Vehicle

Initiated By NASA

Authority NASA TWX APCA-12215 R182000Z

Neg. No. 2

Customer Order Amend 1

46 47A

Deletion Vehicles

of Crawlway

Provisions

on

Convair Convair/ Modified by NASA NASA NASA TWX 1-359 R231400 Z NASA TWX 1-359 R231400 Z

Flutter Instrumentation - Additional Requirements (Modified)

48

S&A Unit Mechanical (Destruct)

Release

49

Installation

of Lift-off

Relays

NAA/ NASA Aerojet & Convair NASA Convair NASA

NASA TWX APCA 2-63 R042020 Z NASA TWX $12-204 R181700Z

50

Revision Bolts

to Algol

Motor

Attachment

51 52 53

Destruct System Revisions Revisions to GSE (Cumulative) Power Building - Above Ground Revis ions Base Thermal Protection - QTV

54

NASA

NASA TWX APCA 1- 359 R231400 Z NASA TWX APCA2-141 R081945 Z

Am ad 1

55 56

Documentary Film Revision to Algol Thrust tion Charge Installation Two Additional Vehicles Attitude

Termina-

Canceled NASA

57

Control

NASA

by NASA 4-5-63 ............. NASA TWX 2 Amend 1 APCA2-101 R062140Z NASA TWX 3 Amend 2 APCA3-457 R222020Z NASA TWX APCA3-019 R282040Z NASA TWX APCA3-054 R041925Z 2 Amend 1

58

Addition of "Strakes" Module on QTV Optical QTV Paint Pattern

for Dummy

NASA

59

- Fixed

Fin

NASA

Amend 1

B-4

CCP No. 60 61 62 63 64 High Altitude Vehicle

Title Mission - Third Plan Revision Revisions

Initiated By Canceled Convair Convair

Authority

Neg. No.

Customer Order

5-16-63 ..................... 2 NASA TWX APCA6-080 4 Amend Amend 1 3

Incorporation of Test B in Work Statement Ground Report Elevon Support

Equipment

on New Technology Hinge Bearing Friction

Test

Canceled ............................. Convair NASA TWX APCA5-370 R142215Z Withdrawn NASA/ WSMR Withdrawn ........................... NASA TWX APCA5-310 R141700Z ...........................

Amend

65 66

Structural Design Refinements Command Destruct Thrust Termination - Circuit Revision Launch Sequence Timers, Design Manufacture and Qualification Accelerated Firing Schedule QTV #I

Amend

67 68 69 70 71

Canceled 5-23-63.....................

AttitudeControl System - Additional Withdrawn ........................... Qualificationesting T Revisions to GSE Cumulative No. 4 NASA/ NASA TWX 4 Amend 3 Convair 7-26-63 Revision to AttitudeControl System NASA/ Convair NASA NASA APO Memo 4-4-63 NASA TWX APCA5-173, 195 & 310 NASA TWX APCA5-310 NASA TWX APCA5-310 NASA TWX APCA5-173 NASA TWX APCA5-310 NASA TWX APCA5-310 NASA TWX APCA5-173, 310 4 5 Amend Amend 3 5 5 Amend 5

72

Redundant

Ignition

System

Amend

73 74 75

Redesign

of Instrumentation Requested

System Studies

NASA NASA NASA

5 4

Amend Amend

5 3

Miscellaneous Preparation Schematic Diagram Addition Additional

and Delivery of Master and Interconnection of Umbilical Cover

76 77 78

NASA NASA than NASA

Wire Identification Changes (Other

Miscellaneous inspection)

B-5

CCP No. 79 80 81 82 Reduction

Title of QTV Data

Initiated By NASA NASA NASA NASA

Authority APCAT 7-011. 225 APCA5-420 APCA6-082 APCA6-061

Neg. No. 4

Customer Order Amend 3

Installation of NAA Pressure Bulkhead in 12-50-1 QTV Installation of Dual Destruct System Termination of NASA-Furnished Cables in Blockhouse and at Launch Pad Revisions to Operational Instructions Checkout

Amend

83 84 85

NASA NASA NASA

APCA5-310 APCA6-083 APCA6-298

5 4 4

Amend Amend Amend

5 3 3

86 87 88 89 90 91

Installation of Radar Transponder Beacon System Installation of Telemetering Package for Accelerometers and Pressure Pickups in QTV Additional Changes Resulting from NASA DEI of 10 June 1963 Modification of Recru{t Ignition System Revisions to Ground Support Equipment - Cumulative No. 5 Breadboard Autopilot for NASA Modification tion of 12-51-1 Configura-

NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA

APCAT 7-009.223 APCA6-060

5 4 4

Amend Amend

5 3

APCAT 7-204 APCAT 7-008. 222

4 4

Amend Amend

3 3

Installation of Dual Destruct System for Attitude Control Vehicles (Mod. 12-51) Direct Distribution Documentation Additional and Effect Schedules Reschedule by NASA of Little Joe H Tasks

Withdrawn ..............................

92 93

Canceled Withdrawn

- replaced

by CCP 116 .........

Launch Operations of Revised Launch of Launcher

..............................

94

#12-60-2

NASA

NASA TWX APCAT 6-199

Amend

95

Addition of Mercury Cell for Instrumented Reference Voltage

NASA

NASA TWX APCAT 7-012o 226

Amend

B-6

CCP No. 96 97

Title RFI Testing - White Sands Missile Range Requirements Incorporation of Reaction Control System into Breadboard Program Revised North American Electrical Interface Test Aviation

Initiated By NASA NASA

Authority NASA and PM-12-991 NASA TWX 7-27-63

Neg. No. 5

Customer Order Amend 5

98 99

NASA NASA

NASA CCA No. 1 NASA CCA No. 4

5 5

Amend

1O0 i01

102 103

Compliance with Section 15 of MSFC Drafting Manual dated 5 February 1963 Acceptance Data Package Implementation of MSFC-PROC158B, "Uniform Requirements for Soldering" Rewrite Field Operational Checkout Instructions to Apollo Format Ignition System Flight Staging Revision - In

NASA NASA

NASA/ WSMR NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-420 APCA 6- 260 NASA CCA No. 9 NASA TWX APCA5-173 5-195 & 5-310 NASA CCA No. NASA CCA No. CCA No. NASA CCA No. CCA No. - replaced 4 6 7

6 5

Amend Amend

8 5

104 105

106

Storage of Vehicle 12-50-2 at GD/Convair Production Logic and Control Unit and Pitch Programmer for NASA Autopilot Contractor Furnished Batteries and Commutators in Lieu of GFP for Vehicle 12-51-1 Measurement Power Thirty "G" Vibration Testing of Reaction Control System Thirty "G" Vibration Testing of Reaction Control System Implementation of Specification NSC-ASPO-C-3 Vibration Testing of Instrumentation and Autopilot Systems Provisioning for and Development of Pitch Programmer

NASA NASA

Convair/ NASA

5 5 6

Amend

107 107A 108 109 110

Canceled NASA NASA NASA NASA

by CCP107A ........ 6 Amend 8

NASA CCA No. 2 NASA CCA No. 6 NASA CCA No. 11 NASA CCA No. 4 CCA No. 5

Amend

B-7

CCP No. 111 112 113 114 115

Title Schedule Change - Vehicle 12-50-1 Pitch Programmer Checkout and Monitor - Provisionsfor Additionof NAA Umbilical TrailingGround

Initiated By NASA NASA NASA Convair : NASA

Authority

Neg. No.

Customer Order

NASA CCA No. 11 NASA CCA No. I0 NASA CCA No. 13 NASA CCA No. 12 NASA CCA No. 10 NASA CCA No. 11 NASA CCA No. 12 NASA CCA No. 12 NASA/WSMR Letter 6-21-63 NASA CCA No. 14

Amend

Redesign

116 117 118 119

Changes Resulting from NASA Design Engineering Inspection of 14 November 1963 Direct Distribution of Little Joe H Documentation Revision to Ground Support Equipment Cumulative No. 6 Static Inverter for NASA Breadboard Autopilot Reaction Control System - Added Ground Service Equipment, Fin Test Program and Field Checkout Additional Quality Assurance and Program Control Tasks at WSMR Launch Control Console - Dual

NASA NASA NASA NASA

Amend

120

NASA

Amend

10

121 122 123 124 125 126 127 126 129 130

NASA Convair NASA

6 6

Amend Amend Amend

8 8 9

Revision to Ground Support Equipmerit- Cumulative No. 7 Additional Attitude Control Vehicles (12-51-3and-4) Effect of Revised Schedule Ignition Hold Switch for NASA Test Conductor's Console Thrust Termination System - Dual

RFP

MSC-

7 ................

64-951P Withdrawn and canceledNASA NASA NASA NASA NASA GD/ Convair NASA CCA No. 14

Amend

10

NASA CCA No. 14 NASA CCA No. 20 NASA CCA No. 16 NASA CCA No. 19 8 Amend 10

Algol Chamber Pressure Measurement Pitch Programmer Installation Revision to Direct Distribution Little Joe II Documentation Revision to Ground Support merit - Cumulative No. 8 of

Equip-

B-8

CCP No. 131 Title Separate Sinusoidal and Random Vibration of Autopilot and Instrumentation Systems Installation of Visicorder in Power Building at WSMR Storage of Launcher No. 2 (12-60-2) Modification of Shaped Charge Installation Relocation of Remote Monitoring of Thrust Termination System S & A Squibs Installation Requirement for Fin Control System Test Stand at WSMR Facilities Plan - Revision of Redundant De-Arming Circuitry in Little Joe II Vehicle No. 12-50-2 Reassignment of Reaction Vibration Testing Control

Initiated ___By GD/ Convair NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA CCA No. 24 NASA CCA No. 17 NASA CCA No. 21 NASA CCA No. 27 NASA CCA No. Authority

Neg. No. 8

Customer Order Amend 10

132 133 134 135

136

NASA

22 8 Amend l0 Amend 13

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144

GD/ Convair NASA GD/ Convair NASA NASA NASA Convair NASA NASA CCA No. 34 NASA CCA No. 33 NASA CCA No. 36 NASA CCA No. 31 NASA CCA No. NASA CCA No. 29 2

9 8

Amend Amend

13 10

Qualification Testing of AN/DRW11 Receiver Modification of Abort Initiation Circuit for Mission A-001 Storage of Vehicle 12-50-3

NASA CCA No. 25 NASA CCA No. 35 NASA CCA No. 25

8 9 8

Amend Amend Amend

10 13 10

Revision to Ground Support Equipment - Cumulative No. 9 Battery Jumper Harnesses and Thrust Termination Monitor Line Adapter Thrust Termination Vibration Test of Primaeord -

145 146 147

NASA NASA NASA

Analysis of Vehicle 12-50-2 Post Launch Data Implementation of NASA Specification MSC-ASPO-S-2 as Modified by CCA No. 31 (Solderless, Crimped Splices of Electrical Conductors)

Am nd 10

B-9

CCP No. 148 149

Title Two Long Run Facility Cables for 12-51 Vehicles Implementation of MSC-GSE-1A

Initiated By Convair NASA

Authority NASA CCA No. 32 NASA CCA No. 15 as modified by CCA No. 30

Neg. No. 9 8

Customer Order Amend 13 Amend 10

150 151 152

Implementation of NASA Reliability Specification Repair of Yaw Caging Amplifier Modification of Launchers to Accommodate GSE Platform for Attitude Attitude Control Vehicle Servicing Control Test Fin and

NASA NASA Convair

NASA CCA No. 37 NASA CCA No. 41 NASA CCA No. 39 NASA CCA No. 38

9 8 9

Amend 13 Amend 10 Amend 13

153

NASA

Support for NASA Fin System Tests 154 155 156 Launch Facility Cab1e Study ConvairNASA NASA NASA

157 158

Vibration Qualification of the Attitude Control Hydraulic System Revised Qualification Test Requirements for Hydraulic Servo Cyldinder Separate Testing of Instrumentation and Autopilot Systems Vehicle 12-51-1 Configuration Changes Implementation MSC-ASPO-C3B Minimum Crew tions Personnel of Specification of Launch Opera-

NASA CCA No. 44 NASA CCA No. 40 NASA CCA No. 45 NASA CCA No. 11 NASA CCA No. 18, 43, 52, 53 NASA CCA No. 47 NASA CCA No. NASA CCA No. 50 9 51 9 Amend Amend Amend 14 17 22 Amend 13

Convair NASA

159 160 161

NASA NASA NASA

9 10

Amend 13 Amend 17

Services of General Dynamics/ Convair Analog Computer Engineer at NASA-Houston Revision to Ground Support mentCumulative No. 10 Facilities Plan, Up-Date Launch Operations Costs Effect of Revised Schedules Equip-

162 163 164B 165

Convair

Convair 9 Withdrawn .............................. NASA CCA No. 9 12

B-10

CCP No. 166 167 168 169 170A Transporter tion of Implementation DEI Studies

Title Erector - Modifica12-51-1

Initiated By Withdrawn NASA NASA NASA NASA

Authority ............................. CCA No. 59

Neg. No.

Customer Order

of Vehicle

11 10 11

Amend Amend

15 17

Maintenance and Operation of a NASA Telemetry Tracker at WSMR Range Safety System in Kit Form Storage of Vehicles 12-50-3 & 12-50-4 Implementation of Vehicle 12-51-1 DEI Changes Extended Distribution of Documentation Launcher Modification for BP-22 Umbilical Installation Vehicle and Instrumentation OCP Revisions Design Changes for Vehicles 12-51-2 and 12-51-3 Range Safety System Requirements

CCA No. 48 CCA No. 56 CCA No. 26 & 57 & Amend 1 CCA No. CCA No. CCA No. 59 55 63

Amend 15

171 172A 173 174 175B 176A

NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA

11 12 11 13 11

Amend Amend Amend Amend Amend

15 22 15 23 15

CCA No. 68 CCA No. 53 CCA No. 56 R1, 56R2 &66 CCA No. 67 Item 1 CCA No. 64, 67 (Item 2 & 3) & TWX PR2-64-567 CCA No. 70 CCA No. 46, 61 & 62 CCA No. 65

177 178

NASA Pitch Programmer - Repair of Revisions to Documentation Task

NASA NASA

11 12

Amend Amend

15 22

179 180 181

Rate Gyro Spin Motor Rotation Detection of - Addition of Revision to Ground Support mentCumulative No. 11 Equip-

NASA Convair & NASA NASA

Limited Environmental Testing of Instrumentation Spares for Vehicle 12-51-1 - Waiver of Range Safety tion of System - Modifica-

12

Ar_ _nd 22

182A

NASA

CCA No. 71 PM-121825-8 CCA No. 72

13

Amend

23

183

Maintenance and Operation a NASA Telemetry Trailer WSMR - Extension of

of at

NASA

12

Amend

22

B-II

CCP No. 184 185A 186 187B 188A

Title Revision to Ground Support EquipmentCumulative No. 12 Implementation of NASA Requested Changes Spacecraft Relay Box Kit Completion of Vehicle 12-51-4Configuration for Development Engineering Inspection for Vehicle 12-51-2 and Changes Resulting Therefrom Increased Hydraulic System Capacity. Attitude Control Instrumentation, Structural Dynamic Analyses and Instrumentation Stress Testing Launch Operations Services Five-Vehicle Program for

Initiated By Convair/ NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA

Authority CCA No. 53, 69, 70, 76 CCA No. 80 CCA No. 81 CCA No. 75, PM-12-2157 CCA No. 77

Neg. No. 13 13 12 14 13

Customer Order Amend 23

Amend 23 Amend Amend 22 24

Amend 23

189

NASA

190B

NASA

191 192A

Facilities

Plan - Revision

of of

Convair NASA

CCA No. 73, 14 76, 83 & NASA Ltr PP8-65J13 dtd 2/18/65 CCA No. 9 13 13, 43, 49, 53, 58, Amend 9 to Contract, NASA/WSMR Ltr Statz/ Harris dtd 6/21/63 14 CCA No. 83 PP7-65540 CCA No. 78, Rev. to 78, 80 CCA No. CCA No. CCA No. 77, 1 84 17 85

Amend 24

Amend

23

Amend

24

RF Command and Range Safety System Receiver - Replacement Ground SparesSupport Equipment and Cumulative No. 13

193

NASA

194 195 196

Miscellaneous Engineering Services Maintenance of Launcher No. 2 Extension of Maintenance and Operation of a NASA Telemetry Trailer at WSTF Extension of Revision merits Additional to Documentation Instrumentation Require-

NASA Convair NASA

197 198

NASA NASA

CCA No. 74 CCA No. 79 CCA No. 87 & Rev. 1

14 15

Amend Amend

24 26

B-12

CCP No. 199 200 201A Title Development Engineering tion - 12-51-3 Inspec-

Initiated By NASA NASA NASA Authority CCA No. 88 & Rev. 1 CCA No. 83, 75 & 88 CCA No. 86

Neg. No. 15

Customer Order Amend 26

202 203 204 205 206

Ground Support Equipment and Spares - Cumulative No. 14 Vehicle 12-51-2 Post Flight Investigation - Phases I and II; Attitude Control System Investigation - Redesign and Test Facilities Plan - Revision of Pitch Programmer - In Flight Starting RF Command System Revision Task Reduction - Vehicles 12-50-3 and 12-50-4 Maintenance and Operation of a NASA Telemetry Extension of Trailer at WSTF -

Convair NASA NASA Convair NASA CCA No. CCA CCA Rev. CCA 90

No. 91 No. 96 1 No. 95

207A 208 209

Hydraulic Vibration

Actuator Assembly Dwell Test

NASA NASA NASA

CCA No. CCA No. CCA No.

93 90 94

Ground Support Equipment and Spares - Cumulative No. 15 Effect of Schedule Revision, Instrumentation Activities 12-51-3 and Control Systems - Launch Vehicles -

210 211A

Task Reduction and Storage Vehicle 12-51-4 Contract NAS 9-492 Close-out

NASA NASA

CCA No. CCA No. Rev. 1

92 96

15 16

Anmnd Amend

26 28

C-6062-I

(200) B-13